Policy paper

Sentencing Bill: sentencing measures factsheet

Published 3 September 2025

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.

Prisons have been under sustained pressure and there are high numbers of people in prison on short sentences of immediate custody. Sentences of 12 months or less accounted for around 62% of immediate custodial sentences in the year ending December 2024, which translates into around 49,300 adults coming in and out of prison over the course of the year.

In many cases, particularly for lower-level offending, there is persuasive evidence that suspended and community sentences are more effective than short custodial sentences in reducing reoffending and rehabilitation. While short custodial sentences may be needed in some circumstances, such as offences relating to breaching court orders or to protect an at-risk domestic abuse victim, they often fail to rehabilitate. Reoffending devastates communities and creates more victims. It also contributes to increasing the prison population, which has been under sustained pressure and is projected to continue to increase.

Instead, as recommended by the Independent Sentencing Review, more of these offenders should be dealt with through serving tough sentences in the community, that incentivise them to turn their lives around. In appropriate circumstances, suspended sentences can provide offenders with an opportunity to desist from offending with the threat of custody if they fail to comply or commit a further offence.

Alongside the issues associated with short custodial sentences, the existing purposes of sentencing in the Sentencing Code do not sufficiently recognise the protection of victims specifically alongside the protection of the public. 

There is also currently no consistent way to record when domestic abuse was a factor in a criminal offence at the point of sentencing, which creates challenges for providing victim support, data analysis, perpetrator management, and understanding reoffending.

The issues raised by the Sentencing Council’s proposed revised Imposition of community and custodial sentences sentencing guideline, and the subsequent passage of the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Act 2025, highlighted the need to ensure greater democratic oversight for sentencing guidelines.

Dangerous offenders will continue to be locked up for a long time – there are over 17,000 prisoners serving sentences such as extended determinate sentences (EDS) or life sentences that are not affected by these measures. We did not accept the Gauke recommendation on releasing those on EDS early.  

The Sentencing Bill 2025 includes the following measures to address these issues, and technical measures on the Parole Board:

• Introducing a presumption to suspend short custodial sentences of 12 months or less, unless an offender has breached a court order, where there is a significant risk of harm to an individual, or where there are exceptional circumstances that do not justify a suspended sentence.
• Extending powers to suspend custodial sentences of up to 3 years and ensuring that extended determinate sentences and sentences for offenders of particular concern cannot be suspended in any circumstances.
• Adding new community requirements to community and suspended sentence orders to prohibit offenders from driving, entering pubs, bars and clubs, attending sports and public events and to impose restriction zones, alongside a power to add or amend requirements via secondary legislation.
• Giving a power to create a new ancillary order, an income reduction order (IRO) can be made by a judge at sentencing to an offender serving a SSO and who is deemed likely to generate a significant income (above a minimum income threshold to be set by regulations).
• Amending the statutory purposes of sentencing to emphasise the importance of protecting victims.
• Extending the maximum period that a sentence can be deferred from 6 months to 12 months.
• Introducing a judicial finding of domestic abuse.
• Introducing a new requirement for Sentencing Council guidelines to be agreed by both the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice before they are issued.
• Introducing a new requirement that the Sentencing Council obtains the Lord Chancellor’s approval of its annual business plan.
• Two technical changes to repeal the power of the Secretary of State to appoint members to Parole Board panels and to amend the parole referral power.

Presumption to suspend short sentences

Headline: Introducing a presumption for courts to suspend short custodial sentences of 12 months or less

What are we doing?

We are introducing a presumption for courts to suspend short custodial sentences of 12 months or less.

This is not a ban. Judges will always need the ability to make short custodial sentences in some instances. Prison sentences – even if short – can be critical to safeguarding victims of domestic abuse or VAWG.

Courts will still be able to impose a short custodial sentence for offenders who have breached a court order. This includes breach of any VAWG-related order, like restraining orders and stalking protection orders, or breach of a previous community order or suspended sentence order, so offenders who breach the terms of their suspended sentence by going on to reoffend can go to prison.

Courts will also be able to make short custodial sentences where an individual would be at significant risk of physical or psychological harm – for example, to protect an at risk domestic abuse victim.

Judges will also have the power to make short custodial sentences in exceptional circumstances where a suspended sentence would not be appropriate.

How are we going to do it?

The Sentencing Bill 2025 will insert two new sections into the Sentencing Code.

The new section 264A will set out how the presumption applies to adults aged over 18 and under 21. The new section 277A will set out how the presumption applies to adults aged over 21.

The new sections also set out the exemptions where the presumption will not apply – where offenders have breached a court order, an individual is at significant risk of physical or psychological harm, or in exceptional circumstances where a suspended sentence would not be appropriate.

Extending suspended sentences

Headline: Extending powers to suspend custodial sentences of up to 3 years

What are we going to do?

Currently courts can suspend a custodial sentence of up to 2 years and can suspend that sentence for up to 2 years. The court may also impose requirements such as unpaid work on the offender.

