Short-term prisoner release point: responses to targeted consultation

Response from Aberdeenshire Justice Social Work

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

We agree that the current situation within our prisons is not sustainable and that action is needed to reduce the current population, which is already well over capacity. However – we have already seen a reduction from 50% served to 40% served, and now the proposal is 30%. We were advised that the shift from 50% to 40% would have a positive impact on the overall prison population, but this would appear not to be the case and numbers continue to rise, despite people having been released early. Can we realistically say that the shift to 30% would make any notable difference? And if not then what is the next step – 20% served? 10% served? If someone is only serving 30% of a custodial sentence then this would raise questions around the need for a custodial sentence in the first place - could this have been a community sentence instead? We are also of the view that more work needs to be done with sentencers nationally, so that they have a better understanding of community sentences as an alternative to custody.

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

We agree the current exclusions should continue to apply.

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

We agree that children who are detained in secure care on offence grounds should also be eligible for consideration of early release as adults have, with the same exclusions.

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

We are unsure as to whether or not the changes should apply to contempt of court, and the exclusion (similar to that for domestic and sexual offences) should perhaps apply. We do not agree that people should be punished for being unable to pay a fine by putting them in prison – could the alternative be a community sentence? We agree that the changes to 30% should apply to fine defaulters also (although don’t necessarily agree that they should be in prison in in the first place).

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

We would agree with this approach.

Question 6: Do you have any other comments?

We would have some concerns about how the changes will be perceived by the public and by people who have been victims of crime where the person has been given a custodial sentence.

We would suggest that further work requires to be done with sentencers around the option to impose a community sentence rather than a custodial one, ensuring that prison is kept for those who really need it. Locally, we are still seeing examples of where custody has been used for short sentences, where really this could have been dealt with through a community sentence. [Redacted]

We would also request that those sentenced to SRO should continue to be excluded from Early Release – these cases involve statutory supervision and the sentence should be imposed where the person is considered to be a risk of serious harm.

Finally we would wish to highlight that if the proposal is to further shift the burden of managing people who have been given a custodial sentence on to those in the community (such as Justice Social Work and Upside), on a voluntary basis, then this needs to be supported through additional investment in these services.