Justice Social Work Reports and Court-based Justice Social Work Services - Practice Guidance

5. Specific Areas for Consideration

5.1 Women in the Justice System

Since the Angiolini report, Commission on Women Offenders Final Report was published in 2012, services for women within the justice system have been developed to address their needs in a more holistic way. Many areas now have specialist Women’s Justice Teams often involving a multi-disciplinary approach co-locating with colleagues from mental health, addictions services and the third sector. It is recognised that women within the justice system often have a background of trauma involving loss, abuse, poor mental and physical health and addiction issues. It is those factors that can underlie their involvement in the justice system with violent or acquisitive offences being common. There is also recent research: The lifetime prevalence of hospitalised head injury in Scottish prisons: A population study | PLOS ONE noting a high number of women with acquired brain injury within custodial settings often as a result of experiencing head injury in domestic abuse situations.

Report writers therefore need to keep these factors at the forefront of their thinking when meeting with women to complete a JSWR. Questions should be tailored to gather as much information as possible about the woman’s background, whilst being aware of the potential sensitivity of the situation. This will enable an assessment to be made regarding the circumstances surrounding the index offence and whether there is scope for supports to be made available that could mitigate against further offending.

The complex nature of the trauma experienced by women involved in the justice system often results in them displaying trauma symptoms. It is not uncommon for people who have experienced a number of traumatic events to struggle with emotional dysregulation and re-experiencing of trauma in the form of flashbacks and nightmares. This can mean that they can present as overwhelmed and struggling with coping strategies for day-to-day living leading the social worker compiling the court report to feel disempowered in terms of how to address the issues being presented. However, it is suggested that specialised reports (i.e. a psychiatric or psychological report) should only be sought if it is if it is clear that the woman is experiencing acute mental health issues or psychological distress which has a direct bearing on the court case.

Further Information which may be useful for consideration can be found at:

• Equally Safe- Scotland’s strategy for preventing and eradicating violence against women and girls
• Safer. Scot – signposts to support for individuals/ practitioners on areas of violence against women- including domestic abuse and commercial sexual exploitation.

5.2 Children and Young People in the Justice System

For clarity, the word ‘children’ legally refers to anyone under the age of 18, as dictated by the UNCRC (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024, and the Children (Care & Justice) (Scotland) Act (2024). The term ‘young people’, whilst not legally determined, is generally applied to those aged 18 to 25, given the unique developmental stage they occupy, as evidenced by the Sentencing Young People Guideline and accompanying literature review, The development of cognitive and emotional maturity in adolescents and its relevance in judicial contexts, which are discussed below.

The guidance in this section should therefore be followed by Social Workers when they are compiling a JSWR report for anyone under the age of 26. Whilst there are certain specific considerations which only legally apply to under 18s, the contained good practice principles may be extended beyond this age.

The social worker will need to be mindful that the child may, in addition to having committed an offence, experience other forms of vulnerability or victimisation, and the National Guidance for Child Protection in Scotland may need to be followed.

Children and Young People in Conflict with the Law Children and young people who come into conflict with the law are often the most victimised, traumatised and vulnerable, with a high correlation between their experiencing unmet needs and welfare concerns as children and displaying behaviours bringing them into conflict with the law in adolescence and adulthood. Amongst other key resources, more information can be found in the Children and Young People's Centre for Justice’s annual Practice Guide, which covers the key areas of importance for youth justice in Scotland.

Tackling the causes and impact of harmful behaviours through addressing the wider needs of children and young people, and keeping them out of formal justice systems, wherever possible, is a key objective of the Scottish Government’s Justice for children and young people vision and priorities 2024-26, and the Whole system approach (WSA) to youth offending in Scotland.

The WSA is grounded in the Getting it right for every child (GIRFEC) approach, a developmentally informed rights-based approach, which must underpin all work with children in Scotland. It is recommended that where possible and practical that application of the WSA is extended up to age 25.

The majority of children who are charged with an offence will have these dealt with via Early and Effective Intervention (EEI), under the WSA, or via offence grounds sent to the Children’s Hearing System (CHS), with only some older children and those charged with more serious offences going through court. Reports for children for the CHS or court should be completed by practitioners who have undergone the relevant risk assessment training as they will require to take a holistic, developmental, trauma and systems informed approach to establish whether there are other relevant factors for consideration that could impact on the child’s capacity to engage with interventions.

