Skip to content

Produced by the Sentencing Academy

Suspended Sentence Orders in England & Wales

A Review of Recent Research and Developments

Eleanor Curzon

Published: 4 Nov 2025 Last updated: Aug 2025

Executive summary

  • The Suspended Sentence Order (SSO) is a custodial sentence option available to magistrates and judges in England and Wales. Providing the custody threshold has been crossed and the term of imprisonment imposed is at least 14 days and not more than two years in duration, the courts can decide to suspend the sentence of imprisonment. This allows an offender to serve their sentence of imprisonment in the community rather than in custody.
  • An SSO can be imposed unconditionally or with requirements. There are 15 requirements which can be imposed, either alone or in combination. The cost of imposing an SSO, which is monitored by the Probation Service, is far less than the cost of immediate custody, approximately £3,100 compared to £53,000 (2023-2024) per year.
  • The use of the SSO in the last fifteen years has remained relatively stable, imposed on 4-5% of offenders sentenced each year across all courts.
  • The existing Sentencing Council ‘Imposition of community and custodial sentences’ guideline (2017) emphasises that a suspended sentence ‘must not be imposed as a more severe form of community order’. This is re-emphasised in the updated proposed imposition guideline due to come into force on 1 September 2025, an entire section of which is dedicated to the SSO. The current limited research on the use of SSOs indicates that the SSO is sometimes imposed in cases where the custody threshold has not been crossed. Further research is required in this area to address why individuals who should receive a lesser sentence are receiving the more severe sanction of the SSO, an effect referred to as a ‘net-widening.’
  • There continues to be little current research on the SSO. Additional research is needed to better understand breach rates, the deterrent effect of the SSO, the relationship between SSOs and deferred sentencing, the efficacy of requirements in reducing reoffending and the impact, if any, the new imposition guideline (due to come into force in September 2025) will have on the use of SSOs. The extent to which technology can be used to expand the range of available SSO requirements, enhance their efficacy and improve the monitoring of breach rates also merits exploration. The recent Ministry of Justice published Gauke Review (2025) recommends the use of more community-based sentences and an extending of the upper limit for imposing an SSO from two to three years, a recommendation which is endorsed in the recent Leveson Review (2025). If these recommendations are to be implemented, it is critical to better understand the SSO.

1. Introduction

When an offender receives a sentence of imprisonment, many people assume that they will immediately be sent to prison. However, this is not always the case. A court can decide to suspend a sentence of imprisonment, allowing the offender to serve their sentence of imprisonment in the community rather than in a prison. If the sentence of imprisonment is suspended, the offender must usually comply with a set of requirements and engage with the Probation Service. Noncompliance (or further offending) may result in committal to prison. A suspended sentence thus provides sentencers with a sentencing option which carries, or should carry, the same ‘penal weight’ of imprisonment without requiring the imprisonment of the offender.

Only if the custody threshold has been crossed and a term of imprisonment of at least 14 days (but not more than two years) is imposed, does the court have the power to suspend imprisonment. In England and Wales, if the court decides to suspend a sentence of imprisonment, they will be imposing a Suspended Sentence Order (‘SSO’). If an offender commits a further offence or breaches their requirements whilst subject to an SSO, e.g. by failing to attend at Probation meetings or failing to complete unpaid work requirements, the suspended sentence must be activated unless it is unjust in all the circumstances. If there are factors which indicate that it would be unjust, the suspended sentence may be activated at the court’s discretion. Activation ‘in full’ requires an offender to serve the term of imprisonment originally imposed by the court (before suspension) in custody. If activated ‘in part’, the offender will serve a term of imprisonment shorter than that originally imposed by the court. Activation in part may occur when there has otherwise been a high level of compliance with the SSO requirements, for example. A Sentencing Council guideline ‘Breach of a suspended sentence order’ (2018) provides guidance on when activation in full or in part would be appropriate.

The SSO also has fiscal and human advantages. For example, imposing an SSO costs significantly less than immediate imprisonment. In 2023-2024, the average cost of accommodating one prisoner for a year was £53,801 compared to £3,150 for an offender being supervised by the Probation Service (Gauke, 2025, p. 8). In addition, an SSO, if appropriately constructed and adequately supervised, can reduce the use of short-term prison sentences. Furthermore, if the offender remains in the community, albeit under supervision and with requirements to fulfil, the sentence does not adversely affect third parties such as family members. The SSO may also allow an offender to maintain employment and can prevent exposure to negative peer associations and criminal behaviour in prison. Ministry of Justice research has found that the imposition of an SSO or community order (irrespective of the requirements attached to the order) appears to be more effective at reducing the risk of reoffending than a short-term custodial sentence (Mews et al., 2015).

