The current situation

A standard determinate sentence (SDS) is the most common custodial sentence imposed by the courts, accounting for 44% of all people in custody as at 31 March 2025 (20% were on remand, 19% were lifers, IPPs or serving Extended Determinate Sentences and 14% were recalled to prison after release). Typically, an offender serving an SDS will be automatically released from custody into the community at a certain point in their sentence (their conditional release date) depending on the length of their sentence, the type of offence and when the sentence was imposed. Some offenders are released earlier into Home Detention Curfew (HDC). Currently, most SDS offenders serve between 20% and 66% of their sentence in custody, before being released into the community.

Mr Gauke highlights the fact that the multiple different release points have created both considerable operational complexity and reduced the transparency of custodial sentences for both offenders and their victims. People who had been in prison who engaged with the Review noted they often did not understand the sentence they received and how they would progress through their sentence. Complexity in the system is also detrimental to the confidence of victims who often find it difficult to comprehend release points for custodial sentences, especially when they have changed in response to overcrowding pressures.

Earned progression

The Review proposes a simpler, more transparent SDS model designed to incentivise offenders to use time in prison positively through an earned progression scheme, enabling them to bring forward their automatic release date to the one third point of their sentence. The proposed model aims to simplify release arrangements for all SDS offenders by standardising release points and removing provisions for release under Home Detention Curfew. In this model, offenders would progress through three distinct stages: the custody stage, the post-custody supervision stage, and the at-risk stage:

1. The custody stage: This stage implements an earned progression scheme in prison. Under this model, the expectation is that most SDS offenders would be released at the one-third point if they have engaged constructively with the prison regime. The expectation is that remaining SDS offenders would be released from custody by the halfway point of their sentence.
2. The post-custody stage: Once released from custody, offenders would progress to the post-custody intensive supervision stage, where they would be released back into the community under strict licence conditions until the two-thirds point of their sentence.
3. The at-risk stage: For the final third of the sentence, offenders would progress to the at-risk stage where they would not be subject to active supervision and could only be recalled if a new offence is committed.

Core principles

The review sets out three core principles for the earned progression scheme:

• The scheme should assume that offenders will comply with the scheme criteria from the outset and be released at the one third point of a sentence. The release point is pushed back towards the halfway point when there is non-compliance with the earned progression scheme. Consideration should be given to timeliness of confirmation of release date to allow for appropriate pre-release planning to take place.
• The criteria for compliance should include, but not be limited to, compliance with prison rules. Actions which violate prison rules (for example, offences against discipline, such as engaging in any threatening, abusive or violent behaviour, possessing unauthorised articles) and do not follow lawful instructions by immigration officials in deportation proceedings (preserving their legal right to appeal) would result in the offender’s release point being pushed back. The criteria for compliance should also include the expectation that the offender will engage in purposeful activity and attend any required work, education, treatments and/or training obligations where these are available. This Review holds the view that, as prison capacity eases and fuller regimes become possible, compliance requirements for earned release should become more demanding.
• The criteria for compliance should be as objective and easy to administer as possible by using current processes and minimising additional layers of decision-making/bureaucracy as far as possible.

Challenges

The Review acknowledges that there are many real world challenges to this proposed new model. These are essentially that most prisons don’t currently offer sufficient work, education, training and treatment options and that the probation service is not sufficiently resourced to provide propose support and supervision to people being released much earlier in their sentence.

Furthermore, the Ministry of Justice has, however, already announced that it will not accept these recommendations in full. As Jon Collins, Chief Exec of the Prisoners’ Education Trust points out:

“People serving a standard determinate sentence will not, as Gauke has proposed, be automatically released at the halfway point, or two thirds of their sentence for those who have committed more serious crimes, if they don’t earn an earlier release. People could, therefore, serve longer than this if they behave poorly in prison. A “tougher adjudication regime” will be introduced to address issues with behaviour.”

The key question that Mr Collins and many others pose is whether a new earned progression scheme would drive a real increase in quality work and education opportunities in prison or whether it just increases bureaucracy and prisoner frustration with many people deemed not to have earned early release because they were unable to demonstrate their willingness to engage in non-existent rehabilitative activities.

Thanks to Andy Aitchison for kind permission to use the header image in this post. You can see Andy’s work here