Depending on the service structure, these practitioners may be located in Children’s Services, Adult Justice Social Work or specialist teams such as Youth Justice or Throughcare/ Aftercare. Practitioners completing JSWRs for children must be familiar with and incorporate the principles of GIRFEC into their assessment and disposal considerations for children.

Children’s Rights As well as being human rights holders, children are protected by additional, child specific, rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), rights to which all children are entitled, regardless of their circumstances.

The UNCRC contains 54 articles, the first 42 holding practical significance for children, which should be considered in related decisions about them. The UNCRC is now incorporated into Scot’s law under the UNCRC (Incorporation)(Scotland) Act 2024 affirming the legal obligation of the Scottish Government to incorporate the UNCRC, setting out related provisions to ensure compliance, as-well as providing potential recourse to legal remedy for rights breaches.

It is therefore essential anyone completing a JSWR for a child is familiar with the UNCRC and their related obligations. Key articles to consider are now discussed:

Article 3 the ‘Best Interests of the Child’ provides that the child’s best interests are a consideration in every decision affecting them. This requires an individualised response to each child, through obtaining key information about the child and their circumstances, and crucially their views, which are particularly important when evaluating disposal options.

Article 12 ‘Respect for the Views of the Child’ requires for the child’s views to be considered in every decision impacting them. There is a natural power imbalance between adults and children, and more so with adult professionals and children. To truly obtain a child’s views involves time to get to know them and make them feel comfortable, as well as providing them with information about justice processes, outcomes, and possible consequences. This will involve adapting procedural and legalistic language to a format the child understands and checking their comprehension: children and young people in conflict with the law may say what they think adults want them to say or say they understand something they don’t. It will therefore require spending longer with them to gain a sense of their views and capacities than may be typical when compiling a report for an adult.

The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists have online training The Box offering guidance for help communicating with those in the justice system, who disproportionately have speech, language and communication needs (SLCNs). Those preparing JSWRs should have an awareness of SLCNs and often associated neurodevelopmental conditions, traits of which are individualised and impact a person’s comprehension and expression, with clear implications for their understanding of their behaviours, justice processes, and ability to comply with disposals.

Article 5 ‘Parental Guidance and a Child’s Evolving Capacities’ highlights the need and right for children to have parental guidance to help them understand and make decisions, on account of their evolving capacities. This can be provided by a supportive adult other than a parent and reflects the fact that children are not fully autonomous, and so require guidance to make informed decisions, and support to manage situations emotionally.

JSWR requests are likely to be for older children, who are more autonomous, but retain this right. Children and young people by virtue of age are less likely to live in environments which they can control, meaning the views of the householder or carer must inform the suitability of possible sentencing options, and assessment must consider how external factors out-with the control of the child or young person may impact their ability to comply with certain disposals and conditions these may entail. The same is true for many young people, who may still live with family, live at home or in tenancies that are not their own.

Ideally a home visit should be carried out with any child or young person to ascertain their home circumstances, any barriers or enablers to compliance, and any wellbeing concerns, which may require a response under Child or Adult Protection. However, if the child advises that they do not wish those they are living with to know of their conflict with the law, and the level/ nature of risk is such that this is not assessed as needing to be shared, then this must be considered when thinking about a home visit. Their views must be balanced with their right to privacy, their evolving capacities, but also parental responsibilities and their right to parental guidance, and risk to self and others of a child, or indeed young person, being compelled to comply with conditions not in their best interests. Where information cannot be fully assessed in relation to the home environment this should be highlighted within the JSWR.

Article 40 ‘Child-friendly Justice’ states that:

“Parties shall seek to promote the establishment of laws, procedures, authorities and institutions specifically applicable to children alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law.”

There must be a different approach to children in conflict with the law than there is to adults, which is why the vast majority of children in conflict with the law in Scotland are dealt with via Early and Effective Intervention (EEI) or the Children's Hearing System (CHS), and why there are legal protections for children appearing in the adult justice system via the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016 and the Children (Care & Justice) Act 2024.

The increased scope of children’s remittals to the CHS for advice and disposal, when the latter legislation is fully commenced (currently planned for 2027), are options which should be considered in any JSWR for a child. Children appearing in court retain the right to child-specific justice, necessitating a different approach to the assessment process informing the JSWR, particularly in relation to disposals, given a child’s right under Article 40 to be treated in a way which takes into account their age and the desirability of promoting their reintegration and assuming a constructive role in society.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child also issues guidance on specific children’s rights issues, known as General Comments (current list). General Comment 24: Children’s Rights in the Justice System (United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment 24, 2019) provides further interpretation of Article 40. It recommends extension of the protections of the child justice system beyond the age of 18, to include children who were below the age of 18 at the time of the commission of the offence but who turn 18 during the trial or sentencing process (paragraph 31). It also commends countries that extend their child justice system to those aged 18 and older, as this is in keeping with developmental and neuroscience evidence showing that brain development continues into the early twenties (paragraph 32). As such, considerations under Article 40 can be applied to young people who require a JSWR.

