140.This section defines the concept of a “domestic homicide or suicide review”, which is what Part 2 of the Act is concerned with. In brief, the concept is the establishment of a review mechanism for reviewing certain deaths arising from abusive behaviour within relationships, with a view to learning lessons. The review is not about attributing liability to anyone but rather is about working with relevant agencies (whether statutory or voluntary) where either the victim or the perpetrator came into contact with them, in order to learn any wider systemic lessons. This can also include working with agencies where there was an absence of contact with the victim or perpetrator.
141.Subsection (1) of this section provides that the term “domestic homicide or suicide review” means a review of a “domestic abuse death”, or of a “connected death of a young person”, which is held with a view to identifying lessons to be learned from it (and in some cases also from events following the death as well). Although the term “or” is used and the term “death” is used in the singular, section 22(2)(a) makes clear that a combined review can also be carried out – for example, there could be a review of more than one domestic abuse death, or a domestic abuse death could be reviewed together with the connected death of a young person.
142.Subsection (2) then sets out the definitions of “person A” and “person B” which are used for the purposes of this section. This is necessary because a particular relationship needs to exist between two people in order for the review model to apply.
143.For the purposes of this section, person A is a person who has, or appears to have, behaved in an abusive manner towards person B. To use more everyday language, person A is therefore the “perpetrator” of the abusive behaviour (though it is accepted that there may be some rarer cases where both parties in a relationship behave in an abusive manner). The person who is subjected to the abusive behaviour (i.e. person B) needs to be, at the time of the behaviour, one of the following—
	the partner or ex-partner of “the perpetrator”,
	the child of “the perpetrator”,
	the child of the partner or ex-partner of “the perpetrator”,
	a young person living in the same household as “the perpetrator”, or in the same household as “the perpetrator’s” partner or ex-partner.
144.A number of the terms used here are defined in subsection (7). Specifically—
	Abusive behaviour: this term has the same meaning as it does in the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021 (though the categories of relationship where abusive behaviour is relevant will differ between the two pieces of legislation). This means that it covers behaviour where a reasonable person would consider the behaviour likely to cause the recipient to suffer physical or psychological harm (which includes fear, alarm and distress). Behaviour of any kind is covered, including words and failures to act, and can be directed at a person even if it is carried out by way of conduct towards property or through a third party. Behaviour can consist of a course of conduct or a single incident. A single incident can be the death in itself.
	Partner: a person is someone’s partner if they are spouses or civil partners, or if they are in an intimate personal relationship. The term ex-partner is to be construed accordingly. There is no requirement that the parties need to be living together to be partners.
	Child: someone is considered to be another person’s child if that person accepts them as their child, or previously accepted them as their child (prior to the abusive behaviour) even if they are no longer so accepted. In particular—
	The nature of the relationship is what matters, so it does not matter whether the child lives under the same roof as the person carrying out abusive behaviour (or under the same roof as the perpetrator’s partner or ex-partner). The child could be an adult living entirely independently.
	Age is irrelevant, as the term “child” is used exclusively in this Part to denote a parent/child relationship. Although the term “child” is specifically defined in some Acts as meaning a person under a particular age, there is no rule that means that this applies uniformly across the statute book and it does not apply here. The term “child of” or “person A’s child” is therefore left to take its ordinary meaning as signifying someone’s son or daughter (or non-binary child).
	A step-child may be covered as a person’s own child depending on the nature of the relationship in a particular case, but if the step-child is not covered directly as the child of “the perpetrator” then they would be covered anyway by reason of being the child of that person’s current or former partner.
	Someone who is living with the “perpetrator” or with their partner/ex-partner but who is not accepted by them as their child (for example, a foster child, or a niece or nephew, who is not accepted as the person’s own child) may, depending on their age, be covered instead by reason of being a young person living in the same household.
	Young person: the age cut-off for a young-person depends on whether or not that person has at any point been in care (a “looked after” child). If so, those under 26 are covered, but otherwise it means those under 18. The term is used to cover any minor, so as to deliberately avoid “child” being used in this Part to mean a person under a certain age. This is done to avoid any confusion given that this Part talks about a person’s child and this means a parental/child relationship regardless of age.
