General Policing Issues
Alan
Quinn Esq.
The
Secretary
The
Sentencing Commission for Scotland
Room
1N.11
St.
Andrew's House
EDINBURGH
EH1
3DG
Ref:
DJK/JM
26 September 2005
Dear
Sir
Consultation
- Early Release from Prison and Supervision of Prisoners on their
Release
Thank
you for the opportunity to comment on the above consultation on behalf
of the Scottish Police Federation, which is the staff association
that represents 98% of all police officers in Scotland .
These
are the views of the Scottish Police Federation on some of the questions
posed in the above consultation.
The
principle of the early release of prisoners
•
Should the law:-
•
require every prisoner to serve the whole period specified
in the sentence of imprisonment in prison, or
•
Continue to provide that part of the sentence should be served
in the community?
Early
release should continue to be available as an option, but it may be
that the concept of automatic early release at a pre-determined point
in a sentence requires review.
Great
care requires to be exercised when the consideration for early release
is made, particularly in respect of serious offenders. The risks to
the public, the type of offence, the likelihood of re-offending and
prisoner behaviour are major elements which should be taken into account.
The Parole Board do consider these matters, but there are prisoners
out with the remit of the Parole Board who are currently released
after serving half or two thirds of their sentence. We are of the
view that the current level of remission is too generous and think
that something in the range of one sixth to a quarter is more realistic
with the proviso that sentences of three months and under should carry
no remission. We also support increases in sentence for bad behaviour.
The
standard of personal conduct required should be made known to the
offender at an early stage and progress reviewed at regular intervals.
Any “Early Release Programme” should be aligned not only to good behaviour
but to positive behaviour. Positive behaviour should be measured by
the offender's willingness to participate in programmes designed to
address and reverse offending behaviour, with the additional requirement
to have shown the application during the programme. I.e. not just
taking part in an effort to gain early release points.
What
are the arguments in favour of schemes for the early release of prisoners?
It
is clear that early release offers an incentive for offenders to behave
properly and to cooperate with prison officers and authorities.
Further,
there are individuals within the prison population who are amenable
to changing their life styles and whose early release would benefit
society
An
example could be that of an individual given a long term sentence
for say, a high value fraud offence and who previously was not connected
to any criminal activity, i.e. the ‘one off' offence committed through
perhaps a unique opportunity in the business world.
Without
devaluing the degree of criminality in respect of these offences it
is worth pointing out that there is a reasonably high probability
that many of these offenders are unlikely to re-offend.
Other
benefits which have already been recognised and discussed at length
include:-
•
The social inclusion and social stability aspect, i.e. the benefits
to the individual prisoner and family, the return of the individual
as a useful contributing member of society.
•
The reduction of the prison population in our already overcrowded
prisons offering significant savings to the economy and increased
efficiency with regard to the administration and day to day running
of the prison service.
The
points listed above all have substantial merits.
•
What are the arguments against schemes for the early release
of prisoners?
At
5.4 in Section 5 of the Consultation Document mention is made of the
main criticism of the early release scheme, namely that sentences
do not mean what they say. This perception has arisen in the public
mind for the following reasons:-
•
The convoluted parameters which determine eligibility for early release,
parole etc. e.g. different yardsticks applied as determined by the
types/length of sentences.
•
Tabloid press reporting of high profile cases where serious mistakes
appear to have been made in terms of early release and the offender(s)
re-offend by committing serious crime.
•
A lack of clear information concerning the objectives of early release
being absorbed by the public or, perhaps not being made available
to them.
4.
What significance, if any, should the overall size of the prison population
have in determining the existence and nature of schemes for the early
release of prisoners?
It
is difficult to endorse the line that the size of the prison population
in itself would provide sufficient justification to support the early
release scheme.
A
prison sentence is considered to be the last resort in terms of a
court disposal and is supposed to be imposed when all other means
of correcting aberrant behaviour have failed, or the individual(s)
concerned have developed into habitual re-offenders, or the offence
is of such a serious nature that the Justiciary would be failing in
their public duty if they did not impose a custodial sentence.
5.
What steps, if any, should be taken, and by what body, to publicise
and explain the reasons for any early release regime?
In
consideration of current public perceptions, it would be a good idea
to use simple language and publish information explaining all aspects
of any early release proposals.
Early
release should be considered by a panel comprising staff and independents
(Parole Board members) and suitable offenders for early release should
be interviewed by the panel
At
this interview evidence could be led on the offender's behalf by his
staff ‘mentor'. This evidence should then be considered by the panel
before determining whether the offender is suitable for early release.
6.
What relationship, if any, should schemes for the early release of
prisoners in Scotland have to those, which apply to prisoners in other
parts of the UK .
Standardisation
would be desirable but only if any procedures and objectives adopted
from other parts of the UK match or exceed in quality the ones in
place in Scotland .
7.
Should multiple sentences be aggregated to form a single term, in
accordance with section 27(5) of the 1993 Act, or should sentences
stand alone and run in parallel with each other?
This
is an area where there is a need for simplification and the application
of standardisation and logic. Examination of Example 7
in Part 5 of the Consultation Document draws attention to defects
in the ‘single terming' system and highlights what appears to be a
meaningless sentence imposed on 17 th January 2005.
If
options are limited, then sentences should stand alone and
run in parallel with each other in an effort to prevent anomalies
like the one contained in the example. However, it may be of value
if the whole sentencing issue is re-examined.
In
the eyes of the public concurrent sentencing is a non-event
. It may be that the concept of concurrent sentencing needs
to be reviewed and radical changes could be introduced to provide
a simpler system, which could be understood by most people.
If
the outstanding offences merit the addition of extra time to the existing
sentence then, if established early release schemes are to be kept,
qualifying periods should be re-calculated to take account of the
new total period of the sentence. Put simply, the offender should
not be seen to gain any advantage from the situation.