General Comment 24 also highlights:

“Children with developmental delays or neurodevelopmental disorders or disabilities (for example, autism spectrum disorders, fetal alcohol spectrum disorders or acquired brain injuries) should not be in the child justice system at all, even if they have reached the minimum age of criminal responsibility. If not automatically excluded, such children should be individually assessed.” (paragraph 28)

Discussion and assessment of any neurodivergent traits or diagnoses, and how these impact a child’s developmental profile should also be a feature of developmentally informed assessment, crucial to assessment of maturity and culpability which must inform sentencing considerations, as discussed in the Sentencing Guideline section below.

Criminal Exploitation of Children (CEC) When working with children and young people it is important to be alert to signs of exploitation, which could require a Child or Adult Protection Response, and impact assessment of culpability and sentencing options, as discussed below. Victims of exploitation may not recognise it, and/ or be too afraid to say what is happening. Children must be responded to in a relational way to develop trust and open up about their experiences, which can take time. The Criminal Exploitation of Children: Scotland’s Framework for Practice launched in 2025 by CYCJ and Action for Children provides guidance and practical tools for effectively working with children and is recommended reading for anyone completing JSWRs for children.

Young People’s Sentencing Guideline The ‘Sentencing Young People’ guideline was introduced in 2022. It applies to anyone aged under 25 years old on date on conviction. The guideline requires the sentencer to have particular regard to the maturity of the young person at the time of the commission of the offence/s, and their current capacity for rehabilitation. The guideline was developed from an extensive literature review, which drew on scientific evidence that the executive functions of a young person’s brain are not typically fully developed until their mid-twenties at the earliest. Indeed, it highlighted that adolescent males in particular are very susceptible to behave in a manner that is short-term, high-reward, and peer influenced. This is further impacted by factors such as brain injury, childhood trauma and neurodevelopmental issues – all of which tend to be prevalent amongst young people in conflict with the law.

It is therefore important that the JSWR should not only reference the applicability of the guideline where relevant but also contain information that supports the sentencer to fully apply the guidelines. The guidelines helpfully summarise the key areas for consideration when assessing maturity (i.e. culpability), which include:

• Addiction
• Physical and mental health
• Speech, language, and communication needs
• Trauma and adverse childhood experiences
• the living environment, including whether the young person is or has been in care
• whether any proposed sentence is likely to be effectively implemented; and what steps can be taken to increase the likelihood of effective implementation

It is essential that the JSWR contains clear and evidenced information covering all of the above factors. There are no currently validated maturity assessment tools in use in Scotland, so a structured professional judgement approach is required. As much as possible this should be drawn from multiple credible sources including children and families social work records, health, education and residential care services where applicable.

The guideline states that ‘the nature and duration of a sentence imposed on a young person should be different’ when compared with an adult. It emphasises that rehabilitation should be a primary consideration based on a young person’s greater capacity for change. The court must consider whether any sentence:

• can be structured in such a way as to enable the young person to comply with it
• will reduce the likelihood of further offending
• will give the young person the opportunity to understand the consequences of their offending behaviour
• will address the underlying causes of that behaviour
• will reduce the likelihood of the young person being stigmatised
• will assist in developing or maintaining positive relationships

Practitioners should use the above checklist when assessing the impact of any sentencing option, drawing on the previously assessed level of maturity, but applying this to the present day and to what extent this could influence the success or otherwise of promoting rehabilitation.

It is helpful to note here that due to the impact of developmental factors on ability to adhere to community orders, a Structured Deferred Sentence (SDS), where appropriate, remains the preferred option for most children and young people appearing before the court for sentencing, as detailed in the Youth Court Blueprint . SDS consideration should therefore be promoted by Social Work when considering disposals in the JSWR. This period of supported deferment is an opportunity for an individual to develop abilities to comply with a more structured order, or evidence positive engagement and change to avoid more intrusive disposal options, prior to final sentencing.

