Short-term prisoner release point: responses to targeted consultation

Response from the Risk Management Authority

The Risk Management Authority (RMA) is a non-departmental public body with a range of statutory responsibilities in relation to the assessment and management of persons who present a risk of harm to the public.^[16] These responsibilities include the preparation and publication of guidelines and standards^[17] to which all persons with functions in relation to the assessment and mitigation of risk have a duty to have regard.^[18] We also provide the Scottish Ministers with advice in relation to matters pertinent to our statutory remit.^[19] Our response to this call for evidence, therefore, emphasises the need to ensure that decisions about the use of custody and its alternatives are supported by defensible, proportionate, evidence-based assessment and management of risk.

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

The RMA welcomes the opportunity to provide views on the proposed changes to the automatic release point for eligible short-term sentenced individuals.

We appreciate the emergency nature of the proposals, and remaining cognisant of the short consultation reply timescales, the RMA have sought to keep our response as concise as possible, whilst including the most relevant details for consideration, in line with the RMA’s statutory responsibilities.

With this in mind, we would direct Scottish Government (SG) Officials to previous RMA replies to recent consultations. This includes, but is not limited to: The Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023,^[20] the Long-Term Prisoner Release Process Consultation in 2024,^[21] the RMA response to the Criminal Justice Committee on Automatic Early Release in 2024,^[22] the Parole Reform Consultation in 2025,^[23] and our reply provided to the sentencing and penal policy commission call for views during 2025.

The RMA maintain a key role in multiple priority justice workstreams, including the Criminal Justice Board (CJB), Community Justice Programme Board (CJPB) and Emergency Early Release (EER) meetings.

In citing previous RMA responses to similar consultations, including the data, research and evidence therein, and by highlighting our key role in multiple justice related workstreams, we seek to ensure SG officials have the relevant information available to support their policy decision making, within the timescales provided.

The RMA agrees that there is a significant need to reduce the prison population and remains committed to engaging with priority work to support this aim.

In line with its statutory functions, the RMA advocates that any proposals and measures surrounding the point of automatic early release should adopt an approach in accordance with the values, principles and standards outlined in Framework for Risk Assessment, Management & Evaluation (FRAME).^[24] Linked to this, the RMA advises a proportionate and evidence-based approach to risk assessment and management planning to support preparations for release and to shape throughcare service provision, in line with an individual’s identified needs.

The RMA is clear, that bringing forward the point of automatic early release of people serving short-term prison sentences in isolation will not resolve the prison population, and we have concerns about the selection of any period calculated principally by reference to time in custody. The RMA has maintained its position on the safe and sustained reduction in the prison population, providing evidence and data, which highlights that this can only be achieved by reducing the number of individuals we send to prison to serve a custodial sentence, and by improving our use of managed release into the community, where an individual is assessed as suitable.

We must, as is highlighted by the Scottish Government, the Cabinet Secretary, and the Vision for Justice in Scotland, reserve prison only for those who pose the most risk and to ensure we protect the public. This includes decision making processes about who we send to prison, and policy decisions on who we release from prison, and how that release decision is reached.

This approach requires cross justice partnership working to ensure there is consistency in sentencing decisions, sentence management, release decision making, and release planning.

As highlighted, the RMA are a key partner in wider priority justice work, including but not limited to Home Detention Curfew (HDC), First Grant of Temporary Release (FGTR), Emergency Early Release (EER), and the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI)^[25] method and system operations. Risk profile analysis from these workstreams has highlighted the potential for other options which could help support a reduction in the short-term sentenced prison population, including the feasibility of community disposals. These options would likely not require further changes to the automatic release point, or the enablement of emergency release powers.

The RMA have presented proposals to SG, CJB and CJPB and would welcome involvement in further related work in taking forward the recommendations from the Sentencing and Penal Policy Commission report.

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

The RMA would not support the use of offence-based exclusions as the only mechanism to remove any individual from consideration for any recognised release process in use within the Scottish justice system. The use of such exclusions must remain evidence-based and should be considered as part of the entire person-centred risk assessment and risk management planning process.

The RMA fully acknowledge the lasting impact that crimes can have on their victims, and we would seek to have victim safety planning considerations central to the overarching decision-making processes in place within our justice system. With this in mind, it is important for the specific offences to be considered in the wider context of risk assessment, with a structured analysis of the pattern, nature and seriousness of a person’s offending along with a consideration of factors which may be associated with likelihood of reoffending, and the individual needs which may require support during a period of supervision or intervention.

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

The RMA do not hold any statutory responsibility for children detained in secure accommodation. Therefore, we would not seek to provide a response at this time.

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

As highlighted in question 1 above, the RMA advocates that any proposals and measures surrounding the point of automatic early release should adopt an approach in accordance with the values, principles and standards outlined in FRAME. Linked to this, the RMA advises a proportionate and evidence-based approach to risk assessment and management planning to help support preparations for release and to help shape the provision of throughcare services in the community, in line with an individual’s identified needs.

Given individuals serving sentences for fine defaults and contempt of court may have been assessed as suitable for community disposal at the point of sentencing, it would seem a reasonable step to include such cases in the proposed measures. However, care would be required to be taken with regards to any relevant risk assessment outcomes in each case. This would ensure that where specific risks or needs have been identified via assessment, they can be taken into account, and where applicable, addressed during an individual’s sentence and form part of pre-release planning processes.

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

The RMA would support a delivery method which prioritises human rights, collective wellbeing, trauma-informed practice, reduces resource impact across justice partners, and enables appropriate support to be arranged (including support being available for all parties – the individual released, children & families, and victims). The transitional approach therefore seems to be a proportionate option in this instance.

Question 6: Do you have any other comments?

The RMA remain actively involved in wider justice priority work, including prison population management work. The RMA will continue to support efforts to safely reduce the prison population, to shift the balance between the use of custody and community, and to ensure that prison is reserved only for those who pose the most risk and to protect the public.

The RMA remain keen to ensure that any further changes to sentence structures, automatic release points, and future considerations of any new release mechanisms (or expanding any current release mechanisms), maintain a focus on the use of evidence-based risk assessment and risk management principles, with public protection at the heart of decision making, rather than being related to time served or index offence.