Response ID: ANON-7NBX-HPVC-G
Submitted to: Voices in Justice: Parole Reform in Scotland
Submitted on: 2025-11-11 10:40:24

Introduction: the purpose of parole

1. Would you support the introduction of a definition that clearly states the purpose of parole in Scotland?

Answer: Yes

Although the current system is often described as flexible, SPARC’s advocacy and research show that, in practice, parole in Scotland frequently operates as a continuation of punishment rather than a structured pathway to reintegration. The focus has drifted toward managing imagined or speculative risk rather than enabling people to build stable, connected, and healthy lives after release.

When everyone who leaves prison is treated primarily as a potential threat, the system loses sight of their humanity and of the evidence that social connection, housing stability, employment, and health care are the foundations of public safety.

A statutory purpose would create clarity, transparency, and accountability. It would make explicit what parole is for — and equally, what it is not for. Parole should not be an extension of the sentencing process or an administrative mechanism for continued punishment.

A defined purpose would also demystify parole for everyone involved — people in prison, victims, families, and practitioners — and reaffirm its core role within a fair justice system.

Public-health evidence consistently shows that safe reintegration reduces mortality, relapse, homelessness, and reoffending. Studies across Europe and the WHO Health in Prisons Programme note that people recently released from custody face sharply elevated risks of drug-related death, suicide, and untreated mental health problems. Framing parole as part of a public-health response, rather than a security function, would align Scotland with the UN Mandela Rules and the Council of Europe’s Recommendation R(2003)22, both of which emphasise that reintegration is central to public protection.

2. If the purpose of parole were to be defined in Scotland, what do you feel the defined purpose should include?

The purpose of parole should be clearly defined in law to balance public safety, reintegration, and human rights, ensuring that liberty is restricted only where necessary and proportionate.

SPARC recommends the following formulation:

“Parole exists to enable safe and successful reintegration from custody to community by supporting recovery, rehabilitation, and the reduction of social and health harms, while ensuring that any restriction of liberty is necessary, proportionate, defensible, and rights-compliant.”

Public safety should always remain a priority, but it must be understood as inseparable from public health: stability, access to housing, health care, and community connection are the real foundations of safety. The Board’s purpose should be to manage transition back to the community through evidence-based, proportionate, and purposeful practice, not to extend punishment through administrative means.

The Parole Board’s authority to detain people beyond their earliest release point should be exercised only where there is a clear, evidenced risk of reoffending that would cause serious harm to others. Where this is not the case, the Board should have a clear, stated intention to ensure that people are not kept in custody longer than absolutely necessary.

Victims’ rights should also be an integral part of the process, managed transparently and with sensitivity. Clear guidance should set out the purpose, remit, and limits of victim participation so expectations are fair and realistic. All communication should be conducted within a trauma-informed framework, recognising the difficulties and tensions involved without compromising the fairness owed to everyone in the process.

Embedding this purpose in legislation would bring Scotland closer to international standards such as the UN Mandela Rules and the Council of Europe’s Recommendation R(2003)22, which stress that reintegration and proportionality are central to justice and public protection alike.

Decisions publication

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

Answer: Yes – in all cases.

Transparency is essential to public confidence and to accountability in a system that profoundly affects liberty, recovery, and reintegration. At present, short anonymised summaries do little to explain how evidence is weighed or why people are refused release, leaving those directly affected confused and demoralised, and reinforcing perceptions of arbitrariness.

Publishing full decision minutes, which are appropriately redacted, would bring parole in line with standards of openness. These have already been applied in other quasi-judicial forums (for example, Mental Health Tribunals and Social Security Chamber decisions).

In SPARC’s advocacy work, people often describe parole as “a black box”: decisions appear to rest on risk language rather than evidence of progress or stability. Greater openness would allow practitioners, researchers, and the public to understand how decisions are made, identify systemic issues, and improve fairness over time.

Evidence from jurisdictions such as New Zealand and Canada, where detailed anonymised decisions are routinely published, shows that transparency improves procedural justice and trust without compromising confidentiality.

