Transforming Parole in Scotland

If the case being reviewed includes ongoing harassment or malice towards a specific family or group then a complete cessation of malicious activities upon release should be a specific term of release.

More probably could be done. However, if a prisoner is being released then the risk will already have been assessed - hopefully correctly. While seeing a perpetrator in a locale may be upsetting to the original victims of the crime, Scotland is a free country in which there should be no specific exclusion zones.

Not routinely. The data protection act would generally prohibit this kind of personally identifiable information to those persons or organisations which do not have a specific role in the care of the prisoner.

Not in individual cases. General guidelines on standard practice should be available to all, but the expectation would be that the sentence should be proper for rehabilitation and the parole decision correct with suitable terms of release set. With these systems working correctly, justice should be considered served after the full sentence is completed.

The notes throughout will be there for review if there's ever a reason that the prisoner needs to be recalled.

The work of the parole board should be done behind closed doors.

Parole should be based upon standard parole guidelines, behaviour while in prison and be set with appropriate parole terms. The kind of "investigation & collation of information from other bodies" as noted here, and in the consultation paper, smacks of adding time to a sentence without due judicial process being followed.

If an official investigation is underway, the onus should be on the investigating department to be aware of the likely dates of the first parole hearing and inform the parole board at that time. In the event that the defendant of the fresh case would present a higher risk of absconding, this should be taken into account. However, this should be an exceptional circumstance, not the norm. If a prisoner is approved for parole for their original crime, with no additional charge officially in place, parole should go through as normal.

I don't see anything specific missing from information provided to prisoners. However, I would attempt to ensure that they understand what they have been provided with.

Conditions and consequences explained at multiple points through the release process, starting with the parole board.

The Criminal Justice Social Worker overseeing the case. If there any concerns during the parole period a panel of Criminal Justice Social Workers should be convened.

Speed of recall is the biggest implication. This should be after a review meeting with a panel of social workers rather than an individual - possibly of an external group rather than the local group.

Since the parole board is already independent, a transfer to another independent body should make no difference. However, that's not to say there should be any objection to doing this for efficiency purposes.

Yes, though any appeal from a prisoner which is reviewed and considered vexatious should have the time taken for the appeal to reach the same conclusion to be considered the last parole review date. This would (I expect) increase the length of time between the start of the original review and the date of the second, thereby adding to the potential length of the sentence for parole board hearings which were obviously fair and correct in the first place.

Any prisoner considering an appeal in this respect should be made fully aware of the likelihood of an extension to total time served for a failed review before deciding to start one.