Age-Appropriate Risk Assessment Assessments in respect of offending behaviour should include a structured risk assessment using recognised tools and other specialist structured risk assessments as appropriate. Risk assessments accredited for use for adults or young people over 18 are not appropriate for use with children. The LSIR can be used for 16 and 17 year olds at report writing stage but there has been a move towards a structured professional judgement (SPJ) approach in recent years. It is recommended that, wherever possible, practitioners who have had the appropriate training and work with children and some young people should utilise the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START: AV) in the majority of cases where criteria are met.

The START-AV is intended for use for 12–18-year-olds, although may be used for 19-year-olds who have a developmental disability, and/ or lives with caregivers and attend high school, given it measures components such as care-giver support and supervision. START-AV aims to understand each adolescent’s likelihood of experiencing adverse outcomes including harm to others, or to themselves, in addition to a wider range of concerns by identifying critical vulnerabilities and key strengths, essentially factors that can be treated and developed are prioritised over static risk.

Regardless of which risk assessment approach is adopted, the completed assessment should highlight which vulnerabilities accelerate exposure to risk, and which strengths can ameliorate this. The attendance at court of the known worker with the child or young person can ensure they are available, if required, to explain any relevant points in the assessment which will assist the court in disposal of the case.

There may be merit in using more than one risk assessment for a child or young person. An example may be when it is necessary to assess risk of offending generally but also conduct more specialist risk assessment pertaining a specific type of offence to better inform risk management and appropriate interventions to promote positive behavioural change. As a noted basis of the full assessment, reference to content of risk assessments is not limited to the Section 8 ‘Analysis of Risk Assessment’ (and subsections on pattern, nature, seriousness, and likelihood). Whilst these subheadings are associated with FRAME, it is important to translate relevant content gained from any other risk assessment used for inclusion under these headings to provide a familiar, consistent, and comparable format for the court. Additionally, relevant data from any risk assessment, as well as other sources, should be threaded through the content of the wider JSWR to provide a holistic assessment of the subject.

Should a child aged 16 and 17 be remanded or sentenced to a period of custody, they will be held in secure care. Decisions about where a child is placed should take full account of their needs and circumstances, with secure care being the most appropriate therapeutic and trauma informed environment should community-based alternatives be exhausted (The Promise, 2020). Information regarding the process of sharing reports and other relevant information, alongside review timescales when a child/young person is remanded or receives a custodial sentence is located here.

5.3 Mental Health in the Justice System

Many people involved in the justice system experience mental health issues. For example, the Mental Welfare Commission found in 2022 that 76% of people in prison had a history of mental ill health which was identified at reception screening. 60% had been receiving support for mental illness before arriving in prison. PrisonReport-April2022.pdf (mwcscot.org.uk).

This can be wide ranging and cover anything from acute emotional distress to diagnosed mental illness, learning disabilities to neuro-divergent conditions and often undiagnosed personality disorder. Given the broad range of potential issues presented, this can lead to heightened concerns from the court in terms of how best to support people whilst also addressing the behaviours which have led to the court appearance.

The role of the JSWR is crucial in highlighting concerns and offering suggestions on how best to address these. The main source of information to assist in sentencing for the court is the JSWR which has three main purposes in cases involving mental health or welfare issues:

• to address the extent to which mental health issues may be a treated as a mitigating factor in the sentencing process (based on the level of insight that the person had when they committed the offence, and therefore their level of culpability);
• to assess the likelihood and impact of further offending, and the risk of harm being caused to others or to themselves; and
• to suggest a plan involving relevant health professionals that could address the person’s mental health needs.

The JSWR should review potential disposals, consider the role of social work intervention and outline the available resources for the implementation of any disposals.

It is recognised that availability of resources can be an issue but that should not prevent social work staff based in courts or preparing court reports from highlighting a need and identifying what could be done to address this.

If, in the course of meeting to gather information for a court report, it appears to the report writer that a specialised report addressing particular issues identified would be beneficial then this should be highlighted. For example, if it is clear that the person is experiencing acute mental health issues or psychological distress which has a direct bearing on the court case then this should be brought to the court’s attention and a deferment sought for psychiatric or psychological reports to be obtained. It would be helpful to the court if the report writer identified which would be most beneficial or if both are required.

However, this should be weighed up in terms of the value that this would bring to the sentencing process. The report writer needs to consider the potential impact for the person of having their case further deferred often for several weeks until the required report can be obtained and having to recount distressing life events again with no discernible impact on the eventual court outcome.

