Voices in Justice: Parole Reform in Scotland: Consultation Analysis

11. Parole Board composition (Q22–23)

Key points from Chapter 11

¨ There was a lack of consensus on whether the law should be changed to require certain professions or expertise to be represented on an oral hearing panel.

¨ The most common suggestions for inclusion, should a legal requirement be introduced, were health professionals, psychologists, social workers, and legal professionals.

¨ Some respondents suggested that panels should include victims or victims’ families (or groups representing their perspective) and those with experience of the parole system.

11.1 Currently, oral parole hearings are used for all persons serving an indeterminate sentence and may be used for other types of cases too. Oral hearing panels typically comprise three members. This must include one legally qualified individual who acts as chair of the panel, and others drawn from a range of professional backgrounds, such as psychology, social work, police or criminal justice. The consultation paper noted that some stakeholders value the flexibility and the ability to tailor panels to particular cases offered by the current system, while others think that requiring the inclusion of members with particular experience or expertise will offer a more consistent, balanced, and informed approach to decision-making.

11.2 The consultation included two questions on these issues.

Question 22: Should the law require that certain professions or expertise must always be represented on a Parole Board oral hearing panel?

Question 23: If specific professions or expertise were to be required at Parole Board oral hearings, which specific professions or expertise do you feel should be included?

11.3 Respondents’ views on these questions are presented below. The views of organisations and individuals with no experience of custody are discussed first, followed by the views of individuals with experience of custody.

Organisations and individuals with no experience of custody

Representation on a Parole Board oral hearing panel

11.4 Question 22 asked respondents if they thought the law should require certain professions or expertise to always be represented on Parole Board oral hearing panels. Table 11.1 shows that:

• Overall, 45% of respondents said ‘yes’ (specific backgrounds / expertise should be required by law), while 39% said ‘no’ (panel composition should remain flexible).
• Organisations were more likely than individuals to say ‘no’ (half of organisations said ‘no’ compared to a third of individuals), while individuals were more likely to say ‘yes’.

* Individuals with no experience of custody

11.5 The 21 campaign respondents said ‘no’ at Question 22. They thought there should continue to be flexibility in the composition of the Parole Board panel.

11.6 Respondents who thought the law should require certain professions or expertise to be represented on oral hearing panels gave two main reasons for their views. First, they thought this could ensure an appropriate and balanced range of representation on panels which would facilitate well-informed, well-evidenced decision-making. Second, they thought this would enhance fairness and consistency in decision-making, and build public trust in the system, something that was of particular importance to family / friends of both victims and prisoners.

11.7 Some respondents were concerned that assembling panels in line with any legal requirements may prove impractical. (Note that respondents who favoured flexibility also expressed a similar concern that requiring the inclusion of particular experts / expertise may contribute to delays in convening hearings.)

11.8 Respondents who favoured flexibility in panel membership saw benefits in having different backgrounds represented on different panels, and thought that diversity was a strength of the current arrangements. Respondents also commonly said that panel composition should depend on the case under consideration.

11.9 It was also pointed out (by a statutory justice body) that panel members were provided with necessary expert evidence in the dossier for each hearing.

Specific professions or expertise to be included on parole panels

11.10 Question 23 asked which professions or expertise should be included if the law were to require certain professions or expertise to be represented on oral hearing panels.

11.11 The most common suggestions were:

• Health professionals including doctors, psychiatrists, mental health professionals (including addiction and substance misuse workers) in order to understand the mental health of the person being considered for parole
• Psychologists (clinical and forensic) who could understand issues related to behaviour and risk
• Social workers (community and prison) to provide expertise on available support and risk management arrangements
• Legal professionals (lawyers, human rights / children’s rights experts, ex-judges and sheriffs) in order to safeguard due process and ensure compliance with the law.

11.12 Other suggestions included the following:

• Risk assessment experts – with some respondents suggesting that current risk assessments provided by social work colleagues were insufficient to allow informed decisions to be taken
• Those with experience of working with offenders in prison or in the community – suggestions included current staff, including those with experience of working with the individual being considered for parole, as well as former staff such as retired prison governors
• Police officers
• Victim advocates or organisations supporting victims (note, however, that there was an alternative view that victim support organisations should be independent of the decision-making panel to avoid conflicts of interest)
• Ex-offenders with experience of prison and parole.

11.13 In terms of expertise, respondents said that panel members should have appropriate knowledge and understanding of (or receive training in) matters such as risk assessment and management and rehabilitation. Understanding of victim perspectives and gender-based offending was also mentioned, particularly by victim support organisations and the family / friends of victims. There was a broad view that panels should have a balance of expertise (legal, risk, rehabilitation and reintegration) given the specialist nature of the role and the implications of decisions for public safety, and that this would give confidence in the decision-making process.

11.14 However, there was also a contrasting view, expressed mainly by individuals, including family / friends of those with experience of custody and justice professionals, that the panel should include (or be comprised of) lay members or members of the public.

Individuals with experience of custody

11.15 Questions 22 and 23 in the prison questionnaire were similar (but not identical) to the online questionnaire.

Question 22: Should the rules say that certain types of experts must always be part of the group that decides if someone can leave prison on parole?

Question 23: If we always need certain types of people in the group that decides if someone can leave prison early, what kind of jobs or experts do you think should be there?

Whether certain experts should be on the group that decides about parole

11.16 At Question 22, most individuals with experience of custody thought that some experts should always be part of the group that decides on parole. Of the 123 respondents who answered:

• 64 said ‘yes – some experts (like doctors or social workers) should always be part of the group that decides if someone can leave prison on parole’
• 39 said ‘no – oral hearing panel should stay flexible’
• 10 said ‘other’
• 10 said ‘not sure / no opinion’.

11.17 Those who thought there should be a rule on having certain types of experts in the group that decides on parole thought that this would offer better insights, achieve better, more balanced decisions, and improve consistency and transparency in the system.

11.18 Those who did not think there should be a rule of this type made two main points: that flexibility offered scope to include a range of experts; and that the panel composition for any specific hearing should be determined by the nature of the case and the circumstances of the individual involved. There was also a concern that a requirement to include specific experts may introduce (further) delays into the system.

Who should be on the group that decides if someone can leave prison early

11.19 At Question 23, the views of individuals with experience of custody largely echoed the views of other respondents. (See paragraphs 11.10 to 11.14.) The most common suggestions about who should be on hearing panels were: (i) health professionals, including doctors, psychiatrists, mental health professionals; (ii) psychologists; (iii) social workers (community and prison); and (iv) legal professionals.

11.20 Other jobs or experts mentioned less often included: the police (retired and serving); risk experts; people who work with offenders; MSPs; teachers and academics; and faith representatives.

11.21 Respondents often also said that those involved in making decisions about parole should be familiar with the individual being considered for parole, either from their time in custody or from working with them in the community. In this context, respondents often said that prison staff and personal officers in particular, should be involved in, or contribute to, the decision-making process as they knew those in custody best.

11.22 Some respondents specifically queried the inclusion of doctors and social workers -- the experts named in the question. They said that these professionals were not legal experts and should not make decisions about parole, while others were critical of their experience of social workers, in particular, in relation to the parole system. There was also a view that the panel should not be made up of ‘experts’, but instead should include the public, victims or victims’ families, or those with experience of being in custody.

11.23 Some respondents made suggestions such as ‘family members’ and ‘defence lawyer’. These respondents may have thought the question was asking about who should be present at a hearing, rather than who should be part of the decision-making panel.