221.This section makes provision about the report which must, under subsection (1), be prepared by a case review panel at the conclusion of its review. This provision therefore would not apply if a review was discontinued mid-way as a result of the exercise of the Lord Advocate’s power to order discontinuation of a review under section 23(2). While it is for the case review panel as a whole to prepare the report, the intention is not that the report will be “drafted by committee” – it will be for the case review panel chair to draft the report which will be endorsed by the panel as a whole. Should a case review panel chair be unable to draft the report, those providing administrative support will in practice be able to prepare the report for endorsement by the panel.
222.There are certain things which must, under subsection (2), be included in a report, but it is open to the panel to include such other information as it sees fit. The things which must be included are—
	a timeline of what the panel considers to be any key events prior to the death,
	where persons A and B were partners/ex-partners, a summary of the significant relationships they had at the time of the death, and a summary of any changes in such relationships in the period leading up to the death,
	information about any opportunities for intervention which were either missed or taken,
	the panel’s conclusions,
	its reasons for reaching those conclusions, and
	any recommendations it has as a result.
223.What the panel considers to be key events will vary from case to case but these do not have to be something momentous. For example, this could include events which might seem relatively innocuous in themselves but in the context of other evidence take on a greater weight (for example, the first of a series of missed appointments with healthcare or social services after a pattern of regular attendance). The dates of these events will be important in the context of the review because of their role in establishing things such as whether a victim had already been identified as a potential victim of abusive behaviour by the time of a particular incident, or whether there had been a series of events over an extended period which should have been a warning of possible difficulties.
224.If the report is not one that is agreed upon by the panel members unanimously, the points of disagreement must be reasonably reflected (see subsection (3)).
225.The review oversight committee’s general duty under section 22(6) to ensure that any case review panel appointed to carry out a review makes satisfactory progress in doing so will apply to the production of a report just as it applies to the review itself. It will consider whether a report is of satisfactory quality overall, as well as whether the review’s terms of reference have been fulfilled.
226.Once a report is prepared, the chair of the panel has to submit it to the review oversight committee for approval under subsection (4). Subsection (5) then provides for the committee to decide whether modifications are required before approving it. If they are required, the committee will be able to decide whether to make these itself (which may be possible in, for example, the case of minor corrections) or whether to direct the panel chair to resubmit an amended report (for example, because the information that is missing is not within the committee’s knowledge). Where a report is resubmitted, subsection (6) ensures that the same process of approval with or without modifications, or a further direction to make changes, can occur.
227.Subsection (7) provides that the chair of the panel and the chair of the review oversight committee are each entitled to share a draft report (or part of it) with any person with whom they consider it appropriate to share it for the purpose of checking its accuracy. There is no restriction upon the timing of when this is done (other than that the report still has to be in draft) but in practice when material is being shared for this purpose by the chair of the panel then the expectation is that they would normally do so prior to submitting the report to the review oversight committee for approval. However, one exception to this might be where, following submission to the committee, the panel chair is directed to resubmit the report with some changes and the panel chair wishes to fact-check an aspect of the new material before adding it. Subsection (8) makes further provision about any such sharing—
	It obliges the person who is deciding whether or not to share the report/extract to take that decision in accordance with the protocol (see section 24 and paragraphs 208 to 211 of these Notes). Any sharing itself must also accord with the protocol. This applies regardless of whether the person taking the decision is a party to the protocol.
	It provides that the person sharing the material can redact or anonymise it as appropriate. This goes further than the ability to share a part or parts (i.e. extracts): the changes could include adding in pseudonyms or making some details vaguer rather than simply omitting them. The person sharing the material must also, at the same time, provide the Scottish Ministers with a copy of the material that is shared.
	It provides that the person with whom the material is shared may not share it with anyone else and must keep the content confidential, unless and until the information is subsequently published. As such, if an individual within an organisation needed to share it with someone else within their organisation in order to confirm the accuracy of the report, they would need to ask the chair of the panel or committee to share it with that person directly rather than doing so themselves. It should be noted that the term “person” here covers organisations as well as individuals (see schedule 1 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010).
228.Once a report has been approved, the committee must, under subsection (9), provide a copy of it to the Scottish Ministers. Where the report relates to the death of a young person or an adult at risk, the committee must also provide a copy of it to Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland.
229.Subsection (10) gives the Scottish Ministers a regulation-making power (subject to the affirmative procedure) to make provision about the resolution of any disputes which arise between the chair of a panel and the review oversight committee in respect of any modifications which the committee proposes to make to a report or any direction it gives requiring resubmission of a report. This mechanism could be used to provide for Ministers themselves to resolve the matter, to provide for someone appointed by Ministers to provide the resolution, or to make provision allowing the parties themselves to resolve the matter.
Interpretation Reporting Section 27 – Reports on case reviews: content and preparation