In some areas, courts have access to forensic community mental health teams or specialist health staff which enables assessment and support to be accessed more readily. Justice social work staff should have access to a mental health officer (MHO) within their local authority if not within their specific service. These social workers have specialist knowledge of mental illness, the law in relation to mental health and criminal proceedings and local resources that could be utilised to ensure the person is best supported. It may be that a discussion with the duty MHO regarding the specific issues or concerns about the person would assist the justice worker when considering information to share with the court regarding possible disposal of the case.

In order to address both the needs of the court and the person appearing, justice social work staff have a pivotal role in providing advice and assistance. Court based staff can ensure that they meet with the person and offer any immediate support or practical assistance. Report writers can identify any supports that could be put into place as part of community supervision. It is recognised that the mental health treatment requirement of a Community Payback Order is not commonly used and mental health disposals such as Guardianship or Compulsion Orders are relatively rare in day to day court proceedings. However, social workers compiling JSWRs should consider whether a mental health disposal may be appropriate to consider and take advice accordingly.

When someone is acquitted of an offence on the grounds of lack of criminal responsibility - or is found unfit for trial and an examination of facts decides that the person committed the offence - the court may make a supervision and treatment order. Such an order can only be imposed after a partial acquittal (i.e. a finding that a person is unfit to stand trial or not guilty by reason of mental disorder). A supervision and treatment order requires a person to accept supervision from a social worker and submit to medical treatment. There are no sanctions for non-compliance. This order cannot be made if it would be appropriate to impose a compulsion order. As such, this is clearly to be seen as a lesser intervention than a compulsion order.

It is crucial that when cases involving a mental health issue arise, justice social work staff link in with health colleagues to seek advice. This will help to ensure the best outcome for the court and the person who is appearing, to ensure they are better supported to access appropriate treatment and reduce risks of further offending and promote victim safety.

5.4 Hate Crime

Hate crime is ‘a crime motivated by malice or ill will towards a social group’, with five current protected characteristics in Scotland:

• Race
• Religion
• Sexual orientation
• Disability
• Transgender identity(which at present includes protection for those with variations in sex characteristics).

Any offence type can feature an aggravation in relation to one or more of the above protected characteristics, for example ‘Assault to Injury (aggravated: sexual orientation)’. Section 50A of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 provides for the offence of ‘racially aggravated harassment’. Sections 18, 19 and 23(1)(a) of the Public Order Act 1980 and section 96 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 also cover racially aggravated harassment and behaviour.

Report authors should note any specific pattern of these types of offences, and potential risk factors when considering Likelihood. These may include:

A distorted idea about the victim and perceived differences

This might involve placing responsibility on the victim for the offence(s) and making counter-accusations or a distorted sense of having been ‘provoked’ into the behaviour. An absence of victim empathy – failing to accept or acknowledge the realities of victims’ experiences or the consequences of their own actions and minimising their actions. A tendency to dehumanise victims in order to justify the offending.

Conflict with a poor sense of their own identity

The person may resent the perceived stronger identity of other cultures (this may also be in relation to the erosion of traditional notions of ‘masculinity’ and linked with homophobic or transphobic hate crime). This is potentially linked to feelings of shame relating to their own self-esteem and position in the world.

A perception of ‘territorial invasion’/a sense of entitlement and alienation

Being unable to accept the realities of multi-culturalism, feeling that the presence of other cultures detracts from their own. They might draw on social support in their own communities for prejudiced attitudes and stereotypical views. They relate to ideas of superior and inferior ‘ingroups’ and ‘outgroups’, and notions that resources of ways of life are under ‘threat’ due to ‘outgroups’.

Thinking styles

For example rigid thinking; not being able to differentiate between fact and myth; absorbing racial or other prejudicial myths without question. They might be easily influenced by the media and/or the internet/social media.

A predisposition to resort to violence as a means of conflict resolution

They might have previous convictions for violence. Many offences associated with this type of offending involve conflict or the use of violence; the prejudice element of the offence is often not the single motivating factor.

Additional factors to consider

• Being a victim of discrimination themselves (may contribute to a distorted worldview);
• Peer influences;
• Experiences of loss or bereavement;
• Mental health difficulties and/or neurodivergent conditions or traits;
• Disability hate crime – offence(s) may involve exploitation and/or differential motivations;
• Affiliation with far right/extremist groups – consider a referral to Prevent.

Given the specific types of harm caused by hate crime, it is suggested that the following paragraph is included in the ‘Seriousness’ section of the report:

“Offences motivated by prejudice can be particularly harmful to victims and communities due to the targeting of a core aspect of the person’s identity. Emotional and psychological trauma can be heightened, and vicarious trauma can be experienced by those who have the same identity characteristics as the victim, such as family members or the wider community.”

