Domestic Homicide and Suicide Review Taskforce minutes: December 2024

Attendees and apologies

Attendees

• Anna Donald, Chair, Criminal Justice Division, Scottish Government

• John Devaney, University of Edinburgh

• Deborah Demick, National Homicide Unit, COPFS

• Emma Forbes, Victims and Witnesses Policy Team, COPFS

• Faith Currie, Scottish Fatalities Investigation Unit, COPFS

• Gillian Faulds, Police Scotland

• Kate Wallace, Victim Support Scotland

• Katie Brown, COSLA

• Ann Hayne, NHS Lanarkshire

• Edward Doyle, Scottish Government/NHS Lothian

• Jodie McVicar, Scottish Women’s Aid

• Fiona Wardell, Healthcare Improvement Scotland

• Fiona Drouet, EmilyTest

• James Rowlands, Durham University

• Karyn McCluskey, Community Justice Scotland

• Vicky Carmichael, Criminal Justice Division, Scottish Government

• Jude Thomson, Criminal Justice Division, Scottish Government

Apologies

• Emma Fletcher, NHS Tayside

• Ann Fehilly, ASSIST

• Laura Mahon, Alcohol Focus Scotland

• Lynne Taylor, Directorate for Mental Health, Scottish Government

• Graham McGlashan, Scottish Law Commission

• Graham Grant, Police Scotland

• Marsha Scott, Scottish Women’s Aid

• Iris Quar, Abused Men in Scotland (AMIS)

• Jessica Denniff, SafeLives

• Khatidja Chantler, Manchester Metropolitan University

• Sarah Dangar, City University of London

• Claire Houghton, University of Edinburgh

• Girijamba Polubothu, Shakti Women’s Aid

• Lorraine Hall, NHS Shetland

• Joanna MacDonald, Social Work Advisor, Scottish Government

• Graham Robertson, Public Protection Unit, Scottish Government

• Tamsyn Wilson, Justice Analytical Services, Scottish Government

• Jeff Gibbons, Criminal Justice Division, Scottish Government

• Laura-Isabella Muresanu, Criminal Justice Division, Scottish Government

Items and actions

Welcome, introductions and apologies

Anna Donald (AD) welcomed members to the eighth meeting of the Domestic Homicide and Suicide Review (DHSR) Taskforce and thanked everyone for their continued contribution to the work to develop the model and emphasised the importance of us continuing to work together.  

AD reminded members that some of what would be discussed in terms of subject matter might be difficult and sensitive. Emphasising the importance of everyone’s wellbeing, she invited members to take time out and look after themselves as required. 

AD welcomed Duncan Alcock (DA) Associate Medical Director and Caldicott Guardian at the State Hospital who is the Chair of the Information Governance Delivery Group and Michael McGill from Justice Analytical Services to their first Taskforce meeting. AD also welcomed Gill Faulds (GF) who was deputising for Graham Grant, Police Scotland and Jodie McVicar, deputising for Marsha Scott from Scottish Women’s Aid.  

Members were asked to introduce themselves when first speaking during the course of the meeting for the benefit of new members and those deputising Apologies were noted. 

Minutes and actions

The minutes of the seventh Taskforce meeting were circulated to members for comments and will be uploaded to the DHSR Taskforce webpage.

AD invited Vicky Carmichael (VC) to provide an update on the six actions from the previous meeting.

VC noted that the first action was in two parts, with the first part supporting the work with Marsha Scott on the European Femicide Observatory return. VC also outlined that SG officials would work with colleagues in JAS on the Homicide Statistics using a similar format to the European Femicide Observatory Return. VC outlined that this work continues and does not include the most up to statistics that MM will be presenting on today but that this information will be brought to the next meeting in March.

VC outlined the completed actions including, the circulation of the remainder of invitations to the Task and Finish Groups alongside the circulation of the membership of the Task and Finish Groups, Subgroup and Taskforce, which was included in the papers.

Action A26 was outlined as an ongoing action; to keep the risk and issue log updated. A28 was also outlined as completed; for the DHSR Subgroup to prepare a paper on how information will be gathered for the purposes of the review with VC noting that John Devaney (JD) would discuss with Taskforce members within the meeting.

The last action, to circulate information regarding the event at the Cairn, was also competed where the Cabinet Secretary announced the introduction of the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill. VC thanked members for their attendance and noted the event was a fitting location to launch the introduction of the Bill.

AD noted the monitoring and managing of risk and how this can be a substantive item and come off the action log. AD also echoed VC’s comments on the event at the Cairn and thanked members for their attendance and work to date which has enabled us to reach this point in the development of the model.  