This measure will extend the courts’ powers, allowing them to suspend custodial sentences of up to 3 years in length. The court will be able to suspend sentences of over 2 years and up to 3 years for a period of up to 3 years. Where a sentence of up to 2 years is suspended, the court will only be able to suspend the sentence for up to 2 years. For all suspended sentences up to 3 years the court will continue to be able to impose requirements on the offender for a maximum of 2 years. For offenders given suspended sentences of two to three years, the final year will not include any requirements. However, if the offender commits a further offence at any point during the SSO, including the third year they can be returned to court where there’s a presumption that the suspended sentence will be activated.

Judges will always have the power to send offenders to immediate custody if that is appropriate. This measure will not require judges to suspend a sentence; it will simply give them the power to do so.

The decision will be a matter for judicial discretion taking into account all the circumstances of the offence and the offender and following the appropriate guidance set by the Sentencing Council. For example, guidelines state that if an offender has a history or poor compliance with court orders or presents a risk, that would indicate it would not be appropriate to suspend the sentence.

We are excluding extended determinate sentences (EDS) and sentences for offenders of particular concern (SOPC) from this power and ensuring that these sentences cannot be suspended under any circumstances, regardless of the length of the sentence as these sentences are aimed at the most serious and dangerous offenders.

How are we going to do it?

The Sentencing Bill 2025 will make amendments to section 177(2) of the Sentencing Code to increase the maximum length of a custodial sentence that can be suspended from 2 years to 3 years.

For custodial sentences of between 2 to 3 years, the Bill will amend section 288(2) of the Sentencing Code to enable courts to set an operational period (which is the length of the suspension period) of up to 3 years. This Bill does not amend the existing maximum of 2 years for the supervision period (the period during which the offender is supervised by probation).

The Bill also amends sections 264 and 277 of the Sentencing Code to exclude EDS and SOPCs from powers to suspend.

New community requirements

Headline: Providing the courts with more options to increase flexibility in sentencing

What are we going to do?

The courts have a range of powers when imposing a community or suspended sentence order. These sentences can include the fourteen ‘requirements’ available, such as electronic monitoring and community payback. The courts have the flexibility to choose and balance requirements in line with the statutory purposes of sentencing.

This measure will provide the courts with four further options to include in a community or suspended sentence with the aim of increasing flexibility and enabling punishment to be more effectively tailored to individual offenders.

The four new requirements which this Bill includes are:

• banning offenders from attending public events (including sports events),
• banning offenders from attending drinking establishments (including pubs, clubs and bars)
• prohibiting offenders from driving, and
• requiring an offender to stay within a specified geographic location (restriction zones).

This measure will also include a power to amend or add to the list of available requirements for these orders through secondary legislation, providing greater flexibility to introduce or change requirements where necessary.

How are we going to do it?

We will introduce the four new requirements into sections 201 and 287 of the Sentencing Act 2020, alongside changes to schedule 9 to the Act. Use of these requirements will be at the discretion of the court as with the current requirements which the court can include as part of these sentences. We will also be inserting a new section into the Sentencing Code giving the Lord Chancellor the power to add new requirements or amend existing requirements by affirmative regulations.

Income reduction orders (IROs)

Headline: A new ancillary order available alongside suspended sentence orders requiring offenders to pay a percentage of their income above a threshold for up to the duration of their sentence.

What are we going to do?

An income reduction order can be made by a judge at sentencing to an offender serving a SSO and who is deemed likely to generate a significant income (above a minimum income threshold to be set by regulations).

The order would apply for up to the duration of the sentence and be based on taxable monthly income.

This will give courts greater flexibility to apply punitive sentences to those who would otherwise have spent time in a custodial setting. This may be particularly useful for higher income offenders who may be less likely to feel penalised for their offence as those with lower incomes.

This order will also help assure the public that sentence served in a community setting remain punitive and are seen as deterring criminal activity.

How are we going to do it?

We are creating a new chapter (5) in Part 7 of the Sentencing Code. This Part currently allows courts to impose a variety of financial orders on offenders. The new chapter 5 will add income reduction orders to the options available to judges at sentencing.

Purposes of sentencing

Headline: Amending the statutory purposes of sentencing to emphasise the importance of protecting victims

What are we going to do?

We will amend the statutory purposes of sentencing so that protecting victims is explicitly referenced alongside protecting the public. This change will ensure the purposes of sentencing meet the needs of a modern criminal justice system, and work to protect victims.

We are not actioning the Independent Sentencing Review’s recommendation to introduce crime reduction as an overarching principle and state that there is no hierarchy amongst the purposes of sentencing. Crime reduction is already one of the statutory purposes and introducing it as an overarching principle may imply unintended hierarchy amongst the purposes, which would be contrary to the intent of the Review’s recommendation.  

How are we going to do it?

Courts are required to consider the five statutory purposes set out in section 57 of the Sentencing Code when sentencing offenders aged 18 years and over. We will amend section 57 to expressly refer to the need to protect victims of crime alongside the public.

