Domestic Homicide and Suicide Review Taskforce minutes: June 2025

Attendees and apologies

Attendees

• Anna Donald, Chair, Criminal Justice Division, Scottish Government
• Alisdair MacLeod, COPFS
• Deborah Demick, National Homicide Unit, COPFS
• Susan Brown, COPFS
• Frankie O’Rourke, ASSIST
• Ann Hayne, NHS Lanarkshire
• Vivien Thomson, Social Work Scotland
• Marsha Scott, Scottish Women’s Aid
• Kate Wallace, Victim Support Scotland
• Louise Adams, Victim Support Scotland
• Mark McSherry, Risk Management Authority
• Duncan Alcock, NHS State Hospital
• Jennifer Layden, Healthcare Improvement Scotland
• Hamish Wyllie, Abused Men in Scotland (AMIS)
• Jessica Denniff, SafeLives
• John Devaney, University of Edinburgh
• 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

Apologies

• Edward Doyle, Scottish Government/NHS Lothian
• Fiona Drouet, EmilyTest
• Sarah Dangar, City University of London
• Khatidja Chantler, Manchester Metropolitan University
• Graham McGlashan, Scottish Law Commission
• Karyn McCluskey, Community Justice Scotland
• Rod Finan, Social Work Advisor, Scottish Government
• James Rowlands, Durham University

Items and actions

Welcome, Introductions and Apologies

Anna Donald (AD) welcomed members to the tenth meeting of the Domestic Homicide and Suicide Review (DHSR) Taskforce.  

AD welcomed new members to the group including, Frankie O’Rouke, who replaced Ann Fehilly. AD paid thanks to Ann for all her help to the work to develop the model and to supporting victims of domestic abuse more broadly. AD also thanked Deborah Demick who is leaving COPFS to take up a new role. AD reflected on the contribution Deborah has made to the work and wished her will in her new post. Susan Brown will take over Deborah’s role with COPFS and AD welcomed Susan to the meeting. AD also welcomed Louise Adams from Victim Support Scotland who is the new support for families bereaved by crime service. Louise will represent VSS on the Model Development Subgroup and will deputise for Kate Wallace as required. Members were asked to introduce themselves when first speaking during the course of the meeting. Apologies were noted.  

AD noted the sad passing of Neil Moore, Chief Executive of PETAL Support who was a member of the Model Development Subgroup and the Workforce and Training Group, with AD noting the contributions and very active role that Neil brought to developing the review model and acknowledged Neil’s work more widely through PETAL in supporting those bereaved through murder and suicide.

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. 

Minutes and Actions

Members were content with the Minutes from the meeting in March 2025.

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

VC outlined the first action on what data could be used to inform the development and operation of the model. VC noted particular reference to delays when there has been a domestic homicide or suicide, outlining the need to look at modelling, an area which has been discussed with colleagues in Justice Analytical Services (JAS). VC also outlined separate conversations with Victim Support Scotland, Community Justice Scotland and Police Scotland on the potential to set up a separate group to discuss data more broadly.

VC outlined the second action which was to share the phase one of the testing report, which was included within the meeting papers. The final action was outlined and VC noted this is currently in progress and in relation to the Domestic Abuse Related Suicide Group’s considerations of how other learning reviews can filter and test cases to help identify potential cases. VC outlined this is currently being developed alongside Police Scotland.

Marsha Scott (MS) asked if a framework had been set out to look at how system change will be measured. VC stated that this has not been porgressed yet but would be happy to work with MS and others to develop a framework.  

Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill

AD outlined that the Bill has now passed through Stage 2 and invited VC to update the Taskforce on the changes made to the Bill following the Stage 2 process.

VC outlined the following amendments to the Taskforce:

Government amendments:

Expanding the model beyond the point of death

VC outlined that previously the Bill only went up to the point of death, with no ability to go beyond this point to look at what happened to individuals afterwards, including whether their views were sought on any decisions that may impact on them following a death, which has now been included in the Bill.