Homicide in Scotland 2023-24

AD invited Michael McGill (MM) to present on the Homicide in Scotland 2023-2024 statistics and Police Scotland recorded Domestic Abuse Statistics 2023-24.

MM shared a presentation with members on the Homicide in Scotland statistics which covered a 20 year period alongside the recently published domestic abuse recorded incident statistics.

As an overview MM outlined what data is included within the statistics. MM noted that culpable homicide and death by dangerous driving is not included as this is covered in another publication, and noted this could provided to members if requested.

MM outlined what data is collected for the statistics and noted that data gathering on ethnicity is also taking place, however this is not being presented on at present until a 5 year time period of evidence to make the data more robust.

MM outlined a range of data from 2014/15 to 2023/24 period, including the age of victims and the relationship between victim and accused.

With regards to the relationship where a homicide has been perpetrated by a partner/ex partner, MM outlined the peak of this in the 2007-8 period with 14 female victims and 8 male victims, with the lowest in the 2020-2021 period with 3 female victims and 2 males. MM also outlined comparative data with England and Wales.

MM noted that female victims of homicide with a male perpetrator is by far most common with 40 incidents of domestic homicide in the period 2019/20 – 2023/24 in total with 28 females to 12 males.

MM also outlined incidents of attempted murder with the disparity between female victims and male perpetrators with female victims and male perpetrators being substantially more.

Further statistics were shared with members on the most recent Domestic Abuse recorded incidents statistics where the source of data is the Police Scotland interim Vulnerable Person Database. MM noted that incidents of domestic homicide by whether victims and perpetrators were previously recorded on the domestic abuse data base did not show if the incidents were with the same partner or not.

Kate Wallace (KW) noted the homicide statistics and the disparity with the attempted murder statistics within the domestic abuse incidents, specifically referencing the 2019/20 data and a decrease of domestic homicides but increase of attempted murders.

MM noted this disparity and further outlined the differences in groups that are covered within the different data sets of these statistics.

With reference to the data base, Gill Faulds (GF) asked if the data shows if it this is a repeat victim with MM noted this does specify between repeat victim and repeat accused.

AD asked if the homicide stats can be drilled down further to outline for example, if this shows mother, daughter, father, son. MM responded that this can be done, but that this data is not published.

KW noted that the presentation was very helpful but this this also poses more questions of the data and that some further breakdowns and more information on the place of incidents and comparison with other homicide statistics would be helpful.

KW outlined a previous presentation looking at the differences in homicides and domestic homicides and asked AD if there were plans for a data subgroup to further discuss the statistics, noting an interest in being involved in this work. KW also noted areas to review regarding the DHSR model, including the definitions used in the model, for example the definition of children and how this interacts with the statistics and data.

MM noted that additional data can be provided.

VC outlined that the format for the European Femicide return provided additional deatil not available through the Homicide in Scotland Statistics and that work with JAS following this return had produced a rich data set which can be shared at the following March meeting, once the most recent homicide statistics have been incorporated in to this. VC suggested to KW that they arrange a call to discuss what more we could do to enhance what data we currently have and share.

AD noted that it would be useful to have a rapid turnaround on questions in advance of the March meeting to further develop this area.

James Rowland (JR) asked whether the data could be used to inform the modelling of the DHSR model to avoid any potential delays that could be encountered in the processing of reviews.

AD agreed that this is a key area where this data can be used and how a full picture of the last 5 years can help inform this.

VC also noted the different reporting requirements within the Bill and how this will flow with the homicide statistics and current Police Scotland database.

Action 1: VC to arrange a meeting with KW to have an initial discussion on digging deeper into the domestic homicide, homicide, attempted murder and domestic abuse statistics.

Action 2: VC and AD to consider how we can share what work on the statistics has been developed in advance of the next Taskforce meeting and how members can feed in what gaps or questions they have that may be helpful in informing the development of the DHSR model.

Action 3: VC to discuss with Justice Analytical Services whether the data held could be used for modelling the number of likely reviews that could be undertaken with a view to minimising delays.

Model Development Subgroup update

AD invited JD to provide an update on the work of the Model Development Subgroup.

JD outlined that the Subgroup have meet a further three times following the September Taskforce meeting, with a focus on fine tuning and refining the model, utilising a flow diagram which has been developed to support the operational aspect of the model.

JD noted that as the Bill has now been introduced, the Subgroup are looking at the statutory guidance which will underpin the operation of the model, with a clear focus on who the intended audience is for this guidance, alongside what needs to be specified within it and what flexibility may be needed. JD noted an example being family involvement, and noted that this can mean different things in different circumstances and can also be an area where there could be different views within the family and as such there may not be a single held view. JD noted that the work to develop the statutory guidance will be brought to Taskforce members before anything is finalised.

