Pre-Sentence Reports

A Review of Policy, Practice and Research

Gwen Robinson & Annalena Wolcke

Published: 2 Dec 2025 | Last updated: Dec 2025

---

Executive summary

• In order for courts to craft and impose appropriate and effective sentences, sentencers need an adequate amount of information about the offender and his or her personal circumstances. The advocate’s submission on sentencing will supply some of this material. The most important source of information, however, is the pre-sentence report (PSR). The provision of PSRs is the responsibility of the Probation Service for England and Wales and contemporary guidance states that the purpose of a PSR is to assist ‘the court in determining the most suitable method of dealing with an offender’ and to facilitate ‘the administration of justice […] to reduce a defendant’s likelihood of re-offending and to protect the public and/or victim(s) from further harm’ (Ministry of Justice 2025a, para. 6.4-5).
• Section 30 of the Sentencing Act 2020 specifies that for offenders aged 18 or over, a PSR should be obtained unless the court considers it unnecessary, thus providing considerable room for discretion. Sentencing Council guidance reinforces this discretion, suggesting that a PSR should be obtained where a court is considering imposing a Community Order or a sentence of imprisonment (including Suspended Sentence Orders), ‘unless the court considers a report to be unnecessary’ (Sentencing Council 2017).
• In recent years there has been a significant shift away from written PSRs towards oral reports. There are several reasons for this trend, the most significant being the drive to enhance the efficiency of criminal justice processes and to speed up the disposal of criminal cases, as articulated in Transforming Summary Justice and Better Case Management programmes. The move toward the speedier delivery of PSRs, and the associated eclipse of the ‘traditional’ written Standard Delivery Reports, has prompted questions and concerns about the quality of contemporary PSRs, particularly in the magistrates’ courts, where oral reports now dominate (e.g. du Mont and Redgrave 2017; Napo 2016; HMIP 2017; Centre for Justice Innovation 2018).
• An inspection of Race Equality in Probation (HMIP 2021) found that the quality of PSRs prepared in cases of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic defendants was ‘insufficient in too many cases’ and that not enough attention was paid to diversity. Of 51 reports inspected, the quality of only 58% was judged to be sufficient. Inspectors concluded that ‘Poorer quality reports that fail to consider all relevant factors run the risk of service users receiving more punitive sentences’ (HMIP 2021, p. 29). The same report also observed considerable variance between different geographical areas in the proportion of ethnic minority defendants who had been sentenced without the benefit of a PSR.
• Taken together, the findings of recent research suggest that the drive towards speed in the provision of PSRs has had advantages, particularly from the point of view of sentencers. However, it may also have resulted in both a reduction in requests for PSRs and (in some cases) a reduction in the quality of information available to guide decisions both at sentencing and at the start of a Community Order.

1. Introduction

In order for courts to craft and impose appropriate and effective sentences, sentencers need an adequate amount of information about the offender and his or her personal circumstances. The advocate’s submission on sentencing will supply some of this material. The most important source of information, however, is the pre-sentence report (PSR).

The provision of information and advice to courts to inform decisions at sentencing is a traditional role of probation services in many jurisdictions. In England and Wales, this practice can be traced back to the work of the Police Court Missionaries of the late 19th century (Gelsthorpe et al. 2010). In the course of the 20th century, pre-sentence reports (as they are known today) evolved considerably, from the pleas for leniency of the evangelical and temperance bodies of the early part of the century, through the biographical and welfare-oriented ‘social enquiry’ reports of the middle part of the century, to the more offence-focused reports of today, with their emphasis on the assessment of risk and criminogenic (offending-related) needs (Gelsthorpe et al. 2010).

Today, the provision of PSRs is the responsibility of the Probation Service for England and Wales, which was reunified in 2021 after several years during which some probation services were contracted out to Community Rehabilitation Companies and services to courts were provided by a National Probation Service. PSRs are prepared and delivered by specialist court teams in each of 12 probation regions, and these teams also conduct enforcement work. This model of provision by specialist court teams was established under the National Probation Service between 2014 and 2021. Contemporary Probation Service guidance states that the purpose of a PSR is to assist ‘the court in determining the most suitable method of dealing with an offender’ and to facilitate ‘the administration of justice […] to reduce a defendant’s likelihood of re-offending and to protect the public and/or victim(s) from further harm’ (Ministry of Justice 2025a, para. 6.4-5). In 2024, the National Probation Service produced 99,009 PSRs, 83% of which were prepared for the magistrates’ courts (Ministry of Justice 2025b).

As well as informing sentencing decisions, PSRs can also play an important role in informing sentence planning for those who receive a Community Order or a custodial sentence. Assessments of risk and need that are presented in PSRs can act as a useful starting point for discussions with defendants about the appropriate content of interventions which could reduce risk and/or address needs.

2. The Legislative Framework and Types of PSR

The legislative framework for PSRs is contained in sections 30 to 34 of the Sentencing Act 2020. Section 31 of the Act defines the main purpose of the report as the provision of advice to the court to assist in determining the most suitable method of dealing with an offender.