Deferment orders

Headline: Extending the maximum period that a sentence can be deferred from 6 months to 12 months

What are we going to do?

A deferment order enables the court to delay passing a sentence for up to 6 months. During the period of deferment, the court may impose requirements about the offender’s conduct, such as attendance at rehabilitative programmes. Deferment orders enable sentencers to consider the offender’s conduct after conviction and any change in their circumstances when making sentencing decisions.  

We are extending the maximum period that a sentence can be deferred by the courts from 6 months to 12 months. It will remain the discretion of sentencers to determine whether to defer a sentence for up to 12 months in individual cases, in line with the relevant sentencing guidelines.

This will give courts greater flexibility to use their discretion for assessing transitional life circumstances that last longer than 6 months, as well as assessing offender behaviour over a longer period where appropriate. This may be particularly useful for offenders who are pregnant or experiencing serious illness.

During this period, the court can continue to impose any necessary requirements about the offender’s conduct. The courts can consider this conduct, and any change in the offender’s circumstances, when making final sentencing decisions.

How are we going to do it?

We are amending section 5 of the Sentencing Code. This section currently allows courts to make a ‘deferment order’ (or in other words, delay making a sentencing decision) for up to six months. We are changing the maximum period in this section, so courts can make a deferment order for up to 12 months.

Judicial finding of domestic abuse

Headline: Creating a judicial finding of domestic abuse

What are we going to do?

We are introducing a formal judicial finding of domestic abuse at the point of sentencing in criminal cases in order to better identify domestic abuse offenders throughout the criminal justice system.

Currently, we don’t have a consistent way to identify and track domestic abuse across the criminal justice system. A case may involve domestic abuse but be recorded under offences like assault or criminal damage, with no clear flag.

This measure will fix that gap by ensuring domestic abuse is clearly recorded at sentencing – helping to protect victims, manage risk, and improve system-wide responses.

How are we going to do it?

The Bill contains a measure that will require judges to formally state in open court when domestic abuse was a factor in an offence. The Criminal Procedure Rules will be amended so as to require that finding to be recorded in the court record.

This measure does not create a new aggravating factor and does not change sentencing outcomes. It requires judges to formally state in open court when domestic abuse was a factor in the offence.

The Government remains committed to ensuring that this better identification leads to more effective risk management of perpetrators, better understanding of reoffending and stronger victim protection, as part of our landmark mission to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade. 

Sentencing Council powers

Headline: Reforming the powers of the Sentencing Council to ensure greater democratic oversight of its work

What are we going to do?

We are introducing statutory obligations on the Sentencing Council to:

• Obtain approval from both the Lord Chancellor and Lady Chief Justice for all sentencing guidelines before they are issued as final, definitive guidelines.
• Publish an annual business plan for each financial year, which must be approved by the Lord Chancellor before publication and include detail of the sentencing guidelines that it proposes to prepare in the year.

These reforms follow a commitment by the Lord Chancellor to Parliament in April 2025 to review the Council’s role and powers and are intended to ensure greater democratic and judicial oversight of the direction of the Council’s work and the final guidelines it publishes. These measures ensure that no sentencing guidelines can be issued without both the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice explicitly approving them. These measures do not interfere with the independence of judges and magistrates in making individual sentencing decisions.

How are we going to do it?

The Bill will insert new section 118A into the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to provide that the Council must publish a business plan each financial year, after Lord Chancellor approval. The Bill also makes various amendments to sections 120 and 122 of the 2009 Act to provide that definitive sentencing guidelines can only be implemented after approval from both the Lord Chancellor and Lady Chief Justice.

Repeal of Secretary of State power to appoint members to Parole Board panels

Headline: Repealing the power of the Secretary of State to appoint members to Parole Board panels

What are we going to do?

We are repealing the power that would allow the Secretary of State to prescribe that certain classes of parole cases must be decided by certain types of Parole Board member. This power was intended to be used to ensure that law enforcement members sat on top-tier cases but has not been brought into force. The Government considers that the Parole Board is best placed to decide which types of members should sit on which types of cases, and so this power is unnecessary.

How are we going to do it?

The Bill will repeal section 73(2) of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. Subject to the Parliamentary passage of the Bill, it is expected the repeal will come into force two months after Royal Assent.

Powers of High Court on referral

Headline: Powers of the High Court on referral

What are we going to do?

We are clarifying that the power of the Secretary of State to refer certain top-tier Parole Board release decisions to the High Court can be used in cases where the Parole Board has directed the unconditional release of the offender. This will only affect IPP offenders, since they are the only type of offender who can have their life licence terminated. However, the referral power is a high bar and it is expected to only be used in the most serious and exceptional top-tier cases. We do not expect it to be routinely used in cases where the Parole Board has directed the unconditional release of an IPP offender.

How are we going to do it?

The Bill contains a technical amendment to fulfil the policy intention that the referral power can be used to refer certain release decisions of the Parole Board to the High Court, regardless of whether the release is conditional (i.e. with licence conditions) or unconditional (i.e. without a licence).