However, if utilised in inappropriate cases the SSO may lead to an increased use of custodial sentences and undermine public confidence in sentencing. For example, the public may oppose the imposition of a suspended sentence order in cases of serious personal injury or where the victim is particularly vulnerable. In addition, if the SSO is poorly understood by the public, which research suggests it is, this is likely to further undermine public confidence in the sanction.1 Media reporting on the use of SSOs may also influence public confidence, encouraging the perception that it is a sentence that simply allows offenders to ‘avoid jail’.

Suspended prison sentences operate in almost all common law jurisdictions. Overcrowding in prisons and the problem of short-term prison sentences explain why suspended sentences have continued to be used in many countries (Irwin-Rogers and Roberts, 2019, p. 139). The current overcrowding in prisons in England and Wales may make the SSO an increasingly attractive sentencing option.

A suspended sentence is closely associated with deterrent sentencing (Bottoms, 1981, p. 1). The deterrent effect of the suspended sentence is that of the ‘Sword of Damocles’ because the threat of immediate imprisonment ‘hang[s] over the offender as an effective deterrent while avoiding the human and financial costs of imprisonment’ (Young and Fast, 2012, p. 3). The sentencing principle of parsimony, which requires courts to impose the sanction that is the least onerous, but which achieves the purpose of sentencing is also a central tenet of SSOs (Irwin-Rogers and Roberts, 2019, p. 155). Ultimately, an SSO offers a less onerous sanction than immediate imprisonment. It leaves the court with an alternative sentencing option to that of immediate imprisonment when the offence has crossed the custody threshold or is more serious but ‘where there are unusual or particularly compelling sources of mitigation’ (Irwin-Rogers and Roberts, 2019, p. 156).

This paper updates a previous Sentencing Academy publication (Curzon and Roberts, 2021). The current paper summarises developments since 2021 and provides the latest data on usage of this sanction.

2. The Suspended Sentence Order in England and Wales

In England and Wales, a suspended sentence has only been available to sentencers since 1967.2 Before imposing an SSO, sentencers must first find that the custody threshold has been crossed. In other words, a sentence of imprisonment is the appropriate sanction. The length of the sentence of imprisonment must be the shortest period commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. Once the custody threshold has been crossed and it is determined that a sentence of imprisonment of not less than 14 days or more than two years is appropriate the court can decide to suspend the sentence of imprisonment.

The imposition of an SSO is not intended to be a more severe form of a community order. A sentence can only be suspended once the custody threshold has been crossed. However, research has suggested that this guidance has not always been followed in practice, where those who should receive a community order or lesser sentence are, in fact, receiving the more severe sanction on an SSO, a trend referred to as ‘net widening.’

Since its introduction there have been several amendments to the suspended sentencing regime. Section 5(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 required that there must be ‘exceptional circumstances’ before a custodial sentence could be suspended. As a result, the volume of suspended sentences declined from approximately 20,000 in 1990 to only 2,500 in 1995 (Mair et al., 2008, p. 23). Thereafter, the number of suspended sentences imposed remained relatively stable. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 removed the need for exceptional circumstances and instead made up to 12 requirements applicable to SSOs. These requirements mirrored those made available to the new ‘Community Order’ which was also introduced under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Under Section 68 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO), the maximum sentence length that could be suspended was increased from 12 to 24 months. A two-year limit is still lower than in many other jurisdictions. LASPO also resulted in an SSO being able to be imposed unconditionally, removing the need for any requirements. The Sentencing Act 2020 and the Sentencing Act (Commencement No 1) Regulations 2020, which brought the Sentencing Code into force since 1 December 2020, is the most recent consolidation of the SSO.

Sentencers may only suspend a sentence of imprisonment where it is at least 14 days but not more than two years.3 The length of the suspension must then be for a period of between six months and two years: the ‘operational period’. During the operational period, the offender must comply with any of the requirements imposed by the court, although it is not necessary for any requirements to be attached to the SSO. The ‘supervision period’ denotes the time within which these requirements must be completed. The supervision period must last for at least six months and not be more than two years. Commonly, the supervision period and the operational period last for the same duration.