Section 30 of the Act sets out the circumstances in which a report should be requested. It specifies that for offenders aged 18 or over, a PSR should be obtained unless the court considers it unnecessary, thus providing considerable room for discretion. Sentencing Council guidance reinforces this discretion, suggesting that a PSR should be obtained where a court is considering imposing a Community Order or a sentence of imprisonment (including Suspended Sentence Orders), ‘unless the court considers a report to be unnecessary’ (Sentencing Council 2017).

The Act does not prescribe the format or the length of time required to prepare a PSR. There are currently three types of PSR, which differ in terms of the amount and complexity of information they include, the time required to prepare them, and their mode of delivery.

• Standard Delivery Reports (SDRs) are the ‘traditional’ and most comprehensive type of PSR. SDRs are usually prepared during an adjournment of around 15 working days and are produced in written form.
• Fast Delivery Reports (FDRs) are another type of written report, but these are produced in a much shorter timescale of up to five days.
• Oral (or ‘stand-down’) PSRs are generally prepared on the day of request, and can be produced in as little as one hour. These reports tend to be less detailed than either FDRs or SDRs.

All of the above types of PSR involve the collection of relevant information from the defendant and from other sources (e.g., information about the current offence and any previous convictions from the police/Crown Prosecution Service; safeguarding information from social services). All PSR formats are informed by structured risk assessment tools, which provide an indication of the statistical likelihood of reoffending. Reports prepared on adjournment may also be informed by a more detailed, structured assessment of risk and needs using the Offender Assessment System (OAsys) (Gelsthorpe et al. 2010; Robinson 2017).

For a number of years, court teams responsible for preparing PSRs have been provided with instructions and ‘decision tools’ to help guide decisions about the appropriate type of report in a given case. Current advice is set out in the Probation Court Services Policy Framework 01/2025. This guidance specifies that:

‘Less complex cases are likely to be more suitable for oral on the day reports, whereas more complex reports are likely to require an adjourned short format report. The key consideration should be the availability of sufficient information to inform an accurate assessment of risk and suitability for sentencing options to facilitate safe sentencing’ (Ministry of Justice 2025a, para. 6.17).

The same guidance (Ministry of Justice 2025a, para. 6.57) indicates that a PSR should contain the following, as a minimum:

• offence analysis beyond a restating of the facts of the case, incorporating any basis of plea where applicable;¹
• the impact on any victim;
• relevant circumstances of the defendant that would assist the court in making a sentencing decision;
• analysis of the offender’s pattern of offending;
• risk of serious harm and likelihood of reoffending analysis, based on static predictors and professional assessment;
• ‘a needs assessment about the individual circumstances of the defendant highlighting potential vulnerabilities (including consideration of maturity for all young adults and consideration of caring responsibilities) and/or underlying drivers of the defendant’s offending behaviour and the need to guard against disproportionate treatment, especially when considering the potential impact of a custodial sentence where the defendant has dependents;’
• the outcome of pre-sentence checks with other agencies or providers of probation services, including if any checks are still outstanding;
• ‘analysis of sentencing options, with an independent sentence proposal including a suitability assessment for specific sentences […] and when appropriate, recommending alternative sentencing options to the court in line with the sentencing guidelines and purposes of sentencing;’
• ‘the impact, where relevant, of any factors relating to diversity and/or protected characteristics;’
• ‘additional information, not readily available to the court, obtained by interviewing the offender or through the liaison with other criminal justice system, clinical and community-based agencies.’

In addition, the guidance (Ministry of Justice 2025a, para. 6.59) indicates that an oral report should contain the following, as a minimum:

• ‘an appropriate and relevant level of detail to meet the needs of the court. The PSR author should be able to provide further detail if requested to explain their assessment;’
• ‘a clear evidence-based proposal which includes the type of sentence recommended and any requirements;’
• ‘where relevant, information regarding any previous supervision the individual has received and assessment of the person’s motivation and ability to comply with community supervision;’ 
• ‘where relevant, information about specific needs, protected characteristics or other factors which impact on the defendant’s circumstances,’ the sentence proposal or the defendant’s ability to comply.

The ability of the PSR author to address all of the above in a report will be a function of their experience, the availability of information from relevant sources, and the time available to prepare the report.

3. Trends in the Use and the Changing Policy Context

In recent years, there has been a significant shift away from the longer, standard written reports (SDRs) towards shorter PSRs (fast delivery and oral reports). As a result, SDRs are now in the minority. This trend has been most evident in the magistrates’ courts where more than three quarters of all PSRs are delivered in the form of FDRs today (Ministry of Justice 2025c, Table 6.11). In the Crown Court, FDRs have been the dominant form of report since 2013.²

There are several reasons for this trend, the most significant being the drive to enhance the efficiency of criminal justice processes and to speed up the disposal of criminal cases, as articulated in Transforming Summary Justice and Better Case Management programmes. Because SDRs require an adjournment of up to three weeks, they are associated with delays that can be avoided if alternative report formats are used in their place: oral reports and potentially FDRs can be delivered on the day of request by ‘standing down’ the case for a limited period of time. In his 2015 review of Efficiency in Criminal Proceedings, Sir Brian Leveson suggested that: ‘time and resources are frequently being wasted as a consequence of the practice of adjourning the sentencing hearing so that the Probation Service can prepare a pre-sentence report (‘PSR’) for cases that do not require a PSR or when an oral report would suffice’ (para. 152).

