The Sentencing Bill: What impact could this have on women?
Lilly Lewis, Women’s Involvement Advisor, One Small Thing
In her next blog, Lilly discusses the recently introduced Sentencing Bill, and the implications these proposed changes could have for women and their children. Lilly explores key policy changes proposed in the Bill such as a presumption against short sentences, the expansion of electronic tagging, as well as the Government’s intention to publish the names and photos of people on unpaid work orders.
When the commissioning of the Independent Sentencing Review was announced last year, I felt encouraged by the recognition that our justice system needed to change course. It was positive in the review’s final report to see a clear message that prison should be seen as a last resort, particularly around short sentences which can be so damaging for women, often breaking family ties and worsening trauma. The Review also highlighted how pregnant women and mothers should be kept out of prison whenever possible, as this protects not only themselves but also their children. The emphasis on investment in community support and trauma-informed services showed a shift toward a system that understands and supports women better.
Whilst many of the recommendations from the Independent Sentencing Review have been brought forward with the Sentencing Bill, I do have concerns that the Bill still leaves too much room for women to be sent to prison unnecessarily.
“Without stronger safeguards we risk continuing the cycle where women with multiple unmet needs around trauma, mental health, or poverty, end up behind bars.”
For example, in the Bill, suspended sentences are proposed to replace short sentences of less than 12 months. Despite being served in the community, suspended sentences are a type of custodial sentence – they carry the threat of immediate custody for breaches. Whilst reducing short sentences for women is vital, and something we at One Small Thing have long called for, without appropriate support around domestic abuse, health, housing and substance use women are at a higher risk of breaching the conditions of their suspended sentence and ultimately ending up in prison. Community orders, on the other hand, don’t carry the same threat of immediate custody and could be considered an alternative to short sentences instead.
There are questions that remain around the expansion of electronic tagging for women. While it can be seen as an alternative to custody, it can also create new barriers. For mothers, strict curfews may clash with the realities of childcare, school runs, or emergencies. The visible stigma of wearing a tag can also be damaging, and other children and parents noticing at school can bring shame and isolation. Without flexibility and sensitivity, increased tagging risks excessively punishing rather than supporting women.
The proposal to publish names and photos of women on unpaid work orders deeply concerns me. Many women in the justice system are also survivors of domestic abuse, and public exposure could put them at further risk. Beyond personal safety, there is the stigma and shame this brings not only for women themselves but also for their children and wider families. Instead of supporting rehabilitation, such measures can isolate women, damage relationships, and make it harder to move forward. We hope to see this proposal dropped as the Bill progresses.
The proposed changes to community orders could have unintended consequences for women. The chance to have an order ended early may encourage progress and help women feel their efforts are recognised. However, it’s vital that support isn’t withdrawn too early, and that Probation Officers can effectively connect women to further support once their supervision has ended. Adding additional requirements, as proposed in the Bill, may place unrealistic demands on women already balancing childcare, trauma recovery, and limited resources. If not applied flexibly, these changes could set women up to fail rather than succeed.
“For community orders to work, they must be realistic, trauma-informed, and responsive to women’s individual circumstances, otherwise the system risks reinforcing barriers instead of reducing them.”
With the increased focus on people serving sentences in the community, it’s vital that community services are sustainably funded – a key point the Sentencing Bill offers no detail on. Unless investment is long term and accessible nationwide, women may not get the support promised, and the system will struggle to reduce reoffending or create real change, leading to the risk of women being recalled or breaching the conditions of their suspended or community sentences. For the Bill to have real impact, it must be backed by proper funding for community services and consistent delivery across the country. Women’s voices and lived experience need to shape implementation, ensuring support is trauma-informed, accessible, and sustainable. Without this, positive intentions risk falling short.