4. To what extent do you feel that information published by the Parole Board should be anonymised/redacted?

Answer: De-identified – decisions should be published with straightforward identifying details like names and addresses removed.

Transparency should never come at the expense of privacy or safety, but excessive anonymisation can make decisions meaningless or distort accountability. Full anonymisation erases context that is essential for understanding how structural disadvantages such as poverty, health, trauma, and institutional bias shapes outcomes.

SPARC supports a de-identification model, where names and direct identifiers are removed but relevant contextual information (sentence type, offence category, gender, age band, and key factors considered) is retained. This balances privacy with the public interest in understanding how decisions are reached and how the system treats different groups.

Where particularly sensitive information is involved (e.g., ongoing risk to victims, medical data), redaction should be proportionate and justified rather than automatic.

5. Should the Parole Board publish more detailed information about how their decisions are reached?

Answer: Yes

At present, people in prison, families, and community practitioners have little understanding of what constitutes “progress” or what specific criteria panels apply. This lack of transparency undermines motivation and engagement with rehabilitation.

Publishing detailed decision-making guidance, case studies, and examples of good practice would:

• help individuals prepare more effectively for hearings;
• support social work and third-sector partners to align interventions with realistic parole expectations; and
• allow scrutiny of whether criteria are evidence-based, consistent, and fair across groups.

This aligns with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. In health and social-care contexts, transparency is a cornerstone of trust and improvement; parole should operate to the same standard.

Transparency

12. What information do you feel is most important for victims to receive in order to support their understanding of, and engagement with, the parole process?

No response submitted.

13. How could digital tools be used to improve people’s understanding and experience of the parole process?

Digital tools could play a crucial role in demystifying parole and supporting both people in prison and their families to understand what to expect, what is required, and what “progress” actually looks like.

SPARC recommends the following:

• Accessible explainer videos produced in partnership with people with lived experience, covering what the parole process involves, the role of different professionals, and what evidence is considered.
• Short audio or podcast materials that can be accessed inside prisons, using simple language and examples to clarify rights, preparation steps, and what happens after a hearing.
• Interactive timelines or digital leaflets (accessible via prison intranets or upon release) that show each stage of the process, expected timeframes, and available supports.
• Regular digital updates (via in cell technology or family access portals) so applicants and families can track progress, reducing anxiety and misinformation.

Evidence from health communication research shows that visual and narrative formats, especially co-produced with affected communities, improve comprehension, trust, and engagement, particularly for those with lower literacy or cognitive impairments.

Digital communication should complement, not replace, face-to-face explanation and advocacy support, which remain essential for people experiencing trauma, mental distress, or poor literacy.

14. Do you have any other suggestions for improving communication, transparency, or information sharing in the parole system?

Yes. SPARC’s work highlights widespread confusion, misinformation, and distress around parole due to unclear communication and inconsistent support.

Improvements should include:

1. Plain-language communication — all correspondence should be written in accessible, trauma-informed language and explain not only outcomes but reasoning and next steps.
2. Dedicated parole liaison roles within prisons to help people understand what information is required, chase progress, and access support. In SPARC’s experience, the personal officer function works really well in some prisons and in others not so well. Perhaps taking a look at where this role can be bolstered to make it consistent across the estate.
3. Third-sector and peer advocacy access — ensure organisations like SPARC can provide independent assistance before, during, and after hearings and speeding up the lengthy mandate request process.
4. Feedback and learning mechanisms — create a transparent way for people to raise concerns or give feedback about the process without fear of reprisal.
5. Data transparency — publish anonymised statistics on outcomes by local authority, gender, ethnicity, age, and health status to identify inequalities and improve accountability.
6. An internal system for which Local Authorities and even parole officers breach the most, making sure they understand what their role is and that they are not overstepping their authority/position.

Better communication is not simply about information flow—it is about fairness, trust, and wellbeing. The parole system will only gain legitimacy when people understand it and can see that it operates transparently and humanely.

