Long-term prisoner release process: consultation

Our proposal

Overview

52. We are considering extending the period which some long-term prisoners must spend in the community before the end of their sentence from 6 months to one third of the sentence length (i.e. release following two thirds of sentence). This would be the same as currently applies in relation to those sentenced before 1 February 2016, however it will not apply to extended sentence prisoners.

53. Other aspects of the release process (as described above) including the existing exclusions for those who have extended sentences or who have been sentenced in relation to terrorist offences, conditions of licence, and information available to victims, would remain as they are at present. Those released on non-parole licence would still be subject to being recalled to prison if they breach the terms of their licence.

54. It is our intention that this change would apply retroactively to all those sentenced on or after 1 February 2016, as well as to all those sentenced in future, resulting in an immediate release of some prisoners and a sustained reduction of around 3.5-4.1% of the prison population. As an illustration, if the policy had been brought into force on 31 May 2024, around 320 people would have been released on non-parole licence immediately.

55. Further detail on certain aspects of this proposal are set out below.

Rationale

56. The rising prison population requires us to consider the drivers and actions we can take to mitigate and address it, in the short, medium and longer term. Reviewing the point of release for long-term prisoners (given the significant impact as noted above) is a key component of that. There are, however, a number of other factors that support reviewing the changes that were made by the Prisoners (Control of Release) (Scotland) Act 2015.

57. International evidence shows that imprisonment can have damaging effects through weakening social ties, creating stigma, adversely impacting on employability and housing stability, and ultimately can increase the likelihood of reoffending.^[16] Therefore, to ensure greater chance of success in reducing reoffending and making communities safer, we must consider how those who will be leaving prison could be supported to reintegrate into our communities. There is evidence to suggest that supervision in the community can help people to reintegrate and reduce reoffending.^[17]

58. This is in line with the Scottish Government’s Vision for Justice and National Strategy for Community Justice, which aims to support rehabilitation and encourage the use of custody only where there is no alternative. Public and victim safety is an absolute priority, with the aim of reducing crime and reoffending, leading to fewer victims in future.

59. There are a number of reasons why someone will have reached the end of their sentence without being recommended for parole. However, these are often more complex cases that could benefit from additional time subject to support and supervision in the community, before the end of their sentence. A longer period of time in the community can allow for a person to be more effectively tested and monitored to address certain identified risks. Additional time may also help to better support their successful reintegration and reduce their risk of future reoffending, in line with the aims of the Vision for Justice.^[18]

60. Moreover, the rising proportion of prisoners serving long-term sentences has contributed to increasing demand for progression opportunities, including temporary release and offending behaviour programmes. This may put some long-term prisoners at a disadvantage in preparing for and demonstrating their suitability for release on parole. Offending behaviour programmes can be completed in the community as part of conditions of non-parole licence.

Proportionate approach to release point

61. We are proposing that the point at which an individual must be released on non-parole licence should be proportionate to their sentence length, rather than a fixed period as at present. The same proportion would apply to all eligible prisoners. This is because those who have spent longer periods of time in custody may require more intensive support to reintegrate into the community, whereas those in custody for a short period may readjust more quickly.

Point of release

62. In the context of current prison population pressures it is essential that the approach taken sufficiently reduces the prison population and can be implemented quickly. As discussed above, the approach should also aim to improve the support for reintegration which is provided to long-term prisoners and continue to centre public and victims safety in decision making. We consider a proportionate approach would have a sustained impact on the prison population.

63. Looking at all of the factors, our preferred approach is to return to the position that most long-term prisoners must serve at least one third of their sentence in the community. This means release on non-parole licence will follow two thirds of the sentence. This position has the advantage that it is consistent with the approach that currently applies to prisoners sentenced before 1 February 2016.

64. We welcome suggestions of alternative approaches in response to this consultation. Any approach would need to be assessed against the factors set out above.

Eligible cohort

65. Our position is that the new point of release should apply retroactively to long-term prisoners with sentences imposed on or after 1 February 2016. This retroactive application will result in an immediate reduction in the prison population once the provision comes into full effect, relieving pressure on the prison estate. Implementation and associated planning would be carefully considered.

66. It is proposed the statutory exclusions continue to apply to extended sentence prisoners and prisoners sentenced in relation to certain terrorism related offences as set out within the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993.

Conditions of licence

67. Release on licence would be subject to the same conditions as currently within the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993, including those conditions as recommended by the Parole Board.

Victim information

68. Victims registered with the VNS would be notified of the date of release for the person who committed the offence against them. The right to provide written representations to the Parole Board which inform licence conditions would also remain.

Ability to make further changes to release point

69. As a result of the changes made by the Prisoners (Control of Release) (Scotland) Act 2015, primary legislation is required in order to make the changes proposed in this consultation. Before this Act, Scottish Ministers had the ability to amend the point of release on non-parole licence via secondary legislation (subject to parliamentary approval).

70. If the proposed changes are made, we intend to ensure that the point of release for non-parole licence and associated exclusions can be further amended by secondary legislation, allowing this to be altered more easily in future should this be required. Crucially, this would enable the operation of any new point of release to be kept under active review should circumstances change or should new evidence emerge, including as a result of the planned review of sentencing and penal policy.

Illustrative examples

71. To illustrate the above proposal the following examples are provided, which demonstrate differences between the current release process and what is proposed. In all of the examples below, parole qualifying date (PQD) is the halfway point of the overall sentence.

Person A was sentenced to 12 years in custody in 2015 (i.e. before the previous changes were made to release arrangements) and was not recommended for release on parole at their PQD or subsequent review.

Currently person A would be:

• released on non-parole licence following 8 years in custody;
• subject to licence conditions as recommended by the Parole Board;
• subject to supervision in the community for 4 years.

Under the proposal:

• There would be no change.

Person B was sentenced to 9 years in custody in March 2016 and was not recommended for release on parole at their PQD or subsequent review.

Currently person B would be:

• released on non-parole licence following 8 years and 6 months in custody;
• subject to licence conditions as recommended by the Parole Board;
• subject to supervision in the community for 6 months.

Under the proposal person B would be:

• released on non-parole licence following 6 years in custody;
• subject to licence conditions as recommended by the Parole Board;
• subject to supervision in the community for 3 years.

If person B is then recalled to custody 4 months following release on non-parole licence.

Currently person B would:

• return to custody for 2 months; and,
• be released at the end of their sentence without any licence conditions or supervision.

Under the proposal person B would:

• return to custody for 2 years and 8 months; and,
• be released at the end of their sentence without any licence conditions or supervision

Person C was sentenced to 9 years in custody in March 2016 and was recommended for parole at their PQD.

Currently person C would be:

• released on parole licence following 4 years and 6 months in custody;
• subject to licence conditions as recommended by the Parole Board;
• subject to supervision in the community for 4 years and 6 months.

Under the proposal:

• There would be no change.

If person C is recalled to custody 4 months following release on parole licence

Currently person C would:

• return to custody with their parole decision reviewed annually;
• if not recommended for parole following recall, they would serve the remaining 4 year and 2 months in custody;
• be released at the end of their sentence without conditions or supervision.

Under the proposal:

• There would be no change.