Voices in Justice: Parole Reform in Scotland: Consultation Analysis

18. Timescales for parole reviews (Q40–42)

Key points from Chapter 18

¨ There was no clear consensus on the appropriate timescales for reconsidering parole.

¨ The most common view among organisations and individuals without experience of custody was that timescales should be flexible and based on the individual case.

¨ The most common view among individuals with experience of custody was that reviews were not frequent enough.

¨ Respondents of all types generally thought the timescales for reconsidering parole should be determined by the reasons for previous refusal of parole, the conduct of the individual in custody, and their engagement with the rehabilitation process.

18.1 Currently, those not released at a first parole hearing have their case reconsidered every 12 months for those on long term determinate and extended sentences, and every 24 months for those on a life sentence or Order for Lifelong Restriction (OLR). However, while the timescales for life sentences and OLRs are statutory, those for long term determinate and extended sentences are not. Three questions sought views on the timescales for being reconsidered for parole, and the factors that should be taken into account.

Question 40: Which of the following best represents your view on the timescale for reconsidering parole in relation to long term determinate sentences and extended sentences?

Question 41: Which of the following best represents your view on the timescale for reconsidering parole in relation to life sentences and those sentenced to an Order for Lifelong Restriction (OLR)?

Question 42: If someone is denied parole, what factors do you think should be considered in determining how long it should be before that person comes before the Parole Board again?

18.2 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

18.3 Question 40 asked about the timescale for reconsidering parole for a person serving a long term determinate sentence or extended sentence. The current timescale is 12 months. Table 18.1 shows that:

• Overall, 25% of respondents said the current 12-month timescale was appropriate, 11% said it was too frequent, and 16% said it was not frequent enough. In addition, 39% said the timescale should be flexible and based on the individual case.
• The option selected most commonly both by organisations and individuals was that the timescale should be flexible, based on the individual case.

* Individuals with no experience of custody

18.4 The 21 campaign respondents thought the current 12-month timescale was not frequent enough and that the time between parole hearings should be reduced.

18.5 Question 41 asked about the timescale for reconsidering parole for a person serving a life sentence or subject to an OLR. The current timeframe is 24 months. Table 18.2 shows that:

• Overall, 24% of respondents said the current 24-month timescale was appropriate, 9% said it was too frequent, and 24% said it was not frequent enough. In addition, 37% said the timeframe should be flexible and based on the individual case.
• The option selected most commonly both by organisations and individuals was that the timescale should be flexible, based on the individual case.
• Individuals (17 out of 59) were more likely than organisations (1 out of 16) to say that 24 months was not frequent enough.

* Individuals with no experience of custody

18.6 The 21 campaign respondents thought the timescale for review of parole for a person on a life sentence or OLR should be flexible, based on the individual case.

18.7 In the main, the comments made in relation to each corresponding response option at Questions 40 and 41 were similar. Thus, the following section presents the views for each corresponding response option for both sentence types together. Views specific to either sentence type are highlighted where appropriate.

18.8 Those selecting ‘other’ or ‘not sure / no opinion’ did not generally make new substantive points and their views are not presented separately.

18.9 Respondents who said that the current 12- and 24-month review timescales are appropriate said these were reasonable and proportionate. It was also noted by some respondents (organisations and individuals involved in the justice sector) that the system already offers flexibility: the current timeframes represent maximum intended timeframes, and the Parole Board can set review dates ahead of these.

18.10 Respondents who favoured flexible timescales for reconsidering parole said that the timing of hearings should be determined by the individual circumstances of each case: the individual and their attitude and conduct within the prison; engagement with rehabilitation services and progress towards rehabilitation; the crime committed and the sentence imposed; any requirements set at a previous hearing; and the likelihood of parole being granted. It was also suggested that hearings should not be regarded as routine or procedural but should only take place if there is something new and relevant to consider.

18.11 Organisations and justice professionals in particular made the point that the current timescales were arbitrary or ‘procedure-driven’. This can result in individuals staying in custody beyond the point at which they could safely be released. Conversely, it can lead to unnecessary hearings or deferred hearings in cases where no progress had been made and / or there is no prospect of parole being granted. Respondents said that a more flexible and responsive system could take account of change (in conduct, in readiness for release) on an ongoing basis and allow hearings to be held at appropriate points in an individual’s rehabilitation pathway – for example, after the completion of a particular programme, or successful transition to Castle Huntly (open prison). This approach could lead to reviews being held both ahead of and beyond current timescales. The value of being able to extend the review period beyond 12 or 24 months was particularly noted by public sector organisations, justice professionals, and some other individuals.

18.12 Respondents who said that the current review timescales were not frequent enough said that 12 months / 24 months represent a ‘long time’ in the context of time spent in prison, and that shorter timeframes would offer hope and motivate those in custody, and allow progress to be recognised sooner. These views were mainly expressed by family / friends of individuals with experience of custody and third sector organisations working with this group with respect to long term sentences. However, they were expressed by a wider range of respondents in relation to life sentences and OLRs. Timescales of 3, 6 and 9 months were proposed for long term determinate sentences and extended sentences. Timescales of 6 and 12 months were suggested for life sentences and OLRs.

18.13 Respondents who said that the current review timeframes were too frequent were mainly family / friends of victims and victim support organisations. These respondents thought that current timeframes did not take account of the impact – emotional and practical – on victims and prioritised the rights of offenders over victims. They said that longer timeframes would recognise the seriousness of the previous refusal of parole and allow further time for rehabilitative progress to be made. With respect to timeframes for life sentences and OLRs, in particular, respondents highlighted the serious nature of offences covered by these types of sentences, the lack of remorse often shown, and the ongoing risk presented by offenders. The low likelihood of parole being granted in such cases was also noted.