Parole process, licence conditions and recall

15. Do you support the introduction of a single overarching, statutory test for release that would apply to all cases considered for release by the Parole Board?

Answer: No – I believe different tests should continue to apply depending on sentence type.

SPARC does not support introducing a single, unified test for release. While consistency and clarity are important, a single test would almost certainly lead to greater reliance on accredited prison programmes as the dominant form of “evidence” for release. These programmes already drive systemic inequity: they are limited in number, unevenly available across establishments, and subject to long waiting lists due to overcrowding and resource constraints.

There is no published evidence that these programmes, as currently delivered in Scotland, are effective or proportionate to risk. Yet non-completion of a course often becomes grounds for continued imprisonment, despite being entirely outside the person’s control. There are people doing years and years over their sentences because this box is not ticked.

SPARC’s advocacy and research indicate that people are routinely refused parole not because they pose a genuine risk, but because they have been unable to access courses or “tick the boxes” required by risk management frameworks. This perpetuates a cycle of indefinite punishment and undermines trust in the system.

A fair and evidence-based system should allow multiple sources of proof of progress and stability, such as:

• sustained educational or vocational achievement;
• consistent employment or peer mentoring roles within prison;
• engagement in drug treatment or recovery services;
• long periods of good conduct, especially where a person has completed their sentence without misconduct reports.

These indicators reflect real and sustained change and should carry equal or greater weight than attendance at unvalidated “risk reduction” courses where the majority of people are just saying what they need to in order to have that box ticked.

SPARC therefore supports a flexible, evidence-based approach where parole decisions can draw on a range of rehabilitation indicators rather than a single statutory test that risks entrenching bureaucratic gatekeeping and further delay in an already overstretched prison system.

16. Should the test(s) for release from custody continue to focus solely on risk, or should they also consider readiness to reintegrate?

Answer: The test(s) should combine risk assessment with an individual’s readiness to reintegrate.

Current parole practice in Scotland places disproportionate emphasis on abstract and actuarial notions of “risk.” These models are poorly validated, often reinforce social inequality, and fail to recognise the structural barriers that shape behaviour and opportunity. They also privilege a narrow, middle-class style of communication and presentation—expecting people to demonstrate “insight” or “responsibility” in professionalised language that few outside those settings naturally use.

This approach disadvantages many people in prison, particularly those who are neurodiverse, have learning disabilities, or communicate differently due to developmental, cognitive, or cultural reasons. Frustration, anxiety, or directness of speech are frequently misinterpreted as aggression, denial, or lack of insight. Parole processes must explicitly allow for communication diversity and ensure that understanding, not performance, counts.

A readiness-to-reintegrate model would therefore recognise a much broader range of progress indicators, including:

• stable housing, health, and treatment continuity;
• meaningful work, education, or volunteering;
• family and community connections;

International and Scottish evidence from desistance and public-health research shows that stability, connection, and dignity—not programme compliance or polished articulation—are the best predictors of safety and success after release.

17. Do you have any other views on the assessment and decision-making process around release?

To make decisions fairer, SPARC recommends:

1. A structural reorientation of risk. Risk should be understood as relational and contextually driven by housing insecurity, poverty, stigma, and health inequality—not as a fixed trait within a person.
2. A transparent and evidence-based assessment framework. Decisions should explain how each piece of evidence was weighed, which alternatives were considered, and which social supports could enable a safe release.
3. Independent health and social input. Parole panels should routinely draw on clinical, social, and public health expertise to understand needs and barriers to reintegration.
4. Recognition of system failure. When courses, reports, or supports were unavailable due to overcrowding or resource constraints, this should never be used as a reason to deny release.
5. Removal of behavioural bias. Emotional restraint, frustration, or non-conformity should not be treated as risk factors. Many people simply express themselves differently or are reacting to years of institutionalisation and uncertainty.
6. Continuous feedback and learning. Parole decisions should feed into a national system of review and improvement to identify where structural or procedural inequalities persist.