The challenge to deliver speedier justice prompted the Probation Service to encourage the use of oral and fast delivery reports by setting specific targets for court probation teams. In 2016, targets specified a desired increase in the use of oral reports from 27% to 60%; a decrease in the use of FDRs from 50% to 30%; and in SDRs from 22% to 10%. Official statistics subsequently showed that by the beginning of 2019, the oral report had become the dominant type (56% of reports), whilst the use of the SDR had declined even more than envisaged by the Probation Service target, to just 3% (Ministry of Justice 2019, Table 10).

The imperative to enhance efficiency in the criminal courts has also been associated with a reduction in courts’ demand for PSRs per se. As Figure 1 shows, PSRs decreased steadily between 2013 to 2022, and have increased only slightly over the last two years. Leveson (2015) argued that ‘greater use can and should be made of the discretion to dispense with reports, and [there should be] an increased use of oral (“stand down”) or previous reports’ (para. 154, emphasis added). Furthermore, ‘consideration should be given to providing Judges with greater flexibility not to order reports’ (para. 154). Leveson recommended that legislative changes be considered to support a reduction in the number of requests for PSRs (para. 156).

Following Leveson’s remarks, guidance issued to probation court teams encouraged them to re-use PSRs that were less than a year old, accompanied wherever possible by an oral update to the court (HMPPS 2016). Subsequently, research by the Centre for Justice Innovation (2018) found that some court teams had adopted a practice of pre-screening court lists to identify defendants with recent PSRs on file, and seeking updates from probation colleagues working with those individuals on current Community Orders. Interviews with probation court staff for this study also found that a significant minority feared that sentencers were ‘foregoing the option of requesting a PSR due to a combination of resource shortages and an increased demand to meet court processing timeliness’ (Centre for Justice Innovation 2018, p. 8). Thus, if a practitioner was not immediately available to produce a report, a reluctance to delay proceedings could mean sentencing without the benefit of a PSR. The Centre for Justice Innovation concluded that sentencers currently have too much discretion to decide that a report is not needed and recommended that the Sentencing Council and Probation Service should ‘bring forward clear guidelines on when a PSR is required, to ensure that expect advice is available in all cases where it can be helpful’ (2018, p. iv).

4. Evaluating the Quality of PSRs: Approaches and Key Findings

The move toward the speedier delivery of PSRs, and the associated eclipse of the ‘traditional’ written SDR, has prompted questions and concerns about the quality of contemporary PSRs, particularly in the magistrates’ courts where oral reports now dominate (e.g. du Mont and Redgrave 2017; Napo 2016; HMIP 2017; Centre for Justice Innovation 2018). However, concerns about the quality of PSRs are not new: notably, changes to PSRs heralded by the 1991 Criminal Justice Act prompted the Home Office to commission a piece of research to examine the quality of reports written to shorter and longer timescales (Gelsthorpe and Raynor 1992; 1995). The researchers in this study assessed a sample of 142 reports made up of 21 that were completed on the same day; 35 completed in up to seven days; 58 completed in 8-21 days; and 28 completed in 22+ days.

The main finding of this research was that although the reports examined were of variable quality, this was not attributable to the speed of their production: the average quality of short-notice reports did not differ significantly from that of the reports which had taken longer to prepare. Faster reports did, however, tend to be less thorough in their discussions of offending behaviour; to be less likely to incorporate information obtained from third parties; and when a community sentence was recommended, the faster reports were less likely to suggest packages of intervention involving additional requirements. The researchers suggested that these were all issues which would generally require more time, to re-interview the offender or liaise with others (Gelsthorpe and Raynor 1995, p. 193). Gelsthorpe and Raynor took a particular approach to the construction and measurement of quality, which involved the development of a quality appraisal instrument with 42 variables and quality ratings scored from one (poor) to four (good), producing an overall score for each report ranging from five to 20. This was subsequently refined and made available to probation areas to assist with internal quality control (Raynor et al. 1995).

Concordance Rates

Another approach to thinking about the quality of PSRs has been to consider their impact on sentencing outcomes. One such method has involved the analysis of concordance rates: that is, the frequency with which the proposals outlined in reports are actually adopted by sentencers disposing of the case. Data on concordance rates is published by the Ministry of Justice in its quarterly Offender Management Statistics. In the year to March 2025, for example, recommendations for fines, Community Orders, Suspended Sentence Orders and immediate custody were accepted in 56%, 47%, 0% (n=3) and 88% of cases respectively (Ministry of Justice 2025b, Table 6.12).

It has, however, been noted that high concordance rates on their own may tell us more about the ability of report writers to anticipate sentencers’ decisions, rather than the quality or persuasiveness of their proposals. Furthermore, where proposals for higher tariff sentences are concerned, they may also be indicative of sentencers being persuaded (by PSRs) to pass disproportionate sentences (e.g., see Gelsthorpe and Raynor 1995). With these issues in mind, Gelsthorpe and Raynor took an interesting approach in their research, examining the relationship between their own assessments of quality and sentencing outcomes. They found that the reports rated more highly on quality were ‘more successful in enabling sentencers to pass Community Orders with confidence and to rely correspondingly less on imprisonment’ (1995, p. 197).

