Voices in Justice: Parole Reform in Scotland: Consultation Analysis

5. Publishing Parole Board decisions (Q3–5)

Key points from Chapter 5

¨ Among organisations and individuals with no experience of custody, there was a lack of consensus about whether decision summaries or full decision minutes should be published in relation to Parole Board decisions, although the most common view was the summaries are sufficient.

¨ Individuals with experience of custody thought it was crucial that the person being considered for parole had access to the full decision minutes. Some said that anyone closely connected to the case should also have access to the full decision minutes.

¨ There was general agreement among all respondent types that decisions / summaries should be anonymised in some way – either fully (the most common view) or with all names and addresses removed. Respondents thought the privacy, safety and security of individuals should not be compromised for the sake of providing greater transparency in relation to Parole Board decision-making.

¨ There was strong support among respondents of all types for making more information available about how the Parole Board makes its decisions.

5.1 The consultation paper noted that the Scottish Government was committed to working with the Parole Board to improve communication and transparency in the parole system, while also protecting sensitive information such as the identities of individuals involved in cases. The Parole Board currently publishes summaries of release decisions in indeterminate cases^[7], and the consultation sought views on potential changes that could be made to further improve openness as well as proposals for improving understanding of the parole process. The consultation contained three questions on these issues.

Question 3: Should the Parole Board publish full versions of its decision minutes, including detail on the reasons for the decision and the evidence which was heard at the oral hearing, in release and non-release cases?

Question 4: To what extent do you feel that information published by the Parole Board (e.g. decisions, summaries, case examples) should be anonymised / redacted?

Question 5: Should the Parole Board publish more detailed information about how their decisions are reached (e.g. guidance, criteria, case studies)?

5.2 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

Publication of Parole Board decisions

5.3 Question 3 asked if the Parole Board should publish full decision minutes in relation to its decisions. Table 5.1 shows a lack of consensus on this question.

• Overall, 36% of respondents said ‘yes – in all cases’, 12% said ‘yes – but only in certain cases’, and 43% said ‘no – decision summaries are sufficient’.
• The most common view among organisations was that decision summaries are sufficient (11 out of 20 said this).
• There was less consensus among individuals with 30 out of 71 saying that full decision minutes should be published in all cases, and 28 out of 71 saying that summaries are sufficient.

* Individuals with no experience of custody

5.4 The 21 campaign respondents thought decision summaries are sufficient.

5.5 Accountability, transparency, fairness and consistency were all prominent themes in the comments of respondents who thought that full decision minutes to be published in all cases. Some suggested that publication of full decisions would promote openness and public confidence, allow independent review of reasoning and evidence, highlight inconsistent or biased decision-making, and reassure victims and families that decisions are principled and not arbitrary.

5.6 At the same time, it was also common for respondents to say that full decision minutes should be made available only to specific individuals (for example, family members of the person in custody, people in custody for whom parole is denied, and victims) – rather than being published and made available to anyone.

5.7 Respondents who thought only decision summaries should be published made several common points:

• The desire for greater transparency of Parole Board decisions needs to be balanced with the right to privacy and safety of all involved. There were concerns that the publication of full decisions could lead to (i) the public / media harassment of the families of people seeking parole, (ii) the re-traumatisation of victims and their families, and (iii) security risks to professionals involved in the process.
• Publication of full decisions could be detrimental to an individual’s chances of successful reintegration into society.
• Decision minutes may include sensitive personal information, not only about a person eligible for parole, but also about their victims. Even if full decisions are anonymised, individuals may still be identifiable.
• The knowledge that full decision minutes will be published may deter individuals from providing full and truthful answers at their parole hearing.

5.8 At the same time, those who preferred publication of decision summaries also acknowledged there was a need for greater consistency in the level of detail provided in summaries.

5.9 Respondents who thought full decision minutes should only be published in certain cases said this should only be done where there is a clear public interest.

Anonymisation of information published by the Parole Board

5.10 Question 4 asked respondents about the extent to which they thought information published by the Parole Board should be anonymised. Table 5.2 shows that:

• Overall, 13% of respondents said ‘not anonymised’, 34% said ‘de-identified’ and 43% said ‘anonymised’.
• The most common view among organisations was that information published by the Parole Board should be anonymised (12 out of 20 said this).
• Most individuals also favoured some form of anonymisation (53 out of 70 said Parole Board information should be either anonymised or de-identified).