In essence, parole should operate as part of a public health infrastructure, focusing on what will make a person’s release safe and sustainable rather than on rehearsing why their imprisonment was justified. Release decisions should measure whether society has done enough to create the conditions for safety, not whether an individual has learned to perform it.

18. Do you support giving the Parole Board the power to require post-release progress hearings?

Answer: Not sure / No opinion

SPARC supports the introduction of progress hearings only if their purpose is to prevent unnecessary recall to custody by allowing the Parole Board to hear directly from the person and community-based staff before making a recall decision.

In our advocacy work, people are often recalled for issues linked to breakdown in supervision relationships, deteriorating behaviours linked to relapsing, mental distress, or service failures, rather than for any new offending or intent to harm. A progress hearing could provide a fairer, more proportionate response by keeping people in the community and identifying what supports are needed to stabilise their situation.

However, if progress hearings were to become a new standing mechanism, in which people not facing recall could still be called in for additional scrutiny, SPARC would strongly oppose them. That would represent mission creep toward surveillance and would entrench the culture of control and risk aversion that already undermines reintegration.

19. If progress hearings were introduced, what changes should the Parole Board have the power to make?

Answer: Other

Other – clarification required.

The Parole Board already has the power to recall a person to custody. It is therefore unclear what additional authority these proposed progress hearings would introduce. The way the question is presented suggests that the Board might be able to call people to a hearing at any time, but it is not explained how or why this would happen.

If the intention is to create a hearing as an alternative to recall—so that the person can be heard and supported before a recall decision is made—SPARC would support that. It would allow for proportionate, community-based decision-making that could prevent unnecessary re-imprisonment and recognise that most recall triggers are linked to a crisis that can be resolved with support rather than through deliberate non-compliance.

However, if this mechanism gives the Parole Board new powers to call people up for unscheduled or routine scrutiny, SPARC would oppose it. People on parole are already under licence and supervision; another layer of review would only increase anxiety, uncertainty, and the risk of arbitrary decisions.

In short, progress hearings could be valuable only if used to reduce recalls, not expand surveillance. The Government should clarify the purpose, triggers, and legal basis before proceeding.

20. If progress hearings were introduced, how long after someone is released on parole should the Board have the power to call a progress hearing?

Answer: Other

The idea of fixed timeframes (such as one year or less) misunderstands what these hearings are supposed to achieve. The Parole Board already has recall powers throughout the entire period of a person’s licence. A “progress hearing” should therefore be used only as an alternative to recall, not as a routine check-up or annual review.

If a person’s case is being considered for recall, the hearing should take place immediately — while they are still in the community — so that all parties can assess what went wrong, identify supports, and avoid unnecessary imprisonment.

Outside of that recall context, there is no justification for giving the Board additional powers to call someone back for scrutiny. Doing so would introduce uncertainty, reinforce risk aversion, and contradict the principle that parole should enable people to rebuild their lives free from ongoing oversight once they have demonstrated stability.

In short: the timing should be determined by need, not by the calendar, and only where recall is under consideration.

21. If progress hearings were introduced, how frequently should the Board have the power to call a progress hearing?

Answer: Only when a specific reason arises

The consultation does not explain what these hearings are intended to achieve or what problem they solve. People on parole are already subject to regular review and monitoring by Criminal Justice Social Work (CJSW), who meet them frequently and complete annual assessments as part of the statutory case-management framework.

If those reviews are considered insufficient, the government should first explain why – and publish evidence showing that CJSW supervision is failing to protect the public or support reintegration. SPARC is not aware of any such evidence. The number of serious new offences committed while on licence is very small, and most recalls are for technical or compliance issues rather than harm to others.

Without that justification, introducing “progress hearings” looks less like a safeguard and more like an additional surveillance mechanism, duplicating social-work oversight and eroding professional trust. It would blur accountability between social work and the Parole Board, while extending control over people who have already demonstrated their ability to live in the community.