Sentencers’ Views

Gelsthorpe and Raynor also incorporated the views of sentencers into their research. In an exercise designed to compare sentencers’ assessments of a sample of the reports which the researchers had rated for quality, they found that ‘there was remarkably little difference in the respective assessments of their quality’ (Gelsthorpe and Raynor 1995, p. 197). ‘Good’ reports, for sentencers, were those:

‘which identified sources of information, were reasonably concise, calendar dated, logical and consistent as well as having paid attention to layout. [They] also contained background information on defendants where this was seen as relevant to an understanding of offences and moved beyond the defendant’s version of events […] Good reports were also ones which managed to convey to the sentencer something about the defendant as a person’ (1995, pp. 195-6).

It is now more than 30 years since Gelsthorpe and Raynor’s research was conducted and, as we have seen, much has changed about and around the production of PSRs since the 1990s. Their study is worthy of attention today because it sheds light on the different ways in which quality may be, and has been, constructed in relation to PSRs. However, it is important to think critically about the appropriateness of the different sorts of measures that have been used in the past in today’s context. For example, the quality assessment framework developed by Gelsthorpe and Raynor was not used – nor intended to be used – in relation to oral reports, which are the dominant PSR format today.

HM Inspectorate of Probation Frameworks

That being said, a similar approach to the measurement of quality can be found in contemporary frameworks for inspecting PSRs, including oral reports, developed by HM Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) (e.g., HMIP 2017; 2020; 2021; 2024). For example, in a report on The Quality of Pre-Sentence Information and Advice Provided to Courts, inspectors assessed a sample of PSRs using a framework with nine distinct criteria that acted as prompts to inform an overall judgement about whether the PSR was ‘sufficiently analytical and personalised to the service user, supporting the court’s decision-making’ (HMIP 2020, p. 7). They inspected 802 reports completed in 2018-19, including oral reports (67%), FDRs (30%) and SDRs (4%). The proportion of reports assessed as sufficiently analytical and personalised varied by report type: 97% of SDRs, 82% of FDRs and 65% of oral reports were judged to be of sufficient quality. Further analysis of the more detailed ratings suggested that there were three main drivers of quality, which related to whether the report had (i) drawn appropriately on available sources of information; (ii) considered factors related to risk of harm; and (iii) considered factors related to the likelihood of reoffending.

Figure 2 compares evaluations of the three kinds of PSR on a number of dimensions. As can be seen, the SDR attracted the most positive ratings. Across all three of these criteria, a positive rating was least likely for oral reports (see Figure 2). The report concluded that: ‘Our inspectors found that information from other agencies could not always be shared in the time necessary to be included in the reports, and there was less time for report authors to consider and reflect upon the information which was available. The drive towards speedier reports had thus had an impact upon quality’ (HMIP 2020, p. 12).

Figure 2: The main drivers of quality in a study by HMIP (2020)³

In 2024, HMIP published a follow-up report, using the same nine distinct criteria to examine the quality of 490 PSRs completed in 2022-2023. Of all reports examined, which again included oral reports (26%), FDRs (71%) and SDRs (3%), less than half were judged to be of sufficient quality (HMIP 2024). The report noted that having sufficient time available to produce PSRs was essential for the reports’ quality, evidenced by the finding that the proportion of reports assessed as sufficiently analytical and personalised varied by report type: 63% of SDRs, 50% of FDRs and 39% of oral reports (HMIP 2024).

Completion of Court Orders

The MoJ, on the other hand, proposed yet another approach to assessing the quality and impact of PSRs by looking at the impact of PSRs on the completion of court orders (Grey at el. 2023). The report revealed ‘statistically significant evidence that those who received a PSR oral or PSR fast delivery in 2016 were more likely to successfully complete their court order, compared with a group of similar offenders who did not receive a PSR’ (Grey at el. 2023, p. 2). The authors found that 80% of those who received an FDR and 73% of those who received an oral report successfully completed their court order, compared to 73% and 68% of respectively matched offender groups. However, the report does not explain why or how offenders who received a PSR might be more likely to successfully complete their court order compared to those who did not.

The Quality of PSRs for BAME Defendants

Several recent reports have revealed concerns about the quality of PSRs prepared for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) defendants. An inspection of Race Equality in Probation (HMIP 2021) found that the quality of PSRs prepared in cases of BAME defendants was ‘insufficient in too many cases’ and that not enough attention was paid to diversity. Of 51 reports inspected, the quality of only 58% was judged to be sufficient. Inspectors concluded that ‘Poorer quality reports that fail to consider all relevant factors run the risk of service users receiving more punitive sentences’ (HMIP 2021, p. 29). The same report also observed considerable variance between different geographical areas in the proportion of ethnic minority defendants who had been sentenced without the benefit of a PSR. In the South East and Eastern National Probation Service division in 2019-20, this ranged from 38% in Bedfordshire to 71% in Kent. A follow-up report found that these regional differences remained (HMIP 2023).

