FAQs

Under Section 57 of the Sentencing Act 2020, the purposes of sentencing in England and Wales are the:

1. Punishment of offenders
2. Reduction of crime (including by deterrence)
3. Reform and rehabilitation
4. Protection of the public*
5. Reparation by offenders to person affected by their offence

Courts weigh these purposes depending on the offence and the person who committed it. For example, sentences for serious violent crime may emphasise punishment and protection, while sentences for lower-level offending may focus on rehabilitation or reparation.

Sometimes, pursuing one purpose of sentencing may even be at odds with pursing another. For example, short prison sentences fulfil the purpose of punishment but are associated with higher levels of reoffending than other sanctions, making them less effective at fulfilling the purposes of reducing crime and rehabilitating individuals.

*If the Sentencing Bill currently going through Parliament passes, it will amend the fourth of these purposes to “Protection of the public, including victims of crime”.

Evidence-based sentencing refers to the use of reliable data, research, and proven methods to guide both sentencing decisions and wider sentencing policy. Courts are informed by what works to reduce crime, support rehabilitation, and protect victims and the public.

The approach emphasises the use of data, evaluation, and social science evidence to understand which sanctions are most effective in achieving the purposes of sentencing. Evidence-based sentencing also involves continuously reviewing the impact of sentencing policies to ensure they achieve intended outcomes efficiently, fairly, and transparently.

Types of evidence include:

• Statistical data on sentencing outcomes, reoffending rates, and trends over time.
• Academic research, including studies on deterrence, rehabilitation, and proportionality.
• Surveys capturing information on public knowledge and perception of sentencing
• Evaluation evidence from pilot programmes, such as restorative justice schemes or alternative sanctions.
• Consultation feedback from judges, magistrates, probation officers, and victims’ groups.
• Comparative international research, providing insight into sentencing effectiveness in other jurisdictions.

In England and Wales, evidence-based approaches underpin the work of the Sentencing Council, which develops and revises sentencing guidelines using data from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), academic research, and feedback from practitioners. Policy evaluations assessing the impact and cost-effectiveness of certain orders or programmes regularly inform government and judicial decisions.

However, some research also highlights that what counts as “evidence” is itself debated. This perspective argues for the inclusion of personal experience, particularly from victims and convicted individuals, as an important form of evidence about what works and what causes harm within the criminal justice system.¹

The Sentencing Academy seeks to ensure that sentencing policy and decisions rely on robust evidence, and that sentencing legislation is evidence-based. To this end, we have launched the Sentencing Hub. By making available the latest research and data on sentencing, we hope to encourage effective sentencing practices that reduce re-offending, provide justice to victims, and promote public confidence.

Effective sentencing describes sentencing practices that are effective at achieving one or more of the five purposes of sentencing. These are: 1) punishment 2) crime reduction 3) reform and rehabilitation 4) protection of the public, and 5) reparation to the persons affected by an offence (see our FAQ on the aims and purposes of sentencing above).

Our Effectiveness Bulletins explore the effectiveness of different sentences, sentence orders, and requirements, and focus primarily on crime reduction and rehabilitation, as these are more easily measurable (e.g., through reoffending rates) than other aims. Wherever possible, we also consider additional forms of effectiveness, such as compliance with a specific order or requirement (e.g., compliance with an Alcohol Abstinence Monitoring Requirement), positive behaviour change (e.g., reduced alcohol use after completing an Alcohol Treatment Requirement), and cost-effectiveness (e.g., the relative lower costs associated with a Community Order when compared to a prison sentence).

Lastly, we consider the effectiveness of sentencing in relation to whether sentences are being clearly understandable by the public, as well as effective at generating public confidence in sentencing. So far, our research reveals that there is often a disconnect between public perception and the reality of sentencing trends.²

England and Wales have a two-tier criminal court system:

• The magistrates’ courts handle most criminal cases. In 2024, they dealt with around 92% of all cases,³ including all summary (lower level) offences and many either-way offences (triable either in magistrates’ courts or in Crown Court). Examples include minor motoring offences or being drunk and disorderly, but can also include assault or drug offences. Magistrates’ courts can impose up to 12 months’ imprisonment for a single offence, as well as fines, community orders, and discharges. Cases at these courts are handled by three lay magistrates or by a District Judge.
• The Crown Court deals with indictable (more serious) offences and either-way cases sent up from the magistrates’ courts. These are the most serious offences. Trails at these courts are dealt with by a Judge sitting with a jury. Sentences in the Crown Court are imposed by a Judge.

This structure is set up with the aim of ensuring that less serious cases are resolved quickly and locally, while more serious cases, if contested (i.e., where the defendant does not plead guilty to the charge(s) brought against them), receive a full trial before a judge and jury. However, in recent years, both courts have struggled with case backlogs. For example, there were over 360,000 open cases in magistrate’s courts and over 78,000 open cases in Crown Court in June 2025.⁴

In addition, there is the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Whereas appeals from magistrates’ courts go to the Crown Court, appeals from the Crown Court are dealt with by the Court of Appeal. Cases at this court are typically heard by a panel of three judges.