If this proposal is genuinely about reducing unnecessary recalls, then a hearing should occur only in that narrow context — where recall is being considered and an immediate, community-based review could safely prevent imprisonment. Outside of that, these hearings are unnecessary and risk expanding punishment by administrative means.

22. Should the law require that certain professions or expertise must always be represented on a Parole Board oral hearing panel?

Answer: Yes – specific backgrounds should be legally required on every oral hearing panel.

Parole decisions are among the most consequential administrative decisions the state can make, with direct implications for liberty, health, and life. Panels therefore need to reflect a range of expertise beyond law and punishment, ensuring that decisions are balanced, contextualised, and informed by evidence from health, social science, and lived experience.

At present, most panels are dominated by legal and criminal justice professionals. This reinforces a narrow focus on risk management and compliance rather than rehabilitation, reintegration, and wellbeing. A more diverse composition would help shift the culture of parole away from surveillance toward evidence-based public health and social justice approaches.

SPARC therefore supports a statutory requirement that each panel include expertise in at least:

• Social work or community justice – to interpret progress and reintegration potential within real-world community contexts.
• Health or psychology – to understand trauma, addiction, neurodiversity, and the health consequences of imprisonment.
• Lived or peer experience – to bring practical understanding of re-entry challenges and to hold the system accountable to the realities faced by those it governs.

The inclusion of these perspectives would ensure that decisions are grounded in evidence, compassion, and proportionality rather than fear or institutional habit.

23. If specific professions or expertise were to be required at Parole Board oral hearings, which should be included?

Rather than prescribing fixed professions, SPARC believes the Parole Board should operate as a multidisciplinary team that reflects more than law and bureaucracy.

Panels should bring together people who understand the realities of health, inequality, and reintegration — not only those trained in legal or administrative reasoning. This means including perspectives from public health, psychology, and community life, as well as individuals with lived or peer experience of imprisonment and re-entry.

The purpose is not to create another layer of professionalisation, but to ensure that decisions are informed by a wide understanding of what enables safe, sustainable reintegration. A multidisciplinary panel would help shift the balance of parole from procedural compliance toward evidence-based, humane judgement grounded in real-world conditions.

Factors considered in parole hearings, and review and appeals process

24. Should there be any further changes to the current list of factors which may be taken into consideration by the Parole Board?

Yes – the current list of factors is too heavily weighted toward historical risk and programme completion, and should give greater prominence to evidence of stability, engagement, and conduct.

At present, the Parole Board’s approach is overly preoccupied with assessing “risk” through limited tools and the completion of accredited programmes. This has created a situation where many people remain in custody for years beyond their tariff, not because of ongoing danger to the public, but because they have been unable to access specific courses or because risk language is used too rigidly.

There is no published evidence that completion of these programmes predicts safer outcomes, yet the system continues to treat them as decisive indicators of readiness for release. This reliance has become one of the main reasons people are kept in prison unnecessarily, contributing to overcrowding and frustration.

Mental health and addiction issues should be understood and managed as health conditions, not as obstacles to release. These are treatable in the community, like any other health concern, and continuing to detain people on this basis does not improve safety — it worsens health, increases isolation, and delays recovery.

Other indicators of progress and stability, such as educational achievement, consistent attendance at work parties, and long periods free from misconduct reports, should carry far more weight in parole assessments. These show sustained engagement, reliability, and a capacity to live safely and constructively in the community.

In short, parole decisions should focus on what a person has demonstrated over time, not on whether they have ticked prescribed boxes or completed unavailable programmes. The emphasis must shift from bureaucratic risk management to recognising genuine, evidenced readiness for reintegration.

25. What are your views on developing a formal review and appeal process for parole decisions, and who could this apply to?

Answer: A formal appeal or review process should be introduced but only for the person in prison.

Parole decisions have life-altering consequences, yet at present there is no accessible, independent appeal route. The only option is judicial review, which is limited to points of legal procedure and is out of reach for most people in custody. This lack of scrutiny undermines fairness and human rights.

