Voices in Justice: Parole Reform in Scotland: Consultation Analysis

14. Licence conditions (Q26–29)

Key points from Chapter 14

¨ Respondents thought there was a need to review and improve the current approach to licence conditions. Individuals in custody, in particular, described current licence conditions as ‘inflexible’, ‘unrealistic’ and ‘overly restrictive’.

¨ There was a general consensus that licence conditions should be explained clearly to offenders due to be released and any others affected, tailored to each individual case and written in plain English. Licence conditions should be reviewed regularly and either relaxed or strengthened in response to the offender’s behaviour and level of compliance.

¨ There was widespread agreement that there should be more – and more ‘joined up’ – services available in the community to assist and support rehabilitation and reintegration. Employment and skills development, housing, substance misuse, and mental health services in particular were highlighted as vitally important in this regard.

¨ Both organisations and individuals – including those with and without experience of custody – thought that there were too many cases of individuals being recalled to prison for minor, or inadvertent breaches.

14.1 Everyone who is released on parole is placed under the supervision of a community-based social worker and required to comply with licence conditions. These licence conditions help to manage risk and support reintegration. The consultation paper provided details of licence conditions available to the Parole Board and included an annex showing the template used by the Board when recommending licence conditions. The consultation paper noted that some stakeholders are concerned that the current licence conditions available to the Parole Board can be complex and restrictive and do not help to support community reintegration. The consultation included four questions seeking views on the current arrangements and whether there is a need for change.

Question 26: Do you think that the current approach to licence conditions should be reviewed?

Question 27: Do you feel that the language used in licence conditions (see Annex C) is clear and accessible for all people who need to understand and follow them?

Question 28: Do you feel that licence conditions are currently well designed to maximise successful rehabilitation and reintegration?

Question 29: What changes, if any, would make licence conditions more supportive of rehabilitation and reintegration in your opinion?

14.2 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

14.3 It should be noted that some respondents used Question 26 (on review of licence conditions) and Question 28 (on whether current licence conditions support rehabilitation and reintegration) interchangeably to discuss concerns they had with current licence conditions and the changes they would like to see. The sections below have, as far as possible, reported comments once in the most appropriate place.

Review of licence conditions

14.4 Question 26 asked respondents if they thought that the current approach to licence conditions should be reviewed. Table 14.1 shows that:

• Overall, 56% of respondents said ‘yes’, and 21% said ‘no’.
• The pattern of response was similar among organisations and individuals, with a majority of both groups saying ‘yes’.

* Individuals with no experience of custody

14.5 The 21 campaign respondents said ‘yes’ at Question 26.

14.6 In their comments, respondents set out a range of qualities and features they were looking for in relation to how licence conditions should work. They thought that licence conditions should be:

• Written clearly and simply and communicated to all those for whom they are relevant (e.g. offenders and their families, victims and their families, supervising social workers)
• Evidence based, applied consistently across cases, and linked directly to the assessed risk factors / category of crime for the specific case
• Enforceable, transparent and proportionate.

14.7 Respondents who thought the current approach should be retained simply affirmed that ‘the current approach works well’ or that those administering the system (social workers, the Parole Board, etc.) are well informed, know what they are doing, and act in an appropriate and proportionate way.

14.8 Those who wanted current arrangements to be reviewed made the following points:

• Current licence arrangements are ‘overly restrictive’, ‘inflexible’ and sometimes ‘unrealistic’ or ‘unworkable’. Respondents highlighted, in particular, restrictions on the individual’s ability to work; the use of phones, mobile devices and the internet; the ability to visit certain places (e.g. licensed premises or a public park); and the freedom to socialise or meet with certain people.
• Licence conditions can give the impression of being punitive and too demanding – as if the individual was being ‘set up to fail’.
• There are too many different licence conditions which made the system confusing and complicated.
• The licence conditions in any specific case should be time-limited and / or reviewed regularly. It was thought that conditions were not updated often enough at present.
• If an individual was doing well, it was suggested that their licence conditions should be relaxed. This could be done at the discretion of the community social worker / parole supervisor without reference to the Parole Board.

14.9 Two additional points were made by specific groups:

• Family / friends of a person in custody said that there were particular problems for those who maintained their innocence throughout their time in custody. It was argued that the current system was based on an ‘assumption of guilt’ and that this was unfair. For example, requiring an offender who had been falsely accused to undertake a course on ‘offender behaviour’ was not appropriate.
• Family / friends of a victim and victim support organisations emphasised the importance of alerting victims to any changes in licence conditions (which, it was said, did not always happen currently). These respondents also highlighted problems with exclusion zones which they said were not monitored effectively or enforced.

