Skip to content

Produced by the Sentencing Academy

Curfew Requirements

Peer-reviewed research on the effectiveness and impact of sentences, orders, and requirements.

Jay Gormley, University of Glasgow
Melissa Hamilton, University of Surrey

Published: 15 Nov 2025
Last updated: Nov 2025

Summary

Curfew requirements can be used as part of Suspended Sentence Orders or Community Orders. They are almost always accompanied by electronic monitoring, notably radio frequency electronic monitoring (RF EM).

Curfew requirements can impose significant restrictions on liberty. They have the potential to provide courts with additional alternatives to short sentences of immediate imprisonment in terms of proportionate punishment.

Curfew requirements can be combined with other requirements. How various requirements interact is complex, and multiple requirements may increase or decrease the punitive and rehabilitative impacts of an Order. For example, in some cases, multiple requirements may be mutually supportive.

While curfews may provide sentencers with additional options (including alternatives to immediate imprisonment), they do not appear to be commonly used. Indeed, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) notes a decrease in their usage.

Data on the effects of curfew requirements on reoffending is encouraging. However, the data available are limited and further research is needed.

Curfew Orders: The Basics

This Bulletin focuses on the effectiveness of curfew requirements in England and Wales. It reviews available data on usage trends, highlights practical and operational challenges, and summarises recent research on its impact on reoffending. This Bulletin reviews relevant studies about the use of curfew requirements as part of sentencing outcomes that were published in English in the last twenty years.

A curfew order is one of the available options that a court can assign as part a sentence involving a court order, which can be either a Community Order or a Suspended Sentence Order (Sentencing Act 2022, Sch. 9, Part 5). A curfew requirement mandates the place at which the offender must remain during a specified curfew period. A curfew order may involve more than one place, although it usually includes the individual’s home (Sentencing Academy, 2023, p. 2).

The maximum number of hours for a curfew period depends on the date the offender committed the offence, as there have been recent changes in law by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. If the offence predates the 2022 Act, the curfew may be not less than 2 hours and no more than 16 hours per day, and last no more than 12 months in duration. For offences committed after the 2022 Act, the curfew may be not less than 2 hours and no more than 20 hours per day, with a maximum period of 24 months. Regardless of the timing of the offence, a cap of 112 hours in any 7-day period applies. The court may vary the number of hours on different days if deemed appropriate.

The Sentencing Council for England and Wales provides additional guidance for courts to consider before imposing a curfew:

In all cases, the court must consider those likely to be affected, such as any dependents and the offender’s ability to care for them, and any impact on an offender’s attendance at work or educational establishment.

Before imposing a curfew requirement, the court must ensure safeguarding and domestic abuse enquiries are carried out on any proposed curfew address to ensure the accommodation is suitable, others will not be put at risk and the homeowner agrees to the curfew, particularly where vulnerable adults and children are involved. (Sentencing Council for England and Wales, 2025b, p. 3).

The discretion in determining curfew periods is designed to allow a court to balance several considerations, reflecting, in the words of the Sentencing Council, that the curfew periods assigned ‘should be targeted to reflect the punishment intended, support rehabilitation where relevant, and protect victims and the public’ (Sentencing Council for England and Wales, 2025b, p. 3). However, a report in 2016 found some commonalities in the timings of curfew orders:

There are no core hours when individuals must be monitored, hours can be broken up during the day as many times as required and curfews do not have to be imposed seven days a week giving courts maximum flexibility to be creative and flexible. In practice, however, hours are routinized, almost always involving overnight curfews of 11 or 12 hours between 19.00 and 07.00 seven days a week. (Hucklesby and Holdsworth, 2016, p. 34)

Perhaps based on critiques that curfew orders were not flexible enough to maximise their value (Hucklesby, Beyens and Boone, 2021), recent legislation allows for some variations in curfew arrangements (times and/or places) to be instituted by the individual’s responsible probation officer (Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022).

