We've graded the UK Government's Sentencing Bill efforts to transform the justice system for women

It’s back to school for September and the government have got new uniforms, sharp pencils and seemingly as of the recent cabinet reshuffle, are all in new classrooms! Earlier this month, the long-awaited Sentencing Bill was put before Parliament. The much-anticipated proposals the Bill puts forward could be make or break for the criminal justice system, with its effects reaching far across prison population and probation, so let’s see how the government’s school report card looks so far.

It’s not a promising start. The government has said that as part of its ‘Plan for Change’, up to 22,000 more people will be tagged each year. The Government is introducing a presumption that all people leaving prison will be tagged on release as part of intensive supervision with the Probation Service. This means, unless Probation Staff specifically decide not to, any person leaving prison will be tagged.

While the intention is to reduce pressure on an over-stretched probation service, this overlooks applications where an electronic tag may be inappropriate, unnecessary and even harmful. For example, why tag a woman whose offence is something like fraud, and whose presence in a particular area has no implications for her probation? Increased tagging is a particular concern for us as we regularly see the negative impact of administrative errors and inappropriate use of tags on the women we work with.

Some of you will recall the case of 78-year-old Gaie Delap who was returned to prison because the tag, this supposedly risky septuagenarian was required to wear, did not fit her wrists (and we checked, her wrists are an average size for a woman). Once again, when the system planned for a prisoner, they planned for men’s needs. Women - like so many times before - were overlooked. We’ve also had a case of a woman being seriously ill, to the point that a doctor feels a tag on her ankle is a health risk and won’t give it the medical ‘OK’. But rather than manage her through probation, this woman was being held in prison because nobody can find the right tag for her body.

Very worryingly we’ve also had women survivors of domestic abuse who have been bound - through tagging - to areas where they are at risk from their abusers. Perhaps the most shocking story is a case where a woman was breached because she left the permitted area while running from an attack by her abuser.

Currently, we are seeing tagging companies and probation applying tagging to women in ways that put them at further risk. The government has said there will be exemptions to the presumption for tagging. It’s imperative these exceptions take gender into account – without this, women are likely to come to further harm.

Of great concern to us is the lack of accountability and centralised oversight for tagging. We've heard time and again about problems women face with tagging, and between the prison, the tagging company and other agencies like healthcare, no one working in the system seems to be responsible. There’s a lot to be worked out with electronic monitoring before it’s actually safe to use and we don’t think the set up at the moment is anywhere near ready.

Another key component of the proposals in the sentencing bill will be an “earned progression” model that will see prisoners experiencing changes to their sentence depending on their behaviour within prison. Originally the government said that that the model “will see prisoners earn their way to release through good behaviour" or face longer in jail. There will be no automatic release for prisoners who misbehave. The changes mean a prisoner’s release date will now be more dependent on their behaviour. We want to reduce violence in prison and make sure more prisoners engage with activities like education and employment that will reduce crime.”

The model will see people who break the rules inside prison spend longer than the minimum of 33 or 50 percent of their sentence in prison. This would also mean ending automatic release for those whose behaviour in prison was considered to be bad. It was inspired by a model used in Texas. The government has said it will be part of a process to “toughen” the prison punishment regime, so people in prison would face up to three months extra in jail for violence or being found with illicit items like phones. Multiple incidents will see punishments added consecutively.

While for the uninitiated it may sound sensible and fair, the reality is that policy does not reflect what happens on the ground in women’s prisons. If we say that “good behaviour” - and therefore early release - is tied to never losing your temper, always being quiet and well behaved – how are the 62% (1) of women in prison with mental health problems to achieve this? What happens to women who scream in distress, or harm themselves? These situations may be perceived as “bad behaviour” when in fact it is lack of adequate care. And what is particularly concerning us is that these are common occurrences in women’s prisons.

The government has said bad behaviour will be categorised under “serious incidents” and the punishments will relate to seriousness. In our experience, prisons are environments of rules, regimen, locked doors, and complete loss of agency. Existing practices we hear of from women around behaviour in prisons give us cause for concern about what is actually considered ‘serious and punishable.

We’ve seen women punished for wearing slippers on the landing, for not understanding the instructions within prisons, or for not getting out of bed when ill with COVID. If you imagine that good behaviour might be things like attending workshops or drop-in groups, all of these are great on paper, but in reality, prison staff are often incredibly stretched and the time to move people around even for basic access to things like healthcare appointments just isn’t there. We know that the criminal justice system impacts black, racially minoritised and migrant women disproportionately at every stage (2) and that racially minoritised women can be perceived as more aggressive, or ‘behaving badly, due to racial stereotypes, (3) so we must ask, how will such disproportionality be counterbalanced in the new proposals? Add differing needs into this mix, for example, imagine if you have a neurodivergence, or English isn’t your first language and your ability to follow the rules is further hampered.

An independent accountability mechanism to avoid such pitfalls is absolutely necessary to avoid inconsistency and inappropriate application of this policy. Without this the reality for many women in prison may mean that good behaviour is an impossible standard to reach.