Moreover, the most recent HMIP inspection of the quality of PSRs similarly concluded that PSRs prepared for BAME defendants were less likely to be judged as sufficiently analytical and personalised compared to PSRs prepared for White defendants (HMIP 2024). These findings are concerning in light of the Lammy Review into the treatment of BAME individuals in the criminal justice system, which observed that PSRs may be particularly valuable in shedding light on individuals from social classes and ethnic backgrounds that are less likely to be familiar to magistrates and judges (Lammy 2017, p. 34).

Key Findings

The quality of PSRs has long been a matter of concern and debate. Earlier research suggested that shorter timescales for report production do not necessarily reduce overall quality, though they may limit depth, access to third-party information, and the development of more tailored proposals for order requirements. While concordance rates have been used as a proxy for quality, these can reflect report writers anticipating sentencers’ preferences rather than the persuasive or analytical strength of the reports themselves. Sentencers have historically valued reports that are concise, well-structured, grounded in relevant background information, and that offer insight into the defendant. More recent inspection frameworks indicate that oral reports are less likely to meet these standards than written FDRs and SDRs, largely due to the reduced time available to probation staff for information gathering and reflection. Although there is some evidence that receiving a PSR is associated with higher rates of successful completion of court orders, the reasons for this remain unclear. Lastly, several reports have raised concerns about the quality of PSRs prepared for BAME defendants.

5. The Views of Stakeholders since the Transforming Rehabilitation Reforms

The views of stakeholders – including sentencers and probation practitioners – in relation to probation work in courts and the quality of PSRs have been sought in a small number of studies conducted since the implementation of the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms. These reforms, implemented in 2014-15, created a split between the parts of the probation service with responsibility for providing services to courts (the National Probation Service) and the Community Rehabilitation Companies with responsibility for the supervision of the majority of the offenders (low and medium risk) made subject to Community Orders. It should be noted, however, that none of these studies has achieved large or representative samples of respondents.

As part of a wider enquiry into the impact of Transforming Rehabilitation on sentencers, the Magistrates’ Association conducted three surveys (in 2015 and 2016) which touched upon perceptions of PSR quality. Overall, these surveys revealed that magistrates were broadly satisfied with PSRs, and a ‘mild improvement’ in perceptions of PSR quality was found between 2015 and 2016 (Dowell 2018, p. 30). However, concerns were raised about the quality of information provided in reports about the specific content of Community Orders that would be provided by Community Rehabilitation Companies which themselves had no input into the PSR preparation process.

In HMIP’s 2017 thematic inspection of The Work of Probation Services in Courts, the views of magistrates were sought in respect of a sample of oral reports (n=56) which inspectors had observed being prepared and delivered. Inspectors were able to elicit the views of magistrates’ benches in just over half of these cases. They found that in all but one of the cases, ‘the benches were approving of the advice given [and] magistrates welcomed the increased availability of oral reports’ (HMIP 2017, p. 24).⁴ Research by the Centre for Justice Innovation (2018) similarly found that sentencers generally welcomed oral reports, but added that: ‘some sentencers suggested that PSRs were less useful than had previously been the case either due to the increased number of reports being written by less qualified Probation Service Officers (PSOs) or the move to less comprehensive oral reports’ (2018, p. 9). 

Studies by Crest Advisory (du Mont and Redgrave 2017) and the Centre for Justice Innovation (2018) both elicited views of probation staff. In the first study, focus group research with staff in one Community Rehabilitation Company revealed concerns about the impact of speedier reports on the quality and detail of offender assessments, which could result in recommendations for Community Order requirements that would not address the causes of offending. In the second study, probation practitioners suggested that oral reports, whilst generally adequate for sentencing purposes, did not always support effective sentence planning at the start of a period of supervision. This meant that time saved in preparing the report had to be spent later on by the supervising officer conducting a full assessment once an order was made. Concerns were also raised about how the reduced scope for fuller, written reports (SDRs) (as specified in National Probation Service targets) meant that serious and/or complex cases were increasingly being sentenced with FDRs produced in much less time. Despite the publication of ‘decision tools’ to help guide decisions about the appropriate type of report in a given case, the practitioners interviewed in the Centre for Justice Innovation study said that they were not aware of these, or that they did not feel they were able to exercise their discretion in this way (2018, p. 10). Members of court teams interviewed in a study by Robinson (2019a) similarly reported that they did not always feel supported to suggest an alternative type of report to sentencers, who they felt had become accustomed to the immediacy of faster reports and did not always appreciate the benefit of investing more time in the assessment of individuals in more complex or serious cases.

6. Current Developments in Policy and Practice

Taken together, the findings of recent research suggest that the drive towards speed in the provision of PSRs has had advantages, particularly from the point of view of sentencers. However, it may also have resulted in both a reduction in requests for PSRs and (in some cases) a reduction in the quality of information available to guide decisions both at sentencing and at the start of a Community Order. One recent report has further suggested a link between the decline in requests for PSRs and the longstanding decline in the use of Community Orders (Centre for Justice Innovation 2018). In response to these concerns, we are witnessing a phase of reflection at the policy level, and some rebalancing of priorities around speed and quality in the production of PSRs.