In determining whether to suspend a sentence of imprisonment, the court should undertake a balancing exercise and refer to the Sentencing Council’s ‘Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences Definitive Guideline’ (2017). Consideration should be had to the circumstances of the offender and the offence, looking at factors which tend towards and away from suspension. Pre-sentence reports, prepared by the Probation Service, which detail information such as the offender’s circumstances and perceived risk profile, may be relied upon by the court in weighing up these factors. The factors that indicate that it may be appropriate to suspend a sentence are a realistic prospect of rehabilitation, strong personal mitigation and if immediate custody will result in significant harmful impact upon others. Factors that indicate that it would not be appropriate to suspend a custodial sentence include: a history of poor compliance with court orders, if the offender presents a risk/danger to the public and where appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody.

Section 287 of the Sentencing Act 2020 lists the 15 requirements currently available to be attached to an SSO:

  1. Unpaid work requirement
  2. Rehabilitation activity requirement
  3. Programme requirement
  4. Prohibited activity requirement
  5. Curfew requirement
  6. Exclusion requirement
  7. Residence requirement
  8. Foreign travel prohibition requirement
  9. Mental health treatment requirement
  10. Drug rehabilitation requirement
  11. Alcohol treatment requirement
  12. Alcohol abstinence and monitoring
  13. Attendance centre requirement
  14. Electronic compliance monitoring requirement
  15. Electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement

When determining which requirements to impose, the court must consider whether the requirements are compatible with each other.4 Where practicable, the requirements should avoid conflict with the offender’s religious beliefs, any other court orders or interfere with the times at which the offender would normally be at work or an educational establishment. The offender is also required to keep in touch with their responsible probation officer, as if it were a requirement of the SSO.5 If an SSO includes one or more community requirements, it may be that the order is periodically reviewed and a ‘provision for review’ is imposed.6 Review hearings will require the responsible officer to provide the court with an update on the offender’s progress and for the offender to attend.

Failure to comply with the court-ordered requirements during the supervision period or commission of a further offence amounts to a breach of an SSO. The court must activate the original custodial sentence imposed unless it would be unjust in all the circumstances. The definitive Sentencing Council guideline, ‘Breach of a suspended sentence order’ (2018), outlines the options available to the court in this circumstance. The court can decide to activate the original custodial term in full, requiring the offender to serve their original term of imprisonment imposed before suspension in prison. Activation can also be in part rather than in full where, for example, there has been the commission of a further offence but otherwise a medium/high level of compliance with the order. As a result, the court would apply an appropriate and proportionate reduction to the original custodial term to take into account the level of compliance. Whether activation would be unjust in all the circumstances requires consideration of any factors the court deems appropriate alongside any strong personal mitigation, whether there is a realistic prospect of rehabilitation and whether immediate custody will result in significant impact on others. This is caveated by the point that ‘only new and exceptional factors/circumstances not present at the time the suspended sentence order was imposed should be taken into account’ (Sentencing Council, 2018). If the court decides not to activate the custodial sentence, it must impose either a fine not exceeding £2,500, extend the operational period or suspension period (to a maximum of two years from the date of the original sentence) or impose more onerous community requirements.

A new ‘Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences’ guideline became 1 September 2025. This new guideline places a particular emphasis on pre-sentence reports (PSRs). The language goes further than the 2017 guideline to state that ‘when considering a community or custodial sentence, the court must request and consider a pre-sentence report before forming an opinion of the sentence, unless it considers it is unnecessary’ [emphasis added] (Sentencing Council, 2025). There is new detailed guidance that considers the purpose, suitability and effectiveness of sentencing and it states that ‘the court should ensure that a rehabilitative sentence has been fully considered’. New drop-down boxes now provide detailed information on what current research shows about the root of offending and impact of custody for young offenders (18-25), female offenders, mothers with dependent children, pregnant and post-natal offenders.

Drop-down boxes are now also included for each requirement that can be attached to an SSO. They provide a brief description of the requirement, when and how long it can be imposed for and additional detail on how it is enforced. The new guideline is more detailed than its predecessor and dedicates an entire section to SSOs. The guideline addresses the SSO’s operational and supervision periods, available requirements in more detail and appears to encourage a greater consideration of what crosses a community or custody threshold. A deferment order, in which the court can delay passing a sentence for up to 6 months, is also a new addition to the guideline, albeit not a new sentencing option.