The government has recently announced new plans that will allow them to immediately deport a foreign national person after sentencing. This is a change from the legislation brought in in June that allowed the government to deport foreign nationals after serving 30% of their sentence. What this means in the Sentencing Bill remains pretty unclear as there is very little content there - for now.

This is a really concerning proposal when you look at migrant women. Black, Asian, racially minoritised and migrant women are overrepresented at every stage of the criminal justice system (4). One in 10 women in prison (11%) are foreign nationals (5). A research study found that in a sample of migrant women in prison, over half (56%) had been coerced or trafficked into offending (6). A 2018 report found ”a disturbing failure to identify, protect and support victims of trafficking at an early stage and avoid prosecuting them for offences committed as a consequence of their exploitation by traffickers.” Hibiscus notes that many of these women are victim/survivors of VAWG, and human trafficking and ”have been pushed to offend either through force, coercion or due to social and economic inequality that led them to have unmet needs. Yet law enforcement routinely treats them as offenders, rather than recognising them as potential victim/survivors. “

If those women are rapidly deported, they may be deported back to the people who are harming them in the first place. In addition to that, their removal gives them no time for legal advice and appeals, a process that is particularly hard if you don't speak English. Hibiscus explain:” Many of those subjected to deportation under this policy would have valid appeals, including those for whom deportation would expose them to significant harm or breach their human rights. Denying them the time and means to seek legal advice is a denial of justice... This policy will both increase their risk of further exploitation following deportation and deepen their fear of contact with authorities, further empowering exploiters and abusers.”

Since the autumn of 2024, the panel members of the Independent Sentencing Review raised questions about short sentences and pointed out that they simply don’t work. Short prison sentences are less effective than community sentences at reducing reoffending (7).The proportion of women being sent to prison to serve very short prison sentences has risen. In 1993 only a third of custodial sentences given to women were for six months or less — in 2023 it was half (50%) (8). For women, short sentences harm their lives, they are traumatic, separate women from their children (sometimes meaning that children are taken into care) and they can cause women to lose their jobs and housing.

We had been hopeful that the Bill would include a presumption against short sentences, i.e. encouraging sentencers to stop using them and offer community sentences in their place, but instead we have a proposal for suspended sentences. Whilst suspended sentences can have their place in a justice system, they can also hang as a threat over women if they are not backed up with good quality, gender specific, community services. (We will have more to say on these later down the line), Sadly, it seems that the truly promising proposal to significantly cut back on harmful, costly short sentences will not materialise.

The proposals here definitely score top of the class. The Sentencing Bill will strengthen the “no real prospect test” in the Bail Act 1976. This test essentially means that someone will be bailed if there is ‘no real prospect’ they will receive a custodial sentence.  Remand harms women, it separates them from their children, can lead to them losing their homes and jobs. Strengthening the test is welcome and we hope it leads to a reduction in the number of women remanded to custody, which has dramatically risen in recent years.

What leaps out however is the significant campaign success around pregnant women and survivors of domestic abuse. We are pleased to see the Bill adding three relevant factors for consideration in bail decisions; if someone is a primary care giver, pregnant, or a victim of domestic abuse.  We and our sister organisations have been campaigning for a long time to get these factors taken into consideration across the criminal justice system, and it is a very welcome moment to see them in black and white in the Bill.

There is still work to do however. The evidence is sadly very clear - all pregnancies in prison are now categorised as high risk (9) with almost twice the risk of premature labour than in the general population (10). Pregnant women in prison are up to seven times more likely to experience stillbirth and have higher rates of premature labour than women in the community. They also miss out on equivalent levels of midwifery and obstetric care, which leads to missed opportunities to mitigate risks (11).

Nearly 70% of women in prison have experienced domestic abuse and many are being drawn into the criminal justice system due to the abuse they experience (12). So there is a lot more still to do to protect pregnant women and survivors of domestic abuse, but this is an important step in the right direction.

It’s promising that the government is looking to use more Community Sentences and even more positive that the government accepted the recommendations in David Gauke’s sentencing review to fund women centres.

Women’s centres can be a core part of Community Sentences and are essential to offer women a meaningful solution that addresses the root causes of offending. This is only possible with sustainable funding for women’s centres across the country, implemented against a strategy and a transparent timescale. This will allow centres to keep their doors open and deliver the support and services that women need for mental health, domestic abuse, poverty support, access to work, housing and support with substance misuse.

Unless the probation service and the community services it refers women to receive long-term, robust funding, the root causes of offending will persist, and these efforts will go to waste.

Work orders can be effective in the community, but for women it’s essential that we recognise the realities of their day-to-day lives. Childcare responsibilities, often elder care responsibilities, and paid employment are all considerations. Work orders should not be put in place if they stop women accessing support from women’s centres, or if they interfere with childcare and/or paid work. You can often get into debt in prison. You may have lost your house and a paid job. It’s important for the women who can, to be helped back into paid work and it’s vital that any work order doesn’t block that.