Lastly, there are specialist courts that deal with particular groups of defendants or particular issues. These include:

• Youth Courts, which are a type of magistrates’ court for criminal cases involving defendants aged 10-17. While hearings at magistrates’ courts are usually open to the public, hearings at youth courts are closed. See our key fact infographic on sentencing children.
• Problem-solving courts, which address complex social and health issues by focusing on rehabilitation, are currently being piloted. These courts involve multi-agency teams, including judicial, social services, and health services, and regular judicial oversight to provide intensive intervention programmes and support services, such as addiction treatment, housing assistance, and education, for individuals with specific needs. At the moment, these courts can take the form of Intensive Supervision Courts or Family Drug and Alcohol Courts.

Judges and magistrates apply the Sentencing Council’s guidelines when deciding what sentence to impose. Each guideline provides:

• A step-by-step decision framework beginning with assessing the person’s culpability (how blameworthy the person is) and the harm caused by the offence.
• A starting point and a sentencing range that indicate proportionate penalties.

Courts then consider:

• Aggravating factors, such as use of violence, targeting a vulnerable victim, or having previous convictions.
• Mitigating factors, such as youth, mental health issues, or showing genuine remorse.
• Personal mitigation, including efforts toward rehabilitation or cooperation with authorities.
• Possible sentence reductions due to a guilty plea.

Courts must follow any relevant sentencing guidelines unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.

For a more detailed explanation of how sentences are determined, and to see an example of the sentencing guidelines, please visit our explainer on Sentencing Guidelines.

The most common sentence in England and Wales is a fine, typically used for lower-level offences such as motoring or public order cases. Fines are proportionate to both the seriousness of the offence and the individual’s financial means.

In 2024, 79% of all sentences imposed were fines, with an average of £283 per fine (excluding fines paid by companies).⁶ The most common offences for which a fine was imposed were speeding offences, making up around 23% of all offences that received a fine.

Prison sentences make up a small proportion of all sentences. In 2024, 7% of all convictions ended in immediate custody. A further 4% resulted in a Suspended Sentence Order, which is deemed a sentence of imprisonment.

For information on the sentences imposed for specific offences, see our Offence Snapshots.

Victims can provide a Victim Personal Statement (VPS), which allows them to explain how the offence has affected them emotionally, physically, financially, or otherwise. A VPS can provide context on the harm caused by the offence, and harm is a key factor in the Sentencing Council’s guidelines for determining the appropriate punishment.

Although courts must consider this statement when deciding the sentence, it does not determine the outcome, and victims do not decide or influence the type of sentence imposed. Some researchers have proposed that it should be renamed a Victim Impact Statement, as in other jurisdictions, in order to clarify its purpose.

For a more detailed information, see our research paper on Victim Personal Statements.

In some cases, victims may also participate in restorative justice processes, where they communicate directly or indirectly with the person who offended, though this is always voluntary.

A Suspended Sentence Order (SSO) is a custodial (prison) sentence that is “suspended” for a fixed period (currently up to two years). A person sentenced to an SSO remains in the community under certain conditions, such as performing unpaid work, undergoing mental health or drug rehabilitation treatment, or participating in a rehabilitation activity. If the person commits another offence or breaches the order, the court can activate the prison term, either in full or in part.

Deferred sentences, by contrast, are designed to give individuals a short, clearly defined opportunity to demonstrate positive change before a final sentence is imposed. A deferred sentence is not a sentence per se but postpones sentencing for up to six months. (The 2025 Sentencing Bill that is currently being considered by the House of Lords would extend this period to up to 12 months.)⁷ During this time, the court can ensure they comply with specific conditions. At the later hearing, the sentence will usually be immediate imprisonment if the defendant did not abide by the conditions, whereas it will be a Suspended Sentence Order or a Community Order if the defendant complied with the conditions.

In short, where a Suspended Sentence Order has been imposed, there will be no further sentencing hearings, as the sentence has already been imposed. Where a sentence has been deferred, the final sentence has not yet been imposed and there will be another hearing to impose the final sentence.

For more detailed explanations of these terms, please see our explainers on deferred sentencing and Suspended Sentence Orders. If you are interested in the effectiveness and impact of SSOs, please visit our Effectiveness Bulletin on the topic. And for in-depth discussions of the two, please visit our long-form research papers on deferred sentences and SSOs.

If a person fails to comply with a Community Order, the court can impose a fine, amend the attached requirements (e.g., increased unpaid work hours or a longer curfew), or revoke the order and re-sentence the person.

If the breach relates to a Suspended Sentence Order, the court must consider activating the original prison sentence, unless there are exceptional circumstances. The full or partial prison sentence can then be imposed.