Following the Criminal Justice Act 2003 reforms, which came into force in April 2005, there was an immediate surge in the volume of SSOs, increasing from 9,666 cases in 2005 to 33,509 in 2006 and peaking in 2015 at 57,072 (Irwin-Rogers and Roberts, 2019, p. 142). The number imposed steadily declined to a recent low of 35,101 in 2020 before increasing to 43,717 in 2023 and 48,949 in 2024.7 The steady decrease (2017-2020) appears largely a result of the drop in cases sentenced over the period, whilst the subsequent increase (2021-2024) appears a result of the increase in the number of offenders being sentenced.

Table 1 summarises trends in the proportionate use of the principal sanctions for all offences in all courts between 2017 and 2024. SSOs accounted for approximately 4% of all sanctions over this period. Despite the increase since 2005, the SSO remains a relatively rarely imposed sentence, accounting for only 4% of cases in 2024. As can be seen, the period 2017-2024 saw a slight decline of one percentage point in the proportion of cases attracting a community order (CO) and a slight increase in the number of cases attracting a fine (the most common sanction).

Table 1: Use of Principal Sanctions, 2017-2024, All Offences, All Courts8

FineCommunity OrderSuspended Sentence OrederImmediate Imprisonment
202482%7%4%7%
202383%7%4%7%
202283%7%4%6%
202180%8%5%7%
202080%8%5%8%
201982%8%4%7%
201881%8%4%7%
201779%8%5%8%
Source: Outcomes by Offence Data Tool, 12 months ending December 2017 to 12 months ending December 2024 (published 15 May 2025)

The pattern of stability in the use of SSOs changes when we turn to sentences imposed for more serious offences (Table 2). In the most recent year (2024), SSOs accounted for over one fifth (22%) of all sentences imposed for indictable only and triable either way offences. The percentage of SSOs imposed for these offences rose from 18% in 2018 to 22% in 2024, whilst the use of immediate imprisonment remained relatively stable, only differing by two percentage points (37% to 35%). The use of community orders has also been generally stable with a maximum difference of three percentage points and a peak in 2019 of 27%. The use of fines has remained similarly stable fluctuating between 17-19%. Further research is needed to explain these trends.

Table 2: Number and Proportionate Use of Principal Sanctions, 2017-2024, Indictable Only and Triable Either Way Offences, Adult Offenders9

FineCommunity OrderSuspended Sentence OrderImmediate ImprisonmentImprisonment Combined (SSO plus Immediate Imprisonment)
202432,447
17%		45,308
24%		41,417
22%		71,186
37%		112,603
59%
202328,835
17%		41,807
25%		36,188
21%		63,723
37%		99,911
59%
202227,679
17%		38,673
25%		32,998
21%		56,358
36%		89,356
57%
202129,701
19%		40,071
25%		34,828
22%		55,824
35%		90,652
57%
202026,749
19%		35,724
25%		29,044
20%		52,663
37%		81,707
57%
201934,842
19%		49,510
27%		32,267
18%		66,966
36%		99,233
54%
201834,265
19%		48,122
26%		32,849
18%		68,858
37%		101,707
55%
201737,512
18%		50,943
25%		41,681
20%		76,829
37%		118,520
57%
Source: Outcomes by Offence Data Tool, 12 months ending December 2017 to 12 months ending December 2024 (published 15 May 2025)

Since the SSO is a sentence of imprisonment, between 2017 and 2024 there has been a proportionate increase in the use of custody as a sanction, immediate and suspended imprisonment combined. In 2019, sentences of imprisonment accounted for 54% of cases. By 2024, this had risen to 59% (Table 2). It is not clear what has led to this increase. It may be explained by a decline in the imposition of Community Orders over the same period (27% in 2019, falling to 24% in 2024). Table 2 sheds light on the changing relationship between the SSO, community orders and sentences of immediate imprisonment.

Table 3 lists the ten offence categories which accounted for the highest use of SSOs in 2024. As can be seen, violence against the person, theft offences and miscellaneous crimes against society are the most frequent offences attracting a suspended sentence.

Table 3: Ten Most Frequent Offence Categories Attracting an SSO in 2024

Offence CategoryNumber of Offenders
Violence against the person10,012
Theft offences8,079
Miscellaneous crimes against society5,966
Drug offences4,906
Possession of weapons4,570
Summary motoring4,235
Public order offences3,519
Summary non-motoring3,273
Sexual offences1,753
Fraud offences1,109
Source: Table 5.3; Offender Management statistics quarterly, 2025; Ministry of Justice Statistics

Summary of Trends

To summarise, the volume of SSOs and immediate imprisonment imposed declined overall between 2017 and 2024 from 118,520 in 2017 to a low of 81,707 in 2020, before steadily increasing to 112,603 in 2024. Factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent overcrowding in prisons are likely to have contributed to these fluctuations. However, the use of the SSO alone has remained relatively stable across all courts (between 4-5%) over the same period (2018-2024).

