Sentencing Bill: remand measures factsheet
Published 3 September 2025
© Crown copyright 2025
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sentencing-bill-2025/sentencing-bill-remand-measures-factsheet
Background
This Government inherited a prison system in crisis, putting the public at grave risk. Prisons were on the brink of collapse, with capacity dangerously close to being exceeded. Although we are building prisons at an exceptional rate, we cannot simply build our way out of this crisis. Without significant reform, demand for places will outstrip supply by 9,500 in early 2028. That is why we commissioned the Independent Sentencing Review, led by David Gauke, to ensure no Government ever finds itself in this position again. The Sentencing Bill implements many of the Review’s recommendations to reduce reoffending, protect victims, and restore public confidence in the justice system.
The Sentencing Bill introduces a package of amendments to the Bail Act 1976 to help reduce the prison remand population, while still ensuring public protection. The Bail Act 1976 establishes a legal process for remand decision-making by the courts. Where there is a presumption in favour of bail under the Bail Act 1976, a defendant must be granted bail unless an exception applies. Exceptions apply, generally, where there is a risk that the defendant would commit further offences, abscond, or interfere with witnesses if released on bail, or where the defendant must be remanded in custody to ensure the proper administration of justice. The court must consider whether available bail conditions, including electronic monitoring, can be imposed to reduce the risks posed by a defendant to allow them to be released on bail.
Under the current system, the remand prison population has risen significantly since the pandemic, reaching effectively a record high[footnote 1]. As of 30 June 2025, the remand prison population stands at 17,701 (representing 20% of the total prison population).
The proposed changes in the Sentencing Bill will ensure alternatives to custodial remand are maximised where appropriate, whilst maintaining public safety. An electronic monitoring requirement will now be available for defendants where the court concludes that there is a real prospect of a suspended sentence and no real prospect of an immediate custodial sentence.
One change includes amending the “no real prospect” test, so that it applies to (i) where the court considers that there is no real prospect that the defendant will be sentenced to an immediate custodial sentence; and (ii) to defendants who have been convicted but are awaiting sentence. This measure seeks to complement another measure in the Bill – the presumption against short sentences – by limiting the use of custodial remand where a sentence of immediate imprisonment is unlikely. The test for electronic monitoring will also be amended for defendants where the court concludes that there is a real prospect of a suspended sentence but no real prospect of an immediate custodial sentence to ensure that electronic monitoring will be available for defendants who will now be released on bail as a result of amendment to the “no real prospect test”.
Another change involves amending the list of factors provided in the Bail Act that the court should take into account, where relevant. It will include explicit reference to whether a defendant is pregnant, a primary caregiver, or has been a victim of domestic abuse.
What are we going to do?
The Bill introduces changes to the Bail Act 1976, which sets out the rules that the court must follow when deciding whether a defendant should be granted bail or kept in custody.
Amending the “no real prospect” test
The Bill is introducing a presumption to suspend short sentences of 12 months or less. With a presumption in place, immediate imprisonment is expected to become less likely in these cases, and the court should be able to better anticipate whether a defendant will go on to receive a sentence of immediate custody when deciding whether to grant or refuse bail.
Where an immediate custodial sentence appears unlikely, it follows that there is less justification for remanding a defendant into custody. The Bill therefore amends the “no real prospect” test in the Bail Act 1976 so that fewer exceptions to bail will apply where the court considers that a sentence of immediate custody is unlikely. This change should also help address the unsustainable growth in the prison remand population.
Given its link to the presumption to suspend, this change will not affect defendants accused or convicted of a more serious offence who are likely to receive a longer prison sentence. Equally, the change will not affect defendants who meet an exemption to the presumption that a short custodial sentence will be suspended. Certain exceptions to the right to bail apply even where there is no prospect of a custodial sentence, including that bail can be refused where the court has substantial grounds to believe that the defendant will commit a domestic abuse offence on bail.
Amending the conditions for imposing electronic monitoring requirements
We want to put extra safeguards in place to help manage any risks from defendants who will be now granted bail under the amended “no real prospect” test. The Bill amends the Bail Act 1976 to allow the court to impose electronic monitoring for certain defendants who are released under this change. Previously, electronic monitoring requirements could only be imposed as an alternative to custody – now, as more defendants will be given suspended sentence, we have changed this so electronic monitoring requirements can be imposed by the courts where it is not an alternative to a remand in custody.
Amending the statutory factors that may be relevant to bail
Many women who are sent to prison are victims themselves and many leave a child behind. To support wider steps to reduce the number of women going to prison, the Bill adds to the list of factors in the Bail Act 1976. The courts will now be explicitly asked to consider whether a defendant is pregnant, a primary caregiver, or victim of domestic abuse when deciding whether to refuse or grant bail in certain cases.
How are we going to do it?
Amending the “no real prospect” test
The “no real prospect” test currently provides that, for unconvicted adult defendants, fewer exceptions to the right to bail apply where the court considers that there is no real prospect that the defendant will be sentenced to a custodial sentence. It therefore limits the availability of remand into custody where a custodial sentence, whether immediate or suspended, is unlikely to be imposed at sentence.
The Bill amends the “no real prospect” test so that it applies:
-
where the court considers that there is no real prospect that the defendant will be sentenced to an immediate custodial sentence; and
-
to defendants who have been convicted but are awaiting sentence.
This will mean that, for all adult defendants, a more limited set of exceptions to bail will apply where the court considers there is no real prospect of an immediate custodial sentence so that the defendant is likely to receive a suspended or non-custodial sentence.
Amending the conditions for imposing electronic monitoring requirements
Currently, the Bail Act 1976 provides that electronic monitoring can only be imposed on an adult defendant where the court is satisfied that without the requirement the person would not be granted bail. This means that without a change to the Bail Act 1976, those defendants that would now be bailed under the amended “no real prospect” test could only be subject to electronic monitoring where it was necessary to prevent a remand into custody on one of the more limited exceptions to bail that would apply by virtue of the “no real prospect” test.
The Bill amends the test for eligibility for electronic monitoring in the Bail Act 1976 for defendants so that it is no longer necessary for electronic monitoring to be an alternative to a remand in custody.
If the statutory conditions are met, an electronic monitoring requirement will be available where the court concludes that there is a real prospect of a suspended sentence and no real prospect of an immediate custodial sentence.
Amending the statutory factors that may be relevant to bail
The Bail Act 1976 currently provides that when considering whether certain exceptions to bail apply, the court should have regard to certain factors such as the character of the defendant, the seriousness of their offence, “as well as to any others which appear to be relevant”.
The Bill adds the following factors as potentially relevant factors to this list: the defendant is pregnant; the defendant is a primary caregiver; and the defendant has been a victim of domestic abuse. While these factors can already be taken into account where relevant, including them in legislation will help ensure that the court takes them into consideration.
Key statistics
The remand population as of 30 June 2025 was 17,701 (representing 20% of the total prison population). This represents the highest ‘end of June’ figure in at least the last 50 years (effectively a ‘record high’)[footnote 2].