Factors in determining timescales for reconsidering parole

18.14 Question 42 asked what factors should be taken into account in determining the timescale for reconsidering parole. Respondents thought the timescale should depend on:

• The reasons for refusal at a previous hearing and the likely timescale for addressing the requirements identified – some stressed the need for the parole panel to be clear about any requirements set, and for timescales to be realistic
• The conduct, behaviour and attitude of the individual being considered for parole, their engagement with the rehabilitation process and their progress toward rehabilitative goals.

18.15 Other factors suggested less often included the home environment and family support available to the individual; the impact on the victim of repeated hearings; the impact of continued imprisonment on the family or children of those in custody; and other individual characteristics of the offender such as their mental health and wellbeing.

18.16 In the main, respondents expressed a preference for the timing of hearings to be a flexible evidence-based process taking account of the specifics of individual cases. However, there was an alternative view, put forward by a statutory justice organisation, that timescales (12 months and 24 months) should generally be adhered to, unless there is good evidence or a good public interest reason to bring a hearing forward. Other respondents suggested flexibility should operate within a framework of minimum or maximum review periods.

18.17 A range of respondents expressed concern about parole being refused for reasons outwith the individual’s control (such as the inability to access required courses). Some called for this to be addressed in a proactive way – for example, by ‘fast tracking’ a person’s access to courses and programmes, or providing alternative ways for individuals to meet requirements – or saying that those in custody should not be penalised for this.

Individuals with experience of custody

18.18 Questions 40, 41 and 42 in the prison questionnaire were similar (but not identical) to the online questionnaire.

Question 40: What do you think about having parole hearings for people with long sentences every 12 months?

Question 41: What do you think about having parole hearings for people with life sentences or OLRs every 24 months?

Question 42: If someone is refused parole, what things need to be thought about to decide when they can be seen by the Parole Board again?

18.19 At Question 40, most individuals with experience of custody said either 12 months is not often enough for reconsidering parole for people serving long sentences or the timescale should depend on the case. Of the 121 respondents who answered the question:

• 26 said ‘12 months is fine and there is no need for change’
• 3 said ‘12 months is too often’
• 43 said ‘12 months is not often enough’
• 38 said ‘it depends on the case and the time should be different for each person, with no set limit’
• 7 said ‘other’
• 4 said ‘not sure / no opinion’.

18.20 Similarly, at Question 41, most individuals with experience of custody said either 24 months is not often enough for reconsidering parole for people life sentences or on OLRs or the timescale should depend on the case. Of the 122 respondents who answered the question:

• 25 said ‘24 months is fine and there is no need for change’
• 2 said ‘24 months is too often’
• 39 said ‘24 months is not often enough’
• 33 said ‘it depends on the case and the time should be different for each person, with no set limit’
• 8 said ‘other’
• 15 said ‘not sure / no opinion’.

18.21 The views expressed by individuals with experience of custody often reflected the views expressed by other respondents. The sections below present a summary of the main points made, and highlight any distinct views expressed in relation to either sentence type.

18.22 Those who said the current 12 and 24-month timeframes are fine said that this was sufficient to allow access to rehabilitation services and support, and to allow change to happen.

18.23 Those who thought the timeframes should be flexible said that the scheduling of review hearings should be based on individual circumstances such as the nature of the offence, the sentence, the point reached in the sentence, goals set at a previous hearing, and rehabilitation progress. Respondents mainly wanted flexibility for hearings to happen more often, but occasionally respondents suggested a longer period between reviews may be appropriate to allow progress to be made and monitoring to be undertaken. There was also a view that flexibility was particularly important for those serving life sentences and OLRs who would otherwise have to wait two years for their case to be reconsidered.

18.24 Those who said the timeframes are not frequent enough said that 12 or 24 months felt like a long time to those in custody – in particular, respondents described the 24-month timeframe for those serving life sentences and OLRs as ‘way too long’ for both the individuals concerned and their family. In general, respondents selecting this option made similar points to those favouring flexibility. They favoured an individualised approach, and thought that shorter periods between hearings would give hope to those in custody, encourage engagement with the rehabilitation process, and allow progress to be demonstrated. It was also suggested that more frequent hearings would help free up prison space.

18.25 Some respondents made specific suggestions for reduced review periods: periods of between 3 and 9 months were suggested for long-term sentences, with 6 months being the most common suggestion; 12, 16, 18 and 20 months were all mentioned for life sentences and OLRs. With respect to life sentences and OLRs, it was also suggested that there should be more regular reviews after the tariff part of the sentence has been completed, and that those in custody should be able to request an earlier review.

18.26 Finally, some favoured consistency of review period for all sentence types (long term sentences, extended sentences, life sentences, OLRs) – with alignment at 12 months suggested most often.

Factors in determining timescales for reconsidering parole

18.27 At Question 42, the main view among individuals with experience of custody was that the timescales for reconsidering parole should be determined by the reasons for previous refusal, and the likely timescales for addressing any requirements set by the Parole Board. However, there was also a common view that it was too difficult to access the courses, programmes and other opportunities specified as part of parole requirements and that those in custody should not be penalised for what was seen as a failure of the prison service.

18.28 Additionally, respondents mentioned the following factors:

• The general behaviour and attitudes of the individual concerned, their engagement with services within the prison, and their progress towards rehabilitation
• The circumstances of the individual – including their health and wellbeing, their family and home circumstances, family matters such as childbirth and illness
• The length and type of sentence being served and the point reached in the sentence.