The majority of people serving a sentence in the community comply with the conditions of their order. Between January to March 2025, 67% of all Community Orders that were terminated were completed without a recorded breach. Only 10% were terminated for failure to comply with requirements, and 13% were terminated for conviction of a new offence.⁸ Similarly, 77% of all Suspended Sentence Orders that were terminated were completed due to running their full course without any breaches. 8% were terminated for failure to comply with requirements, and 14% were terminated for conviction of a new offence.⁹

For more detailed explanations of these terms, please see our explainers on Community Orders and Suspended Sentence Orders. If you are interested in the effectiveness and impact of these sentences, please visit our Effectiveness Bulletins on Community Orders or Suspended Sentence Orders.

Automatic release allows eligible individuals serving determinate sentences (the most common type of prison sentences) to be released from prison into the community. Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, automatic release usually occurs after half (50%) of the sentence has been served in prison (this is known as the “halfway point”). In 2024, the Government announced that many individuals who would otherwise be released at the halfway point will now be released after serving 40% of their sentence in prison – a measure introduced to help reduce prison overcrowding.¹⁰ There are, however, exceptions for serious offences, including sex offences and terrorist offences.

Once someone is released from prison, they serve the remaining part of their sentence on licence in the community while being supervised by probation. During the licence period, individuals must comply with certain conditions, such as reporting to probation, avoiding certain areas, or attending specific programmes. If they breach these conditions or commit another offence, they can be recalled to prison for either a fixed period of potentially for the rest of their sentence.

The 2025 Sentencing Bill, which is currently being reviewed by the House of Lords, would introduce an earned progression model.¹¹ This model would set a minimum release point of 33% for standard determinate sentences. There would be exceptions for more serious offences, which would have a minimum release point of 50%. The release point would depend on a person’s behaviour, with individuals who breach prison rules spending more of their sentence in prison. Once someone is released from prison due to earned progression, they would be tagged and be made subject to curfews as well as other restrictions.

The average length of prison sentences in England and Wales has increased significantly over the last two decades. Our research has revealed an 86% increase in the average custodial sentence length, from 15.5 months in 2002 to 24.6 months in 2022. For example, we have found that the minimum term for murder increased from 13 years in 2000 to 21 years in 2021 (a 60% increase), and the overall prison population has grown significantly. This trend is particularly striking as overall crime in England & Wales has been steadily declining, particularly with regard to violent and property offences.¹²

Although a higher number of minor offences are now dealt with community penalties rather than custody, these changes reflect efforts to make sentencing more proportionate, consistent, and focused on reducing reoffending, rather than a shift toward leniency.

However, perceptions that sentencing has become more lenient are common. In a recent survey with a nationally representative sample (n=1,844), over half of respondents believed that sentences had become shorter since 1996, and approximately two thirds (65%) endorsed the view that sentencing was too lenient. We also found a clear relationship between attitudes to sentence severity and knowledge of key sentencing indicators: Respondents who believed that sentences were too lenient were more likely to under-estimate the use of imprisonment.

Sentence inflation describes the trend of prison sentences becoming longer over time, independent of actual increases in the seriousness of crimes. Our own research suggests that, between 2005 and 2025, sentence severity increased by 62%, while the seriousness of crimes processed through courts increased by only 8%. Put differently, we estimate that sentencing in England and Wales is 54% more punitive today than in 2005. The rise in sentencing severity is not uniform across all offenses; some, like violence, fraud, and weapons offenses have seen particularly significant increases in sentence lengths. However, these statistics are estimates rather than precise figures and should be considered with caution.

This trend is driven by changes in law, such as increased maximum and mandatory minimum sentences, leading to higher prison populations and overcrowding. Yet, evidence shows that sentence inflation provides little deterrent benefit, with research from the Sentencing Council indicating no robust evidence for greater marginal deterrent effects from increased sentence severity.¹³ Monitoring sentence inflation is therefore essential to maintaining proportionality and consistency in sentencing practice as well as ensuring that sentencing is evidence-led.

We are continuously adding data and research to the Hub. As sentencing law and sentencing trends evolve, so will the SA Hub. If you’re interested in a research topic or in data that the Hub doesn’t currently feature, please let us know via email, and we’ll do our best to add it.

We are hoping to add data and data analysis on certain sentencing trends and outcomes in the future. However, this data is not readily available (such as, for example, data on gender identity, religion, or sexuality at the sentencing stage), and we will therefore add it once we have successfully obtained it. Other data sets are already available, but need more thorough analysis before we feel confident that we can present it without contributing to misinformation or bias.

These include:

• Sentencing trends based on protected characteristics other than sex and age;
• Offence-specific snapshots on the proportion of a prison sentence served in custody;
• The requirements attached to Suspended Sentence Orders and Community Orders;
• The impact of guilty pleas on sentence outcomes and levels of sentence reductions;
• The impact of deferred sentencing on sentence outcomes