5.5 Cases where serious harm has been caused

Writing court reports where the person has caused serious harm to others can be some of the most challenging for social workers. The Risk Management Authority (RMA) definition of serious harm is defined as:

“the likelihood of harmful behaviour of a violent or sexual nature, which is life threatening and/or traumatic, and from which recovery, whether physical or psychological, may reasonably be expected to be difficult or impossible"

In cases involving sexual abuse, domestic abuse or loss of life, social workers need to be able to separate the person’s actions from the process of gathering and assessing the required information to complete a report to assist with sentencing.

This requires significant skill in report writing and consideration should be given when allocating a piece of work such as this to the level of experience required to undertake these more complex court reports. Social workers need to be appropriately trained in the relevant risk assessment tools and feel confident in their abilities to present comprehensive risk assessment information. This will include a view of the ongoing risk to others balanced with a picture of the person’s life in the lead up to the commission of the offence(s) to best assist the court to reach a decision on disposal.

It is recognised that these reports can take longer to compile given the need for more detailed risk assessments and verification of information and this should be a consideration when allocating the report. These more complex reports require significant enquiry skills as social workers seek information from a variety of sources in addition to interviewing the person. Best practice would suggest that a minimum of two interviews should be undertaken where resources permit; one of which should be a home visit if the person is at liberty in accordance with local lone working procedures.

If a custodial sentence appears to be inevitable, given the severity of the offence, there needs to be consideration given to post release supervision and what that may look like. A proposed management plan should be presented within the review of relevant sentencing options to include measures to protect the victim during the sentence and on the person’s release. This is particularly important in cases involving domestic abuse, stalking, rape and sexual assault, forced marriage and honour-based abuse.

In cases involving domestic abuse the local authority areas that have information sharing protocols in place with Police Scotland will be able to request information which can assist to build a picture of non-convicted behaviours. In addition, if children are involved, the social worker compiling the JSWR should check that a referral has been made to the Children’s Services Team and liaise with their social work colleagues regarding any child protection actions taken or required.

This information and any follow up actions taken by Children’s Services colleagues will be documented within social work records and therefore accessible to the social worker completing the JSWR. In areas that have access to the Caledonian System the allocated women’s worker and/or children’s worker will be in a position to offer the social worker compiling the court report an invaluable perspective of the victim’s views.

In addition, some areas have criminal court based advocacy services. These hold information about victims of domestic abuse that would be extremely useful to be aware of when considering patterns of behaviour. It is suggested that in these areas contact be made with the court advocacy worker prior to meeting the person for their court report interview. This would provide an opportunity to gain a context and background to the offence from the victim’s perspective. This contact would also enable the social worker to consider information from the advocacy service of the victim’s views on the imposition of a non-harassment order which can be taken into account when presenting their professional view on sentencing options in the court report. It should be noted however that information should not be sourced to the victim or the court advocacy service.

Contact can also be made with specialist organisations supporting victims of domestic abuse if these details are known and the organisation has the person’s permission to disclose information. Having information on the impact of the offending on the victim, any history of abuse, impact on children, safety issues and concerns, patterns and nature of the abuse and information about the victim’s experience can become an integral part of the risk assessment. Again, that information should not be sourced to the victim or the support service.

Obtaining information from various sources will enable the social worker to provide information in the court report on patterns of behaviour and/or coercive control: What is domestic abuse? | Scottish Women's Aid (womensaid.scot). This information is crucial in enabling comprehensive risk assessments to be undertaken and effective case management plans for those that perpetrated the offence and safety plans for victims that can be implemented.

As noted previously, caution is required as to how information that could be sourced to the victim is presented to the court. Consideration can be given, if the case has been discussed at MARAC (Marac in Scotland | Safelives) or within a child protection case conference for example, to refer to information as having….’been obtained following a multi-agency meeting’ or stating that.. ‘information has come from departmental records.’ It should only be noted in those broad terms rather than stating the name of the meeting the information has come from to avoid presenting a service generated risk to the victim.

If the person has been convicted of sexual offences and been made subject to notification requirements, often referred to as the 'sex offender register' this blog from the Scottish Sentencing Council may be of interest Sex offenders register explained (scottishsentencingcouncil.org.uk) to provide a more detailed explanation of how it works in practice. In these cases, there will already be involvement from the Police Scotland specialist sex offender unit within the local division. It would therefore be expected that the social worker compiling the JSWR would liaise with police colleagues to gather information prior to interviewing the person. The social worker should make it clear during the court report interview with the person that there will be ongoing liaison with the local police unit that monitors those subject to notification requirements.