The breach of a curfew order does not, on its own, trigger a particular penalty, but is to be considered, along with other factors (such as the overall level of compliance with the broader Community Order or Suspended Sentence Order) (Sentencing Council for England and Wales, 2018). The available penalties for breach include adding other requirements, a fine, or a revocation of the community or Suspended Sentence Order with resentencing, which could include imprisonment.

Curfews are Often Enforced with Electronic Monitoring

Where a curfew requirement is imposed, courts must also impose an electronic monitoring requirement unless, in the circumstances of the case, it appears inappropriate to do so (see our Electronic Monitoring Bulletin). This can occur via Radio Frequency (RF) tags, although newer GPS tags can also monitor curfews if the GPS technology is available in the relevant area and is so ordered. A non-electronically monitored curfew requirement is sometimes called a “doorstep curfew” – see R (CPS) v Chorley Justices [2002] EWHC 2162 (Admin). These doorstep curfews require the offender to present themselves to police officers at their door at any time during the curfew period.

The Use of Curfew Requirements

Statistics on the number of curfew requirements imposed with court orders are difficult to interpret, and there is currently no reliable way for us to track their use over time. We contacted Ministry of Justice (MoJ), which advised that attempting to track the number of curfew orders through different data sources should be avoided. This is due to changes in how curfews are recorded—sometimes within probation datasets, sometimes within electronic monitoring datasets, and sometimes only once the electronic monitor has been successfully activated. These differing counting rules mean that published figures are not directly comparable across time or across statistical series. More specifically, the two data series (i.e., the Electronic Monitoring Statistics (EMS) and the Offender Management Statistics Quarterly (OMSQ)) cover different time periods and apply different definitions. For example:

  • The latest EMS publication records 493 new radio frequency-monitored curfew order starts in June 2025.
  • Using OMSQ quarterly totals to approximate a monthly figure would yield around 384 starts for June 2025.
  • Another statistic shows that, as of 2 June 2025, there were 1,174 individuals subject to curfew requirements as part of court orders where electronic monitoring was imposed (Ministry of Justice, 2025a).

An MoJ publication has generally reported a recent reduction in the use of electronically monitored curfews (Ministry of Justice, 2025c). This downturn appears linked to an April 2022 policy change requiring courts to complete domestic abuse and safeguarding enquiries before imposing any electronically monitored curfew. As most curfew requirements now incorporate electronic monitoring support, a known gap in the probation service’s ability to complete these enquiries has contributed to fewer curfews being imposed (Ministry of Justice, 2025c).

Separate research by Brunton-Smith (2025b)—which draws on earlier periods—indicates that violence against the person and theft are the most common types of index offences associated with curfew requirements. However, these findings reflect older data, collected under earlier recording practices, and therefore do not provide a contemporary picture of current usage.

Overall, the evidence base is fragmented. Varying definitions, shifting recording practices, and implementation challenges all limit the ability to measure trends with precision. Moreover, a documentary by news reporters who went undercover with the third-party operator responsible for electronic tagging (including court ordered curfew monitors) on behalf of the government alleges to have found concerns in recording systems and questions such as “the reasons for data needing to be transferred manually from Serco’s old to new IT systems and what mechanisms are in place to ensure the accuracy of the data once transferred” (Justice Committee, 2025). Nevertheless, the current data suggest a decline in curfew use, alongside operational barriers that may need to be addressed if curfew requirements are to be used more consistently and effectively in future.

Reoffending Rates Show Promise for Curfew Orders

It has been suggested that curfew requirements can potentially serve as an alternative to a short custodial sentence (Sentencing Council for England and Wales, 2025a). As such, it makes sense to consider curfew requirements compared to short sentences of immediate imprisonment (i.e. less six months or less).

A range of research has suggested that reoffending outcomes following a short custodial sentence are worse than alternative sentences (Gormley, Hamilton and Belton, 2022). For a look over time, Figure 1 shows the proportion of offenders who reoffend with a curfew requirement (whether from a Community Order or Suspended Sentence Order) and a determinate sentence under six months. The annual time frames begin in April and end the following March. For example, year 2018 in the following figure regards the cohort released between 1 April, 2017 through 31 March 31, 2018.

