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

Chapter 4: Practical considerations for Scotland

The 2019 review examined the implications for Scotland of implementing IDACs, as identified in the wider literature.

Where more recent evidence on IDACs or a similar model provides further insight, this is outlined below:

4.1 Not guilty verdicts

The previous review highlighted that a not guilty verdict in the criminal trial may prejudice a cases’ entry into the IDAC (Scottish Government 2019a) For example, where an accused person is found not guilty in a criminal trial this could prejudice a subsequent civil case if heard by the same judge, as the judge may deem further evidence of abuse irrelevant. In the Toronto court, which follows a 'one family, one judge' approach for case management, this issue was addressed through ensuring that a different judge presides over the trial if the case proceeds to a contested hearing. This measure was seen to ensure due process and mitigate the perception of bias (Birnbaum & Bala 2025).

4.2 Legal prejudice, burdens of proof

Concerns were raised in the previous review regarding the differing burdens of proof between criminal and civil proceedings. A conviction in a criminal court requires the higher standard of being established beyond reasonable doubt, whereas civil matters rely on the balance of probabilities. Consequently, if an individual is convicted in a criminal trial and subsequently faces a civil case where those actions (i.e. domestic abuse) are a factor, the prior judgment, having satisfied the higher standard, may introduce undue influence upon the civil decision, undermining the independent assessment of liability. Evidence from the literature suggests that these issues continue to present a challenge for the implementation of integrated models.

This issue was also highlighted by the Lord President in a letter to the Convener of the Criminal Justice Committee. He noted that criminal and civil proceedings operate under different legal requirements and tests, particularly regarding the relevancy and admissibility of evidence. Judicial decision‑making must be based solely on the facts and circumstances presented in the specific case before the court. The Lord President therefore questioned whether, within an integrated court model, judicial office holders would be expected, or permitted, to rely on information provided in separate legal proceedings.^[19] For example, the Southport model only links criminal and civil applications when the civil application is brought by the prosecution service. In this respect, the evaluation notes that full integration can sometimes be limited due to the need for procedural fairness and adherence to different rules of evidence. Specialist magistrates oversee appropriate matters, supported by legal stakeholders who rigorously observe rules of evidence (Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General 2021). Similarly to findings reported in the previous research related to the New York IDVC, further evaluation of the Toronto court suggests that despite integration, there can be pressure to settle contact disputes without trial, potentially leading to increased involvement of the non-resident parent and joint contact in final orders. This raises questions about whether the integrated environment adequately addresses the risk and dynamics of domestic abuse, particularly when using mediation where mediator understanding of abuse dynamics is unclear (Birnbaum & Bala 2025).

4.3 Rights of audience

There are also ongoing implications for solicitors’ rights of audience within the court system. This issue was highlighted in the Lord President’s letter to the Convener of the Criminal Justice Committee, where concerns were raised about the complexities created when related cases fall within different jurisdictions or forums. In such situations, different types of judicial office holders may preside, each with their own jurisdictional limitations. For example, a civil case may be heard in the sheriff court where the child resides, while the associated criminal case proceeds in the court where the alleged offence took place. These courts may sit in different sheriffdoms, meaning that the sheriff overseeing one matter may not ordinarily have jurisdiction to sit in the other. This creates practical and procedural challenges for continuity, representation, and judicial oversight across linked proceedings. ^[20]

4.4 Specialist training and resourcing

Evidence from other jurisdictions reinforces the importance of implementing specialist training. In both the Southport and Toronto IDAC models, specialist training was identified as a key factor of their success. For example, the Southport IDAC introduced dedicated magistrate roles supported by tailored training on the legal frameworks surrounding domestic and family violence, as well as on the dynamics of abuse. Evaluation findings indicate that assigning specialist magistrates leads to improved outcomes, as they are better equipped to understand the complex social issues involved and to consider the potential consequences on the whole family of issuing an order before it is made. Similarly, the Queensland Premier’s Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence found that magistrates who received specialist training delivered outcomes that were both fairer and safer for those affected by domestic abuse (Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General 2021).

Resourcing emerged as a significant concern in the Lord President’s letter to the Convener of the Criminal Justice Committee. The Lord President cautioned that moving to a fully integrated court model would likely result in substantial delays across both civil and criminal proceedings, particularly if hearings had to be scheduled around the availability of a single judicial office holder. Such an approach was described as potentially damaging for the parties involved and for the effective functioning of the justice system overall.

A further difficulty identified was the expectation that a judicial office holder presiding over a criminal trial would also oversee related civil proceedings. According to the Lord President, this would place considerable pressure on criminal case timelines. The issue is compounded by the fact that parties would be represented by different solicitors in two (or more) procedures, especially where cases are raised in different jurisdictions. Many solicitors practise within specific legal fields and geographical areas, increasing the likelihood that representation will differ between civil and criminal matters.

From a court‑scheduling perspective, the Lord President noted particular concern regarding the feasibility of coordinating simultaneous or closely linked civil and criminal proceedings. Any requirement to facilitate such alignment was seen as posing substantial challenges for court programming and resource allocation.^[21]

A further consideration relates to the way new IDAC models are typically adopted in practice. As highlighted strongly in the previous report, responses to challenges within the justice system are often driven from the grassroots level, with members of the judiciary playing a central role in shaping and embedding new approaches (Scottish Government 2019a). Securing judicial buy‑in is therefore likely to be critical to the successful implementation of any integrated model.