SPARC supports the creation of a clear, independent, and proportionate review mechanism for people in prison who wish to challenge a decision on procedural or evidential grounds. This process should:

• require the Parole Board to publish clear reasoning and evidence for its decisions;
• allow appeals where factual errors, procedural defects, or unequal treatment are alleged;
• be overseen by an independent reviewer or small external panel separate from the Parole Board itself;
• be accessible to people with low literacy or communication difficulties, with advocacy support available; and
• operate to short, fixed timescales so that appeals do not extend detention unnecessarily.

SPARC does not support extending a right of appeal to victims or survivors, as parole is not a re-sentencing exercise and should not become a forum for relitigating punishment. The purpose of a review mechanism should be to safeguard procedural justice and proportionality, not to increase punitiveness or delay release.

A transparent, independent review process would bring parole into line with other quasi-judicial systems in Scotland — such as mental-health tribunals and social-security appeals — and would strengthen both fairness and trust in decision-making.

Licence conditions

26. Do you think that the current approach to licence conditions should be reviewed?

Answer: Yes.

27. Do you feel that the language used in licence conditions is clear and accessible for all people who need to understand and follow them?

Answer: No

No. Conditions can often be worded in very legalistic terms and turns of phrase which some people in the justice system may struggle with. They should be written in plain, common-sense terms that effectively communicate their purpose.

28. Do you feel that licence conditions are currently well-designed to maximise successful rehabilitation and reintegration?

Answer: No

No. Licence conditions are often poorly worded and difficult to understand for many people on licence. Even most justice practitioners, including members of the parole board, seem to agree on this much. They are also increasing in number with even the CJSW ‘s referring to them as a ‘belt and braces’ approach on the part of the Parole Board.

However, understandability is not only an issue for those on licence, but also for practitioners. For example, clearly worded licence conditions, such as stating that people on licence are free to travel anywhere in the UK, have resulted in those on licence planning travel to England or Northern Ireland being told to wait until approvals are granted, as they would be travelling abroad.

Beyond the wording, it is the purpose, proportion and intent that is often the issue – particularly when conditions are directed by CJSW’s in the most literal and inflexible terms. For example, in respect to restrictions on licence premises, where one CJSW or department in one authority describe a “common sense” application of conditions, saying this would apply to entering public houses and on nights out with friends, another worker or department may choose to prohibit someone from entering a supermarket to buy groceries, take their child into a restaurant to use a bathroom, or request change from the pub next door in context of their employment. These are two very different interpretations/experiences of the same licence condition.

Successful reintegration is dependent on eventually living something approximating a normal life. Conditions like this, when directed in an overly defensive manner, serve to interrupt even the most basic functions of daily life, to isolate rather than reintegrate, and to create opportunities for breaches in everyday situations and behaviours that have nothing to do with offending behaviour.

29. What changes, if any, would make licence conditions more supportive of rehabilitation and reintegration?

Logical and practical coherence. If a person who has been in the community for years and has been evidencing both in the community and throughout their community

Recall

30. What are your views on the options currently available to the Parole Board when they consider a request for recall?

Answer: Other

The consultation suggests that recall is initiated when a local authority “would like to escalate the case.” It is our understanding that in practice, Criminal Justice Social Work (CJSW) have little discretion — they are obliged to refer most breaches to the Parole Board, even when the underlying issue could be managed safely in the community.

This rigidity produces unnecessary recalls for behaviour that is part of normal human difficulty, such as relapse, distress, or missed appointments. These are often health or social-care issues, not public-safety threats. Addiction relapse, for instance, is routinely managed in the community by healthcare teams, yet within the parole system, it can trigger recall. This overlap between health and justice causes avoidable harm.

SPARC has direct evidence of this harm. With the express consent of next of kin, we note that one of our service users sadly took his own life due to a drug-related relapse and the fear of being recalled and never released again.

