Domestic Homicide and Suicide Review Taskforce minutes: August 2025

Attendees and apologies

Attendees:

• Anna Donald, Chair, Criminal Justice Division, Scottish Government
• Alisdair MacLeod, COPFS
• Faith Currie, COPFS
• Susan Brown, COPFS
• Fiona Wardell, Healthcare Improvement Scotland
• Ann Hayne, NHS Lanarkshire
• Edward Doyle, Scottish Government/NHS Lothian)
• Katie Brown, COSLA
• Vivien Thomson, Social Work Scotland
• Marsha Scott, Scottish Women’s Aid
• Kate Wallace, Victim Support Scotland
• Francine O’Rourke, ASSIST
• Girijamba Polubothu, Shakti Women’s Aid
• Mark McSherry, Risk Management Authority
• Duncan Alcock, NHS State Hospital
• Hamish Wyllie, Abused Men in Scotland (AMIS)
• Jessica Denniff, SafeLives
• John Devaney, University of Edinburgh
• Edward Kotrys, Risk Management Authority
• Angela Latta, Social Work Advisor, Scottish Government
• Tamsyn Wilson, Justice Analytical Services, Scottish Government
• Nel Whiting, Equalities, Scottish Government
• Jeff Gibbons, Criminal Justice Division, Scottish Government
• Vicky Carmichael, Criminal Justice Division, Scottish Government
• Laura-Isabella Muresanu, Criminal Justice Division, Scottish Government
• Jude Thomson, Criminal Justice Division, Scottish Government

Guests:

• Natasha Mulvihill, University of Bristol
• Mary Wakeham, University of Bristol

Apologies:

• Claire Houghton, University of Edinburgh
• Emma Forbes, COPFS
• Sarah Holmes, COPFS
• Lorraine Hall, NHS Shetland
• Fiona Drouet, EmilyTest
• Sarah Dangar, City University of London
• Khatidja Chantler, Manchester Metropolitan University
• Graham McGlashan, Scottish Law Commission
• Karyn McCluskey, Community Justice Scotland
• Laura Mahon, Alcohol Focus Scotland
• James Rowlands, Durham University
• Graham Robertson, Public Protection, Scottish Government

Items and actions

Welcome, Introductions and Apologies

Anna Donald (AD) welcomed members to the eleventh meeting of the Domestic Homicide and Suicide Review (DHSR) Taskforce. AD reminded members that Taskforce meetings would now be more frequent and longer in duration to help us to get through the volume of work that will follow over the course of the next six to nine months.

AD reminded members that the nature of the work we are discussing can be upsetting and that members should take care and look after themselves.

AD welcomed Dr Natasha Mulvihill and Dr Mary Wakeham from Bristol University who would be presenting on research they are undertaking on domestic and animal abuse in the context of domestic homicide and suicide.

Apologies were noted.

Minutes and Actions

Members were content with the minutes from the meeting held in June 2025.

AD invited Vicky Carmichael (VC) to update members on the action log.

VC noted that an outstanding action remains with Justice Analytical Service and Police Scotland concerning the analysis and application of specific data on domestic abuse related deaths. However, due to ongoing capacity issues, it is currently unlikely that this work can be initiated or implemented in the short term.

VC mentioned that a separate action was recorded for the Domestic Abuse Related Suicide Group. The group has been tasked with exploring how learning from other types of learning reviews might help to establish criteria for determining which cases should be prioritised for domestic homicide and suicide reviews. This discussion will form part of the agenda for a future meeting of the group, and Police Scotland have developed a scenario that will be used to support this conversation.

VC added that another action was raised following a media article that focused on delays in conducting domestic homicide reviews in England. In response, a suggestion was made to undertake modelling work that could explore how the reviews in Scotland will progress through the model with a view to identifying where delays may occur and what could be put in place to avoid similar delays. JAS has now commenced the modelling work but has highlighted the limitations due to the absence of data on domestic abuse related suicides. The modelling work is at an early stage of development and further updates will be provided in due course.

VC noted that the final action related to a point Marsha Scott (MS) raised at the June Taskforce meeting on the development of a framework to measure systemic change in response to reviews being undertaken. VC arrange a discussion with MS to discuss this point further.