Figure 1: Proven reoffending rates by types of sentence orders1

Court orders with curfew requirements have substantially lower reoffending rates than short custodial sentences (defined here as six months or less). The reoffending rates for curfews are relatively similarly whether attached to Community Orders or Suspended Sentence Orders. Of course, these bald figures (without statistical controls to account for variations in the cases) offer little more than broad context.

Reoffending rates for all three outcomes show generally downward trends over the time period shown. Yet, because of the Covid years that are included therein, it remains unclear without further data points to tell whether this is a positive reflection on rehabilitative goals overall, or merely a reflection of overall crime reductions seen in the Covid pandemic, particularly with the slight upticks in reoffending rates in the year ending March 2023.

The Ministry of Justice’s proven reoffending statistics do not consistently provide information on rates for all the types of restrictions available with court orders. Thus, we cannot always compare reoffending for curfews versus other standalone requirements such as drug rehabilitation, accredited programme, or supervision. However, court orders with a curfew as the sole requirement still fare better overall. For example, for the year ending March 2023, the reoffending rate for (a) Community Orders as an entire group was at 42.6%, compared to Community Orders with a curfew at 30.7%, and (b) Suspended Sentence Orders with restrictions as an entire group was 27.6%, compared to Suspended Sentences with curfews at 26.5% (Ministry of Justice, 2025d).

When curfews are combined with other requirements, reoffending rates may be further reduced. For example, Figures 2 and 3, respectively, reveal lower reoffending rates when curfews are combined with either a rehabilitation activity or unpaid work, with significant reductions for the curfew and unpaid work combination in both Community Orders and Suspended Sentence Orders, respectively. Figures 2 and 3 show data for the latest three years (beginning April and ending the following March, such as April 2015 to March 2016) that data were available on all three combinations.

Figure 2: Reoffending Rates by Year and Curfew Order Combination in Community Orders2

Figure 2 provided figures for Community Orders, while Figure 3 concerns Suspended Sentence Orders.

Figure 3: Reoffending Rates by Year and Curfew Order Combination in Suspended Sentence Orders3

Still, the promising results for layering programs, specifically for the combination of a curfew and unpaid work, should be treated with caution. Unless carefully tailored to the individual, the risks of overprogramming of those at lower risk could have the opposite result of setting them up for failure by assigning too many programmes or conditions that naturally increase the chances of breaching any of them, whether deliberately or not.

The effectiveness of curfew orders was tested in a study examining the use of curfew orders supported by radio frequency electronic monitoring (RF EM) as part of court orders (Community Orders or Suspended Sentence Orders) in England and Wales between 2014 and 2018 (Brunton-Smith, 2025b). Individuals with RF EM curfews were more likely to comply with probation requirements and had fewer breaches of license conditions. Those with RF EM curfews were also less likely to commit another crime during the monitoring period compared to a similar group of individuals who were without RF EM curfews. However, the reduction in reoffending did not continue after the monitoring period ended, suggesting that the monitoring itself acted as a situational barrier to offending.

Overall, Brunton-Smith (2025b) suggests that curfews can help reduce reoffending, particularly due to the situational impact during the period where persons are subject to EM. However, ultimately, further research is needed to isolate the potential effects of curfew requirements as opposed to other factors. Ideally, future research could utilise mixed methods to understand the impact to understand when and why curfew requirements work to reduce reoffending.

Considerations of Curfews as Punitive

Punishment and deterrence are key aims of sentencing that a curfew requirement may facilitate. One challenge lies in establishing how curfew requirements could proportionately achieve these aims and, ultimately, hold offenders accountable in the eyes of sentencers, the public, victim-survivors, etc (Gormley, 2024). Offence-specific guidelines and the Council’s Imposition Guideline can assist in the decision between short custodial sentences and a curfew. More generally, one suggestion is that immediate custodial sentences of up to three months could be replaced by a suspended sentence with minimal requirements and that ‘the appropriate replacement for a prison sentence in the range of nine to 12 months is likely to be a suspended sentence with rigorous requirements, including an onerous curfew’ (Roberts and Harris, 2025, p. 552).

