The Sentencing Bill is now the Sentencing Act, gaining royal assent and now becoming law. The Sentencing Bill was introduced first in the House of Commons. Proceeding swiftly through the committee stage on the 21^st October 2025, with its report stage scheduled for 29^th October 2025. The With current longstanding crises in prisons and court delays, this piece of legislation aims to make various changes to sentencing law and the law governing the management of offenders after sentencing. This piece of legislation would include changes to:

• Sentencing of lower-level offences
• Release provisions for some determinate sentenced prisoners
• Community order requirements
• Restrictions available for post-prison supervision

In attempting to do this, the policy would amend the sentencing code which is the statutory term for certain sections of the Sentencing Act 2020. In light of the current stressors and challenges in our prison system, there was a review, led by David Guake, a former Secretary of State for Justice, on the state of the criminal justice system and it’s accompanying recommendations. This review was commissioned in October 2024 by Shabana Mahmood, who was then Justice Secretary, this report was then published in May last year. Indeed, the prison population is burgeoning past its limits. As of the 8^th of September last year, the total prison population is 88,045, with the operational capacity of the prison estate is 89,720. In efforts to mitigate the growth and enable the consolidation of prisons, the provision included in the bill broadly shift away from short sentencings, towards community management of offenders. Of course, in a tough fiscal environment any strain that is alleviated on services will be place on another. Any change to the way offenders are managed would enable significant strain for the probation service, a service that is already overburdened.

 As an overview, the bill contains the following clauses and provisions, we will bold the sections of the Bill which principally align with our interests:

• Presumption to suspend short custodial sentences (clauses 1 to 2)
• Income reduction order (clause 3)
• Purposes of sentencing (clause 4)
• Deferred sentences (clause 5)
• Identification of domestic abuse offenders (clause 6)
• Offenders of particular concern (clauses 7 to 10)
• Probation requirements (clauses 11 to 17)
• The Sentencing Council (clauses 18 to 19)
• Release of prisoners (clauses 20 to 23)
• Licence conditions following release from prison (clauses 24 to 25)
• Recall to prison (clauses 26 to 30)
• Post-sentence supervision (clause 31)
• Removal and deportation of foreign national prisoners (clauses 32 and 42)
• Unpaid work requirements (clauses 33 to 25)
• Termination of community sentences and suspended sentences orders (clauses 36 to 26)
• The parole Board (clauses 38 and 40)
• Repatriated prisoners serving sentences for murder (clause 39)
• The Bail Act (clause 41)

As court delays and backlogs cause major strain and concern in the community safety sector, there are many, understandably, looking for a quick and immediate solution to the longstanding problem. These changes are broadly positive and look to alleviate some of the worst aspects of our current overburdened system. We must be clear that any changes deliver tangible real change and help mitigate risk. Again, broadly, managing offenders in the community is positive, and helps to further move away from a prison system that delivers neither for the taxpayer, community or the offender. However, it must be supplemented with adequate impact assessments and analysis on the impacts on accompanying services, including recognising and mitigating the public safety concerns.

Our members are all too aware of the challenges of the court backlogs, which, is in part, created from these structural problems in the system. It is not that the government disputes the policy problem, indeed, it is clear that the problem, as well as it’s impacts, are well understood. It waits to be seen how these policy solutions will be considered and then implemented. The bill was considered by the House of Lords between 30^th October 2025 and 12^th January 2026; it is now in the process known as parliamentary ‘ping pong’, in which it goes between the two houses in order for amendments to be agreed.

The Sentencing Bill at the House of Lords

The government made a number of amendments which were agreed, one Opposition amendment was agreed, and many other amendments were, ultimately, not successful.

The key amendments made by government were:

• A new clause on the termination of licences of people serving indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for public protection (IPPs).
• A new clause requiring an annual report on prison capacity.
• A new clause requiring that a whole life order is the starting point when sentencing someone for the murder of a police officer, prison officer or probation officer.
• Changes to the clauses on the Sentencing Council.

The Opposition amendment that was agreed was regarding the provision of free Crown Court transcripts when requested by victims.

Clause 35, that would have given the probation service the power to publicise the details of people on unpaid work requirements was removed from the bill.

Consideration of Lords Amendments - 20^th January 2025

The backlogs were continually referenced throughout the debate in consideration of the lords amendments. Indeed, Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) Labour MP, stated: “We inherited a system on the brink, with prisons close to running out of places, courts paralysed by backlogs, police forced to operate with one hand tied behind their backs, trust broken and fear raised—a breakdown of law and order that left communities such as mine in Portsmouth paying the price.

In Portsmouth and across the country, the justice system is struggling under the weight of an unprecedented backlog. Crown courts in England and Wales now have between 77,000 and 78,000 outstanding cases waiting to be heard. Ten of thousands are open for a year or more, and some defendants are waiting for up to four years before trial dates are even available. Those delays mean that victims in my city and beyond are denied timely justice, eroding confidence in our courts. The Sentencing Bill and wider reforms are a crucial step towards tackling the backlogs, speeding up justice and ensuring that offences are addressed without further delay.”

The backlogs were reinforced as a key political problem and justification behind this policy, there were amendments proposed as a result of this, including Lords amendment 7, which would require sentencing remarks delivered in the Crown court to be made available within 14 days of a request, free of charge, subject to judicial approval and existing reporting restrictions, and published online.

In response Jake Richards MP, noted that “While we cannot support Lords amendment 7 as drafted, we fully support the intention behind it of promoting transparency and improving the experience of victims. We agree that robust processes are required to ensure the accuracy of transcripts, but placing a statutory duty on the judiciary to approve the release of all Crown court transcripts could significantly increase workload and undermine efforts to drive down the Crown court backlog.”

It is encouraging that the Bill and its accompanying amendments, keep the backlogs at the forefront of policy development.

While amendment 7 was not agreed, Lords amendments 1 to 6 and 8 to 15 were agreed to.

Amendments 1 and 14 broaden whole-life orders.

Amendment 6 makes it a statutory requirement to lay a statement on prison capacity before Parliament each year.

It is encouraging that the court backlogs remain a pertinent issue and remain in the purview of policymakers on amendments to vital policy. 

If you would like to read more, please see the briefing paper on this bill.

If you have any questions about this policy briefing, or any related questions, please contact:

Harrison Box, Policy Officer

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.