The Alternative Delivery Model Pilot

The White Paper, A Smarter Approach to Sentencing, appears to have recognised (or, perhaps more accurately, to have rediscovered) the crucial role that PSRs, underpinned by a sound assessment of the individual, can play in breaking the cycle of offending – particularly for those with complex needs. It includes a commitment to improve their provision, starting with more investment in probation court teams and the piloting of a number of initiatives to explore both new ways to identify offenders who would benefit from a PSR, and the use of ‘fuller’ PSRs for cohorts of offenders who typically have more complex needs (Ministry of Justice 2020).

The PSR pilot promised by the White Paper was launched in 2021 across 15 magistrates’ courts (Ministry of Justice 2021). The Alternative Delivery Model (ADM) that was piloted sought to deliver improvements in sentencer confidence, the administration of justice, and outcomes for offenders. The model had three elements. 

The first element builds upon the existing National Pre-Sentence Report Before Plea Protocol, which was introduced during the Covid-19 pandemic to help alleviate pressures on magistrates’ courts (see Law Society 2021). Its aim is to prevent the need for adjourning cases for a PSR to be completed by instead ensuring more reports are produced prior to an offender’s first hearing.⁵ The ADM reinforced the implementation of the protocol across the 15 pilot sites and measured the impact this had on the numbers of PSRs completed before plea.

The second element of the ADM targeted specific groups of offenders who typically have complex needs for a written report (FDR). Where a report cannot be produced on the day, magistrates were asked to adjourn these cases for up to five days. The identified target groups were women, young adults aged 18-24, and those at risk of custody. Although BAME offenders were a surprising omission from the identified groups, Her Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) has stated that it expected BAME offenders to be over-represented in the specified groups, the assumption being that they do not need to be targeted separately.

The third element of the ADM was more general, aiming to contribute to the overall improvement of the quality of PSRs via the provision of additional training for staff in court teams. Staff at the pilot sites received a package of training, delivered via online learning and virtual workshops, which included a focus on building communication and advocacy skills, tackling racial disparities in the criminal justice system, and learning how to become trauma-informed and responsive to better support offenders. This element of the ADR is consistent with a recent position paper on Probation Court Work published by the Probation Institute (2021b), which emphasises the wide range of skills, knowledge and experience that underpin effective probation work in courts – including the confidence and good communication skills required to make the case for an adjournment when a fuller assessment is appropriate. Similar observations about the skills required of an effective court team member, and the need for ongoing training provision, have been made in recent research by Robinson (2018; 2019b).

A process evaluation of the PSR pilot found that the success of the ADM depended in large parts on the buy-in of individual court staff as well as on the time and resources available to probation staff (Rizk and Bhakta 2023):

• The first element of the ADM – the before plea protocol – was rarely used in hearings due to structural barriers, including issues with legal aid, a lack of incentives for practitioners, and lack of time for probation staff to complete a PSR prior to the hearing.
• The second element of the pilot – targeting priority cohorts – was more successful. It was widely agreed that targeting specific groups of offenders led to appropriate support for these groups, especially for young adults and women. However, ‘[a]cross stakeholder groups and regions, it was believed that adding a cohort for Black, Asian or minority ethnic individuals would have been beneficial’ (Rizk and Bhakta 2023, p. 46).
• The evaluation further found that training probation staff – particularly on trauma-informed practice as well as unconscious bias – could improve the quality of the PSRs they prepared. However, limited staff time and staff under-resourcing posed barriers for staff to attend the trainings and implement learnings.

Overall, the evaluation concluded that courts taking part in the pilot delivered a higher proportion of PSRs compared to courts not partaking in the pilot. In addition, pilot courts saw a higher proportion of written reports (FDRs) than oral reports. There was some evidence that the pilot led to a higher quality of PSRs delivered, though there appeared to be general agreement among members of the judiciary that the quality of PSRs had been high prior to the start of the pilot (Rizk and Bhakta 2023). As of now, it is not known how the findings of the pilot evaluation might influence future practice around PSRs.

Revised Sentencing Council Guideline Controversy

After conducting an extensive public and professional consultation, the Sentencing Council published a revised guideline on pre-sentence reports in March 2025. The revised guideline proposed that PSRs should normally be considered necessary for certain groups of offenders, including people who are (Sentencing Council 2023, p. 10):

• at risk of a custodial sentence of 2 years or less
• a young adult (18-25 years)
• female (see further information below at section 3)
• pregnant (see further information below at section 3)
• sole or primary carer for dependent relatives
• from an ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community
• has disclosed they are transgender
• has any drug or alcohol addiction issues
• has a learning disability or mental disorder
• or; the court considers there to be a risk that the offender may have been the victim of domestic abuse, trafficking, modern slavery, or been subject to coercion, intimidation or exploitation.

The revised guideline sparked a wider political debate about sentencing fairness and guidance, with critics of the guideline arguing that the Council’s proposal could risk creating a “two-tier” justice system, and proponents of the revision arguing that it constituted an important attempt to address disparities in the justice system.

Following a question on the subject in the House of Commons, the Lord Chancellor announced that the Government disagreed with the guideline, and specifically the inclusion of the ‘ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community’ cohort. In April 2025, the Government published the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill (Cooney and Danechi 2025). This legislation amends the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to prevent sentencing guidelines about PSRs from referring to ‘different personal characteristics’ of an offender. The bill came into force in June 2025.