Use and Abuse of Animals in Domestic Abuse Related Homicide and Suicide

AD invited Mary Wakeham (MW) and Natasha Mulvihill (NM) from the Centre of Violence and Research at the University of Bristol to present on the research they are currently undertaking on the use and abuse of animals in the perpetration of domestic abuse.

MW delivered a presentation on a significant and under-recognised aspect of domestic abuse: the use and abuse of animals by perpetrators as a means of coercion and control. The research, which spans England, Wales, and Scotland, is funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and aims to uncover the role that animal abuse plays in both domestic homicides and domestic abuse-related suicides.

MW highlighted that in cases of domestic abuse-related homicide – particularly where the perpetrator is a current or former partner – there are often wider implications involving children, extended families, and others in the household. The research also extends to suicides linked to domestic abuse, cases of violent resistance homicide, and situations involving near-deaths. MW noted the significant correlation between violence directed toward animals and the broader pattern of abuse within the household. This reflects a growing body of international research, including studies conducted in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. Much of this work seeks to determine the prevalence and severity of the problem across different jurisdictions.

MW noted that within the UK, four notable studies have explored this issue specifically within a veterinary context. These included interviews with survivors and analysis of discussions on online survivor forums. MW’s own research, completed in 2021, identifies animal abuse as a highly specific and insidious form of coercive control used by perpetrators to intimidate and manipulate victims. MW noted that from 107 survivors who participated in the research, in 94 of those cases, animals were deliberately abused by the perpetrator. While the sample was targeted, the broader literature indicates that animal abuse occurs in at least 50% of domestic abuse cases.

Despite growing awareness of this intersection, MW highlighted a continued disconnect between the recognition of these issues and their inclusion in practical safeguarding measures. Current approaches to safeguarding remain fragmented, often treating the safety of humans and animals in isolation rather than as interconnected concerns.

The study will be conducted as a part-time research project over a two-year period, and the evidence gathered is intended to serve as a foundation for systemic reform aimed at reducing harm to both people and animals. The project is organised into three distinct phases. The first phase will consist of a desk-based literature review including reviewing domestic homicide reviews where animals are mentioned. Phase one will also involve mapping existing data against Jane Monckton-Smith’s homicide timeline. The second phase will involve surveying victims of domestic abuse, bereaved families and professionals. The third and final phase will consist of in-depth interviews. A full open access report will be prepared and published a policy briefing and a resource pack will be produced.

AD noted that the research clearly demonstrates direct links between what is happening to animals and what is occurring within the family environment.

Hamish Wyllie (HW) inquired about whether the study examined the gender of perpetrators. MW confirmed that among the 107 survivors, there was only one male victim and noted that the overwhelming majority of cases involved female victims and male perpetrators. MW also referenced that the 611 domestic homicide reviews published in England included a small number of female perpetrators. These cases often revealed strong links to underlying mental health challenges.

Ann Hayne (AH) reflected on her two decades of experience and mentioned that nearly 19 years ago, her organisation had developed a leaflet outlining the connection between domestic abuse, child abuse, and animal abuse – referred to as the “triangle of harm” –and asked whether similar resources are available today.

MW responded by highlighting the work of the Links Group, which operates across the UK and internationally. This group has produced a number of resources for professionals and offers an online training course designed to support best practice in this area.

MW noted that the current research did not include direct engagement with young people under the age of 18. However, she noted that experiences of children may be heard through adult family members. MW notes that this area warrants further investigation, potentially as a standalone study.

Giri Polubothu (GP) asked whether the study would include young people in abusive relationships. MW confirmed that it would but only young people aged 18 or over. It would not include 16 or 17 year olds.

Marsha Scott (MS) added that the work of Scottish Women’s Aid involving conversations with young people revealed that post-separation, perpetrators often manipulate children as a means of continuing abuse. She stressed the need to take a whole-family approach in understanding domestic abuse dynamics and cautioned against excluding children from research or interventions, as doing so would neglect the full scope of harm experienced by mothers and children.

VC observed that the upcoming statutory guidance accompanying the new legislation will include a section on animals. She suggested that it would be valuable to work with MW to ensure this guidance is properly informed by the evidence in this area.