In research undertaken by one of SPARC’s co-founders, almost every person interviewed on parole said they would not disclose mental-health or substance-use struggles to their parole officer because they believed it would lead to recall or tighter control. Whether or not this perception is always accurate, it shapes behaviour — people hide their distress rather than seek help.

To change this, SPARC recommends:

• Clear early discussions between supervising officers and the person on licence about what constitutes a serious breach and what can be worked on collaboratively without escalation;
• A health-first response to relapse, self-harm, or mental-health crisis, with healthcare partners taking the lead, separate from CJSW where appropriate;
• Retaining recall only for clear, imminent, and evidenced risk of serious harm and not imagined ‘people on drugs will commit crimes to buy drugs so you’re a danger to society’ type of risk; and
• Developing community-based interventions and support reviews before recall is even considered.

Being clear from the outset about what parole is for, what help is available, and when behaviour will lead to support rather than punishment is essential for trust and safety. Fear of recall silences people and undermines rehabilitation — it protects no one.

31. If the Board were to have more options for responding to a potential licence breach or request for recall, what should these be?

I think some of this is answered above but worth rementioning here – Before any recall is considered, there should be clear mechanisms for early, proportionate, and health-based responses to emerging difficulties in the community.

Many of the issues currently treated as breaches — missed appointments, relapse, or emotional distress — are symptoms of instability or unmet health needs, not indicators of deliberate non-compliance or danger to others.

SPARC recommends introducing the following additional options:

• Structured support reviews involving the person, their supervising officer, and relevant health or social-care partners to agree immediate practical supports rather than escalating to recall.
• Health or wellbeing intervention referrals, for example rapid access to addiction, mental health, or crisis services as a first response to relapse or distress.
• Short, formal “stability plans” that set clear, achievable steps for recovery and support, reviewed jointly by all parties.
• Written warning letters used only as part of an agreed plan, not as a threat of recall.

These steps would allow problems to be addressed in the community before risk is inflated into a justification for imprisonment.

Crucially, people on licence must be able to ask for help without fear that it will trigger punishment. Clear communication at the outset — about what constitutes a serious breach, what can be managed locally, and what support is available — is essential to building trust and avoiding preventable harm.

32. Do you support enabling the Parole Board for Scotland to set a progress hearing as an additional option in cases where the Board are deciding on recall?

Answer: Other

Progress hearings should exist solely as an alternative to recall, providing a chance to stabilise a person’s situation while they remain in the community. They should not become a new standing mechanism for monitoring people already under licence.

Individuals on parole already have annual progress reviews with Criminal Justice Social Work, and adding further hearings would duplicate existing oversight and increase anxiety. The value of a progress hearing lies in preventing unnecessary imprisonment by addressing issues early and collaboratively — not in extending supervision or creating new opportunities for scrutiny.

If used strictly within recall decisions, this could be a positive, proportionate reform. If used more broadly, it would risk deepening the culture of surveillance that already undermines trust and reintegration.

33. If recall decisions were to be based on a wider range of factors, which specific issues should be taken into account?

less issues should initiate a recall not more

34. What other suggestions do you have for improving the recall process in Scotland?

less recalls – they’re clogging up the system full of people who haven’t committed a crime in over a decade.

35. Do you feel that re-release process is effective at supporting the initial decision to recall?

Answer: Not sure / No opinion

Being re-released after a recall is a lengthy process, and whatever work a person has done to get their life together upon initial parole release has been set back massively. Unless a new crime has been committed or there is an immediate risk or danger, then a person shouldn’t really be recalled and therefore shouldn’t need re-release.

36. Do you believe there should be a firm timeframe set out for re-release hearings?

Answer: Yes, within two weeks of being recalled to custody

The Parole Board should convene at the earliest possible point to review any case and any pertinent information to that case. If someone has been returned to prison, unless there has been a new offence for which a judge has set a new sentence that must be served, the Parole Board should always be acting to release the person from custody as soon as they can defensibly be assessed as posing no serious or imminent threat to the public.

37. What other suggestions do you have on the format and timings of the Parole Board’s re-release hearings?

No response submitted.