Link to domestic abuse

VC noted that following on from Stage 1 changes have been made to ensure that the review model is anchored in domestic abuse and in relation to partner and ex partner, which has now been made clearer in the Bill.

Section 10

VC updated members on a change to the regulation making power which will enable the types of deaths, relationships and the name of the model to be changed in the future, if required. This also includes a change to the sift and what other types of deaths or events that that may be included in the model at a later date, such as honour killings.

Combined Review

Changing of the word “joint” review to “combined” review has been made within the Bill with VC outlining that in practice a joint review means something quite different to what was outlined in the Bill. Previous drafting outlined this meant a review of more than one death, for example, a mother and child could be reviewed as part of the same review rather than two separate reviews. In practice, a joint review means, for example, a domestic homicide review and a child protection learning review, coming together. Joint review has therefore been removed from the Bill and it is now outlined as a combined review.

Statutory guidance

The Bill previously referred to “they” but this has now been made clearer to outline that this means the Review Oversight Committee and the Case Review Panel.

Inquiries

VC outlined when the Bill was introduced this included a power for the Lord Advocate to pause or stop a review, for example, if there were criminal investigations or proceedings or a fatal accident inquiry, but this did not extend to public inquiries. After further engagement with the Home Office the inclusion of public inquiries have now been included in the Bill, should that be an alternative to a fatal accident inquiry.

Case Review Reports

There is now a requirement in the Bill for reports to include social connections that both victim and perpetrator had with significant people to them prior to the death.

Good Practice

Good practice has also been included as a requirement in reports.

Dispute Resolution Mechanism

While this is not expected to be needed, VC noted there is a risk in not having one, therefore should there not be agreement between the Review Oversight Committee and the Case Review Panel Chair once a report has been submitted, a mechanism for either Ministers to resolve that or Ministers to appoint someone to be able to resolve has been included.

Non-government amendments:

Familial homicide and honour killings

VC outlined that this was not supported, however, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs has agreed to work with Sharon Dowey MSP on this which will progress over the summer.

Next of kin

VC noted an amendment regarding a duty on the Review Oversight Committee to notify next of kin if a review was to take place which may come back at Stage 3 and the Cabinet Secretary has again agreed to work with Sharon Downey MSP on this.
AD highlighted the amendments which had been brought forward following discussion and work of the Taskforce, subgroup and task and finish groups. These included amendments relating to the link to partners and ex-partners and ensuring that was clear; a requirement to include information on social connections within the review reports; reviews going beyond the point of death in certain circumstances and the inclusion of a dispute resolution mechanism. 

MS outlined the power to pause a review and a potential requirement for a regular report on this, potentially every six months to outline these cases, outlining concerns raised from the Survivor Reference Group on delays and the pausing of reviews which would require some explanation. MS also noted a gap around honour killings and collaborating on the language and use of this for further inclusion in the model.

VC outlined a requirement for the Lord Advocate to speak to the chair of the Review Oversight Committee before any review would be stopped or paused alongside the protocol that will be developed with Police Scotland and COPFS.

Deborah Demick (DD) noted the concerns outlined by MS however outlined that this may not necessitate the requirement for a report from the Lord Advocate at regular intervals. DD outlined that the need to working collegiately is key. DD noted the processes currently in place where a learning review will be considered and the considerations of any concerns about the remit of the learning review as it runs in tandem with and in parallel with the criminal investigation. DD also noted that his could be reviewed and looked at again but a report would not be a preference from a COPFS perspective.

VC further outlined with regards to the inclusion of honour killings that the government has committed to including honour killings in the legislation, however work to develop the policy definition is being progressed at present through engagement with various different stakeholders, including a draft definition. VC outlined that decisions on this draft and timings will determine whether this can be included under Section 10 or whether further work will be required to develop a legal definition before this can been included.

AD noted that if this is not ready for inclusion at Stage 3, this can still be expanded at a later date under powers within the Bill.