Model Development Updates

AD invited Laura-Isabella Muresanu (LIM) to talk to the papers prepared through the Information Governance Delivery Group on the publication of case review reports and retention of source data and case review reports, as well as the questions raised by members of the Taskforce during the previous meeting.

Information Governance Delivery Group – Answers to Taskforce Questions

LIM addressed 16 key questions raised by the Taskforce, providing clarity on the role of family members and next-of-kin in the review process:

1. Definition of family members and next of kin

With some exceptions in the case of children, the term “next of kin” has no legal definition in Scotland and does not automatically confer rights of decision-making. The Chair of the Case Review Panel has discretion to determine involvement based on emotional proximity, knowledge of the victim, safeguarding concerns, and legal advice.

In relation to terminology, Moira Orr (MO) noted that while some reviews often refer to "bereaved", prosecutors prefer broader terms like "relatives". She suggested that a more inclusive term may be appropriate in the context of learning reviews.

2. Disagreements between family members

Disagreements among family members would not affect the core purpose of the review. The Chair may acknowledge differing views and managed them sensitively, but the review would remain focused on learning lessons and improving public services.

James Rowlands (JR) reflected on how differing perspectives among family members are managed during domestic homicide reviews. JR mentioned that in England and Wales, a specific question is included in the DHR guidance to help determine how to proceed when family members provide conflicting accounts. JR noted that this is often difficult to manage, particularly when deciding what to include in the final report and how to document disagreements.

MS warned that applying overly prescriptive processes could be problematic. She emphasised that decisions made by the Chair must be respected, even though the Chair is not necessarily an expert. However, in the absence of an alternative, there is no better-placed individual to lead these processes. MS added that trying to over-define roles and responsibilities can limit the review’s flexibility and effectiveness.

JR proposed that the wording should clarify that the Chair leads the process in agreement with the Case Review Panel. It is essential that the decision-making process be recorded, especially in cases where family members later challenge how decisions were made. JR supported MS’s view that the term "corroborate" could be unhelpful and recommended using "triangulate" instead. This would allow for all voices to be considered equally and avoid creating a hierarchy of testimony. JR emphasised that even if only one family member reports something that is not confirmed by others, it should not automatically be excluded.

3. Family access to information

Families would be kept informed throughout the review process by being involved in initial briefings, receiving regular updates, having access to advocacy support, and discussing the final published report. The format of communication would be tailored to individual needs, taking into account trauma, language, and accessibility.

Kate Wallace (KW) stressed the importance of family engagement and the challenges this can present. She recalled a previous discussion on whether full reports, once shared, could enter the public domain and complicate matters further. AD reaffirmed the need to communicate clearly with families at the beginning of the process to manage expectations and ensure understanding of what the review will entail.

KW suggested re-examining the use of the term "advocate" or “advocacy support worker” in this context, to ensure that there is no misunderstanding of the term. KW added that the responses to the questions appear to be presented as if this is the approach that will be adopted. LIM clarified that the answers to the questions are written from the perspective of the Information Governance Delivery Group, and this does reflect one preferred approach – based on legal requirements for handling sensitive information.

MS concurred with the complexity of these issues and reiterated that the primary concern should be conducting a robust and accurate review. MS stressed that while the needs of families must be considered, they cannot override the learning objectives of the review.

DA responded to a point raised by VC regarding redacted reports. He observed that receiving pages of blacked-out text can be more frustrating for families than receiving a clear, well-written executive summary. DA added that maintaining confidentiality is key to encouraging participation in reviews. If contributors believe their input may be made public, they may choose not to engage, undermining the review process.

AH expressed concern that redacted reports may be perceived by families as exclusionary or disrespectful.

KW noted that families may be more willing to contribute if they believe it will result in meaningful change. She also reflected on the complex interaction between civil and criminal justice proceedings and how these affect the flow of information into the public domain. AD cautioned that aligning criminal proceedings with learning reviews may compromise the review’s primary objective, as the purposes are very different.

MO added that legal timing matters greatly when determining what information can be disclosed. As legal frameworks change around suicide and domestic abuse, any information must be shared with great caution. She also mentioned that the prosecution itself can provide families with some answers, even though not always a complete picture. As such, redaction needs may lessen after the conclusion of criminal proceedings.

