Voices in Justice: Parole Reform in Scotland: Consultation Analysis

17. Deferrals (Q38–39)

Key points from Chapter 17

¨ Respondents of all types had experienced or were aware of parole hearings being deferred. It was particularly common for individuals (both those with and without experience of custody) to say they did not always know the reason for the deferral.

¨ Respondents called for improved communication about deferrals, saying that those involved should always be contacted and told the reasons for the deferral, and that as much notice as possible should be given of the decision to defer.

¨ Respondents thought that tighter case management could help reduce the number of deferrals.

17.1 The consultation paper explained that Parole Board oral hearings can be deferred for a number of reasons. Around a third of hearings (32%) were deferred in 2023/24. This was an improvement on the rate recorded in the previous year and followed the introduction of measures intended to reduce deferrals.

17.2 Two questions asked respondents about their experience of deferrals, and changes that might minimise these.

Question 38: If you have been connected to a case (or cases) where a parole hearing was deferred, do you know what was the reason for deferral?

Question 39: Are there any changes you believe could be made to improve efficiencies and minimise deferral of Parole Board hearings?

17.3 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

Reasons for deferral

17.4 At Question 38, it was common for respondents to say they had been involved in cases where a parole hearing had been deferred. Organisations and some individuals had been involved in multiple deferrals. Short notice and on-the-day deferrals were both reported.

17.5 However, there was a mix of experiences as to whether respondents knew the reason(s) for these deferrals. In most cases, organisations and justice professionals reported that they knew (or usually knew) why hearings were deferred. Some, though, said that it was rare to be told the reasons for a deferral, and / or said that the reasons were not always communicated well.

17.6 However, there was a more mixed picture among individuals, with some saying they knew the reason for deferral and others saying they did not. These respondents were often unhappy about a lack of information and communication about deferrals, which they said caused additional upset and anxiety, showed a lack of respect, and left them ‘in limbo’.

17.7 Respondents of all types noted the impact of deferrals on the parties involved in such cases – victims and their families as well as people in custody and their families. They described how this added to the stress and anxiety of the parole process. Some also noted a wider potential impact in terms of undermining confidence in the parole system and the wider justice system. Organisations noted the impact on their day-to-day business, particularly in relation to short-notice and on-the-day deferrals. Some respondents recognised that some deferrals were unavoidable, but there was a general view that these should be kept to a minimum and better communicated to those involved.

17.8 Among respondents who provided details about why deferrals happened, the reasons included:

• Reports (social work, medical, psychological) being unavailable – or available too late – for the hearing, or information being missing from reports
• Relevant professionals (social workers, solicitors) and witnesses being unable to attend, sometimes because of insufficient notice being given
• Professionals in attendance being unfamiliar with the case
• Relevant witnesses not being cited, or the need for additional information or witness contributions having been identified
• Individuals in custody refusing to attend.

17.9 While some respondents (including organisations and justice professionals) attributed deferrals to resourcing issues and staff shortages, others attributed them more generally to ‘red tape’ and ‘avoidable’ administrative failings.

Improving efficiencies and minimising deferrals

17.10 Question 39 asked respondents about any changes that could be made to improve efficiencies and minimise deferral of Parole Board hearings. The changes respondents wished to see largely reflected the reported reasons for deferrals. Broadly speaking, respondents thought that a tighter, more proactive approach to case management would help ensure that hearings could go ahead as planned. Suggestions included:

• Clarity regarding information required by the Parole Board
• Progress checks and pre-hearing reviews to confirm that necessary reports and information had been submitted, and a hearing could proceed
• Earlier compilation of information and stricter timelines for the submission of reports and information
• Not setting hearing dates until the availability of all information is confirmed
• Taking account of the availability of key personnel when setting hearing dates, and / or giving sufficient notice, confirming attendance, and sending out reminders
• Improved communication, collaboration and sharing of information across agencies
• Use of online and hybrid hearings.

17.11 Additionally, some respondents suggested:

• Changes in the way the Parole Board / Parole Scotland operates – these suggestions (made by statutory justice bodies / justice professionals) included operating as a full-time court, employing panel members on a full-time basis, and taking on a case preparation role
• A limit on the number of deferrals allowed in an individual case, and systems for authorising or reviewing deferrals
• Increased resources dedicated to parole cases.

17.12 Some respondents suggested that hearings should go ahead, where possible, even if a prisoner refuses to attend, or if some reports or representatives are unavailable.

Individuals with Experience of Custody

17.13 Questions 38 and 39 in the prison questionnaire were similar (but not identical) to the online questionnaire.

Question 38: If you have been involved in a case where a parole hearing was delayed, do you know why it was put off?

Question 39: Do you have any ideas to help make things work better so parole hearings don’t get delayed?

Involvement in deferred parole hearings

17.14 Individuals with experience of custody reported a mix of experiences of deferrals of parole hearings. Most respondents who commented at Question 38 said that they had been involved in a deferred parole hearing, with some reporting multiple deferrals, lengthy deferrals (up to a year), and short notice and on-the-day deferrals. (Some who had no experience of a deferred hearing said they were not yet eligible for parole.)

17.15 Some respondents knew the reason for the deferral in their case, while others did not. Respondents gave two main reasons for deferrals, highlighting similar issues to those raised by other respondents:

• Staff not being available to prepare reports and attend hearings, and staff being inadequately prepared for the hearing or unfamiliar with the individual
• Required information and reports (social work, psychological or medical reports, risk management assessments) not being submitted on time or not containing all the information required.

17.16 Others attributed delays more generally to ‘red tape’, ‘social work’, or a backlog of cases, which some linked to the COVID pandemic.

Ideas to help make things work better so parole hearings are not delayed

17.17 Individuals with experience of custody made a range of suggestions at Question 39 for improving efficiency and minimising deferrals:

• Devoting more resources to parole cases – respondents suggested more community and prison social workers, the appointment of additional Parole Board members, and contingency staffing arrangements to allow hearings to proceed
• Improving case management – specific suggestions included giving more notice of hearing dates; setting deadlines for the submission of reports; and issuing reminders
• Improving communication and collaboration between agencies involved in parole hearings
• Allowing those in custody to have secure access to electronic reports and making video-conferencing available for hearings.

17.18 Respondents also said that agencies involved in parole cases should take greater responsibility for ensuring hearings went ahead and that there should be greater accountability when this didn’t happen. For example, respondents suggested that agencies should be required to provide an explanation when a report was not delivered on time, or that there should be ‘consequences’ (including fines) for such occurrences.