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

Chapter 5: Conclusions

This report has synthesised the findings from new evidence on IDACs published since 2019, when the SG last produced research on IDACs. Given the limited evidence specifically on IDACs, the review also drew on broader research on similar models, such as SDACs and the Pathfinder model. The review focuses on their effectiveness, international practice, evaluation methods, and relevance to the Scottish context. This approach reflects the understanding that while IDACs offer a holistic and coordinated response to domestic abuse, similar outcomes may be achievable through alternative models that incorporate key elements of this approach to improve outcomes for victims and their children.

The evidence clearly indicates that several components of the SCM pilot and the Pathfinder model 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.

Overall, there is strong evidence that IDACs, or models incorporating similar principles, can deliver tangible benefits. However, challenges remain around implementation, particularly if a fully integrated court model were to be introduced in Scotland. Nonetheless, it may be possible to achieve many of the same objectives through a more flexible or phased approach.

The findings from the literature clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of integrated court structures in meeting key efficiency and service outcomes. Where assessments of effectiveness did not focus on quantifying criminal justice outcomes, they primarily measured it through improved coordination between services, enhanced information sharing, and, in the case of Pathfinder, prioritisation of the voice of the child. These improvements were understood to contribute to more effective and efficient support for victims. Specifically, more integrated structures were seen to contribute to:

• Improved victim safety: Early and ongoing risk assessments, co-located services, and streamlined procedures contributed to enhanced safety for victims and children.
• Streamlined court processes: Integrated models reduced the number of hearings, improved scheduling, and facilitated earlier resolution of cases.
• Better judicial decision-making: Judges operating within integrated models were better equipped to understand the full family context, leading to more informed decisions.
• Positive stakeholder feedback: Victims and professionals reported improved experiences, particularly under the “one family, one judge” approach.

However, notwithstanding these benefits, substantial challenges for implementation remain and there were several considerations identified across the literature that may have relevance to Scotland. Evidence suggests that the success of any model is contingent on these challenges being proactively addressed:

Resource: Frontloaded models, while effective, are resource-intensive. Investment in specialist training for legal professionals, judges, and support staff will be required.

Legal prejudice: Additionally, the risk of legal prejudice from combining cases with different evidentiary standards must be carefully managed.

Judicial Capacity and Support: Specialist judicial roles are vital for consistent decision-making. While adequate support is necessary to prevent burnout due to the emotionally demanding nature of domestic abuse cases. Sustained investment in training for judges and court staff, as well as robust funding for specialist advocacy and duty lawyer services, is seen as key. Alongside this, ensuring judicial-buy in to embed and shape any new approaches will be critical.

Legal Aid: The availability of legal aid remains a barrier, particularly in civil cases. Many victims are unable to secure legal representation, which is essential for navigating complex and often confusing legal processes. Reform may need to be considered in relation to remuneration and automatic, non-means-tested legal aid for protection orders.

There are also a number of cost considerations if an IDAC were to be implemented in Scotland. The evidence base on cost remains limited and comparisons are challenging due to variation in legal systems and the complexity of the models implemented. Although there is some evidence of potential savings, demonstrated in more efficient processes in the SCM pilot, it is clear is that any implementation is likely to require a substantial upfront cost, particularly for training and resourcing. Reform and increased funding for legal aid may also need to be considered if IDACs were to be introduced.

Successful establishment of an IDAC in Scotland is therefore contingent upon resolving the resource and procedural challenges outlined above, with specialist training, resourcing (including judicial buy-in), and initial pilot testing identified as pre-requisites to successful implementation.