AD added that regardless of when a review is taking place, a consistent approach to disclosure is necessary.

DA noted that the reflections of Taskforce members reinforce the position of the Information Governance Delivery Group, where it was considered that the only report that could be published would be an executive summary, and since this would be carefully crafted to align with other processes and protect personal information, the timings would no longer be an issue.

4. Involvement of family members who are perpetrators

Where a family member is identified as a perpetrator of domestic abuse, their involvement in the review could be limited or excluded to protect others. Decisions would be guided by legal advice and safeguarding considerations, particularly where criminal proceedings are ongoing.

5. Displaying full pseudonymised reports

Sharing the full unpublished report would pose risks of identification and potential legal challenges. Families would only be shown the version of the report intended for publication, using formats that are best suited to their preferences and needs. Families would also be able to make comments on that version of the report prior to publication.

JR suggested that the current wording implies that families would receive the final version prior to publication, which could undermine the review’s integrity. Instead, families should be engaged earlier in the process, particularly around the draft executive summary.

Duncan Alcock (DA) agreed, adding that the draft should be shared with families in advance to allow meaningful input.

6. Trauma-informed access to reports
A trauma-informed approach was emphasised, recognising that a screen viewing of the report would not be appropriate for all families. Alternatives such as printed summaries or verbal explanations could be offered to ensure safe and accessible understanding of the report content.

7. Meeting the needs of families (disability, language, etc.)

Families needs would be assessed on a case-by-case basis from the outset of the review. Reasonable adjustments would be made to support accessibility, including translation and interpretation services, alternative communication formats (e.g., Braille, Easy Read, audio), physically accessible venues, and emotional support through advocacy support workers.

KW cautioned that the term "advocacy" may be broadly interpreted, leading to the nomination of support services that may not be fully appropriate. Jess Denniff (JDe) and HW equally recommended that members of the Taskforce revisit key terminology such as "advocacy," "support," and "liaison" to ensure clarity and consistency across future documentation and communication.

Katie Brown (KB) noted that "appropriate adult" services should also be considered part of the support network for relatives.

AD responded to questions in the meeting chat about advocacy and acknowledged that a clear definition has yet to be established. She offered to provide an update once more clarity is available.

8. Risks of sharing full pseudonymised reports with agencies

While public authorities are expected to have robust data protection processes under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, risks remain if these processes are not in place or not appropriately implemented. These risks include breaches of confidentiality, potential bias in future interactions with families, and misuse of information beyond learning purposes. Controls would be implemented to ensure reports are shared only with relevant organisations and staff members for learning, and these would be supported by formal data sharing agreements. In some cases, only relevant sections of the report may be shared.

It was agreed by members of the Taskforce that agencies receiving the review reports should not receive a redacted version of the report, as this could hinder their contextual understanding and reduce the impact of learning. DA confirmed this reflects the IGDG’s position.

9. Circumstances where a report may not be published

Under section 18 of the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill, the Lord Advocate could suspend or discontinue a review. Additionally, under subsection 22(8)(a), the Review Oversight Committee could only publish a report or part of it with the Lord Advocate’s consent. However, the Committee would still be required to publish appropriate information about the recommendations made.

10. Publishing more than an executive summary

From an information governance perspective, only executive summaries should be published as standard practice. Publishing more than this could set a precedent and create challenges for future cases. In exceptional circumstances involving high public interest, alternative processes such as public inquiries may be more appropriate.

11. Future access for children affected by the case
Where young children affected by the case wished to understand the findings in adulthood, a meeting could be arranged with the Chair of the Review Oversight Committee at that time. Advocacy support would be provided, and the Chair would explain the findings based on retained records, in line with data retention policies.

12. Who should hold meetings with families
While the Chair of the Case Review Panel could lead or attend meetings with families, it may be preferable for an advocacy support worker or liaison professional to facilitate these meetings. This could help maintain impartiality and provide a more emotionally supportive environment.

AH mentioned the Sheku Bayoh Inquiry, where the Chair’s perceived closeness to the family had caused tension and undermined confidence in the process. AD observed that this was a different kind of process but acknowledged the importance of credibility and impartiality of the Chair in all types of reviews.