Jessica Denniff (JDe) asked what the requirement to include social connections looks like in practice and if this will be discussed through the Taskforce with VC outlining that this will be picked up initially with Glasgow University and Glasgow Caledonian regarding the detail that is requited and how that would be included. VC noted this information could come from the police report to identify individuals that were relevant or significant and to determine what was known about those relationships and whether there were any changes in the lead up to the deaths, for example if individuals were becoming more isolated, noting the research heard in the previous Taskforce meeting in relation to isolation.

Ann Hayne (AH) asked for clarification relation to the amendment on next of kin and potential concerns regarding this. VC noted potential concerns on what is meant by “family” in relation to the duty to notify next of kin. VC noted that the use of next of kin has been problematic in some health boards and that further work will be required which could be included within the statutory guidance rather than a legal duty within the Bill.

DD noted the difficulties for the definition of next of kin, noting in a DHSR context the potential for acrimony in families, and potential difficulties with this. DD also noted the need for alignment with the family liaison charter.

MS echoed difficulties in the duty to notify, and the need for flexibility for the Chairs involved in the process noting the potential need on a right to know, but not necessarily a duty to notify.

Workshop

VC updated members on the event which took place in May which focused on the statutory guidance and aimed to gather views from practitioners on what detail needs to be included in the guidance in four key areas (joint reviews, involvement with families, structuring recommendations and dissemination of learning). 

VC noted the helpful discussions that took place on the day and that a report will be written up and shared with members. VC also outlined that an online version will be shared to gain further insight in to the four areas. VC outlined this will be shared with members following the meeting.

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.

Information Governance Delivery Group – Publication of Case Review Reports

LIM outlined the paper and the four options considered by the Information Governance Delivery Group regarding the publication of review reports. LIM noted that this refers only to the public dissemination of the reports and in all circumstances, a full pseudonymised report will be shared with agencies who have been involved in the learning review to enable the implementation of recommendations and learning.

LIM outlined that the Information Governance Delivery Group reviewed approaches adopted in other jurisdictions including a review of a full synonymized report from England and an example of an executive summary from Northern Ireland. LIM outlined that the group also considered the terminology currently being used and potential confusion of this language such as the term anonymization.

LIM discussed the different options within the paper including the pros and cons for each option. LIM outlined the recommendation from the Information Governance Delivery Group of Option 3 from a strictly information governance perspective which would publish only the executive summaries for each case as the safest option to adopt. This approach would be fully compliant with the UK General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018.

LIM outlined that Option 3 Plus would be the most flexible and person-centred option which would include publishing an executive summary as a standard practice with the opportunity for family members to meet the Chair and view the full pseudonymised report in a secure setting, allowing the necessary time for a detailed discussion about the report, but without the option of taking away a physical copy.

Duncan Alcock (DA) outlined that from an information governance perspective, Option 3 would be the preferred option going forward.

John Devaney (JD) thanked members involved for all the work that had gone in to developing the options from both a legal point of view and also through a person-centred lens.  JD noted the need to be clear on what we mean by family and who is then involved in making decisions and invited to meetings. JD also noted the need for clarity at the beginning so families are clear on what information they will have access to, when they will have this and in what format so as to meet expectations and to be clear at the outset to avoid potential dissatisfaction and disappointment.

Kate Wallace (KW) noted potential concerns on the expectation that a full report will go to organisations who are involved and the potential data risk for those organisations

KW also noted potential issues on a full report going to organisations that may still have an ongoing relationship with the family and the potential conflict this brings.

KW outlined the practicalities in Option 3 Plus and if it is realistic for family members to be able to read the report on screen and how this interacts as part of a trauma informed response. The honesty and candour of individuals contributing to reviews was also outlined by KW with reference to how this interacts with the overall information that is then published at the end of the process.

KW also outlined the potential for Option 1, with a potential that this will not be released if there were specific reasons for that.

DA addressed the point raised on the sharing of the report with organisations and the higher threshold of data confidentiality that organisations are bound to in comparison to members of the public.

DA also addressed the need for candour and honesty within the reviews, noting the need for a clear review process and how this can feed in to the contributions to reviews and in turn the overall recommendations.

