184.Where the outcome of consideration of a death under section 19 is that a review should be carried out (whether that outcome is reached by the review oversight committee or by the Scottish Ministers), section 20(1) will apply. It requires the review oversight committee, in relevant cases, to determine whether the remit of the review should be expanded to cover certain events following on from the death. The cases which are relevant for this purpose are set out in subsection (2) and are those where the death is one where persons A and B were partners or ex-partners (i.e. the scenario set out in section 12(3)(a)) and either or both of them, at the time of death, had either (a) a child who was a young person or adult at risk, or (b) another young person living in their household. In such cases, it is likely that the young person/adult at risk will have lost an adult or adults who had responsibility for their care – with the loss being either due to the person being killed or the person being imprisoned.
185.Where the review oversight committee opts to expand the remit of a review in a relevant case, subsection (3) sets out what the remit can be expanded to cover. It can be expanded to cover any or all of the following things—
	It can be expanded to cover the extent to which the young person/adult at risk was able to provide their views in relation to any decisions made by a public authority following on from the death where that decision relates to matters which directly concern their welfare and where their best interests were a primary consideration. For example, this would not cover matters such as a decision by Social Security Scotland to grant or deny an application for social security assistance (as that is based on fixed criteria, rather than on trying to always do what is best for the person regardless of any other factors), but it would cover matters such as a decision by a local authority as to a foster care placement.
	It can be expanded to cover the extent to which the young person/adult at risk has received any support the person reasonably required in order to provide those views. This support would not necessarily need to be provided by the public authority itself and could also be provided by, for example, a charity or another family member. The examination would simply be of whether there was a gap in support being provided.
	It can be expanded to cover the extent to which the young person/adult at risk received the support they reasonably needed following on from the death. This would not be limited to the support they need to provide views on decisions concerning them and is about support more generally – which might include, for example, grief counselling. It does not matter whether or not the support is of a type which a public authority would normally provide.
186.Subsection (4) states that where there is more than one young person/adult at risk, the remit of the review can be expanded in respect of any or all of them. For example, the deceased may have had two children – one who is 17 and was already living full-time with their other parent and had very little contact with the deceased, and one who was 12 and living full-time with the deceased. In such a case, the review oversight committee could, for example, opt to expand the remit of the review in respect of the 12 year-old but not consider it necessary to expand it in respect of the 17 year-old.
187.Subsection (5) provides that the expansion of the remit of a review is subject to the Lord Advocate’s consent being granted to the expansion.
188.While this section deals with the initial decision as to whether or not to expand the remit of a review to cover certain matters following the death, the remit can also be expanded (or, for that matter, contracted if it was initially expanded) later on. This is dealt with in section 22(4) and (5) – see paragraphs 198 and 199 of these Notes.
Interpretation Sift stage Section 20 – Determination as to whether to expand the remit of a review