4. Research Gaps and Priorities

The SSO has attracted little research in England and Wales. The following subsections draw attention to the areas where research is required to gain a more detailed picture of the practical implementation of the SSO and how the sentence is perceived.

Re-offending Rates and Requirements

Research into the effectiveness of the SSO has generally compared re-offending rates associated with sentences of immediate imprisonment, community orders and SSOs. The conclusion from studies in several countries is that suspended sentences of imprisonment are associated with lower reoffending rates than immediate custody.

Analysis of the latest data for England and Wales, conducted on behalf of the Ministry of Justice (‘MoJ’), reveals that 33% of adults starting a court order (community order or suspended sentence order) between October 2022 and December 2022 reoffended within one year, compared to 57% of adults released from custodial sentences of less than 12 months (Cordle and Gale, 2025, p. 10).

The most up to data reoffending data from the MoJ is the proven adult reoffending data between April and June 2023. For those who received an SSO with requirements, the proportion of those who reoffended was 24.8% compared to 41.1% for those with no requirements.10 For those who received a community order, the proportion of offenders who reoffend was 38.2% over the same period.11 This small time period of three months indicates that the imposition of an SSO with requirements was the most effective at reducing reoffending. The reasons for this are unknown.

One of the requirements that can be attached to a SSO is the Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (RAR). This requirement was designed to offer the Probation Service flexibility in terms of how they deliver rehabilitative activities to offenders on probation. The MoJ has recently published a paper looking at the implementation of this requirement, which was introduced in 2014 (see Bhakta, Lacy and Baxter, 2025). The evaluation of the RAR did not explore the impact that it has on reducing reoffending, however, such an examination would be of assistance in better understanding the merits of attaching this requirement to an SSO, particularly because between 2015 and 2023 the percentage of offenders on a community order or SSO starting with a RAR requirement has more than doubled from 32.6% to 75.4% (Bhakta, Lacy and Baxter 2025, p. 14).

Further research on behalf of the MoJ has focused on Community Sentence Treatment Requirements (CSTRs), which includes Alcohol Treatment requirements (ATRs), Drug Rehabilitation requirements (DRRs) and Mental Health Treatment requirements (MHTRs). These requirements aim to reduce reoffending by addressing the health needs of offenders who are serving their sentence within the community (see Chalam-Judge and Martin 2024). The findings from this research indicate that there is an overall positive effect on reoffending outcomes for those who received a sentence with one of these requirements compared with those who received short term custodial sentences (Chalam-Judge and Martin 2024, p. 5). This is in keeping with previous research. However, looking at the impact of a DRR in isolation found that there was ‘no statistically significant difference between reoffending rates’ for those who received a DRR and those who received a community sentence without a DRR (Chalam-Judge and Martin 2024, p. 3). In contrast, those who received an MHTR or ATR had a lower reoffending rate than those on a community sentence without a CSTR by eight and two percentage points, respectively (Chalam-Judge and Martin 2024, p. 4). The authors seek additional research to understand the reasons behind their findings. Further research into the effect that other requirements have on reoffending rates would help ensure that the most effective requirements are attached to an SSO.

Deterrence and Breach Rates

The SSO uses the threat of imprisonment to encourage compliance with the requirements of the order. Research on breach rates of the requirements of the order therefore remains a priority. But the variety of requirements and different combinations of requirements makes monitoring a challenge. When there are breaches, there are further concerns that such breaches are not being taken seriously enough.12 If supervision of SSOs does not ensure that breaches are identified and with addressed, the efficacy of the deterrent effect of an SSO will be undermined.

The Sentencing Council acknowledged in their review ‘Reconceptualising the effectiveness of sentencing: four perspectives’ (2024a) that further research on deterrence would be ‘helpful to better understand whether there might be a special deterrent effect in some cases from the looming threat of further punishment in the event of breaching the requirements of an order’. It is further recommended that this research could focus specifically on whether certain offenders and/or types of offences are more susceptible to deterrent effects based on the context of the offending and type of offence committed. In addition, research continues to be needed to identify the specific requirements which contribute most to the lower re-offending rates. This information would be useful for both the Probation Service and courts in recommending and imposing appropriate requirements. The ‘potential specific deterrent effect of suspended sentences [also] merits further research with offenders’ (Gormley, Hamilton and Belton, 2022, p. 61).

