Fixed Term Recalls
Today (12 February 2025) Catch22 (in partnership with the University of Plymouth) has published the latest in its Insights Paper series “Fixing Fixed Term Recall”, which explores the practice of fixed term recall (FTR) to custody and argues that it must be reformed. The paper draws on data analysis from Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, individual testimonies, and a review of current practices in the justice system to explore how the mechanism of FTR is impacting both those subject to it and the system itself.
The history of FTRs
The 2003 Criminal Justice Act introduced ‘hybrid sentences’ served in custody followed by a post-custodial period in the community; the latter also termed as the “licence period” in which individuals are supervised by the Probation Service. Its purpose is to support smooth resettlement into everyday life, while maintaining the highest standard of public safety. As a preventative and risk management measure, when an person breaches one or more of their licence conditions or indicates an increased risk to either themselves or the public, Probation can recall them back into custody.
A fixed term recall (FTR) is a recall to prison for a fixed number of days – followed by automatic re-release. If the individual’s original sentence is less than 12 months, the FTR is set as 14 days and if the sentence was over 12 months, the FTR will be 28 days.
The use of fixed term recall (FTR) is on the rise, with thousands of prison leavers returning to custody for minor licence breaches, causing further strain on a prison system already at breaking point. In 2023 alone, over 6,600 individuals were recalled on a FTR – enough to fill a prison for an entire year. There were 2,208 FTRs in the first quarter of 2024 (the most recent period available), an increase of 78% from two years earlier.
Most people (73.4% of those subject to FTR in the five year period 2018-2023 were subjected to FTR because of “non-compliance” with the licence conditions of their supervision. The paper presents three main reasons for this:
- Unachievable conditions – FTR are often driven by unachievable or overly restrictive licence conditions that prison leavers feel are imposed without their meaningful input, leading to disengagement and non-compliance.
- Flexibility – A lack of flexibility in interpreting licence conditions can also undermine positive steps towards recovery.
- Active defiance – When it is felt that licence conditions are imposed without meaningful input, justification or personalisation, disengagement and “active defiance” are more likely.
Catch22 points out that FTRs are often actively detrimental to rehabilitation, disrupting housing and drug & alcohol and/or mental health treatment.
Recommendations
The Insights Paper makes three main recommendations:
- Better alternatives to FTR
This would involve investment in more community-based rehabilitative alternatives for those facing FTR, such as treatment programmes and high-intensity mentoring services. In particular, prison leavers facing homelessness should be exempt from FTR.
- Better continuity of rehabilitation
Where FTR is deemed necessary, the 2 or 4 weeks back in custody must be used productively by providing timely access to targeted interventions, such as housing or mental health support, and with closer communication with Probation.
- Better transparency and data sharing around the use of FTR
The publication of comprehensive, regular data on FTR figures, costs, and reasons to ensure greater system accountability and evidence-based decision-making.
The Charity – and many other penal reformers – believe that the Sentencing Review being conducted by David Gauke provides a real opportunity for improvements to the recall system.
Thanks to Andy Aitchison for kind permission to use the header image in this post. You can see Andy’s work here