Where resources permit, a joint meeting with the police to discuss respective roles and potential disposals would be beneficial. As a minimum, it would be expected that there would be contact via a telephone call between police and JSW whilst the case has been adjourned for preparation of the justice social work report.

If the sexual abuse has involved a child victim or the victim or perpetrator has contact with children there will have been measures taken by Children’s Social Work services in order to ensure their safety and that of any other children who may have ongoing contact with the person. It is therefore crucial that the social worker compiling the justice social work report is able to access information on the current situation with the child(ren) and liaise with other professionals involved. This will ensure that the risk assessment is as comprehensive as possible and if a community based supervision plan is proposed it takes into account any ongoing safeguarding issues relating to child contact. Consideration should be given to specific requirements attached to a licence or Community Payback Order to curtail any potential victim access. S21 of the Criminal Justice(Scot)Act 2003 provides that the trial judges report following a finding of guilt or the transcript of the case when there has been a guilty plea be provided to the local authority preparing the JSWR. This will provide additional context to assist the social worker when undertaking the relevant risk assessments and considering suitability for community based supervision

Given the complexity of these reports and the subject matter, it is important that the social worker has support and guidance from experienced practitioners both during the assessment process and also to review the report content prior to submission. The opportunity to de-brief and reflect should be offered as part of one to one supervision sessions and learning shared with colleagues as appropriate.

5.6 Indecent Images of Children (IIOC)

The use of online technology is a defining feature of modern society, with the majority of the global population now able to access to the internet^[1]. The evolution of the internet has influenced the nature of offending behaviour, as the online environment provides a means to commit offences such as accessing and sharing indecent images of children (IIOC)^[2]. Those who commit IIOC offences have been described as an overlapping yet distinct population from those who commit contact sexual offences^[3]. There are also people who commit both IIOC offences and contact sexual offences who have been referred to in the literature as ‘mixed offenders’ or ‘dual offenders’. It’s been found that those who commit IIOC offences are different to those who commit contact sexual offences and those who commit mixed offences (IIOC and contact)^[4]. Whilst those who commit IIOC offences have been found to be predominantly male, females may also engage in such offences^[5]. Research indicates that the motivations and risk factors for females who commit sexual offences differ from those of their male counterparts^[6]. As such, it has been suggested that the findings of research conducted with males, may not be directly applicable to females^[7]. Currently, there is limited research on females in this context, and therefore the research which informs this guidance focuses on adult males convicted of IIOC offences. The role of women who commit IIOC offences is not yet fully understood though this will advance with research^[8].

To assess risk, assessments must consider the factors known to be pertinent to this population which are detailed below. The analysis from the assessment should explore the role and function of the identified risk factors, providing an understanding of their contribution to offending behaviour and its potential nature, in order to determine the likelihood and impact of any future offending.

Key risk factors

Research indicates that sexual interest in children is of a higher prevalence amongst people convicted of IIOC offences in comparison to those convicted of contact sexual offences^[9]. Evidence also suggests that prevalence of sexual interest in children increases further when a person has both IIOC and contact offending^[10]. A concern for social workers may be that a person with a sexual interest in children will commit another sexual offence. However evidence indicates that recidivism rates for those who commit IIOC offences are lower than those found for other types of sexual offences^[11]. If they do re-offend, it tends to be with a further IIOC offence although some people may commit other types of offences including contact sexual offences^[12].

A specific consideration as part of the assessment will be the likelihood of future offences and the nature of such. Current research does not support the hypothesis that IIOC offences are a gateway to contact sexual offences^[13]. However there are people who will commit both IIOC offences and contact sexual offences and there are distinct risk factors that may increase the likelihood of a person moving from IIOC offences to contact sexual offences, which therefore merit specific consideration and analysis during the assessment process.