The proposal to take photographs of people doing work orders and publish them could put women at serious risk. Nearly 70% (13) of women in contact with the criminal justice system have experienced domestic abuse. If a woman is a survivor of domestic abuse, trafficking, stalking or other forms of abuse, she could be exposed to great risk by being identified and located. This is a dangerous proposal that cannot go ahead.

We’ve been monitoring the development of Intensive Supervision Courts, including the Women’s Problem-Solving court in Birmingham. What we have seen is when a court is focused on solutions and on supporting a woman through being gender and trauma informed, it works.

The Problem-Solving Courts work with compassion to see what meaningful changes can be made for women. However, they will only work if they have a partnership with local women’s centres and if that voluntary sector’s role is fully funded.

We welcome the government‘s commitment to recruiting more Probation Officers. Probation is significantly under capacity, and it needs that boost. We’ve worked with some brilliant probation professionals who specialise in women’s specific needs and who have been flexible and adaptable to make sure that women are not punished for the discriminatory circumstances they face.

However, we’ve also seen a number of gaps where the Probation Service has not understood a woman’s circumstances or isn’t aware of the risk and impact of domestic abuse. And at the moment, we are seeing a reduction in the contact women have with Probation due to recent changes through Probation Impact, which is placing inappropriate, punitive responsibilities on voluntary sector community organisations.

Probation and the holistic community support provided by women's centers are vital to end the cycle of women’s contact with criminal justice system. That means a fully trained Probation Service and specialist workers. We hope the proposed changes to suspended sentences, and to Probation, won’t end up with women receiving less support when they leave prison.

Overall, it seems like it's back to the school desks and time for a few re-sits. Some of the proposed ideas could be problematic for women. But there are some positive proposals in the Bill as well.

We know the government has an enormous job to do to deal with prison capacity but in addressing that big picture, the finer details of how we support women must not be lost. The changes in the Bill must benefit everyone, including women in contact with the criminal justice system.

1. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (2024). Table 2, Women’s comparator workbook, Annual report 2023–24. HM Stationery Office.

2. Women’s Justice Reimagined (2025) Ending Racial Disproportionality in the Criminal Justice System Recommendations from the Women’s Justice Reimagined partnership and the APPG on Women Affected by the Criminal Justice System. Rt. Hon. David Lammy MP (2017) The Lammy Review, Cox, J. and Sacks-Jones, K. (2017) Double disadvantage” The experiences of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic women in the criminal justice system

3. Cox, J. and Sacks-Jones, K. (2017) Double disadvantage” The experiences of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic women in the criminal justice system. Long, LJ (2022) "Black women and White Criminal (in)Justice." In: Tate, SA and Rodríguez, EG, (eds.) The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Race and Gender. Springer, Switzerland, pp. 307-324. ISBN 303083946X, 978-3030839468 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83947-5_16

4. Ministry of Justice (2024). Table 1.Q.11, Prison population 30 September 2024, Offender management statistics quarterly: April to June 2024.

5. Ministry of Justice (2024). Table 1.Q.11, Prison population 30 September 2024, Offender management statistics quarterly: April to June 2024.

6. Hales, L. and Gelsthorpe, L. (2013). The criminalisation of migrant women: Research findings and policy and practice implications. Prison Service Journal, 206, 25-30.

7. Ministry of Justice (2013). Table 1.1, 2013 Compendium of re-offending statistics and analysis. In Prison Reform Trust (2025) Bromley Briefing.

8. Ministry of Justice (2024). Table 2.A.10, Receptions 2023. Offender management statistics quarterly: October to December 2023. In Prison Reform Trust (2025) Bromley Briefing.

9. Prison and Probation Ombudsman (2021) Independent investigation into the death of Baby A at HMP Bronzefield on 27 September 2019 p.3-4 and NHS (2022) Service specification National service specification for the care of women who are pregnant or post-natal in detained settings (prisons, immigration removal centres, children and young people settings) p.7

10. This is concerning as babies born preterm have a higher mortality rate and an increased risk of disability NICE, ‘Preterm labour and birth’: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng25 and House of Lords Preterm Birth Committee (2024) Report of Session 2024–25 HL Paper 30 Preterm birth: reducing risks and improving lives

11. Summers, H., and Murray, Nic. (2023) Pregnant women in English jails are seven times more likely to suffer stillbirth. The Guardian. Davies, M., et al. (2022). Inequality on the inside: Using hospital data to understand the key health care issues for women in prison.

12. Centre for Women’s Justice (2025) ‘Doing his job for him’: How the criminal justice system fails victims of coercive control who are accused of offending

13. Ministry of Justice (2025) Identified needs of offenders, custody and community, 31 October 2024, para. 3.8. Of all women with an OASys Layer 3 assessment, 68% of those in prison and 67% of those under community supervision were recorded as having been a victim of domestic abuse. This compares to 10% of men both in prison and in the community. For more information about OASys Layer 3 assessments, see the same publication at para. 2.2.

Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash