Police bail findings

While the national leadership arrangements were well structured, there was limited guidance available to support this work. As a result, the approaches adopted by the forces we visited varied considerably.

The quality of information provided to forces presented significant challenges. Police forces reported frequent inaccuracies in the information received from the EMS and often had to carry out their own validation checks before making enforcement decisions.

The forces visited during fieldwork did not have effective systems for recording EM bail breach notifications. Consequently, they were unable to understand the volume and nature of their response, assess the demands placed on the force, or identify and manage associated risks to the public.

There were a number of significant concerns including:

• The absence of structured risk assessments.
• Safeguarding referrals were not always made when EM bail breach notifications were about children.
• Defendants arrested for alleged EM bail breaches were sometimes released by the courts subject to the same conditions they had previously breached; sometimes repeatedly even with serious cases such as stalking.

Workload pressures

Data (as yet unpublished) showed a large number of EM bail breach notifications were sent to all forces in England and Wales. Each individual defendant also generated multiple EM breach notifications in short periods of time. The police forces inspected had often not updated the EM service of enforcement action.

Police conclusions

HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Service, Michelle Skeer OBE QPM, said:

“Our inspection found dedicated officers and staff working hard to respond to a substantial and increasing demand. But national guidance was limited, and systems and processes in different police forces varied considerably.

“In the cases we examined, alleged breaches of electronically monitored bail conditions did not consistently lead to structured consideration of risk to victims, witnesses or the wider public. Poor record-keeping, information-gathering and analysis made it difficult for forces to understand either the demand generated by electronically monitored bail or the effectiveness of their response”.

EM in probation

EM is playing an increasingly prominent role in probation work and is now expected to support a wide range of objectives, including public protection, victim safety, rehabilitation and compliance. Against a backdrop of significant prison overcrowding, it is increasingly relied on as an alternative to custody. EM is increasingly common both in community sentences and post-release licences.

Key findings include:

• While investment, new technology, and stronger governance arrangements have expanded the use of EM, frontline practice has not kept pace. Significant gaps remain between the ambitions for EM and how effectively it is being used in practice.
• Too often, EM is treated as an administrative process focused on fitting tags and recording compliance, rather than as a meaningful tool to support rehabilitation, protect victims and reduce reoffending. 
• Although leadership and governance have improved, significant operational weaknesses remain, for example:
  • no single trusted source of data about who is being monitored and who is not
  • heavy reliance on manual work to reconcile information from different systems
  • fragmented processes and poor integration between digital platforms.
• Inspectors found limited evidence that outcomes, such as improved public protection or reduced reoffending, are being measured effectively.

Inefficiency was commonplace; of the 180 individual cases inspected:

• only 55 per cent of GPS and radio frequency tags were fitted promptly
• only 60 per cent of alcohol monitoring tags were fitted promptly

• around one in five people waited more than two weeks for GPS or radio frequency monitoring

• almost one in 10 did not have EM equipment assigned up to five months after the requirement had been imposed

• performance measures focused on whether fitting attempts had been made, rather than whether monitoring had started successfully.

Probation conclusions

HM Chief Inspector of Probation, Martin Jones CBE, said:

“The findings of our inspection are clear: electronic monitoring is expanding rapidly, but the systems, processes and frontline practice needed to make it effective have not kept pace. Until those issues are addressed, the criminal justice system risks relying on a technology whose potential is not being fully realised.

“There is a real danger that electronic monitoring creates a false sense of assurance if the technology is not matched by effective professional practice. Expanding tagging programmes without addressing their weaknesses risks overpromising and underdelivering on public protection.”

“The findings of our inspection are clear: electronic monitoring is expanding rapidly, but the systems, processes and frontline practice needed to make it effective have not kept pace. Until those issues are addressed, the criminal justice system risks relying on a technology whose potential is not being fully realised.

“There is a real danger that electronic monitoring creates a false sense of assurance if the technology is not matched by effective professional practice. Expanding tagging programmes without addressing their weaknesses risks overpromising and underdelivering on public protection.”

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