Recent research for the MoJ has highlighted challenges with the recording of Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (RAR) days (see Bhakta, Lacy and Baxter 2025). Probation staff have reported duplication of entries, recording inconsistencies between staff, the recording process being time-consuming and top-down pressure as undermining the accurate recording of RAR days (Bhakta, Lacy and Baxter 2025, p. 37). These problems make it difficult to assess compliance with this particular SSO requirement.

Deferred Sentencing

An alternative sentencing option, the deferred sentence, may assist in providing a similar deterrent effect to the SSO without the challenges of monitoring breach rates. A ‘deferment order’ as it is described in the new imposition Sentencing Council guideline, is available to a court providing certain conditions are met.13 Its effect is to delay the passing of sentence upon the offender for up to six months.14 Requirements during this deferment period can be attached to the offender but it is not required. The new proposed imposition sentencing guideline suggests that this sentencing option may be ‘particularly appropriate for young adults (18-25) or those who are in transitional life circumstances’ (Sentencing Council, 2025). Further guidance on deferment is then provided in a drop-down box which indicates that the order is most likely to be relevant to those who are close to the community or custodial threshold. (See our Explainer on deferred sentencing.)

Current research suggests that the power of deferring a sentence is seldom used and that it is actively discouraged because it extends the time taken for that case to be concluded by the courts (Centre for Justice Innovation, 2020). The current backlog in the Crown courts is now approximately 77,000 cases (Law Gazette, 27 June 2025). This does not create an attractive climate within which to encourage deferred sentencing. Research indicates that deferred sentencing creates an opportunity to reduce re-offending rates, improve procedural fairness and encourage an offender’s compliance with rehabilitative support (Moorley, Birkett & Roberts, 2025). Therefore, this sentencing option includes an arguably similar deterrent effect to that of an SSO. It may even be that a deferred sentence offers an enhanced deterrent effect compared with the SSO, as not only does the risk of custody hang over an offender but the actual sentencing exercise itself.

Research and data on the deferred sentence remain sparse. There continues to be no data available on the requirements imposed as part of a deferred sentence, the outcome of the deferral or on the sentence which is eventually imposed on the offender.15 Further research on the deferred sentencing regime is required, alongside research into the comparative deterrent effects between the deferred sentence and SSO, and research into the deterrent effect and breach rates of the SSO.

Effect of the 2025 Guideline

On 1 September 2025, the Sentencing Council’s new imposition guideline came into force. This guideline, with its added emphasis on the purpose and effectiveness of sentencing, may increase the number of SSOs imposed. The guideline requires a court to order a pre-sentence report when considering a community or custodial sentence, unless it considers that it is unnecessary. The section entitled ‘Imposition of custodial sentences’ further includes a paragraph reminding the court that ‘research suggests that custodial sentences of up to 12 months are less effective than other disposals at reducing reoffending and can lead to negative outcomes’, followed by further paragraphs specific to the imposition of an SSO (Sentencing Council, 2025). A new factor indicating that it may be appropriate to suspend a custodial sentence is also introduce, namely if an ‘offender does not present [a] high risk of reoffending or harm.’ More detail is provided on the imposition of an SSO than that which is contained in the current imposition guideline. Research on what, if any, impact this new guideline has on the number of suspended sentence orders imposed will be of interest.

Public Knowledge and Opinion

Research into public perceptions of suspended sentence orders in England and Wales remains relatively scarce. However, research has found that public knowledge of current sentencing practices in general is poor, particularly in respect of the nature and consequences of some sanctions (Roberts et al., 2022a, p. 7 and see: Roberts, 2002) and it is acknowledged by the House of Commons Justice Committee that ‘there is currently a significant gap in the public information on sentencing’ (2023, p. 61). The House of Commons Justice Committee’s report (2023) calls for more research into public opinion on sentencing and more public education on sentencing.

Researchers in the Netherlands have explored public knowledge of and attitudes towards suspended sentences specifically, albeit not recently (see van Gelder et al., 2011). The researchers found that people with more knowledge of the suspended sentence had a stronger belief in its effectiveness. Moreover, providing members of the public with information about the goals of suspended sentences led to ‘stronger beliefs in the effectiveness of suspended sentences and also to more positive attitudes’ towards it as a sanction (van Gelder et al., 2011, p. 18). This study highlights the importance of public legal education in this area. If the public do not understand the nature and function of the SSO, they may see the sanction as a ‘let off’ (see discussion in Roberts, 2004 and Freiberg and Moore, 2009).