Language used in licence conditions

14.10 Question 27 asked respondents if they thought the language used in licence conditions is clear and accessible for all those who need to understand and follow them. Reference was made to Annex C, attached to the consultation document. Table 14.2 shows that:

• Overall, 26% respondents said ‘yes’ and 42% said ‘no’.
• Around one quarter of individuals answered ‘not sure / no opinion’ at this question.

* Individuals with no experience of custody

14.11 The 21 campaign respondents said ‘no’ at Question 27.

14.12 There was consensus among respondents that those who were to be released on licence (together with their families and victims) should have a full and detailed understanding of the licence conditions imposed. This would mean providing an accessible version of the conditions written in plain English and illustrated with reference to real life examples and / or an oral briefing from the supervising officer, the Parole Board, or other suitably qualified person to explain the conditions in detail and answer any questions.

14.13 There was widespread agreement that many offenders find the language used in the current version of the conditions complex, confusing, highly technical, and legalistic. This presents difficulties for individuals with low levels of literacy, learning disability or cognitive challenges of any kind, or mental health issues.

14.14 In addition, a range of respondents argued that some of the language used in the conditions was ‘unclear’, ‘ambiguous’, ‘vague’ or ‘subjective’. This could lead to inadvertent breaches, and / or to parole conditions being enforced ‘unfairly’ or ‘arbitrarily’. Examples of this were conditions around social contact, entry into public spaces, and entry into licensed premises.

14.15 A few respondents argued that since the document setting out the details of the license conditions was a legal document, there were limits to how much simplification or ‘informal framing’ could be adopted. However, there was no barrier to suitably qualified individuals offering verbal briefings and explanations to those affected.

Whether current licence conditions help support rehabilitation

14.16 Question 28 asked respondents if they thought licence conditions are currently well designed to maximise successful rehabilitation and reintegration. Table 14.3 shows that:

• Overall, 22% of respondents said ‘yes’ and 43% said ‘no’.
• Around half of individuals (28 out of 61) said ‘no’, whereas organisations were more divided in their views – with around a third saying ‘yes’ and a third saying ‘no’, and the remaining third split between ‘other’ and ‘not sure’.

* Individuals with no experience of custody

14.17 The 21 campaign respondents answered ‘no’ at Queston 28.

14.18 Respondents who selected ‘yes’ simply affirmed that the licence conditions are well designed, that the balance between public protection and rehabilitation is ‘right’, and that those released on parole receive good support within the community.

14.19 Respondents who selected ‘no’, thought that the current licence conditions prioritise managing risk over rehabilitation and reintegration. These respondents said that current licence conditions involve disproportionate restrictions which make work and / or family life difficult or impossible for the individual involved, and that they have become ‘longer and more convoluted’ over time. It was thought that any restrictions needed to be sufficient to manage the risks and safeguard the community, but should not be overwhelming or negatively impact potentially supportive relationships (with families, friends, employers, parole supervisors, etc.).

14.20 Respondents who selected ‘not sure / no opinion’ offered little additional comment. One respondent said licence conditions were only ‘a minor part of rehabilitation’ whilst another said there was currently no evidence available on this point.

14.21 The main issue raised by respondents was that, if rehabilitation and reintegration were to be given greater priority, then more support services in the community would be required. In particular:

• Successful rehabilitation and reintegration of individuals requires the support of housing, employment, social work, and mental health services.
• Individuals housed far away from their family, or in homeless accommodation will be isolated and unable to make progress in relation to rehabilitation and reintegration.
• Current licence conditions set unrealistic expectations for those who struggle with substance abuse and addiction. The licence conditions should focus more on the extent to which the individual has engaged with relevant support services.

14.22 However, respondents also said that the provision of services at local level is limited and that this is unlikely to change in the current economic climate.

Changes to licence conditions to make them more supportive of rehabilitation

14.23 Question 29 was an open question that asked respondents about any changes they thought would make licence conditions more supportive of rehabilitation and reintegration.