* Individuals with no experience of custody

5.11 In addition, the 21 campaign respondents said information published by the Parole Board should be anonymised.

5.12 Respondents who thought information published by the Parole Board should be (fully) anonymised gave two main reasons:

• There is a need to protect people’s safety and their rights to privacy. This includes victims, their families, children, vulnerable adults and the person in custody – all of whom may face bullying, harassment and, in the case of a person on parole, retaliation from within their communities.
• Publishing names and other identifying information without the consent of those named would be a breach of data protection and human rights legislation.

5.13 Those who supported de-identification thought that ‘excessive anonymity’ would make the published information meaningless and / or prevent proper scrutiny. These respondents wanted to see a balance between privacy and the ability of victims, families, and the public to understand how decisions are reached and how different groups are treated within the parole system.

5.14 Respondents who supported de-identification suggested that names, addresses and sensitive personal information should be removed, but thought the substance of decisions (with a focus on explaining processes, reasoning, evidence, and principles) should remain intact. The detail provided should be sufficient to allow research into the way the parole system works for different types of offenders. They also thought that steps should be taken to protect the identity of those involved in making the decision about parole. This would include panel members, witnesses, and solicitors.

5.15 No organisations supported unredacted publication of Parole Board decisions. Individuals who supported this option often did so with caveats. For example, some accepted that redaction may be necessary, but advocated a case-by-case approach, with clear guidance, to achieve consistency.

Publication of information about the parole decision-making process

5.16 Question 5 asked if the Parole Board should publish more information about how their decisions are reached (for example, in the form of guidance, criteria or case studies). There was widespread support for this proposal. Table 5.3 shows that:

• Overall, 88% of respondents said ‘yes’, and 6% said ‘no’.
• The pattern of response was similar among organisations and individuals.

* Individuals with no experience of custody

5.17 The 21 campaign respondents said ‘other’ in response to this question.

5.18 Most respondents thought the Parole Board should publish more detailed information about how their decisions are reached. They thought this would:

• Help victims, families (of prisoners and victims) and the wider public better understand Parole Board decision-making processes, building confidence in the fairness and consistency of the process, while also counteracting misinformation, misunderstanding and (in some cases) political pressure
• Help those eligible for parole to prepare more effectively for hearings
• Help social work and third sector bodies align interventions with parole expectations
• Improve the induction process for new Parole Board panel members and support greater consistency in decision-making
• Allow public scrutiny of the criteria used by the Parole Board.

5.19 Respondents emphasised the importance of case studies being fully anonymised and guidance being written in an accessible and user-friendly way for a lay audience. Information should also be developed for children (including children involved directly in the justice system, child victims, and children with a family member in prison).

5.20 Victim support organisations and the families of victims called for better explanation of the different roles and responsibilities of the Scottish Prison Service and the Parole Board in facilitating representations from victims in relation to prisoner release, and how victims or their families can meaningfully participate in this process. Families of a person in custody wanted information about how cases are treated when an individual in prison continues to maintain his or her innocence.

5.21 Among those who did not say ‘yes’ at Question 5, there may have been a misunderstanding of what this question was asking. Some said the Parole Board should not be expected to produce guidance, criteria and case studies for every hearing as this would be administratively burdensome.

Individuals with experience of custody

5.22 Questions 3, 4 and 5 in the prison questionnaire were similar (but not identical) to the online questionnaire.

Question 3: Should the Parole Board publish full details about why someone was or wasn’t allowed to leave prison on parole? This would include reasons why the decision was made.

Question 4: How much should the Parole Board hide names and private details when sharing decisions about someone’s parole?

Question 5: Should the Parole Board explain more clearly how they make decisions? This could include rules, examples, and helpful guides.

5.23 The comments made at these questions suggested that some respondents may have misunderstood what these questions were asking. This is explained below.

Publication of full Parole Board decision minutes

5.24 At Question 3, most of those with experience of custody thought that full details of Parole Board decisions should be published in all cases. Of the 125 respondents who answered this question:

• 79 said full details should be published in all cases
• 18 said full details should be published, but only in certain types of cases
• 14 said that decisions summaries are OK
• 12 said ‘other’
• 2 said ‘not sure / no opinion’.