Offenders’ perceptions on the imposition of suspended sentence orders are absent from the literature. The extent to which an SSO is deemed punitive and onerous by an offender is likely to depend on the context of the offending and their personal circumstances. Focus is often on those who look at SSOs from a distance, little is known about the lived experience of those who have an SSO hanging over them and the extent to which it is experienced as a true ‘Sword of Damocles.’ As literature commissioned by the Sentencing Council concludes ‘more work with offenders is needed to draw firmer conclusions concerning their perspectives and motivations when suspended sentences are used’ to better understand the deterrent effect of this sentence (Gormley, Hamilton and Belton, 2022, p. 28).

The Gauke Review

An independent sentencing review, commissioned by the Ministry of Justice, was conducted by David Gauke between 2024-2025. It arose out of a demand for prison places almost exceeding supply in the summer of 2024. As a temporary measure, the emergency release of some prisoners was permitted. The review proposed measures that would result in some of those who receive immediate custodial sentences instead receiving community-based sentences or less time in prison, allowing for a reduction in the prison population by almost 10,000 (Gauke, 2025, p. 4). The measures proposed in the report are said to not only reduce the prison population but also said to assist in tackling the pressures and challenges within the criminal justice system, including reducing reoffending. The proposals are likely to lead to more attention being placed on SSOs and community sentences generally.

Chapter Three of the Review’s report proposed measures to reduce the use of custody. It recommends that the upper limit of SSOs be increased from two to three years as ‘this would allow the judiciary to maintain their discretion over the appropriateness of suspending an offender’s custodial sentence whilst giving offenders a greater opportunity to desist from crime’ (Gauke 2025, p. 42). This is a recommendation further supported by Sir Brian Leveson in his recent review of the criminal courts (Leveson, 2025, p. 252). An upper limit of three years would allow a further range of sentences, that previously attracted immediate custody, to be suspended. The review also recommends that short term custodial sentences should only be used in exceptional circumstances and reiterates analysis by the MoJ which indicates that community orders and SSOs are associated with lower proved reoffending rates than short term custodial sentences (of less than 12 months) (Gauke, 2025, p. 41). Gauke’s Review also directly identifies the cost implications of imposing an immediate custodial sentence compared to a community order or suspended sentence. The Review estimates that the proposed changes to the SSO could reduce prison demand by around 1,300 prison places (Gauke, 2025, p. 42).

Female Offenders

On 1 April 2024, the Sentencing Council introduced a new dedicated mitigating factor for pregnant women and new mothers in most offence specific sentencing guidelines. Pregnancy had previously been considered a factor under the mitigation ‘sole or primary carer.’ This new mitigating factor states that if a woman is pregnant or post-natal (someone who has given birth in the past 12 months) the court may take into consideration, for example, the medical needs of the offender, any effect of the sentence on the physical and mental health of the offender and any effect of the sentence on the child (Sentencing Council, 2024b). These issues should in turn be considered in a pre-sentence report, if ordered. It is acknowledged that the impact of custody on women who are pregnant and those who are separated from their children in the first two years of life can be harmful to both offender and child.

The new proposed imposition of custodial and community sentences guideline that came into force on 1 September 2025 also includes ‘female-specific’ sections. References to pregnancy, the unborn child and a section dedicated to female offenders addresses the impact of custody on these individuals, framing this in the context of the purpose of sentencing. It may be that the new mitigation factor and imposition guideline, when it comes into force, will increase the number of community orders and SSOs imposed on female offenders. The Leveson review, although not directly focused on sentencing, notes that out of court disposals ‘could be of significant benefit to this group [female offenders] as an alternative to custodial sentences’ (2025, p. 91). Subsequent research on whether the recent mitigation factor, proposed guideline and the Gauke and Leveson reviews impact the imposition of SSOs on women would be of interest.

The use of technology to manage offenders in the community

The extent to which radio frequency tags, GPS tags and alcohol monitoring tags have affected the use and/or effectiveness of SSOs has received little research attention to date. The challenges of delivering electronic monitoring programmes are, however, well known (HMPPS, 2023). Technological developments within the criminal justice system may allow for more innovative and improved ways to manage offenders in the community. They may also assist in determining breach rates and in deterring re-offending (Morris and Graham, 2019).