Deferrals

38. If you have been connected to a case where a parole hearing was deferred, do you know what was the reason for deferral?

No response submitted.

39. Are there any changes you believe could be made to improve efficiencies and minimise deferral of Parole Board hearings?

Earlier compilation/preparation and triage of dossiers ahead of pending tribunals. A more involved compilation process from the point of view of the person seeking parole.

Forthcoming research from a SPARC member studying this field stated that the Parole Board felt communication between SPS, Police Scotland and Justice Social work was limited at times and there were often significant gaps in information in prisoners’ dossiers where these organisations could not seem to explain, which made it difficult to reach a decision on a given case. As such, we believe improving working relationships across the various justice organisations, and improving information sharing for the effective compilation of dossiers, would lead to less deferrals and improve efficiency

Timescales for parole reviews

40. Which of the following best represents your view on this timescale?

Answer: The timeframe should be flexible, and set based on the individual case, with no maximum time between opportunities to be considered for parole

Flexible, based on the individual, and always geared towards the minimum time necessary to protect the public from serious harm. The EHCR clearly states that such timeframes should never be arbitrary, so a standard or fixed time should never be in place, especially if issues can be addressed much sooner

41. Which of the following best represents your view on this timescale?

Answer: The timeframe should be flexible and set based on the individual case

No further explanation submitted.

42. If someone is denied parole, what factors should be considered in determining how long it should be before that person comes before the Parole Board again?

They should be seen at the earliest possible opportunity. The EHCR clearly states that such timeframes should never be arbitrary, and where there is no clear and pressing threat to public safety, the Parole Board should seek to release those who do not need to be in custody for that reason at the earliest possible opportunity.

About SPARC

Name

John McGhee (SPARC)

Responding as

Organisation

Organisation

Scottish Prisoner Advocacy and Research Collective (SPARC)

Further information about the organisation’s response

This submission was prepared collectively by the Scottish Prisoner Advocacy and Research Collective (SPARC) — an independent organisation led by six members, all of whom have lived experience of serving long-term prison sentences. Five members are currently on parole, and the sixth is in the process of applying for release. All are educated to at least degree level, with three currently undertaking PhDs focused on prisons, parole, or post-custodial outcomes.

Our response draws on:

• Two group meetings held in September 2025 and extensive follow-up discussion by email to agree wording and content;
• Direct lived experience of the parole process and post-release supervision;
• Approximately 20–30 parole-related advocacy cases handled by SPARC over the past 12–18 months, providing insight into how policy operates in practice;
• Scott McMillan’s forthcoming PhD research on parole and desistance;
• SPARC’s published research, including our paper “Very Long-Term Imprisonment in Scotland” (Prison Reform Trust, 2023), which explores long-term imprisonment, release processes, and reintegration;
• Engagement with our community of interest, including people currently under licence, family members, and practitioners, whose perspectives helped shape several of our answers; and
• Direct policy dialogue, including a roundtable meeting in October 2025 attended by a SPARC representative with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice Angela Constance and senior members of the Parole Board.

Together, these sources provide a robust combination of lived experience, academic research, and advocacy evidence. They form the basis of SPARC’s position that parole reform in Scotland must prioritise reintegration, health, and proportionality, while reducing unnecessary harm and uncertainty for people subject to parole.

Publishing preference

Publish response with name

Consent to Scottish Government contacting SPARC again

Yes

Email

[email protected]

Where did you hear about this consultation?

Other: Academic colleagues

Category selected

I have served time in prison, including serving part of my sentence on parole in the community

Evaluation

How satisfied were you with this consultation?

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

I think this consultation is coming along at the right time if the aim is to see how the parole process can reduce the pressures within the prison system created by offender management course backlogs and people being recalled for administrative reasons. However, some of the questions within this consultation makes it seem like a new bureaucratic step is being created, the review which sounds like it will happen alongside a CJSW review which also happens annually – if so then this consultation might end up doing more harm than good.