13. Interaction with Freedom of Information (FOI) and Subject Access Request (SAR) processes

Published reports should be prepared with an awareness of potential Freedom of Information (FOI) and Subject Access Requests (SAR). Unpublished material could be disclosable unless exemptions applied, such as confidentiality, legal privilege, or safeguarding. FOI exemptions under FOISA include sections 30(c), 36(1), 36(2), 38(1)(a–d), and 39(1). SARs allow individuals to request personal data about themselves, with redactions applied to protect third-party information. According to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), children aged 12 and over in Scotland are considered competent to make SARs independently, though parental requests are also possible if aligned with the child’s best interests.

In relation to Subject Access Requests, MS questioned whether the current approach fully reflects children’s rights. MS argued that children have the right to access relevant information in a way that suits their needs and timing, with support from responsible adults. She suggested that a UNCRC expert should provide input to ensure compliance with children’s rights legislation.

AD agreed and noted that different legal responsibilities apply depending on the child's age at the time of the incident, whether they are still a child, or have since become an adult.

JR mentioned that in England and Wales, resources and guidance are available for children affected by domestic homicide reviews, including materials about how reviews are conducted and information shared with children. JD noted that final reports are often added to children’s social care records for safeguarding purposes, though retention policies may vary.

John Devaney (JD) pointed out that not all children are known to social services. In Scotland, a more unified system may allow reports to be stored in a single location, allowing easier access and oversight, rather than having the reports attached to multiple processes.

Angela Latta (AL) agreed and noted that following an incident, children are unlikely to remain in contact with social services. Therefore, attaching reports to individual social work records may not be the best long-term solution.

14. Releasing more information in cases of public disturbance or misinformation

The learning review is not intended to address immediate public disturbance or misinformation. In such cases, the release of additional information would be the responsibility of the agencies such as Police Scotland, COPFS, or relevant parts of the Scottish Government, particularly where criminal investigations are ongoing. Any disclosures made would be based on Significant Public Interest and would fall outside the scope of the DHSR reporting process.

15. Access to archived reports by families and children

After the agreed retention period, access to archived reports would depend on the archiving policies in place. Family members seeking information later would be offered similar arrangements to those provided immediately after the review, such as access to the executive summary and a meeting with the Chair of the Review Oversight Committee, supported by an advocate. This approach mirrors the response given to question 11.

16. Recommended retention period for source information

LIM recommended a review period of 21 years for source information. This duration was based on legal timeframes for judicial review (3 months), criminal injury compensation claims (up to 20 years for dependants), and civil damages claims (up to 21 years for children turning 16). After 21 years, data would be deleted unless there were grounds for extended retention.

Information Governance Delivery Group – Publication of Reports

Members of the Taskforce accepted Option 3 as the approach for the publication of review reports, meaning that only an executive summary would be published, alongside learning and recommendations. This option would also enable family members/next of kin to meet the Chair, assisted by a liaison/support worker in accordance with the family’s wishes and needs, to discuss the findings from the review.

Information Governance Delivery Group – Data Retention

Members of the Taskforce accepted that the full pseudonymised review report would be archived with the National Records of Scotland following a review period of 21 years.

Members of the Taskforce also accepted that a review period of 21 years will be adopted for the source information that informed the learning review.

LIM observed that this review period of 21 years was modelled on the limitation period for potential legal challenges that may be brought forward, in which the Review Oversight Committee may be asked to provide evidence. This may include, for example, a potential request for a judicial review, a criminal injury compensation claim, or a claim for civil damages.

LIM also noted that, in cases where there is awareness that children were young at the time of the death, there would be an ongoing consideration as to whether all the source information should be retained for longer so that the children can have, if necessary, a discussion with whoever the chair of the Review Oversight Committee may be at the time of a request, to allow them to understand the findings. Consideration will be given in advance to extending the retention period in some of those cases, otherwise the full pseudonymised report will be archived regardless after the review period.

LIM mentioned that discussions are still to take place with the National Records of Scotland on how this would work in practice, how access to the archived reports could be requested again, and that further information on this will be shared a subsequent meeting.

Any Other Business (AOB)

None

Date of Next Meeting (DONM)

The next meeting will take place on Wednesday, 22 October 2025, 10:00 to 12:30.