Research indicates that the key risk factors that need to be considered and analysed include:

• sexual interest in children (paedophilia/ hebephilia)
• antisociality
• access to children
• whether there are barriers to acting on deviant impulses^[14]

Whilst research has found that sexual interest in children may be a factor relevant for many people convicted of IIOC offences, the assessment of this can be challenging^[15]. People may be unwilling to disclose their sexual interests and may engage in denial or minimisation which is often present during the pre-sentence stage^[16]. Additionally, it’s not common for people to have a formal diagnosis. Sexual interest in children may be referred to as paedophilia (sexual preference for prepubescent children) or hebephilia (sexual preference for pubescent children)^[17][18]. Without a disclosure or a diagnosis, social workers need to consider other information to assess the possible presence of atypical sexual interests. For example, whether the person has had age-appropriate relationships and whether there has been a sustained interest in accessing IIOC. Greater IIOC content relating to boys than girls has also been found to be associated with increased likelihood of paedophilia^[19]. The assessment of whether someone has a sexual interest in children may be supported through the application of a validated risk assessment tool. It is important to keep in mind that whilst research indicates that a sexual interest in children is more prevalent in this population, this does not mean that all people who commit this type of offence have such.

Antisociality is a well-documented risk factor in relation to offending – both generally and sexually - and it is a key risk factor in relation to the risk of someone committing a contact sexual offence^[20]. Antisociality can encompass a range of behaviours, traits and indicators that reflect a person’s disregard for others and the consequences of their actions^[21]. It is essential for social workers to identify and analyse evidence of antisociality which might be supported through the application of an appropriate risk assessment tool.

Indicators of low levels of antisociality may include:

• a limited criminal history
• demonstrated compliance with rules or conditions
• where offending has not been frequent, serious or diverse

Conversely, elevated levels of antisociality may be indicated by:

• a significant criminal history
• evidence of rule-breaking or non-compliance with conditions
• offending that has been frequent, serious or diverse

It's been found that people who commit IIOC offences tend to have less access to children and instead have greater access to the internet ^[22]. However, having access to children alongside other risk factors such as a sexual interest in children and antisociality are associated with an increased likelihood of recidivism, both in terms of IIOC and contact sexual offending^[23]. This should be considered as part of the assessment process in terms of whether those being assessed have access to children through their familial or social roles as well as through employment or voluntary roles.

Additional considerations relevant to the assessment can include characteristics or circumstances that might reduce the likelihood of a person re-offending or their offending escalating. Those who commit solely IIOC offences appear to have greater barriers to offending, for example, lower levels of antisociality^[24], greater self-control^[25] and fewer cognitive distortions^[26].

In summary, research indicates that people convicted of IIOC offences are less likely to commit contact sexual offences if they have:

• low levels of antisociality
• limited access to children
• the presence of psychological barriers^[27]

Conversely, when an assessment identifies the following, concerns regarding the person’s risk profile and the increased likelihood of a contact sexual offences would be heightened:

• elevated levels of antisociality
• sexual interest in children
• access to children
• few barriers to offending

Risk assessment tools may be used to assist in the identification of risk factors. To identify the key risk factors mentioned above, tools such as the Level of Service method (i.e the LSI-R:SV or LS/CMI) could be used alongside the SA07 to assess risk factors related to antisociality and sexual deviance. Alternatively, a tool such as the Child Pornography Offender Risk Tool (CPORT^[28]) could be used with the SA07 to assess both antisociality and sexual deviance. The use of validated tools such as these can help in the identification of risk factors which will then inform the analysis.

Analysis

The analysis should incorporate the findings of any risk assessment tools applied and situate this within a broader context of the pattern, nature, seriousness and likelihood of offending. The analysis is important in exploring the relevance and function of identified risk and protective factors in the context of the persons behaviour and risk. For instance, the prevalence of sexual interest in children is higher in those convicted of IIOC offences however the presence of both this risk factor and elevated levels of antisociality would heighten concern.

The consideration in terms of likelihood of offending should be directly informed by the key risk factors detailed in this chapter, as the presence of such factors may indicate a higher likelihood of moving from an IIOC offence to a contact offence. The JSW report author should be clear with regard to the likelihood of further offending and the nature of this. In other words, whether the person is thought likely to commit the same type of offence (IIOC) or a contact sexual offence.

Summary

Whilst the research base does not support a direct link between online sexual offences (IIOC) and contact sexual offences, a comprehensive assessment should consider both the likelihood of reoffending in a similar manner as well as any potential changes in the nature of offending (i.e. a person moving from IIOC to contact offending). The risk factors outlined in this guidance, such as antisociality, sexual interest in children, access to children and psychological barriers to offending are essential to consider as part of an analysis and will inform the conclusion of an assessment and judgements regarding the potential nature, likelihood and impact of any future offending. These considerations can help inform decision making with regard to sentencing as well as in relation to the most appropriate and proportionate risk management response.