The
scope of schemes for the early release of prisoners
8.
What should be the criteria for the early release of prisoners?
As
stated earlier, there should be no automatic qualifying period for
early release. Each prisoner should be able to apply for early release
after serving a substantial part of their sentence and each application
should be considered on the merits of the case,
9.
Should there be the same or separate schemes for short term and long-term
prisoners?
We
do not think that remission for sentences of three months and under
are appropriate.
12.
Should different schemes of early release operate for different classes
of prisoner? In other words should the nature of the offence have
a bearing on the timing of release?
The
nature of the offence should have no bearing on early release. To
make distinctions in this area will probably breach European Laws.
(As already noted by Lord MacFadyen of the Sentencing Commission)
The nature of the offence should determine the severity of the original
penalty .The answer to Question 8 is also relevant.
13.
Should all early release of prisoners be discretionary? In other words
should there be no automatic, unconditional release for short-term
prisoners at half sentence; and automatic, conditional release for
long term prisoners at two-thirds of sentence.
See
Q9 above.
14.
If early release were to continue to exist at what point of the sentence
should a prisoner be eligible to be released early?
As
we have said above, we believe that one sixth to one quarter remission
would be more appropriate than the current levels.
The
administration of schemes for the early release of prisoners
16.
If early release is not to be automatic, who should decide if prisoners
are to be granted early release?
This
is not a question for the police to answer but an expanded Parole
Board as described above would seem a logical choice given that this
organisation has a level of expertise in this field already.
18.
What conditions should apply to those released early on licence?
The
semi standardised conditions which are used at the moment seem appropriate,
i.e. keep the peace and be of good behaviour, comply with instructions
of his or her supervising officer etc. It is desirable that the Parole
Board or any other authority vested with responsibility to define
conditions should have flexibility and discretion in applying unique
conditions relative to the circumstances of the case in question.
Further we are of the view that ex-offenders should be liable to be
returned to prison for the whole period of their early release if
they commit further serious offences. This could be linked to the
provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 as applied
to the retention of criminal records.
19.
Who should decide what the conditions should be?
We
would submit that an extended parole board as described above would
seem appropriate.
20.
Should all prisoners granted early release be under supervision on
release?
This
may not be necessary and a waste of resources in certain cases. This
should be a matter of risk assessment by those granting early release.
22.
What form and level of supervision should be operated in respect of
prisoners granted early release?
Each
case should be assessed on the individual merits before making such
a decision.
The
role of the Sentencing judge in the early release of prisoners
23.
Should the sentencing judge be required to take account of the terms
of the current schemes for the early release of prisoners in determining
what sentence to impose?
The
sentencing judge, in our view, should be aware of all relevant factors
including the anomalies brought about by “single terming” as discussed
at 5.7 in Part 5 of the Consultation Document. However, judges should
sentence on the basis of the crime and should not be expected to second
guess early release considerations which are for future consideration
on the basis of different criteria.
24.
Does the Appeal Court have a role to play in issuing guidance on this
topic for sentencing judges?
Appropriate
legislation should be drafted with comprehensive explanatory notes
of guidance and the Appeal Court should only become involved if someone
makes an appeal against a decision of the governing authority, e.g.
a decision of the Parole Board.
25.
Does the Scottish Parliament have any role to play in enacting statutory
guidance on this topic for sentencing judges?
This
question partly concerns the constitutional role and responsibilities
of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Police Federation supports
the separation of powers between the executive and the Justiciary.
However, it may be appropriate to give guidance without fettering
the discretion of judges.
26.
Should a sentencing judge require to explain, in open court, what
the sentence being imposed will mean in terms of when the accused
may or will be released from prison?
We
have no objection to this, if for no other reasons than to show that
the sentencing judge is aware of the implications of the sentence
being imposed and to show the public that all pertinent information
has been considered.
27.
If early release is to be discretionary, what role, if any, should
the sentencing judge play in informing/being consulted about/taking
the decision to release a prisoner early?
It
may be appropriate that the sentencing judge is required to keep a
record of his/her observations of the conduct, demeanour, attitude
etc. of an accused person, particularly in respect of serious crime.
Such information should then be accessible to the ‘early release'
reviewing authority.
Sanctions
for re-offending or breach of conditions of licence during the period
before expiry of original sentence.
28.
What should happen to a prisoner granted early release who commits
a breach of licence conditions before the expiry of the original sentence?
It
should depend on the circumstances and the particular condition(s)
breached. If the offender is guilty of further criminal conduct for
which there is no excuse, then there should be no dubiety, the offender
should be returned to prison to complete the original sentence and
have additional penalties imposed for the new offences.
29.
Does the Appeal Court have a role to play in issuing guidance for
sentencing judges on the imposition of appropriate sanctions on those
convicted of a new offence before the expiry of the original sentence?
If
any of our judges are found to be making unacceptable or questionable
decisions in connection with these or other matters, then the Crown
should have the right of appeal.
30.
Should the court have discretion as to the period for which the prisoner
should be returned to prison or should the court be required to return
the prisoner to prison to serve the whole ‘un-served' period of the
original sentence, between the date of commission of the new offence
and the expiry of that original sentence?
See
the answer to Question 28.
31.
Should there be any other statutory sanction(s) for breach of licence
other than recall to custody?
Any
such breaches should be considered by the courts if the offender appears
again and any ‘early release' reviewing body should also take cognisance
of this information should the offender become eligible for early
release in the future.
32.
Should the Parole Board issue fuller and better-publicised guidance
as to the circumstances in which they will recall prisoners on early
release to prison?
This
will assist in better informing public opinion.
I
hope that these comments are of some assistance to you.
Yours
sincerely
Douglas
J Keil
General
Secretary
