Short-term prisoner release point: responses to targeted consultation

Response from Dumfries and Galloway Community Justice Partnership

Vikki Binnie, Community Justice Manager

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

This highlights a tension that sits right at the heart of Scotland’s current justice debate: the prison population is too high to sustain safe, rehabilitative custody, yet the tools designed to reduce that population have not meaningfully shifted the numbers. For example the Presumption Against Short Term Sentences, Bail with Electronic Monitoring and the recent Early Release.

We believe that automatically releasing some short-term prisoners when they have served 30% of their sentence is a necessary pragmatic measure at this time but are concerned about the risk of unintended consequences. It seems possible, for instance, that to ensure offenders receive what Courts consider to be an appropriate period in custody, they will impose longer sentences. Sentence inflation has been observed on other jurisdictions in response to early release and may happen here. For example, following this change a two-year sentence would result in the individual serving only 7.2 months. Meaningful and appropriate rehabilitation programmes would be unable to be delivered within this time frame. Furthermore, the disruption to individual’s lives caused by a short prison sentence such as loss of housing, employment and relationships cannot be understated, potentially leading to the revolving door effect. There is also the potential that this measure will lead to public confidence in justice being further eroded.

Experience from Early Release Schemes demonstrates the value of mechanisms such as governor vetoes, which help ensure that individuals who meet eligibility criteria but present a risk of harm are not automatically released. Retaining such safeguards would support system credibility and risk management both in custody and in the community.

We also consider that wider reforms are required, including revisiting the presumption against sentences of 12 months or less, expanding community based alternatives to custody, and strengthening the use of Bail with Electronic Monitoring through routine supervisory support. These measures could be advanced through complementary legislative and resource changes.

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, exclusion from the proposed early release arrangements is appropriate, defensible, and consistent with a victim centred approach. This aligns with the Vision for Justice, which emphasises that custody should be prioritised for individuals who pose a risk of harm. For this cohort, custody also provides greater opportunity to address offending behaviour through structured interventions.

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

The Care and Justice (Scotland) Act 2024 rightly recognises that 16 and 17 year olds are children and that, where custody is required, secure care—not prison—is the appropriate setting. Article 37 of the UNCRC requires that deprivation of liberty be used only as a last resort and for the shortest appropriate period. Children in secure care frequently experience challenges at transition points, including inconsistent or insufficient community support. Aligning release arrangements for sentenced children with the proposed 30% threshold would support earlier, planned reintegration and reduce the harms associated with prolonged restriction.

From an equality perspective, it would be inappropriate for adults to benefit from earlier release while children do not. As all children in secure care are care experienced and subject to formal planning and review processes, any change must ensure adequate time and resource for robust transition planning, consistent with the Secure Care Pathway and Standards.

It is important to note that only a small proportion of children in secure care are placed there through sentencing; most are admitted through other legal routes. Should equivalent changes be introduced, they must be accompanied by strong safeguards, including Chief Social Work Officer approved assessments where a Children’s Hearing is considering a custodial measure. We also consider that, in line with UNCRC compliance, all children requiring formal measures should be dealt with through the Children’s Hearing System rather than the Sheriff Court.

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

We support extending the proposed changes to individuals serving short term sentences for fine default and contempt of court, as well as those imprisoned for non compliance with community alternatives. Given that breaches represent a significant and increasing proportion of the prison population, we would support a review of engagement and enforcement approaches within community sentences.

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

Implementing the new arrangements only after the conclusion of the current Early Release Scheme in April 2026 is a proportionate and practical approach. This will allow partners to maintain focus on the effective delivery of the existing scheme while preparing for the operational and risk management implications of release at 30% of sentence. The ERS process has generally functioned well, and locally numbers have been low, despite this it should be noted that a percentage of those released early quickly returned to custody. Locally the collaborative assessment and planning processes sit with Dumfries and Galloway Multi Agency Community Reintegration Board, which was in place prior to ERS. It is anticipated that his would continue to be the route used to support.

Question 6: Do you have any other comments

We note the letter states ‘The prison population has reached critical levels, and these proposals form part of a range of measures designed to support a sustainable reduction so that prison places are focused on people who absolutely need to be there’. Changes to sentencing rather than early release may be more meaningful and impactful in the longer term. We look forward to the forthcoming publication from the Commission on Penal Policy and Sentencing.

Rather than pursuing radical or untested reforms, we consider that priority should be given to strengthening existing governance structures, maximising the use of current interventions, improving data analysis, and enhancing performance management.

There is still very little (or no) awareness raising being done with communities to increase their understanding of the effectiveness of community sentences and the fact that many of those being released early or receiving short term prison sentences would be better served through a community sentence in the first instance, rather than going to prison (with all the associated impacts of that and disruption to the life of those involved) and being released early. Without this public confidence in justice, particularly for those receiving custodial sentences and serving what they see as the bare minimum, will continue to be eroded, and justice seen as ‘soft’.

Whilst STPs are not subject to statutory throughcare and their release is unconditional there would still need to be resource identified if more people are being supported in the community by all services, including universal services.