Integrated Domestic Abuse Courts (IDACs) and similar court models: literature review

Executive Summary

Purpose and Context

This report synthesises evidence on Integrated Domestic Abuse Courts (IDACs) and similar models in the UK and internationally, building on the Scottish Government’s 2019 review on the same topic and incorporating new findings published between 2019 and 2025. The review was commissioned following a commitment by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs to carry out further research on the effectiveness of IDACs.

Across the literature, IDACs are defined as specialist courts designed to provide a more effective, coordinated response to domestic abuse cases. They are built on three core principles: coordinated justice and support services; specialised judges, sheriffs and processes; and a victim‑centred approach prioritising safety and wellbeing. Their development reflects recognition that domestic abuse cases involve complexities not well served by traditional adversarial systems, including overlapping criminal and family law issues, the effects of trauma on victims and children, and the need for specialised expertise in abusive relationship dynamics. While IDAC models operate in the US, Canada and Australia and have been piloted in England, they have also been proposed elsewhere, such as in Mexico.

Consistent with the previous Scottish Government research, this paper identifies a range of IDAC models that vary in complexity depending on remit and scope. It adopts the same working definition used previously, defining an IDAC as a court in which a single judge hears both criminal and civil cases relating to one family, where domestic abuse is the underlying issue.

Methodology

The review consisted of a web-based literature review of evidence on IDACs, specialist domestic abuse courts (SDACs), and other relevant court models. Due to the size of the evidence base on IDACs, the scope of the review was widened to consider evidence on SDACs and the approach operationalised in the Pathfinder pilot in England and Wales. The review included an assessment of key academic sources and grey literature. Two informal guiding discussions with Scottish Women’s Aid (SWA) and Women’s Aid England also took place. These were intended to help shape the direction of the literature review and identify relevant sources.

Key Messages

• Systemic challenges continue to persist at the interface of civil and criminal proceedings, particularly in child contact cases involving domestic abuse. These include: fragmented processes where no formal mechanism to share information exists; narrow understandings of domestic abuse; issues inherent to the adversarial system and a lack of clear and transparent civil justice data.
• The court models reviewed in this report share a core set of commonalities that can inform how the response to domestic abuse and child contact can be improved. The overarching key component is a commitment to a coordinated, systemic response to domestic abuse with the primary goal of improving outcomes for victims and families. Other commonalities include, targeted eligibility, where only certain cases can be brought before the court, specifically those that involve both a criminal and civil element as well as an allegation of domestic abuse. Other similar features include, a focus on coordination and scheduling, strong partnerships with external support services, provision of culturally appropriate support. This includes accessible communication and specialist advocacy delivered by practitioners who understand a community’s culture, language, and specific needs. In addition, ongoing training and professional development for practitioners, alongside a clear focus on hearing and prioritising the voice of the child, were identified as key elements.
• Overall there is strong evidence that IDACs, or models incorporating similar principles, can deliver tangible benefits for victims and their children. These benefits include:
  • Improved victim safety through early risk assessments and integrated support.
  • Streamlined processes, reducing the number of hearings and delays.
  • Better-informed judicial decisions, as judges have a holistic view of family circumstances.
• The evidence clearly indicates that several components of the Summary Case Management (SCM) pilot in Scotland and the Pathfinder model in England and Wales align with best practices typically associated with IDACs. These include efforts to move away from fragmented responses to domestic abuse and towards more integrated, specialist systems. Emerging findings suggest that such models are already contributing to improved efficiency, better system coordination, and positive outcomes for victims.
• There are a number of considerations that have relevance if IDACs, or a similar model, were to be considered for implementation in Scotland. These relate to risks of legal prejudice, where the outcome of the criminal case may unduly influence the civil decision where the standard of proof is lower. Additionally, further investment in specialist training should be considered alongside funding for advocacy and duty lawyer services, increased demand for perpetrator programmes, and possible changes to the way in which legal aid is funded and delivered.
• The evidence base on cost remains limited and comparisons are challenging due to variation in legal systems and the complexity of the models implemented in other jurisdictions. Although there is some evidence of potential savings in terms of social and economic benefits, and some models identified improvements to system efficiency in shorter journey times, it is clear that any implementation is likely to require a substantial upfront cost, particularly for training and resourcing.
• Similarly to the findings of the previous review, this research found that the evidence base focusing specifically on IDACs remains limited. What evidence does exist suggests that there are likely to be challenges around implementation, including in relation to legal aid, resourcing, training as well as concerns around judicial capacity and buy-in.