Voices in Justice: Parole Reform in Scotland: Consultation Analysis

6. Information provision for victims (Q6–7)

Key points from Chapter 6

¨ There was widespread agreement among respondents of all types that victims should be able to choose how information relating to the parole process should be communicated to them – there was no single ‘best format’ to cover all situations.

¨ The information received – in whichever format was chosen – should be comprehensive, factual and clear, should limit any emotional distress, and should provide victims the opportunity to ask any questions they might have.

¨ A few individuals – including some with experience of custody – thought victims should play no part in the parole process and should receive only very basic information or no information at all.

6.1 The consultation paper stated that, currently, victims who join the Victim Notification Scheme (VNS) have the right to receive certain information about the offender in their case. This includes information about Parole Board decisions to recommend release of the individual, and about any licence conditions which relate to contact with the victim or the victim’s family. Following a recent review,^[9] Scottish Ministers have committed to ensuring that the VNS operates in a more person-centred and trauma-informed way. The consultation paper included two questions seeking views on how information provision for victims in relation to parole could be further enhanced.

Question 6: Which format do you feel is the most appropriate for victims / survivors to receive initial information about parole eligibility of the person in the case?

Question 7: Are there any changes you would like to see in how much information in parole cases is shared with victims?

6.2 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

Format for providing initial information to victims

6.3 Question 6 asked about the most appropriate format for victims to receive initial information about parole eligibility of the person in their case. Table 6.1 shows that:

• Overall, 26% said ‘letter’, 3% said ‘email’, 11% said in person, and 17% said phone call. However, a third of respondents (31%) said ‘other’.
• The most common choices for individuals were ‘letter’ (21 out of 70 said this), ‘phone call’ (15 out of 70) or ‘in person’ (10 out of 70). The most common choice for organisations was ‘other’ (13 out of 17 said this).

* Individuals with no experience of custody

6.4 In addition, the 21 campaign respondents said ‘not sure / no opinion’.

6.5 The dominant theme in respondents’ comments – both from organisations and individuals – was that victims should be able to receive information in whichever format they preferred. Respondents described this approach as ‘person (not process) led’, and in line with current Scottish Government policy which emphasises a trauma-informed approach including a focus on choice. It was recognised that preferences might change over time and the system for recording preferences would need to be updated regularly.

6.6 A second theme linked to the first – and discussed by both organisations and individuals – was that the most appropriate format would depend on a number of factors including the severity and nature of the crime, the level of trauma experienced by the victim, and the personal circumstances of the victim. It was therefore difficult to make any general statement about the ‘most appropriate’ format for delivering information. In general, however, respondents emphasised that the information provided should be factual and clear, should limit emotional distress, and should provide victims with the opportunity to ask any questions they might have.

The amount of information to be shared with victims

6.7 Question 7 asked respondents about any changes they would like to see in the amount of information shared with victims. There were two main views in relation to this:

• The most common view was that victims should be able to access clear, comprehensive, and detailed information about all aspects of the parole process if they want it. This should include information about the offender’s progress and behaviour in custody, and a full account of the reasons set out by the Parole Board in reaching their decision on granting parole. This was described as a victim’s ‘fundamental right’. It was thought that full transparency was vital to foster trust in the parole system, ensure accountability, promote policy reform, and encourage emotional closure. This view was expressed by all victim support organisations, some other organisational respondents, and a range of individuals – including many justice professionals and those who were the family / friends of a victim.
• Less commonly, there was a view that victims should be able to access limited information only – described by respondents as ‘just the basic’ or ‘the bare minimum’ or ‘not any more than the wider public’ or ‘enough for reassurance but no more’. It was thought that providing more information than this could prejudice ongoing appeals, interfere with the privacy rights of individuals seeking parole and / or be a barrier to their successful reintegration into society. This view was expressed predominantly by individuals – mainly family / friends of someone in custody, but also a range of other individuals including members of the public and justice professionals.

6.8 One justice professional commented that ‘the danger with this consultation is victims who want to be anonymous [i.e. they do not want to be part of or hear about the parole process] won’t have their voices heard – and that is the majority’.

Individuals with experience of custody

6.9 Questions 6 and 7 in the prison questionnaire were similar (but not identical) to the online questionnaire.

Question 6: How should victims first be told that someone might be allowed to leave prison?^[10]

Question 7: What would you change or add to help victims understand the parole system better?

How victims should be told about someone’s parole eligibility

6.10 Overall, a total of 123 individuals with experience of custody provided a response to Question 6. Of these, 34 selected more than one format.^[11] Altogether – including those who selected one format only and those who selected multiple formats:

• 42 said ‘in person’
• 36 said ‘letter’
• 30 said ‘phone call’
• 11 said ‘email’
• 9 said ‘video call’
• 23 said ‘other’
• 17 said ‘not sure’.

6.11 Four main points about the most appropriate format for communication were made:

• The victim should be able to choose how to receive information of this kind.
• The form of communication with the victim should be ‘personal’. This was seen as important because the situation was stressful for the victim and the information being conveyed was sensitive. A ‘personal’ or ‘human touch’ would aid understanding. It would allow the victim to feel that they mattered and give them the chance to ask any questions – including questions about access to support. (It should be noted that asking for communication to be ‘personal’ was usually, but not always, the same as asking that it should be ‘in person’.)
• The form of communication should depend on (i) the crime and / or (ii) the victim. For example, if the victim was a child or an elderly person, then email would not be appropriate; if the crime was a sexual offence, then a personal approach would be required. Moreover, information should only be communicated if the victim has actively asked for it to be shared.
• More than one form of communication should be used – for example: ‘letter and phone call’, ‘phone call followed up by a letter’, ‘in person and then a letter’.

6.12 Specific points were made in favour of sending a letter, namely that this method (i) is less ‘pressured’ (especially compared to phone or video calls which may be ‘overwhelming’), (ii) provides more time for ‘processing’, (iii) can provide the option of follow up and (iv) is ‘official’.

6.13 A few respondents said the victim does not need to be informed about the offender’s eligibility for parole. These respondents said that (i) the offender had served their punishment and should simply be allowed to get on with their life, (ii) the risk of re-offending has been minimised, (iii) safety measures had been put in place to manage any risks for the victims and (iv) the victim has no right to be told anything after the offender has been convicted and sentenced.

Information needed to help victims better understand the parole system

6.14 In general, at Question 7, individuals with experience of custody said that victims required clear and comprehensive information about all aspects of parole and the decision-making process. Some focused on written information and suggested that ‘leaflets’, ‘a booklet’, ‘an idiot’s guide’ or ‘a dedicated website’ should be provided. Others thought non-written forms of communication would be helpful, such as ‘a helpline’, ‘a named contact’, ‘a family officer’, ‘a support group’, or ‘a course’.

6.15 It was common for respondents to say they wanted victims to be informed about the work the person in custody has undertaken to rehabilitate themselves while in prison. This would cover their behaviour in prison, and how this had changed over time, how they interacted with other prisoners and staff, what courses and education they had undertaken, and details of their attendance at work.