There is already a range of civil orders that, in the case of sex offenders for example, allow for the exclusion of individuals from certain areas – as the need arises based on assessed risk. In light of this, there should be further consultation between the Parole Board and Criminal Justice Social Work when license conditions are established. Criminal Justice Social Workers will have an informed perspective on the viability, or not, of license conditions in the community, their capacity to manage the risk posed by a given individual, and their role in strengthening, or weakening, desistance from crime. If any threatening behaviour from the person released from custody occurs, then this would be a matter for the police, in provisions which already exist.

The system currently seems to set many individuals up to fail. In order to prove that an individual can desist from crime, they must be given the opportunity to demonstrate that they can. We believe that increasingly restrictive conditions amplify risk, threaten public protection and destabilise desistance (see for e.g. Weaver, 2014[1]; Weaver and Barry, 2014[1]), and there is greater scope for supporting individuals to reintegrate back into their own community after release.

The factors already considered are focused on preventing future offending. In cases in which there is a reasonable fear on the part of past victims or their families that they may be revictimized (e.g. in cases of domestic abuse) this will already be taken into account and these considerations would be considered along with other risk factors. If an individual poses significant repeated risk to past victims or their families, this would also be considered in the overall considerations of risk already. If past victims or their families are revictimized, there are already provisions whereby they will be responded to appropriately.

1. Howard League Scotland (HLS) thinks victims and their families should have a greater voice in the parole process. We begin by noting that the ‘victim’ ‘offender’ divide is simplistic, given that most people involved in the justice system, whether identified as victims or as offenders, have experienced the damaging impacts of crime. We therefore support a parole process which allows everyone affected by harms committed to be able to move forward. Parole processes which leave victims feeling marginalised will not achieve this, and we therefore support measures which enable their greater inclusion, and a respect for their experiences.

Although HLS does not believe that victims should attend hearings or tribunals (see below), we also know from discussions with those who support victims in Scotland that victims are often disillusioned with, and marginalised from, parole processes, and we strongly support more focus on measures which can be introduced to improve their experiences, which do not compromise the consideration the Parole Board makes on individual cases. HLS is not proposing a definitive list of suggestions which would enable this, we merely highlight a number of possible ways victims can be involved, both prior to and following parole hearings and tribunals, which could contribute to these aims. These include:

• all victims should have the opportunity to provide oral, not only written, testimony prior to the consideration of the case to members of the Parole Board not directly involved in the case. This currently exists only in life sentence cases. This will enable those with low levels of literacy to be able to participate and all victims to feel their views are heard.
• all victims should be given the option of being informed of the Parole Board’s decision after the case has been considered (in person if they wish). This should include the reason the Parole Board has reached their decisions. Early indications from England and Wales[1], where victims can also ask for this information, do not suggest that sensitive information is shared more widely with the media etc. thereafter.
• in cases where the victim(s) of the person's past crime have a reasonable fear of being re-victimised if the person is released on parole (in cases in which offences took place in the context of existing relationships, for example, in cases of domestic abuse), victims’ experiences and perceptions of the likelihood of their revictimization, should be considered in the same way that other risk factors are considered alongside other relevant information. In these cases, the victim’s experience should be gathered prior to consideration of the case, and presented to the Parole Board for consideration in their dossiers along with other information relating to future risk.
• in general, the issues surrounding victims’ roles in parole processes exist because, in the public consciousness, prison is established as the ‘solution’ to crimes committed. Prison is the ultimate segregator, and while it may support a (temporary) feeling of safety and sense of justice for the victim, it also heightens anxiety when the prison sentence comes to an end. We argue that more work in the community which seeks to rebuild relationships between everyone involved in the crime would be a more enlightened response to crime. Longer-term progress towards reparation and re-integration following crimes committed (which victims’ involvement in parole processes is also seeking to achieve), would be to use prison less, and to rely to a much greater extent on community-based interventions which are better able to rehabilitate and support reconciliation when appropriate.