5.25 The comments suggested that there was a misunderstanding of this question – and particularly among respondents who said that ‘full details should be published in all cases’. Comments from this group often suggested that these respondents thought the question was asking whether full details of a Parole Board decision should be given to the individual being considered for parole, not whether the details should be made publicly available.^[8]

5.26 Respondents who thought that full details should be published in all cases said that people in custody did not always understand the reasons that parole was denied. They argued that a person in custody should have the right to know why the Parole Board made the decision it did, and that having this information would help the person ‘know what work they still have to do’ to get parole in the future. Some expressed concern that decisions in parole cases were not always ‘transparent’ or may be ‘biased’. They thought that the full publication of decisions would ensure that Parole Board decisions are made fairly and impartially, in compliance with rules and policies.

5.27 Some respondents who said ‘full details should be published in all cases’ stated that this information should be given ‘only to the person that was up for parole’ – or the person eligible for parole and any victims. Others made more general statements such as ‘everyone should know exactly why’, ‘honesty and transparency should apply to decision making’, ‘so there is no confusion’ or ‘in the interests of fairness and integrity’.

5.28 Individuals with experience of custody who thought that only decision summaries should be published made similar points to those made by organisations and other individuals (see paragraph 5.7). This group argued that (i) those who come before the Parole Board should have the right to privacy and (ii) publication of the full details of decisions could result in security risks for a person released on parole, their families, victims and their families, and Parole Board members. Others were concerned about the potential for re-traumatising victims.

5.29 Respondents who thought that ‘full decision minutes should be published only in some cases’ said this should happen in ‘more severe cases’, in sexual offence or murder cases, in ‘high profile’ cases, or ‘when it is in the public interest’.

Anonymisation of information published by the Parole Board

5.30 Among individuals with experience of custody, there was no consensus on Question 4 about the extent to which Parole Board decisions should be anonymised. Of the 123 respondents who replied:

• 30 said Parole Board decisions should be shown in full to help people understand
• 48 said some details, like names and addresses should be removed, but the rest of the decision should be shared
• 32 said Parole Board decisions should hide everything private so no one can be identified
• 6 said ‘other ideas’
• 7 said ‘not sure’.

5.31 As with Question 3, the comments indicated that there may have been a misunderstanding about what this question was asking – particularly in relation to who Parole Board decisions are, or would be, shared with. Respondents thought that these decisions should be shared (at least in the first instance) with the person being considered for parole. Thus, some interpreted this question as asking about whether decisions should (or should not) be anonymised when being shared with these individuals. This misunderstanding was seen most often among respondents who selected ‘Parole Board decisions should be shown in full to help people understand’.

5.32 In general, respondents who thought Parole Board decisions should be fully anonymised and those who thought the decisions should be de-identified made similar comments to support their views. These comments echoed those given by organisations and other individuals (see paragraph 5.12). In particular, they highlighted the need for privacy among people involved in the case, and the potential risks to safety and security that could result from the unredacted publication of Parole Board decisions. There was a recurring view that people who have been deemed to have been rehabilitated should be allowed the chance to rebuild their life, and that the publication of unredacted decisions could make this more difficult. Some thought that only relevant agencies should be allowed to access to the full details of Parole Board decisions.

5.33 As noted, some respondents who said that ‘Parole Board decisions should be shown in full to help people understand’ may have misunderstood the question as they made points such as ‘clarity would help the prisoner and Parole Board’ and ‘you should get to see everything they have used to make their decision, so you get a fair understanding’. However, others suggested that ‘it’s in the public interest to know the facts’ and ‘prisoners and the public should be made fully aware of decisions’.

Publication of information about the parole decision-making process

5.34 At Question 5, almost all individuals with experience of custody thought the Parole Board should explain more clearly how they make decisions. Of the 124 respondents who replied to this question:

• 118 said ‘yes’
• 2 said ‘no’
• 4 said ‘not sure / no opinion’.

5.35 In general, those who answered ‘yes’ appeared to understand this question as asking whether people in custody, specifically, would benefit from a clearer explanation of how the Parole Board makes decisions in individual cases. Respondents thought that such an explanation would help people in custody better understand how to improve their chances of being granted parole. They also expressed concern about a perceived lack of consistency in Parole Board decisions, and they highlighted the importance of using language that people understand when explaining Parole Board decisions and processes.