4.5 Court advocacy services and legal representation

The literature also highlights the need for improved court advocacy and increased access to independent legal representation. In the Pathfinder lived experience evaluation, a key finding was that those participants with solicitors shared mostly positive experiences with the court process, while those who were LIP had mostly negative experiences (Ministry of Justice 2026) In the Southport model, the Court Advocacy Program, delivered by the Domestic Violence Prevention Centre, provided wrap-around support for women involved in court proceedings. This included risk assessments, court accompaniment, and liaison with court staff, police, duty lawyers, and other stakeholders (Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General 2021). In both the Toronto and Southport models, domestic violence duty lawyer services were essential in providing legal advice before, during or after their court appearance (Birnbaum & Bala 2025; Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General 2021). At Southport, the duty lawyers also referred clients into wider support services (Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General 2021).

4.6 Rise in demand for perpetrator programmes

Finally, the previous review suggested that implementing an IDAC model could increase demand for mandated perpetrator programmes, such as the Caledonian System. New evidence reinforces this, as both the Southport and Toronto IDACs emphasise perpetrator accountability and include referrals to court-mandated programmes. In Toronto, the outcomes of perpetrator interventions were a significant factor in case decisions, and further investment in such programmes was identified as a priority (Birnbaum & Bala 2025). In Southport, while stakeholders acknowledged the value of behaviour change programmes in promoting accountability, they also expressed concern about limited availability. There was a shared call for expanding these services to reduce waiting times and improve engagement (Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General 2021). Both models also provided referrals into other programmes that placed more of a focus on improved parenting, such as Caring Dads and Keeping Kids in Mind.

The list above is non-exhaustive and a more comprehensive consultation with relevant stakeholders across the justice system will be necessary to fully understand the possible implications of implementing an integrated model or specific components from an alternative model in Scotland.

4.7 Costs

Similarly to the findings of the 2019 review, this research found very limited evidence on the costs associated with integrated court models Where evidence was available, the evidence was mostly high level and did not include a robust cost analysis. However, as Blonder (2023) has made clear, there are likely to be significant upfront and ongoing costs associated with a fully integrated model. Although there is evidence from both the Pathfinder and Southport evaluations that indicates that these costs may vary significantly across different parts of the system or be balanced out over time (Ministry of Justice 2025; Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General 2021).

4.7.1 The cost of collaboration

Echoing findings from the 2019 review, this research found that although there are beneifts associated with IDACs and similar models in terms of improved information sharing and victim safety, there is the potential for substantial additional costs involved in greater resourcing and training. The Pathfinder evaluation notes that sites had similar overall costs to CAP comparison sites. However, the savings from fewer hearings were lost through the need to provide further funding to domestic abuse agencies under the model (Ministry of Justice 2025). While the Southport evaluation indicated that although the court was considered a cost effective criminal justice response, it also indicated that any savings in terms of fewer court attendances and efficiences are offset by the higher workload and level of service leveraged across the whole system (Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General 2021).

As noted previously, there is strong evidence that if an integrated or similar model were to be implemented, a robust programme of specialist training in domestic abuse will also need to be implemented across the system. This was also raised as a clear and existing need throughout dicussions with key informants. If a fully integrated model is established, it is also likely that training would be required in both civil and criminal matters for all those working in the justice system. As the Pathfinder evaluation noted, investment in joint training was seen to be key to the success of any future rollout (Ministry of Justice 2025) This is likely to represent a substantial up-front and ongoing cost.

However, evidence from the SCM pilot suggests that cost savings are achievable. The evaluation identified significant efficiencies for Police Scotland through the adoption of streamlined procedures, including reduced officer citations. Savings associated with the pilot were linked to several factors, such as improved officer well-being, lower overtime costs, decreased administrative burdens related to court appearances, and enhanced case management processes. Reducing the number of witnesses across fewer trials was also reported to have the potential to lead to direct financial savings, over time, such as lower payments to witnesses and reduced costs for printing and sending citations. Scaled up at a national level, the combined effect of these direct and indirect savings could be substantial (SCTS 2024)

4.7.2 Legal aid provision

The Scottish Government’s 2019 report previously discussed the potential implications for legal aid costs that might arise if IDACs, or a similar integrated model, were to be introduced (Scottish Government 2019a). The Scottish Law Commission has identified the lack of legal aid provision and representation as a significant barrier to the effectiveness of civil remedies for domestic abuse. Many victim-survivors in the civil courts are not eligible for legal aid, which can prevent them from accessing necessary legal support. Stakeholders consulted by the Scottish Law Commission have consistently argued that the most effective way to improve access to civil remedies is to make legal aid for civil protection orders automatic and non-means-tested (Scottish Law Commission 2024). Such a change would substantially increase the scope of legal aid provision.

Evidence from the SCM pilot evaluation indicates that legal aid provision has already been expanded to allow for remuneration at earlier stages of the process (SCTS 2024). If IDACs or a similar model were implemented, it is therefore highly likely that the legal aid system would require reform, alongside increased funding to support expanded provision. One alternative approach could be the introduction of a regular duty lawyer service within the court, similar to the model adopted in Southport. However, this would also entail substantial and ongoing costs (Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General 2021).

It is worth noting that the Pathfinder evaluation explicitly excluded the role of lawyers from its financial analysis. The report highlights the need for a more detailed financial assessment to fully understand the costs associated with legal involvement and the potential impact on the legal aid budget (Ministry of Justice 2025)

Although there is some evidence across the literature on the possible costs of the implementation of IDACs or a similar model, actual costs are likely to depend on a range of factors outside the scope of this review. It is also difficult to draw cost comparisons across jurisdictions and between courts that are working within very different systems. Although this review has attempted to provide an overview of the evidence on cost, to get a clear picture of the cost implications of implementation in Scotland, a pilot of the chosen model is likely to be required.