JD outlined that for the next year, the subgroup will now meet quarterly with a lot of work being progressed offline such as the development of particular sections of the guidance with meetings to also work through any scrutiny of the Bill.

JD noted the call for views that are currently being asked by the Criminal Justice Committee where views are being gathered on support for the Bill and to ensure that the proposals meet expectations alongside the opportunity to highlight areas for further work.

JD noted that MM had presented the Homicide Statistics to the Subgroup and further statistics out with this have also been provided including statistics on suicide. Within this particular area JD outlined how reviews could be completed on a more in depth basis.

JD also updated members on the recent in person Subgroup meeting on 27 November which was expanded to an all day walkthrough of the model and the processes that will underpin this. This was phase one of the testing of the model with experts from England, Northern Ireland, Portugal and the United States providing their knowledge, experience and expertise to push and pull at the mode developed to date to understand how the model will operate in practice and what parts of the model may need more guidance for those who will be operating the processes within the model.

Approaches to Information for Review Purposes paper

JD moved onto discuss the paper which provided Taskforce members with additional information on the individual agency review proposed by the Subgroup where an individual case review will build on information from individual agencies.

AD invited JD to summarise the paper with JD noting that the paper outlines proposals for the review of individual deaths to be taken by an independent panel with an independent chair who is independent from the agencies, deceased, accused and other individuals impacted. There will be a formal contract in place to manage this and to ensure quality assurance with the panel being made up of key agencies and representatives such as Police Scotland and other organisations involved with the individual or have expertise regarding the particular case, for example for those with disabilities. The organisations will supply information via a self-reflective individual management report which can be supplemented by requests for the original records if necessary. This may be if the agency report is not detailed enough or if more information has arisen which may be important to review. JD added that the panel can also speak to families and practitioners which could be brought together via a facilitated learning event which may be helpful to look through a wider lens.

Emma Forbes (EF) asked about the recruitment on to the panel and assurance on training and how to ensure that individuals also have awareness of domestic abuse, including coercive control and misogyny.

JD outlined this was being looked at in terms of how informed chairs and panel members will be and what training will be required. This may vary between individuals and one area which is being looked at through the Workforce and Training Group is whether a smaller number of individuals specifically trained within organisations is an option or whether a larger pool of individuals may be the better option with continuous training being looked at for all those who are involved within the process. This needs to be looked at when we are asking organisations to nominate someone, including what the ask is and what training can supplement the individual organisation’s training that is currently in place.

James Rowland (JR) reiterated this point within the current work of the Workforce and Training Group with regards to what training is required for different roles and what core competencies will be required across the review system, one of which has to be an understanding of domestic abuse and gender which is an ongoing conversation and area of development for the group.

AD asked whether Taskforce members were content to agree the recommendation of the Model Development Subgroup for the individual agency review approach to be the approach for how information would be sought for review purposes.

Katie Brown (KB) raised a need to take this decision off table to make a collective decision.

Taskforce members confirmed that they were content with the approach proposed to. Katie Brown (KB) noted COSLA had still not sought feedback from its members and would look to do this.

AD noted as this appeared an agreed position we will take this forward and await views from COSLA. COPFS also noted that they would also like to take this away with JD outlining that he would be happy to speak to individual organisations if this was helpful regarding the proposal within the paper.

JD outlined his thanks to colleagues for their input to the ongoing work and reiterated the offer to meet with others others to discuss any specific points.

AD thanked JD for this offer and outlined how useful this will be as we progress to ensure certain areas are discussed as the work developments to enable appropriate areas of challenge and buy in as the we progress through the Parliamentary processes for the Bill and as we move on to implementation.

AD then moved on to request updates from the Task and Finish Groups.

Domestic Abuse Related Suicide Group

Fiona Drouet (FD) provided an update on the work undertaken by the Domestic Abuse Related Suicide Group. FD noted that the group met on 26 November in person for the first time following previous meetings of a smaller working group.

FD noted how beneficial it was to meet in person to set the scene and emphasise the importance of the reviews and the impact on families. FD outlined it was also useful to ensure a common level of understanding across group members with discussion on how we identify the cases that will qualify for a review. FD outlined considerations on a proposed four point test to support this process which includes the recency of domestic abuse while noting the complexities in looking at this; the connection of domestic abuse to the death, the likelihood of identifying lessons and the suitability of this type of review within other review process. FD noted the four point test is still in the early stages of development and a paper will be taken to the next Domestic Abuse Related Suicide Group meeting in January with a view to taking a more refined paper to the March Taskforce meeting.

AD thanked FD for her update on the work of the Domestic Abuse Related Suicide Group and the working group, and that members welcomed a paper being brought to the next Taskforce meeting on the four point test.

