Meeting of the Parliament 23 June 2015
The term “ending automatic early release” has been used so often over the years that its meaning has not been questioned. That was the case until the Justice Committee heard the evidence that was presented at stage 1, which certainly made me think again about an aspiration that, for years, most members have held to be desirable.
Currently, between half and two thirds of the total sentence imposed is served in custody and the remainder is served under licence in the community, during which time the offender is supervised and can be recalled to custody if the conditions of the licence are breached. Whether the point of release is halfway through the sentence or at the maximum two-thirds point is determined by the Parole Board on the basis of the risk that the offender might pose to the community.
The bill as introduced at stage 1 proposed that, for certain categories of long-term prisoners, those who had not been deemed safe to be released on parole should serve their entire sentence in custody, following which they would be released cold into the community without any mandatory supervision. An offender who had served a long-term sentence for a serious or violent crime and who had not been rehabilitated would have walked out of prison at the end of their custodial sentence and disappeared into the community. I was therefore pleased when the Government indicated its intention to amend the bill at stage 2. We supported the bill at stage 1, because the Government had recognised that it would be a mistake to allow such releases.
The bill that is before us does not end automatic early release, nor should it, for the reasons that I have just stated. The bill provides that long-term prisoners must serve the last six months of their sentence under licence in the community, during which time they must be supervised, as the cabinet secretary described.
Although my amendments at stages 2 and 3 that argued for greater flexibility and proportionality with regard to the period of time that should be served under supervision were not accepted, we agree with the general approach that the Government is taking towards sentencing. It very much resembles the approach that was taken back in 2007 by the Labour-Liberal Scottish Executive when we introduced the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Act 2007, which was subsequently amended by the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010—namely, that a sentence involving imprisonment should consist of two parts: a part to be served in custody and a part to be served under mandatory supervision in the community. As the cabinet secretary said at stage 2,
“In essence, the sentence is a custodial and supervisory one.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 2 June 2015; c 3.]
That was the intention of our legislation in 2007.
We, like the Government, believe that a sentence served under licence in the community is not a soft option. It is not a release from sentence. However, I and the academics whose evidence I quoted during the debate on my amendment have argued for a more flexible approach with regard to the length of sentence served under supervision. The supervisory part of a sentence has to be efficacious and it has to be right for the individual offender—it has to provide rehabilitation and strive towards the prevention of reoffending.
I consider that my amendment could have provided an opportunity to ensure clarity at the time of sentencing, as the court would specify the minimum time to be served on licence when the offender had not been released on parole prior to that point in their sentence. However, unfortunately that was not accepted by the Government.
Is the bill as it is now drafted preferable to the current situation? Will victims, communities and offenders be given a more accurate picture of the maximum custodial sentence for the offender? Yes, I think they will. Will members of the judiciary alter the length of sentences imposed? Quite possibly they will. That is one of the reasons why I wished to see greater flexibility. The bill will not affect the majority of the prison population—still only about 3 per cent of prisoners will be affected.
Is six months an adequate period of time to serve in the community under licence? The Law Society of Scotland provided a briefing to MSPs last week in which it expressed its reservations, stating that
“the reduced licence period of 6 months may well be wholly inadequate to assist reintegration into the community and reduce risk of reoffending.”