7. Research Gaps

The Impact(s) of Dispensing with a PSR

Since the 2015 Leveson Review called for more discretion for sentencers to dispense with PSRs, the question of how the absence of a PSR might impact on (and potentially disadvantage) individuals at sentencing has become a pressing one (e.g. HMIP 2020, p. 17; Centre for Justice Innovation 2018). This, however, is a difficult question for researchers to address because of the need to be able to control for a wide range of relevant offender/offence variables. It would ideally require an experimental study using randomised controlled trials (RCTs), but this type of study presents ethical issues in criminal justice settings.

One quasi-experimental trial compared penal decision-making for 6,118 defendants in the Netherlands (Wingerden et al. 2014). One group of defendants received a risk-based PSR, while the other group did not. Defendants were matched based on propensity score matching, which included characteristics such as the offence committed, the offender’s sex, and the number of previous convictions. The study revealed that low-risk defendants who had received a PSR were less likely to receive custody than low-risk defendants who had not received a PSR (Wingerden et al. 2014). While this study suggests that dispensing with a PSR could potentially disadvantage individuals at sentencing, the findings are not directly applicable to sentencing in England & Wales, as the risk-based PSRs used in the Netherlands differ from the PSRs used in English and Welsh courts.

The Views and Experiences of Offenders Subject to PSRs

To date, very little research has been conducted on how those who are the subjects of PSRs experience the process (for example, in terms of perceptions of procedural justice, and/or the perceived advantages and disadvantages of reports prepared on the day or on adjournment). Although the Probation Inspectorate has sought the views of some defendants about PSRs prepared in their case (e.g. HMIP 2017, p. 25), there is much more scope to explore the criteria against which defendants tend to evaluate their experiences as the subjects of reports, in respect of both processes and outcomes.

A Revolving Doors study did collect views on the PSR process from 141 people with current or recent experience of being under probation supervision (Mullen et al. 2022). The study revealed that ‘only a couple of people’ interviewed reported having a positive experience with a PSR (Mullen et al. 2022, p. 15). Matching previous research on PSRs, the study participants identified probation staff’s lack of time as the biggest issue, saying that probation staff tended to re-use old reports that contained outdated information, that the PSR interview felt ‘rushed’, that they were not given enough time to build trust with probation staff, and that they were therefore unable to disclose case-relevant information that was sensitive or traumatic (Mullen et al. 2022).

The Impact of Probation Reunification

It is clear that at least some of the recent issues with the provision and quality of PSRs have been attributable to the splitting of probation services under the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms. These reforms created resourcing problems for court teams and barriers between courts and the Community Rehabilitation Companies responsible for delivering the majority of Community Orders, which both court teams and sentencers found frustrating. The Target Operating Model for the future of Probation Services in England and Wales estimates an £8 million annual increase to strengthen probation’s effectiveness in court (HMPPS 2021). This additional investment, coupled with expected improvements in information flows, should (in principle) have a positive impact on the quality of services that court teams are able to provide, over and above the Alternative Delivery Model that was recently piloted. The impact of probation reunification is therefore another potential avenue for future research.

8. Conclusion

The provision of Pre-Sentence Reports is a longstanding role of the Probation Service in England and Wales. These reports make a valuable contribution to sentencing decisions and sentence planning. Under a number of policy influences, recent years have seen some dramatic changes in the provision of PSRs, with a move away from written reports in favour of oral reports, and toward much faster delivery. There has also been a reduction in demand for PSRs from sentencers. These changes have prompted questions about the appropriate balance between speed and quality; about the circumstances in which a report should be requested; and about the types of cases in which a more detailed, written report (and an adjournment) is appropriate.

