217.This section allows the Scottish Ministers, the chair of the review oversight committee and the chair of a case review panel (referred to in this section as “requiring authorities”) to each require a person to provide them, as soon as reasonably practicable, with information in the person’s possession or control and which the requiring authority in question reasonably considers is necessary for the carrying out of its functions under this Part. For example, this power might be used by the review oversight committee to obtain information which is relevant to whether a death ought to be the subject of a review, while Ministers might use it to obtain information for the reports they are required to produce under section 30. This power can also be used by one requiring authority to another, provided that it is relevant to the carrying out of functions under this Part by the authority requiring the information to be provided. As such, it could, for example, be used by the Scottish Ministers to obtain information from the review oversight committee when Ministers are considering whether to step in and order the carrying out of a review under section 19(5)(b).
218.Subsection (2) provides that a person is not required to provide information under this section which they would be entitled to refuse to provide in court proceedings (e.g. legally privileged information). However, this is subject to subsection (3). Subject to some exceptions, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 allows a person not to provide information to a court about spent convictions (and equivalents like spent alternatives to prosecution). Because subsection (2) is based on what happens in a court, subsection (2) would therefore on the face of it limit the obligation to disclose information to a review so that information about spent convictions did not have to be provided. The effect of subsection (3) is that if an order made under the 1974 Act allows information about spent convictions to be provided to a domestic homicide or suicide review, that provision will trump the restriction which would otherwise have applied under subsection (2).
219.Subsection (4) provides that a notice cannot be given under this section to a person who is already subject to the duty of co-operation (which includes a requirement to provide information when so requested) under section 25. This simply avoids duplication. It is expected that the persons who will be required to provide information under this section are likely to be voluntary sector bodies operating in this field, as they could well have had contact with families where abusive behaviour has been occurring. However, imposing a full co-operation duty on such bodies may be unduly onerous, and so section 25 is intended to be restricted to public authorities and other bodies whose participation is key to the running of the review model. Persons or bodies which are not subject to section 25 (perhaps because they would only hold relevant information in rare cases) could still be required to provide information under this section though.
220.Subsection (5) provides that the where the Lord Advocate orders the suspension of review proceedings, an information notice ceases to be of any effect so far as it relates to the death. However, if the notice related to more than one death, it would continue in effect in relation to the death which is unaffected by the Lord Advocate’s order. Where the suspension ends with the review being revived (as opposed to the Lord Advocate ordering its discontinuation), another notice may be issued reviving the duty to provide information. No equivalent provision is made in respect of cases where the Lord Advocate orders the discontinuation of review proceedings, as in such cases there would no longer be functions under this Part for which the information was required.
Interpretation Conduct of reviews Section 26 – Provision of information