Justice: therapeutic support in court proceedings codes of practice – short life working group minutes - August 2024

Attendees and apologies

• Lynne Taylor, Dr, Principal Psychology Advisor, Scottish Government.

• Angela Latta, Scottish Government: Child Protection. 

• Chantelle Lalli, Scottish Government: Bairns Hoose. 

• Ruth Stocks, Dr, Director of Psychology member of Heads of Psychology Scotland (HOPS). 

• Emma Thomson, Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. 

• Gordon Bell, Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration

• Liz Gilchrist, Professor, University of Edinburgh

• Sharon Glasgow, Social Work Scotland (SWS) (attending on behalf of Jennifer Morrison)

• Zuzanna Kostka, Scottish Government: Bairns Hoose. 

• Anthony Nevin, Scottish Government: Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG), Justice (Secretariat). 

• Carole Robinson, Scottish Government: VAWG, Justice (Secretariat)

Apologies 

• Anna Johnston, Detective Inspector, Police Scotland. 

• Rachael Smith, Dr, Chair Child Heads of Psychology Services (CHOPS). 

• Sandra Ferguson, NHS Education for Scotland. 

• Tony Lenehan K.C, Faculty of Advocates. 

Items and actions

Welcome and introductions – Chair

Lynne Taylor (LT) welcomed members of the Short Life Working Group (SLWG) and thanked them for their involvement. LT hoped to take a proportionate approach to updating the current codes of practice and anticipated that the group’s work would last around six months but it was acknowledged it may take longer.    

LT outlined that the starting point when considering any revisions was that therapeutic support can be beneficial in addressing a variety of issues with witnesses. Indeed, their welfare, interests and rights should be of paramount consideration. Whilst it was recognised that therapeutic support may have the potential to cause evidential difficulties, that was no justification for witnesses being denied the support they need.   

LT highlighted that the subject matter we are working with may at times be sensitive and emotionally upsetting. Whenever possible members should carefully consider the language they use and take a compassionate approach to avoid potential vicarious trauma. Signposting was provided to various wellbeing services.  

Setting the context – Secretariat

Carole Robinson (CR) provided some historical context, including the need to revise the codes of practice to ensure that they were in line with statutory developments and operational practice. The adult code had been written in 2008; the children’s code in 2005.  Unfortunately neither code was accessible online and there had been confusion about whether the updated Crown Prosecution Service guidance (2022), which applies to England and Wales, was relevant to Scotland. The Scottish Government was also aware that COPFS wished to update their guidance for prosecutors of sexual offences which link to the current codes.   

LT had written to practitioners, attaching the Scottish codes, and clarified that these should continue to be followed at the current time. 

The codes were non-statutory and aimed to promote consistency and best practice. Both documents were aimed at 1) providers of therapeutic support to adults/children who are witnesses in court proceedings and  2) those who commission or arrange such support. In terms of the latter this can include social workers, third sector victim support organisations and wider medical staff. As well as setting out key principles the codes identify some of the issues associated with therapeutic support.  

Justice interests – COPFS

Emma Thomson (ET) set out how the codes of practice intersect with Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) guidance. ET noted the codes are intended for practitioners rather than prosecutors. Whilst current COPFS guidance made it clear that therapy should not be denied it also highlighted the need to avoid leading questions or discussing material facts that might risk contaminating evidence or been seen as coaching, thus undermining the evidence given at court. ET advised that  once the codes had been updated, COPFS would look to update their guidance which would require approval from the Lord Advocate. 

There was a discussion which highlighted relevant evidence, research, and techniques which could be helpful in updating the codes. This included directions for police officers in England and Wales on advanced cognitive interviews; Children’s Hearings; the Scottish Children’s Interview Model and the Bluestar Project.  

• action – secretariat to ask members to share relevant information, evidence, and research which will be collated to support drafting.   

Terms of reference and considering our approach – Chair 

The Chair provided an overview of the terms of reference, governance arrangements, and potential approaches for updating the Codes.   

Remit

Issues were raised regarding the scope of the work, language within the current codes and the title of the codes.  Members pointed out that the codes should cover therapeutic support for all witnesses, not just those who would be involved in a trial process. It was raised for instance, that the code should cover Children’s Hearings.  

There were questions about who the audience was for the revised material especially given the range of organisations  which commission therapeutic support, particularly across the third sector.  

• action – secretariat and Chair to further consider scope of the revised code – reaching out to relevant members such as SCRA, SWS and COPFS to discuss further.
• action – secretariat to update and re-circulate the Terms of Reference with a view to seeking agreement on remit at the next meeting.  

Membership/governance

LT explained that membership for the SLWG brought together a range of representatives spanning adult practice, children and young people, social work and justice.  

A reference group, made up of a wide range of stakeholders including those who commission therapeutic support, would also be set up. The reference group would  be kept up to date as work progresses and their views may be sought on particular matters.   

Drafting approach

LT suggested that the two codes might be consolidated into one given that the fundamental principles would be the same for adults and children. There was consideration that specific Annex’s could be drafted to deal with different population groups e.g. Children and Young People.

Drafting would be undertaken by Dr Ruth Stocks and Dr Rachael Smith. Dr Caroline Bruce (NES) would consider what information in the current codes still applied and should be retained and will work with Ruth, Rachael and the Chair to develop the guidance.  

Views on the updated code would be invited via a targeted consultation exercise: this would be a key way to seek input from those who commission therapeutic support. Members of the reference group would have a key role here both in providing comments and in helping to disseminate the code when published.      

Agreed actions and next steps – Chair

The Chair thanked members for their insightful comments and invited any other business. Issues were noted regarding the proposed date for the next meeting which coincided with school holidays. 

• action – secretariat to consider scheduling options for the next meeting

Summary of actions: 

• action (1) – secretariat to ask members to share relevant information, evidence, and research which will be collated to support drafting
• action (2) – secretariat and Chair to further consider scope of the revised code – reaching out to relevant members such as SCRA, SWS and COPFS to discuss further.
• action (3) – secretariat to update and re-circulate the Terms of Reference with a view to seeking agreement on remit at the next meeting
• action (4) – secretariat to consider scheduling options for the next meeting