References

• Centre for Justice Innovation (2018) Renewing Trust: How can we improve the relationship between probation and the courts. London: Centre for Justice Innovation.
• Cooney, F. and Danechi, S. (2025) ‘Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-Sentence Reports) Bill 2024-25’. Research Briefing. House of Commons Library. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10245/
• Dowell, D. (2018) Confidence in the Community: Magistrate attitudes to Transforming Rehabilitation and community sentences. London: Magistrates Association.
• du Mont, S. and Redgrave, H. (2017) Where Did It All Go Wrong? A study into the use of community sentences in England and Wales. London: Crest Advisory.
• Gelsthorpe, L. and Raynor, P. (1992) ‘Report on the quality and contents of reports prepared during the pilots’, in: Bredar J (ed.) Justice Informed: The Pre-Sentence Report Pilot Trials in the Crown Court, Volume II: Appendices. London: HMSO.
• Gelsthorpe, L. and Raynor, P. (1995) ‘Quality and effectiveness in probation officers’ reports to sentencers’, British Journal of Criminology, 35, 2: 188–200.
• Gelsthorpe, L., Raynor, P. and Robinson, G. (2010) ‘Pre-sentence reports in England and Wales: Changing discourses of risk, need and quality’, in F. McNeill, P. Raynor and C. Trotter (eds.) Offender Supervision: New Directions in Theory, Research and Practice. Cullompton: Willan.
• Grey, K. et al. (2023) ‘The impact of oral and fast delivery pre-sentence reports (PSRs) on the completion of court orders.’ Ministry of Justice. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/impact-of-oral-and-fast-delivery-pre-sentence-reports-on-the-completion-of-court-orders
• HMIP (2017) The Work of Probation Services in Courts. Manchester: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation.
• HMIP (2020) The Quality of Pre-Sentence Information and Advice Provided to Courts. Research and Analysis Bulletin 2020/04. Manchester: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation.
• HMIP (2021) Race Equality in Probation: The experiences of black, Asian and minority ethnic probation service users and staff. Manchester: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation.
• HMIP (2023) Race equality in probation follow-up: A work in progress. Manchester: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation.
• HMIP (2024) The quality of pre-sentence information and advice provided to courts – 2022 to 20323 inspections. Manchester: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation. HMPPS (2016) Determining Pre-Sentence Reports. Probation Instruction 04/2016.
• HMPPS (2021) Target Operating Model for Probation Services in England and Wales.
• Lammy, D. (2017) The Lammy Review: An independent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Individuals in the Criminal Justice System. London: Lammy Review.
• Law Society (2021) New pre-sentence report protocol (published 14 October 2021).
• Leveson, B. (2015) Review of Efficiency in Criminal Proceedings. The Judiciary of England and Wales.
• Ministry of Justice (2020) A Smarter Approach to Sentencing, CP 292, London: HMSO.
• Ministry of Justice (2021) Pre-sentence report pilot in 15 magistrates’ courts: Information about the pre-sentence report pilot in 15 magistrates’ courts (published 19 May 2021).
• Ministry of Justice (2025a). Probation Court Services Policy Framework.(Updated 14/01/2025, implemented 6/1/2025.)
• Ministry of Justic (2025b) Offender Management Statistics Quarterly. January to March 2025. Probation Statistics.
• Ministry of Justic (2025c) Offender Management Statistics Quarterly. April to June 2025. Probation Statistics.
• Mullen, P., Dick, N. and Williams, A. (2022) ‘What next for Probation?’ Revolving Doors. https://revolving-doors.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Probation-Lived-Experience-Inquiry-34pp-A4-2-1.pdf
• National Association of Probation Officers (Napo) (2016) Parliamentary Briefing: Ministry of Justice Changes to Pre-Sentence Reports.
• Probation Institute (2021a) Use of the Protocol for “Pre-Sentence Report Before Plea”. Probation Institute Position Paper 1/21, January 2021.
• Probation Institute (2021b) Probation Court Work: Rethinking the skills and knowledge for the professional task. Probation Institute Position Paper 2/21, April 2021.
• Raynor, P., Gelsthorpe, L. and Tisi, A. (1995) ‘Quality assurance, Pre-Sentence Reports and the probation service, British Journal of Social Work, 25: 477–488.
• Rizk, T. and Bhakta, T. (2023) ‘A process evaluation of the Pre-Sentence Report pilot.’ Ministry of Justice. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/process-evaluation-of-the-pre-sentence-report-pilot
• Robinson, G. (2017) ‘Stand-down and deliver: Pre-sentence reports, quality and the new culture of speed’, Probation Journal, 64, 4: 337-53.
• Robinson, G. (2018) ‘Transforming probation services in Magistrates’ Courts’, Probation Journal, 65, 3: 316-34.
• Robinson, G. (2019a) ‘Delivering McJustice? The probation factory at the Magistrates’ court’, Criminology and Criminal Justice, 19, 5: 605-21.
• Robinson, G. (2019b) ‘Probation services in magistrates’ courts’, Probation Quarterly, 11: 14-16.
• Sentencing Council (2017) Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences.
• Sentencing Council (2023) The Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline. Consultation. https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/media/nldlmvtu/imposition-consultation-paper-final.pdf
• van Wingerden, S., van Wilsem, J. and Moerings, M. (2014) ‘ Pre-sentence reports and punishment: A quasi-experiment assessing the effects of risk-based pre-sentence reports on sentencing’, European Journal of Criminology, 11(6): 723-744.

1. The offence analysis puts the current offence into context, considering matters such as the offender’s account in relation to statements available in police records; harm caused to victims and the offender’s victim awareness; the degree to which the offender accepts responsibility for their offending; and whether the offence forms part of a pattern of offending (and if so the time that has elapsed since the most recent conviction, and any escalation/de-escalation of offence seriousness). ↩︎
2. All statistics on PSRs are derived from the Offender Management Statistics Quarterly publications (various). ↩︎
3. Reproduced from HMIP (2020, p. 13) under the Open Government Licence v3.0. ↩︎
4. It is interesting to note that inspectors rated the oral reports in this sample more highly than either the SDRs or the FDRs they assessed: 91%, 80% and 71% of oral reports, SDRs and FDRs (respectively) were assessed as being of sufficient quality to assist the sentencing process. These findings are in contrast to those reported in HMIP (2020), considered above. However, different assessment criteria were used in the two inspections and the sample analysed in HMIP (2020) was larger. ↩︎
5. Historically, the preparation of PSRs in these circumstances has been resisted by the Probation Service, due to the perceived risk of putting pressure on defendants to plead guilty in the hope of a lesser sentence. The Probation Institute (2021a) has therefore suggested that the protocol should be used cautiously. ↩︎