14.24 To a substantial extent, the comments at Question 29 echoed those made in response to Questions 26 to 28. Respondents emphasised the need for licence conditions that were (i) written in plain English, (ii) tailored to the specific case, (iii) ‘realistic’, ‘proportionate’, and ‘human rights compliant’, (iv) regularly reviewed and adjusted depending on the progress of the individual, and (v) monitored and enforced in a consistent way. There was also widespread agreement that there should be more – and more ‘joined-up’ – services available in the community, to assist and support with employment and skills development, housing, volunteering, substance misuse, etc.

14.25 In addition, respondents thought recall to prison should be used only as a last resort. Current practice involved the overuse of recall – even for minor breaches – and this could be counterproductive.

14.26 As described above (see paragraph 14.9), the views of (i) family / friends of prisoners and prisoner support organisations and (ii) family / friends of victims and victim support organisations were distinctive. They focused on the treatment of those who maintained their innocence in the former case and the importance of keeping victims fully informed of any changes to the licence conditions in the latter case.

Individuals with experience of custody

14.27 Questions 26, 27, 28 and 29 in the prison questionnaire were worded differently to the questions in the online questionnaire.

Question 26: Do you think the licence conditions should be looked at again to see if they can be made better?

Question 27: Do you feel that the words used in licence conditions (see Annex C) are easy for everyone to understand and follow?

Question 28: Do you think the way the licence conditions are made helps people stay out of trouble?

Question 29: Do you have ideas for making licence conditions better?

Review of licence conditions

14.28 At Question 26, most individuals with experience of custody thought that licence conditions should be reviewed. Of the 121 respondents who answered this question:

• 88 said ‘yes’
• 11 said ‘no – they work fine’
• 3 said ‘other’
• 19 said ‘not sure / no opinion’.

14.29 Respondents said licence conditions should:

• Be able to be explained clearly and simply
• ‘Keep people safe but not be overbearing’
• Give a clear timeline for review, to improve motivation to comply.

14.30 There was widespread support for reviewing the licence conditions. The main arguments made were that:

• Licence conditions should be tailored to each individual case. It was thought there were too many standard conditions at present, some of which were unnecessary.
• Licence conditions were too inflexible and too restrictive. They stopped people from progressing and from getting on with work, family and daily life.
• Licence conditions needed to be updated for the modern world, where access to the internet was a basic requirement.
• There were too many licence conditions. They needed to be simplified, reduced and made clearer.

Language used in licence conditions

14.31 Question 27 asked if the words used in licence conditions are easy to understand. Of the120 individuals with experience of custody who replied:

• 30 said ‘yes’
• 41 said ‘no’
• 6 said ‘other’
• 43 said ‘not sure / no opinion’.

14.32 Question 27 referred to Annex C of the consultation document. However, many respondents said that they did not have access to this, and those who chose the ‘not sure / no opinion’ response option mainly said that they were unable to access Annex C.

14.33 Respondents who chose one of the other response options described the language used in licence conditions as ‘not accessible’, ‘complicated’ or ‘written in legalese’ and noted that some in custody need a lot of help due to their poor reading skills.

Do licence conditions help people stay out of trouble?

14.34 There was no consensus among individuals with experience of custody about whether licence conditions help people stay out of trouble. Of the 122 respondents who answered Question 28:

• 40 said ‘yes’
• 43 said ‘no’
• 18 said ‘other’
• 21 said ‘not sure / no opinion’.

14.35 Respondents made the following points:

• Some of the conditions are ‘silly’, ‘impossible to adhere to’, ‘counterproductive’, or ‘make people’s problems bigger’ by increasing their anxiety and stress.
• There are ‘too many’ conditions for the individual to remember, and so many recalls to prison that the system can’t be working properly.
• There should be less emphasis on the licence conditions, and more emphasis on supervision, support, and providing access to community services.
• It would be better to remove all barriers / licence conditions and let the person take responsibility for their own actions when they are on parole.
• The licence conditions are not relevant – some people will always be criminals, and see prison as a ‘second home’, while others will try to make better lives in the future.

Ideas for making licence conditions better

14.36 Question 29 asked individuals with experience of custody if they had any ideas for making licence conditions better. Comments often echoed points made at Question 26 to 28. Specifically, respondents thought that (i) the licence conditions needed to be clearer, (ii) the conditions should be tailored to the individual, (iii) there were too many conditions and they were too restrictive / inflexible, (iv) conditions should be regularly reviewed, and (v) there should be more support and supervision and a greater focus on housing and work opportunities.

14.37 An additional theme in the comments was that too many individuals were recalled to prison for minor breaches of licence conditions.