Recent research commissioned by the MoJ has evaluated Radio Frequency Electronic Monitoring (RF EM) (see Bruton-Smith, 2025). It shows that curfew requirements with RF EM have proved effective in reducing reoffending in England and Wales in a given year. In respect of offenders with SSOs, the reoffending rates of those on an RF EM was 32% compared to 40% for those not on an RF EM, a significant statistical difference (Bruton-Smith, 2025, p. 7). The results were similar for those offenders who received a community order (40% reoffended with an RF EM compared to 51% of those not on an RF EM) (Bruton-Smith 2025, p. 7). This supports the hypothesis that increased reliance on technology may assist in reducing reoffending rates.

The MoJ research which looked at adult offenders between 2014 and 2018 also found that those who received an SSO with an RF EM curfew requirement were less likely to be reconvicted in court of further offences whilst being electronically monitored (Bruton-Smith 2025, p. 5). Research on the use of electronic monitoring (EM) in Sweden has found that the social benefits from EM extend beyond reducing reoffending, which appears largely driven by the fact that an EM enables offenders to retain their labour market ties and earnings (Grenet et al., 2024, p. 28). Similar research in respect of GPS tags and alcohol monitoring tags is welcomed.

The Independent Sentencing Review also addressed the role of technology and explores how technology can be used to alleviate the administrative pressures on the system and assist in the supervision of offenders. It recommends the continued use of technology to improve rehabilitation and investment for new technologies to assist in offender supervision (Gauke, 2025, p. 18). The use of technology will be addressed further in the second part of the independent review into the criminal courts, chaired by Sir Brian Leveson. The ‘Efficiency’ part of the review is due to consider how new technologies, including Artificial Intelligence, could be used to improve the criminal courts. If these recommendations are implemented, research that explores whether any additional technological monitoring requirements could become available for the SSO and the extent to which technology could improve the efficacy of SSOs in reducing recidivism would be of interest.

Finally, in September 2025, the Government introduced sentencing legislation that creates a statutory presumption in favour of a Suspended Sentence Order instead of a short prison sentence (defined as a term of 12 months or less). If passed as currently drafted, the Bill will significantly increase the number of Suspended Sentence Orders imposed.

5. Conclusion

The SSO is a cost-effective alternative to short-term custodial sentences, yet it is a relatively rarely used sanction, accounting for only 4-5% of all sentences imposed in any given year. In light of the sentencing Bill currently being reviewed by Parliament, the SSO will likely be used more often by the courts in coming years. For this reason alone, further research is required to ensure that the SSO is imposed effectively and appropriately.

This paper is part of a series covering developments in sentencing research, policy, and practice in England & Wales. Other Research & Policy Papers can be found here.

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

References

  1. See the discussion and research on public knowledge of sentencing practice and trends in Roberts et al. (2022a). ↩︎
  2. Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967; see discussion in Ashworth and Kelly (2021). ↩︎
  3. Section 277 of the Sentencing Act 2020. ↩︎
  4. Section 292(3) of the Sentencing Act 2020. ↩︎
  5. Section 301(2) and 301(3) of the Sentencing Act 2020. ↩︎
  6. Section 293(1) and (2) of the Sentencing Act 2020. ↩︎
  7. Ministry of Justice, Outcomes by offence data tool, 12 months ending December 2024 (15 May 2025) <accessed 6 July 2025>. ↩︎
  8. Excludes Absolute and Conditional Discharges, Compensation, sentences classified as ‘Otherwise Dealt With’ and ‘Disposal Not Known.’ ↩︎
  9. Excludes Absolute and Conditional Discharges, Compensation (primary disposal) and sentences classified as ‘Otherwise Dealt With;’ Percentages round to nearest whole number. ↩︎
  10. Table C1a; Proven reoffending tables (3 monthly), April 2023 to June 2023 (24 April 2025). ↩︎
  11. Table C1a; Proven reoffending tables (3 monthly), April 2023 to June 2023 (24 April 2025). ↩︎
  12. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust raised concerns that breaches of electronic tags are not currently being taken seriously enough in its response to the Gauke Review’s call for evidence (cited in Gauke, 2025, p. 86). ↩︎
  13. See Section 5 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The following conditions must be satisfied before a sentence can be deferred: the offender must consent (and in the case of restorative justice activities the other participants must consent); the offender must undertake to comply with requirements imposed by the court; and the court must be satisfied that deferment is in the interests of justice. ↩︎
  14. Section 1 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. ↩︎
  15. For more on the deferred sentence, see Roberts et al. (2022b). ↩︎