Individuals may have mixed emotions with respect to curfews. A synthesis of qualitative studies around the world show that, while curfews are often preferred to prison time and allow some opportunity for employment, serving a curfew is likewise felt as a sort of caged freedom (albeit at home) and longer curfew hours mean less autonomy while having detrimentally to rely more on others for daily needs (Howard, 2018). Hence, curfews can be intended and/or experienced as punitive in restricting one’s autonomy and freedom of movement (Nellis, 2015). Probation guidance generally has treated curfew requirements as punitive (Independent Sentencing Review, 2025).

Reoffending Statistics Tend to Lack Sufficient Controls

The proven reoffending statistics provided by the Ministry of Justice typically reveal lower reoffending rates for curfews than various other types of sentencing outcomes (see above). Reoffending statistics provide a useful but incomplete picture of effectiveness. They do not control for important differences between those who receive each sentencing option (e.g., prior criminal history, offence type, or personal circumstances), making it difficult to know whether changes in reoffending reflect the sentence itself, or the characteristics of the people subject to it. The reoffending data depend on formal detection and recording, meaning they are influenced by variations in policing, prosecution, and local enforcement practices. Moreover, focusing solely on reoffending overlooks other valuable indicators of progress, such as improved stability, engagement in treatment, or reduced seriousness of offending.

The findings from Brunton-Smith (2025a, 2025b) are promising in suggesting the effectiveness of curfews in terms of reducing reoffending, but remain preliminary. Further research is needed to test key assumptions, including whether individuals who receive radio frequency (RF) electronic monitoring differ in ways that also affect reoffending (Brunton-Smith, 2025b). The data used are also now somewhat dated, as the electronic monitoring system has since undergone significant operational changes, including shifts in third-party service providers and a decline in the use of RF technology (Ministry of Justice, 2025a).

Further research should also explore how curfew requirements influence rehabilitation and reintegration over time, particularly when used as alternatives to short prison sentences (Gormley, Hamilton and Belton, 2022). Experiences of electronic monitoring are likely to vary by age (Independent Sentencing Review, 2025), gender, ethnicity, and other personal or social factors (Howard, 2018), and may also be shaped by the interaction of multiple sentencing requirements (Hucklesby, Beyens and Boone, 2021). In addition, there is limited understanding of how curfews are perceived by the public and victims (Justice Committee, 2023), and little evidence on whether they promote confidence in sentencing. Developing stronger data on outcomes and lived experiences could therefore improve public familiarity and trust in curfews as a credible sentencing option (Roberts and Hough, 2011).

Conclusions

Curfew requirements as part of Community Orders and Suspended Sentence Orders can potentially fulfil a range of sentencing aims, such as punishment and, at least for the duration of the order, specific deterrence. Curfews may also allow alternatives to short sentences of immediate imprisonment and, if so, help to reduce the criminogenic risks that short sentences of immediate imprisonment bring. Overall, there is seemingly scope to individualise curfews (either as a standalone requirement or as part of multiple requirements) to better achieve desired effects in terms of punishment and incapacitation. The current guidelines would appear to support this flexible usage, but data on if/how the new guidelines have affected practice is lacking at present (Sentencing Council for England and Wales, 2025a).

This Bulletin is part of a series on the effectiveness of sentencing in England & Wales. Other Effectiveness Bulletins can be found here.

For further information, contact Annalena Wolcke at a.wolcke@sentencingacademy.org.uk

References

  1. Index Disposal data tool, April 2022 to March 2023 (Ministry of Justice, 2025b). ↩︎
  2. Extracted from the dataset from the Ministry of Justice (2025d). ↩︎
  3. Extracted from the dataset from the Ministry of Justice (2025d). ↩︎