Domestic Homicide Review Taskforce questionnaire: results summary

Case Selection and Scope

Taskforce members were asked to select all the criteria that they felt should be in the scope of the DHR. Intimate partner violence (IPV) was selected by all respondents. Responses are shown in Figure 1 below.

There were differences in respondents' views on whether other criteria should be included in the scope of a Scottish DHR model and/or which criteria should initially be included or added at a later stage. Two respondents mentioned that when answering, the Scottish legal definition of domestic abuse should be taken into account, noting that it only included intimate partner violence.

When asked whether all cases or only a selection of cases should be reviewed, responses suggest a preference for reviewing all cases. Responses are shown in Figure 2 below.

Some comments on this question referenced concerns about resources and capacity, mentioning that ideally all cases should be reviewed, but this might not be possible and will depend on the number of cases that are within scope. For example, one respondent raised suggested a preference for a narrower scope to enable more in-depth and useful learning:

"Too many, too shallow, under resourced DHR's would be unlikely to provide the learning outcomes that fewer in depth DHR's would give us."

Three comments referred to the relatively small number of domestic homicides in Scotland, which would allow for all cases to be reviewed. One comment referred to the merits of "having a system that reviews fewer, rather than more cases", as these cases will therefore "have a more in depth analysis, and using the learning to inform system improvements."

Additionally another respondent mentioned that each case is unique, but that some DHRs may have several agencies involved and would generate more information for review. The respondent stated that clear parameters should be set.

Other comments suggest that excluding some cases would be problematic, as it would prioritise some deaths over others through "a necessarily subjective decision". It could open "the door to screening, interpretation and discretion which reduces the integrity of the process". Although one of the respondents added that there might be a "possibility to consider some baseline level of review for all cases and then the opportunity to scale this further depending on case circumstances and other factors like family wishes".