'Punitive, stigmatising and discriminatory'

I notice the Probation Institute, quietly, politely but thoroughly, pours copious quantities of cold water over the Sentencing Bill proposals:- 

The Sentencing Bill - an opportunity missed?

On 11 July, the Minister for Prisons, Parole and Probaton, James Timpson, delivered the annual Bill McWilliams lecture, in association with the Institute for Criminology at the University of Cambridge, and the Probation Institute. The lecture series was inaugurated following Bill's death, with the aim of commemoratng his research and practce on the history, culture and values of probaton work, and to keep alive the values of the rehabilitative ideal.

Members of the Probaton Institute and a wide audience of probaton staff, former chiefs, researchers and the judiciary were pleased to hear Lord Timpson reiterate the centrality of the Probaton Service in his presentaton, and did not at all disagree with the emphasis he placed on reducing reoffending, and public protection. However, there was some consternation regarding his focus on the possible and extended uses of Electronic Monitoring and AI to enable probation practice, with an apparent vision of 'custody in the community.'

These concerns were justfied by the content and tone of the announcement of the provisions of the Sentencing Bill, made via a press release on 3 September. The Probaton Institute applauds the principle of diminishing the use of short prison sentences, which, as the press release rightly points out, have a poor record of reducing reoffending, notably in comparison with community-based sentences. But we would argue that the current status of community sentences, with the provision of additional requirements to address offending behaviour, would be more than adequate, and suitable, to enable people to reform, and to achieve their rehabilitaton. 

We are disturbed by the proposed new powers to restrict the freedoms of people convicted of criminal offences, for instance, via restrictons of attendance at, amongst other places, 'pubs, concerts and football matches’; and the proposal that the personal details of people undertaking Unpaid Work in their local communites - originally known as Community Service - will be promulgated publicly. These proposals are at odds with any notion of rehabilitaton and reintegraton for people with criminal records - historically, core principles of Probaton work. The publication of personal details, alongside the proposal to electronically tag anyone released from custody, appear to be measures designed to stigmatise and exclude those who have fallen foul of the law, not to enable their rehabilitation and reform.

The Probation Service is identified as integral to the implementation of these new measures. Yet it is difficult to envisage a scenario in which effective supervision can be carried out, given the current strains on probation staff. Issues regarding the retention of qualified staff have dogged probation for over a decade, arising initially from the semi-privatisation of the service, and, more recently, following reunification. This issue, of a sufficiency of suitably qualified and experienced staff, has been raised frequently by the Probation Inspectorate in its reviews into Serious Further Offences, indicating that the organisational change imposed on Probation over the last decade or so has had real, and harmful consequences. Recent research conducted by the Rehabilitatng Probation team based at Liverpool John Moores University suggests that a factor in this attrition is that the role to which practitioners are recruited does not reflect the actual nature of the work; that the motivation to work in probation is, as it has always been, to enable people to make positive changes, not to provide a community based carceral environment.

The Probation Service has more than a century of working with people with criminal convictions to enable them to reform, and to reintegrate into their communities. Probation practitioners recognise that a key aspect of their work is putting clear and firm boundaries in place, alongside creating supportive and motivational relationships with those under their supervision. Probation does not shy away from the control aspects of the work, but does place such controls in a context of care and concern. Research by the Prison Reform Trust with people subject to probation supervision portrays the onerousness of this status. One participant, released from custody, escribed himself as 'free but not free.' Regrettably, this Bill seems to present a picture of justice which is punitive, stigmatsing and discriminatory, and which may only serve to further diminish real opportunities for effective rehabilitation.

Any probation practitioner will be acutely aware that many of the people they are supervising have been victims of crime themselves, with consequences of trauma and diminution in opportunities to achieve, notably in education and work. These structural disadvantages seem likely to be further entrenched by the provisions of the Sentencing Bill. The Probation Institute regards this as a golden opportunity to forefront a rehabilitative narrative and agenda - in its current form, the Bill appears to be a missed opportunity.

Trustees of the Probation Institute. September 2025