2. Howard League Scotland (HLS) does not think victims and their families should be entitled to attend parole hearings in person. We believe that the Parole Board should maintain its sole focus on making decisions on release and recall based on questions of potential future risk, not questions relating to punishment, or how the victim may feel about release. The Parole Board must maintain its focus only on whether it is ‘no longer necessary for the protection of the public from serious harm that the prisoner should be confined.’ In this consideration, the victim should have no input, with the exception of cases where the victims of the person's past crime have a reasonable fear of being re-victimised if the person is released on parole (e.g. cases of domestic abuse), as discussed above, though in these cases, involvement should not mean they can attend the meeting at which the case is discussed. There is little data on the effect of victims’ involvement in parole processes from the UK, but data from the USA suggests that greater victims’ involvement does result in greater risk-aversion in parole processes (see for eg. Morgan and Smith, 2005[2]; Parsonage et al., 1994[3]; Smith et al., 1997[4]). We also suggest that victims’ involvement could result in more inconsistent, and therefore unfair, judgements being made (Roberts, 2009). Furthermore, the offences which result in long term sentences, and thus relate to parole, are homicide, rape, sexual assault and serious assault. These offences naturally and understandably engender enduring social and emotional costs to victims, but it is also true that, particularly for homicide and sex offending, the vast majority of those convicted for such offences pose a low risk of recidivism (e.g. Bench et al., 2013[5]; Harris and Hanson, 2004[6]; Roberts et al., 2007[7]). On balance, we remain concerned that any move towards victims’ direct participation in parole hearings and tribunals would allow victim information to override concerns for the individual seeking parole and may result in increased punitiveness towards them when they may present a low risk of recidivism (Caplan, 2010[8];  Roberts, 2009[9]).

3. Howard League Scotland (HLS) thinks there should be clear criteria on the kinds of information the Parole Board should consider in relation to the safety and welfare of victims and their families The factors already considered by the Parole Board are focused on preventing future offending. In cases in which there is a reasonable fear on the part of past victims that they may be revictimized (e.g. in cases of domestic abuse,) the victim would be consulted prior to the Parole Board and these considerations would be considered along with other risk factors at the hearing or tribunal. If an individual poses significant repeated risk to past victims, this would be considered in the overall considerations of risk already. If past victims are revictimized, there are already provisions whereby they will be responded to appropriately. We therefore believe the Parole Board should only consider information that bears directly on the likelihood of reoffending against the same victims.

4. Howard League Scotland (HLS) does not think more could be done to strengthen the Parole Board’s current use of licence conditions (including conditions to exclude individuals from certain areas, or from certain individuals). We believe that the processes around the regulation and review of compliance with license conditions should be changed to provide supervising officers more discretion in deciding whether to refer cases back to the Parole Board, and that the Parole Board should explore ways of avoiding sending people back to prison for breaches, where reasonable alternatives might be considered. However, we do not believe that license conditions should be ‘strengthened’ if this means further exclusion from certain areas or, indeed, the additional and unnecessary use of restrictive measures, beyond those already available. Given the already very high number of recalls into custody following a breach of licence conditions, HLS believes that if anything, more should be done to limit the intrusiveness of licence conditions. The system currently seems to set many individuals up to fail. In order to prove that an individual can desist from crime, they must be given the opportunity to demonstrate that they can. We believe that increasingly restrictive conditions amplify risk, threaten public protection and destabilise desistance (see for e.g. Weaver, 2014[10]; Weaver and Barry, 2014[11]), and there is greater scope for supporting individuals to reintegrate back into their own community after release. There are already mechanisms in place for responding to situations if victims are revictimized through the commission of further offences: in this scenario the individual will be subject to recall. Furthermore, there is a range of civil orders that, in the case of sex offenders for example, allow for the exclusion of individuals from certain areas, from certain individuals and indeed groups of people, defined by demographics – as the need arises based on assessed risk. In light of this, there should be further consultation between the Parole Board and Criminal Justice Social Work when license conditions are established. Criminal Justice Social Workers will have an informed perspective on the viability, or not, of license conditions in the community, their capacity to manage the risk posed by a given individual, and their role in strengthening, or weakening, desistance from crime. The discretion of the supervising officers, in deciding at what point a case should be referred back to the Parole Board for further consideration, should be increased, and it must remain the sole responsibility of Criminal Justice Social Work to regulate and supervise the compliance of license conditions in the community.

We believe that reintegration after prison should not necessarily mean exclusion from previous sites of offending, but that support should be given to communities, and victims, as well to the individuals leaving prison, to enable reintegration. Further exclusion is not the answer and there is evidence to suggest that increasing use of restrictions can increase risk and undermine compliance with licences (Weaver and Barry, 2014[12]).

5. Howard League Scotland (HLS) thinks that victims and their families should receive information on the reasons for the Parole Board’s decisions in their case. The provision of information on the reasons for Parole Board decisions could increase victim satisfaction with the process, prevent a feeling of exclusion and enhance perceptions of procedural justice and attributions of legitimacy. As stated above, early evidence from England and Wales suggests this information has not been shared more widely by the victims. Importantly, information can be provided to them without compromising the primary focus of the Parole Board’s decision, which relates to future risk and reintegration. However, care should be taken to balance the individuals’ right to privacy with the victims’ right to know the details of the case (for example, discussions the individual in custody has had with psychologists, etc. may be highly personal).  The decision on the detail provided in each case may depend on the wishes of the individual whose case is under consideration.  This is not to suggest that the individual concerned should have the power to veto the provision of any such information: but the individual should at least have the right to enter reasoned objections, which the Parole Board must then consider; and there might be some highly personal kinds of information over the release of which the individual should be allowed a veto. Any disclosure, despite dissent, should be defensible and proportionate (e.g. to risk posed) with due consideration to the individual’s right to privacy (article 8).

6. Howard League Scotland (HLS) believes that others should be routinely entitled to attend parole hearings. We believe that in order to secure public consent, the criminal justice system must be open and transparent, whilst being mindful of the risks that this can sometimes cause. However, we believe that this should be restricted to the provision of information to people directly involved in the case (victims, as outlined above), and other relevant directly involved parties, (prisoners’ families for example). We believe it would be unwise to open hearings to members of the public or the media: parole processes are not courts of law. Parole Board hearings are occasions which discuss sensitive and personal information. Attending the hearings can be enormously stressful for the individuals whose cases are under consideration, and, while we agree that it may be appropriate to increase victims’ involvement, as outlined above, we do not agree they should attend hearings, for the reasons outlined above. As discussed above in relation to license conditions, we also believe that Criminal Justice Social Workers should play a stronger role in the parole process: given their experience of managing and overseeing those subject to license conditions, supporting reintegration and managing risk, a Criminal Justice Social Worker with knowledge of, and preferably responsibility for supervision of, the individual should normally attend every hearing, and be required to do so. We also believe that individuals should have access to legal representation at hearings so that their rights can be protected in what are judicial decisions about detention and liberty.

7. Howard League Scotland (HLS) does not believe that information should be routinely shared with others. However, carefully managed sharing of information (with victims primarily) should be more regular, as outlined above.

8. Howard League Scotland (HLS) does not feel that some information regarding parole decisions should be published proactively. There is much more that can be done around opening up the workings of the Parole Board to promote transparency and increase public support, but this should not be a proactive and routine publication of individual cases. See Q9 for more comments on this, below.

9. Howard League Scotland (HLS) does not think that the work of the Parole Board is sufficiently visible. The Parole Board is a vital, yet largely invisible part of the justice system. In many ways, the decision to release an individual, or recall them back to custody, is as important as the decision to sentence in the first place. Public awareness and support for the criminal justice system is crucial to maintain its legitimacy. However, there is little awareness of what the Parole Board does or how it works. The Parole Board could launch a mini public awareness campaign with (anonymised) case studies explaining how it makes its decisions, and more discussion around the issues which are taken into consideration. This could be part of their existing website which already contains information on how the Parole Board operates. Downloadable materials could be provided to schools, colleges and universities, and for journalists. The public education role of the Sentencing Councils in both England and Wales and Scotland, provide good models for the kind of public awareness-raising work suggested here. There is also very little academic research on the Parole Board in Scotland. This could be commissioned, or links could be made with the researcher community which would support this.

10. Howard League Scotland (HLS) agrees that consideration should be given to widening the information available to the Parole Board by establishing a function to investigate and collate information from other bodies. Consideration of issues which could result in further detention should be taken with recourse to the widest available evidence. Recent evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists to the Justice Committee, for example, also argued that a psychiatric perspective should more routinely be represented at the Parole Board– see http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=11859&i=107285.

11. Howard League Scotland (HLS) does not think that prisoners currently receive the information they need to enable them to participate in the parole process. We draw attention to the most recent annual HMIPS report (2018[13]) which highlighted the frequent confusion and anxiety for those at the end of long and life sentences in relation to their progression to the Open Estate and on into the community. This related to the information available to them about these processes, and also to the acknowledged short-fall of programmes and services available to them during their sentence. The completion of relevant programmes is often an essential component of the decision on whether to release or not. We therefore support greater focus and resources on ensuring that all people in custody are given the opportunity to demonstrate their eligibility for consideration by the Parole Board by way of completion of the programmes which will support their application. Furthermore, given the importance of the Parole Board process, access to legal representation should be prioritised in the same ways as it is in sentencing decisions in court. Parole Board processes will decide on liberty or further detention – they are judicial decisions, and it is therefore imperative that people whose cases are considered by the Parole Board (particularly the decisions around release) have legal representation.

12. Howard League Scotland (HLS) thinks that more could be done to make sure that prisoners understand their licence conditions and the consequences of breaching them. Research (Weaver and Barry 2014) found that individuals at the point of parole require far greater clarity around the meaning, purpose and implications of the conditions to which they are being asked to agree, and these should be provided in plain English.  Good practice would actually encourage their participation - or at least consultation – in the process of deciding on conditions of release. Evidence suggests this is likely to enhance legitimacy, perceptions of procedural justice, and encourage compliance and cooperation. It is wholly unsatisfactory that individuals are handed licence conditions in a letter without also a discussion on what they mean and how the individual feels about this. While there are some roles within the SPS which seek to do this, these discussions should be routine and should also involve their Criminal Justice Social Worker and any other relevant community agencies. The very high rates of breaches considered by the Parole Board suggests that much more needs to be done to support people’s understanding of, and compliance with, license conditions. We also argue that license conditions must be realistic and amenable to monitoring (hence the need for greater involvement of Criminal Justice Social Work in the process)

13. Howard League Scotland (HLS) believes there is a requirement for an additional review process (at least initially) and supports any mechanisms which can support individuals in the early periods following release. Regular reviews (or meetings including the Supervising Officer) could support this. These would allow the individual to voice any concerns they have over conditions and their ability to comply before a negative situation escalates. However, care must be taken that this would not result in pre-emptive recall. As it stands, many parolees/licencees can be reluctant to voice concerns or to share their feelings and experiences due to fear, anxiety and distrust. This is particularly acute for those on post-release licences: cf those on Community Payback Orders (CPOs) for example, who fear re-imprisonment as the default response to any disclosure of difficulties, rather than the provision of support. This is in most cases a reaction to a risk averse culture which effectively discourages open communication and which engenders mutual distrust and anxiety (Weaver et al forthcoming).

14. Howard League Scotland (HLS) does not consider that, in relation to revocation of licence and recall to custody, social workers should be able to refer directly to the Parole Board. Existing measures suffice as they stand. Recall by the Parole Board requires them to meet and this takes time. There are instances when immediate recall, via Scottish Ministers, allows for a person to be immediately arrested and detained in cases where the risk they pose is so great that it is untenable that they remain in the community. We would therefore oppose this mechanism being removed for the reasons stated.

15. Howard League Scotland (HLS) agrees that a transfer to the Scottish Tribunals would enhance the independence of the Parole Board and supports a move to the Parole Board becoming a Scottish Tribunal. In addition to the issues relating to accountability and transparency (addressed below), we also believe that, as a judicial body, it would benefit from the same organisational alignment with the other branches of the Scottish Tribunals. This could have a range of benefits including training and support, as well as staff mobility between Tribunals.

16. Howard League Scotland (HLS) considers that a review and appeal process should be available for the Parole Board. There are significant governance issues with the Parole Board as it currently stands. There is no appeal against the decisions of the Parole Board other than judicial review, and the decision to refer a case to judicial review lies solely with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Parole Board. We are not aware that their decision making is open to any scrutiny and thus lacks required independence and transparency. In general, given that the decisions of the Parole Board relate to issues as serious as liberty and detention, their decisions must be subject to applications for review and appeal.