MS asked how the sharing of information with a child, at a later point in their life could be accommodated. DA outlined consideration of how information would be shared with a child victim in relation to retention of the report and sharing of information would be down to the Chair.

JDe noted the publication of full reports and the potential for community or civil unrest with this information potentially being in the public domain following the sharing of information with families, referencing an example of managed offenders in local communities and asked if this has been considered by the Information Governance Delivery Group.

DA outlined this issue with considerations on the ability to link data, and noted the potential for this to happen as part of Option 3 Plus where families can view more detailed information. DA also outlined when reports where reviewed across other jurisdictions, there was an ability to identify individuals through the report information which provided concerns with particular reference to options 1 and 2.

Mark McSherry (MS) noted some comparative work undertaken on reviews in England noting that Option 3 mirrors what happens as part of MAPPA, outlining the importance on the quality of the information as much as the length of the final report that is published, whether that is an executive summary or full report.

Vivien Thomson (VT) reiterated the need to define “family” and the requirement for this to reflect a future need where a child may for example be 2 years old at the time of the death, but when they are older, may want to see the report. VT also outlined the need to gather the collated evidence to enable any change in practice to measure how well the domestic homicide suicide review process is working. VT also outlined the need to be clear with families on expectations on the report in order to mitigate any distress.

JD outlined the lengthy discussions at the Subgroup on this topic which reflects much of the discussion at today’s meeting with the Subgroup leaning towards Option 3 following the overall considerations of the options. JD also noted considerations on the role of an advocate to support families. AH also noted considerations on the need for advocacy.

KW outlined concerns on Option 3 on its own and more need for Option 3 Plus and noted an interest in further conversations to understand more about the different options. KW also noted the option of testing the model and potential to utilise the family reference group for feedback.

AD outlined the need to consider the questions raised in more detail with further consideration for the Subgroup with follow up correspondence to the Taskforce.  AD noted the need to further explore the information governance drivers and potential interactions with a Freedom of Information request and if there would be any implications.

AD also outlined the needs of the report to be used as a learning tool to drive improvement alongside the needs and wants of families and how both expectations can be managed.

Action 1: Questions to be collated and brought back to the next Taskforce for further discussion.

Information Governance Delivery Group – Retention of source information and Case Review Reports

LIM presented the second paper to the group on data retention, noting that the Information Governance Delivery Group considered two types of data that fall under this scope; full pseudonymised report and the source information.

LIM outlined the recommendations of the paper, including a minimum retention period of 20 years followed by archival with the National Records of Scotland. LIM also outlined the recommendations for source information, with a retention period of minimum 20 years, enabling an appropriate response to the potential legal claims that may arise after the original review is completed.

With regards to a review of the retention period, it was noted that rather than adopting an indefinite retention period that a periodic review process is established.

KW asked for clarification on the retention period of a full pseudonymised  report and how this interacts with the prior conversations on what report will be given to family members and organisations.

DA noted under data protection legislation, the need for a minimum which can then be reviewed and in the case of a child who may have been 1 year old at the time, DA noted this could be an example where the decision is made to retain the data for longer.

VT outlined child protection procedures where the local authority will hold records for 75 years noting that a lot of the information impacting individuals can be obtained from other sources. VT also noted the definition of a care experienced individual is 26 and if this should be considered when looking at this area.

AD outlined that it would be helpful to reflect on the issues that have been raised within the second paper and come back to them. AD reflected on KW’s point and the need for a consistent position when looking at what the information that is given to families alongside the ability for children to then access wider information at a later date.

Action 2: Further consideration to be given to the points raised in relation to retention and what is provided to families. This is to be taken back to the next Taskforce meeting.

Any Other Business (AOB)

AD noted that the third paper on Core Requirements would be circulated and asked members to feedback by correspondence. AD also noted that JD would circulate and update of the Subgroup to Taskforce members.

Date of Next Meeting (DONM)

The next meeting will take place on Tuesday, 26 August 2025, 10:00 to 12:30.