Short-term prisoner release point: responses to targeted consultation

Response from Perth and Kinross Council

Question 1: What are your views on changing the release point for certain short-term prisoners to 30%?

Given Perth and Kinross has two prison sites within its area, we are aware of the disproportionately high prison population across the country, placing significant strain on rehabilitation efforts, prison safety, and the wider justice system. Despite measures intended to reduce the use of custody, such as the Presumption Against Short-Term Sentences, Bail with Electronic Monitoring, and recent Early Release Schemes, progress in certain areas has been limited.

Against this backdrop, automatically releasing certain short term prisoners after 30% of their sentence seems a pragmatic step. However, there is also a risk of unintended consequences where courts, seeking to retain what they consider an appropriate period of custody, may respond by imposing longer sentences. The disruption caused by even a brief custodial period, e.g. loss of housing, employment, and relationships can have a long-lasting impact that undermines rehabilitation efforts.

Experience of previous Early Release Schemes must inform the new approach, particularly the role of the Governor’s veto on decisions. This has been crucial in preventing the release of individuals who, despite meeting the eligibility criteria, pose a clear risk to themselves or others. Retaining these safeguards will be essential to ensuring credibility and protecting individuals and communities.

To make early release effective and sustainable, wider reforms must also be considered and moving beyond the current ‘presumption’ against sentences of 12 months or less. This includes expanding community based alternatives to custody and adopting a more holistic approach to Bail with Electronic Monitoring which includes community supervision and support. These measures require legislative review and investment in community-based resources in shifting from short custodial sentences towards community interventions to reduce reoffending.

Question 2: What are your views on excluding those serving sentences for domestic abuse and sexual offences?

Given the significant physical and psychological harm associated with domestic abuse and sexual offences, excluding individuals convicted of these crimes from automatic early release, is both necessary and proportionate.

It also reflects the ambitions set out in the Vision for Justice, which recognises that custody should be reserved for those who pose the greatest risk of harm and re-offending. For these individuals, remaining in custody provides a critical opportunity to address entrenched patterns of offending behaviour within a structured and supported environment. This ensures sufficient time for risk and needs assessment, intervention, and management planning which is essential for and individuals’ rehabilitation and public safety.

Question 3: What are your views on making equivalent changes for children detained in secure accommodation?

Perth and Kinross welcome the direction set within the Care and Justice (Scotland) Act 2024. The Act strengthens the role of the Children’s Hearing System in applying formal measures and ensures that, where the seriousness of an offence requires prosecution, custody must be served within secure care rather than prison. However, children in secure care frequently experience significant challenges during this transition which can have a lasting impact on their social and emotional wellbeing. Aligning their release at the proposed 30% point would support earlier, planned reintegration and help mitigate the harms associated with prolonged periods of restriction.

Introducing equivalent changes for children is fair and equitable as it would be potentially discriminatory if they did not to receive the same consideration as adults. As care experienced young people already have a formal plan in place, they require sufficient time and continuity of support to ensure their safe and effective resettlement back into the community.

Children also enter secure accommodation through a range of legal routes, with the majority not being placed there by the courts. For those individuals, a robust transition plan consistent with the Secure Care Pathway and Standards must be central to a plan for early release, ensuring their needs are met and risks managed accordingly.

While these proposals represent progress, in Perth and Kinross, we continue to believe that a fully UNCRC compliant approach requires all young people subject to formal measures are dealt with through the Children’s Hearing System and not prosecuted in the Sheriff Court. Where the possibility of custody is being considered, decisions must be informed by the Chief Social Work Officer to address their needs, risks, and any viable alternatives.

Question 4: What are your views on the changes applying to short-term prisoners serving a sentence for fine defaults and contempt of court?

Perth and Kinross believe the changes should extend to this group including individuals receiving a short term custodial sentence for non compliance with community based alternatives. Breaches now represent a significant and growing proportion of the prison population, highlighting the need for a more proportionate and effective response.

Applying early release to these individuals would support a more coherent justice strategy which prioritises rehabilitation and minimises the unnecessary use of custody. At the same time, this shift strengthens the case for reviewing current approaches for engagement and enforcement within community sentences. This would ensure that requirements are realistic, meaningful, and supportive while reducing the cycle of non compliance and repeated short term imprisonment.

Question 5: What are your views on the proposed transitional approach to initial releases?

Implementing the new approach only after the current Early Release Scheme concludes in April 2026 is pragmatic. It ensures a level of continuity while not losing momentum across all justice agencies in delivering the existing scheme with time to prepare for the move to release at the 30% stage of a sentence.

The Early Release Scheme overall has operated well locally with its success underpinned by strong collaboration, robust information sharing, and a consistent assessment and planning processes. These strengths will be built upon as they offer a solid foundation which can be directly transferred to support the transition to the new arrangements.

The measured and phased approach should help minimise disruption, maintain public confidence, and allow services to adapt operationally and strategically to the new requirements.

Question 6: Do you have any other comments

The Penal Policy and Sentencing Commission report has just been published, and it would have been helpful to have considered their recommendations alongside these proposals for early release and implications across the wider justice system. While this does not detract from the current pressures which exist for the prison system and negative impact for individuals on a short-term sentence, consideration also needs to be given to the impact and resource implications for local authority justice services and partner agencies who are critical in supporting rehabilitation and reintegration. This requires effective and shared use of data analysis for forward planning and meaningful performance management for strengthened co-ordination, collaboration and partnership working across the justice sector.