145.Subsection (3) defines what a “domestic abuse death” is for the purposes of the review model. What is covered depends on the nature of the relationship between person A and person B – i.e. whether they were (or appear to have been) partners or ex-partners, or whether the relationship is one of the other scenarios which is covered (that is, being the child of person A, or of person A’s partner or ex-partner, or a young person living in the same household as person A or person A’s partner or ex-partner).
146.In relation to a case where persons A and B were or appear to have been partners or ex-partners, there are three things covered by the definition of a domestic abuse death—
	The first scenario which is covered is one where the person who is given the label of “person B” has died or may have died (otherwise than by suicide) as a result of “the perpetrator’s” (i.e. person A’s) abusive behaviour.
	The second scenario which is covered is one where the person who is given the label of “person B” has died by suicide and it is or appears to be the case that “the perpetrator’s” (i.e. person A’s) abusive behaviour was a contributing factor. This would therefore cover suicides which are connected to abusive behaviour (for example, an individual who felt driven to suicide by an abusive partner or ex-partner, or by the mental health problems brought on by the behaviour of an abusive partner or ex-partner).
	The third scenario which is covered is one where the person who is given the label of “person B” has killed the person who carried out the abusive behaviour (i.e. person A). Essentially, this covers what are sometimes known as “violent resistance” killings.
147.In relation to a case where persons A and B were not partners/ex-partners, there is one scenario covered by the definition of a domestic abuse death. Both elements of this must be satisfied:
	It must be (or appear to be) the case that person B has or may have died (otherwise than by suicide) as a result of “the perpetrator’s” (i.e. person A’s) abusive behaviour.
	It must also be (or appear to be) the case that at some point prior to the behaviour which resulted in the death, there was or appears to have been abusive behaviour between person A and any partner or ex-partner. It does not matter who the abusive person was in the relationship – all that matters is that there was abuse. The person with whom there was an abusive relationship could be related to person B (for example, the deceased child’s mother) or it could be someone entirely unrelated.
148.Subsection (4) qualifies subsection (3) by providing that where the death in question is a case of a young person who was subjected to abusive behaviour while living in the same household as the “perpetrator” or their partner/ex-partner, the death is a “domestic abuse death” only if the person was a young person at the time of their death. So, for example, if a young person was subjected to abusive behaviour which caused them to be in a coma and then, some time later, died, the death would be a domestic abuse death only if the person was still a young person at the point of their death.
149.Subsection (5) defines the other category of death which falls within the review model, which is where there is the “connected death of a young person”. In order for subsection (4) to apply, the young person has to have been killed as a result of an incident which also resulted in a domestic abuse death, or as a result of “the perpetrator’s” abusive behaviour of person B which, had person B died, would have been a domestic abuse death. The former would cover, for example, a scenario where an abusive individual stabs to death their spouse, their own child and an unrelated child who happens to be present. The latter of these means that even if the intended victim of the attack (e.g. in the example above, the person’s spouse and own child) survives, the young person’s death is still a reviewable death.
150.The young person does not have to have any particular type of relationship to the parties who were in an abusive relationship. Examples which might be covered here would include—
	a child who was on playdate at a friend’s house when domestic abuse occurred and was killed as a result (for example, due to an inaccurately aimed weapon or a decision by the perpetrator to kill all those present),
	a young person who is in a park and is killed by a stray bullet which an abusive husband was aiming at his spouse,
	a family member who does not fall within the “domestic abuse death category”, such as where an individual kills (or tries to kill) their partner as well as killing their partner’s young sibling.
151.Subsection (6) provides that where a review is being held in respect of a death anyway and the person whose behaviour resulted in (or appears to have resulted in) the death – i.e. “person A” – has died by suicide, the review may also encompass the circumstances of that suicide(2). For example, an abusive husband might kill his wife and then kill himself. In that case, the suicide could be covered by the review of the woman’s death. However, if a man was arrested for abusive behaviour towards his wife and he killed himself rather than face court (without killing his wife or attempting to do so in a way that led to a connected death of a young person), that on its own would not fall within the review model.
152.It should be noted that although this section sets out what deaths fall within the review model, it does not mean that a review will be held in every instance. There is a sift stage at which an assessment is taken as to whether there are lessons to be learned from the death (see the commentary on section 19). There is also a power to modify the breadth of the review model (see the commentary on section 13).
Interpretation Reviewable events Section 12 – Domestic homicide or suicide review