Children and Young People Group

Eddie Doyle (ED) outlined that the Children and Young People Group have met three times with a further meeting to be held on 11 December. ED outlined discussions regarding the complexities of the review landscape for child deaths and some concerns in relation to the priority of DHSR reviews over other reviews currently in place. ED also noted the duties of the Care Inspectorate in quality assuring child protection learning events, the impact on agencies and staff and concerns from members of a move from a learning approach to a perceived more investigative approach. ED also outlined the impact on families regarding different review processes. At the last meeting of the group ED outlined a step forward in agreeing a set of principles that could be included in the statutory guidance with the aim of signing these off at the next meeting.

ED noted that the group will move on to how we involve children and families in reviews and ensure their voices are a part of the review process.

AD noted the need to avoid additional asks on families, organisations and staff and thanked ED for the ongoing work of the group and noted the need to keep in sync with other workstreams such as UNCRC.

JD reiterated the need to make the process as streamlined as possible and outlined the protocol with Police Scotland and COPFS to ensure no cross over with other criminal proceedings, specifying terms of reference and ensuring an avoidance of duplication.

AD asked whether there was a gap in representation on the Taskforce in relation to the children and young people sector. Members did not think there was a gap.

Workforce and Training Group

JR noted the group had held their first in person meeting which was predominately focused on ensuring members had an understanding of the background to the work, the Bill and of the remit of the group. JR highlighted that members had been provided with an overview of the public appointments process which was key to the recruitment of the Review Oversight Committee Chair, Deputy Chair and Case Review Panel Chairs.

JR also noted that the group had had an initial discussion on the range of roles within the review process which included chairs and panel members, and the key skills and requirements of those roles. For the roles which will be public appointments, JR highlighted the need to be aware of the recruitment process and timelines and work back from these to ensure the roles are recruited in time for those specific roles.

JR outlined a request from the Workforce Training and Training Group for feedback on the initial considerations of the group on the skills that would be necessary and that this will be important to be built in to the aspect of training within reviews. In addition to Taskforce members feedback, views would also be sought from the Subgroup and Task and Finish Groups to help inform the development of the job descriptions.

Action 4: Taskforce members to provide feedback on what specific skills and requirements are needed for specific roles and what will be important to be built in to the aspect of training within reviews.

Information Governance Delivery Group

Duncan Alcock (DA) updated members on the work of the group. The group has now met twice, with the second meeting focussing discussions on the legislative DPIA required for the Bill. DA noted that work will progress dependent on certain aspects of the model being developed which will then inform the work of the group in relation to information governance and data protection. DA asked members once the various aspects of their respective areas of work are more finalised this should be shared with the IGDG to consider for example, the lawful basis for sharing of information. DA noted the next meeting of the group will take place in early January.

VC outlined discussions from the last meeting which talked through the legislative DPIA which highlighted a point on consent from families prior to the publication of any report which may require an alternative lawful basis.

KW asked what would happen in circumstances where reports are being published if families do not consent to taking part.

VC outlined that this area requires further work, particularly where for example, different family members may have different views.

JD noted this area was discussed in the recent workshop with experts and Subgroup members and it was discussed as to how learning from reviews can be readily accessible to enable dissemination of learning alongside the challenges of publishing information without identifying individuals, especially in smaller jurisdictions. JD outlined how information can be shared by raising public awareness without having to publish individual reports and noted further work was required in terms of what the standard practice will be.

AD noted this will be a key issue to come back to the Taskforce and outlined if there was a need in this area that may require a legislative underpinning to ensure this is not missed.

DA noted this was a question for subject experts as to whether anonymity is preferred over other options and noted this may be tied to timescales within the Parliamentary process of the Bill.

Action 5: Model Development Subgroup to consider anonymity and publication of review reports and bring a paper back to the March Taskforce meeting.

Action 6: Model Development Subgroup and Task and Finish Group Chairs to ensure they liaise with the Information Governance Delivery Group as the various products under their remit are further developed to ensure they can be considered from an information governance and data protection perspective.

Any Other Business (AOB)

AD invited VC to discuss timescales regarding the Bill process. VC noted the call for views to the Criminal Justice Committee with a link in the agenda for members and noted the closing date of 10 January 2025. VC noted that beyond the closing date for calls for views, there were no confirmed timescales regarding the Bill at present but hoped to be able to share information soon and that some organisations may be invited to give evidence as part of this process.

AD also noted the calls for views and also outlined to members for any research or papers which would be useful to share with other members to please liaise with officials as this has been useful in the past. AD closed the meeting by thanking members for all of the work to date on the development of the model.

Date of Next Meeting (DONM)

The next meeting will take place on Thursday, 13 March 2025, 14:00 to 16:00.