Reform After Tragedy: Suicide, Abuse, and the Duty to See the Whole Picture

The Sunday Post has highlighted a deeply painful reality: some victims of domestic abuse go on to take their own lives. The story of Adrienne McCartney is devastating. Cases like hers force difficult questions about whether earlier intervention, stronger support, or better institutional coordination might have prevented a tragedy.

With the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Act 2025 now law, Scotland is preparing to introduce formal Domestic Abuse and Homicide Reviews. These reviews are intended to examine cases where abuse may have contributed to a death, identify systemic failures, and ensure that lessons are learned so similar tragedies are less likely to occur in the future.

In principle, that goal is neither controversial nor partisan. Understanding where systems fail — whether in policing, support services, or institutional response — is essential if policy is to improve.

But once suicide becomes part of the policy frame, a second responsibility arises alongside the first.

Scotland must ensure that these reviews reflect the full reality of harm, rather than narrowing into a single narrative about how such deaths occur.

If suicide linked to abuse is recognised as a public protection issue, then it is ultimately a human issue.

Women suffer domestic abuse. Women die. That reality must be acknowledged without qualification, and any review framework must take seriously the patterns of harm that women disproportionately experience.

But a system designed to identify risk and prevent future deaths must also recognise the full range of victims who may be affected.

Men are also victims of domestic abuse. Men also die by suicide. Some of those deaths will include histories of abuse, missed warning signs, and failures of institutional response that deserve the same careful examination.

If Domestic Abuse and Homicide Reviews are to function as genuine learning mechanisms, they must be capable of recognising every form of harm that may contribute to a death.

When public debate frames suicide after abuse almost exclusively through a single narrative of victimhood, two risks emerge:

• Services may unintentionally train themselves to look primarily for one pattern of victimisation.
• Other victims may become statistically and culturally less visible to the systems meant to protect them.

A genuinely victim-centred system should not require a person to match a cultural template before risk is taken seriously.

As the National Oversight Committee begins selecting the first cases for review this spring, several practical questions arise about how the system will operate in practice.

• How will the initial Sift Stage operate to ensure case selection is guided by evidence and clear criteria rather than by media attention or public pressure?
• How will causation be distinguished from correlation in suicide cases, particularly given the introduction of the “Suicide Contributing Factor” definition in the 2026 guidance?
• Will the review process produce transparent, anonymised findings so the public can see clearly what systemic failures look like and how institutions respond to them?
• Will review panels be equipped to identify all victims whose cases may fall outside familiar patterns, including male victims who may historically have been less visible to frontline services despite evidence of coercive control?

The Sunday Post coverage also refers to proposals sometimes described as “Demi’s Law”, which aim to strengthen the forensic response in cases where suicide occurs in the context of domestic abuse. These proposals are intended to ensure that potential evidence is not missed in circumstances where coercive control or other forms of abuse may have contributed to a death.

That objective — ensuring that investigators “see the whole picture” — is understandable. But it also raises an important question about how investigative practice should operate in complex cases.

How should investigators balance the duty to examine all possible causes of death with the presumption of innocence that underpins criminal justice?

If investigative processes begin from an assumption that a crime has occurred, there is a risk that evidence may be interpreted through a narrative rather than evaluated neutrally. The purpose of forensic investigation should always be discovery — not confirmation of a predetermined explanation.

For that reason, any expansion of investigative powers or forensic protocols should be accompanied by clear procedural safeguards. That is not a defence of abusers; it is a defence of the integrity of the justice process itself.

If Scotland widens the justice response under the pressure of tragedy, it must simultaneously protect:

• Evidential neutrality
• The presumption of innocence
• Proportionality in sentencing
• The ability of the innocent to challenge allegations

A justice system cannot protect victims by quietly weakening fairness. If it does, it risks creating a different form of injustice alongside the one it seeks to prevent.

It is possible to honour women whose lives have been lost to domestic abuse while recognising that the reality of harm can be wider than any single category of victim.

If stigma suppresses reporting for women, it is reasonable to ask whether similar pressures may also suppress reporting for men. A review system intended to learn from tragedy must remain open to recognising every form of harm that may have been overlooked.

When suicide follows abuse, the purpose of national reflection is to understand what failed and how similar deaths might be prevented in future. That reflection should therefore include every victim whose life ended following systemic failure, regardless of sex.

For review mechanisms to succeed, they must remain evidence-led rather than narrative-led. Only a system that follows the evidence wherever it leads can ensure that lessons learned are both accurate and fair.

None of this diminishes the seriousness of violence against women.

It affirms a principle.

Justice must protect the vulnerable.
It must also protect the unseen.
It must also protect the innocent.

A review framework that is truly victim-centred must centre victims as individuals, not categories.

If Scotland is serious about confronting suicide linked to abuse, it must be serious about confronting all of it.

If you’re in danger or need urgent help

• Police Scotland – Domestic abuse advice and reporting options
• Police Scotland – Contact details (999 emergency, 101 non-emergency)

If you’re a man experiencing domestic abuse in Scotland

• AMIS (Abused Men in Scotland) – Scotland’s helpline for male victims
• mygov.scot – Support for male victims of domestic abuse

If you need mental health or suicide support in Scotland

• Breathing Space – Confidential support for low mood, depression and anxiety
• Samaritans – 24/7 emotional support

If you’re a victim of crime and want support navigating the system

• Victim Support Scotland – Request support
• Police Scotland – Victim support services

Policy engagement

Readers who wish to engage with the policy debate around Domestic Abuse and Homicide Reviews may wish to contact their MSP or relevant parliamentary committees.

• Scottish Parliament – Find and contact your MSP

Questions some observers have raised include how the 2026 Statutory Guidance will ensure that all victims are recognised during the review process, and how the National Oversight Committee will protect evidential neutrality when examining deaths that police investigations have previously classified as non-suspicious.

If you want to read the Domestic Homicide & Suicide Review framework

• Scottish Government – Draft statutory guidance on Domestic Homicide & Suicide Reviews
• Healthcare Improvement Scotland – Domestic Homicide & Suicide Review standards
• Scottish Government – Domestic Homicide Review Taskforce

If you’re affected by abuse or accusation, or supporting someone who is, the links above are a starting point for support and information.