Something bad will happen, someone who is dangerous and isn't monitored will kill someone.
In England and Wales, a system designed to keep watch over those deemed too dangerous to move freely has itself slipped its leash. As of March 2026, the National Audit Office found that thousands of offenders — potentially including violent criminals and newly released prisoners — were required by court order to wear electronic monitoring tags but were not wearing them, revealing a justice infrastructure strained beyond its capacity. The government disputes the precise scale of the failure, but not its existence. At a moment when the state is preparing to release thousands more offenders into community supervision, the gap between what the system promises and what it delivers carries consequences that are not merely administrative.
- Nearly 9,000 people with active court-ordered monitoring requirements had no tag on their ankle as of March 2026 — a figure the government contests but cannot fully explain away.
- Among the unmonitored are potentially violent offenders and recently released prisoners, creating a direct and unquantified risk to public safety that auditors describe as 'significant.'
- The probation service is short over 2,200 officers, and those who remain warn that the planned expansion of community monitoring will push an already broken system past its breaking point.
- The government has pledged £700 million to probation and £100 million specifically to electronic monitoring, pointing to a 50% rise in installation rates since 2024 as evidence of progress.
- From 2027, an estimated 22,000 additional people per year will require tagging — including those released early under the Sentencing Act 2026 — and the infrastructure meant to absorb them is already failing its current load.
In March 2026, the National Audit Office uncovered a serious fault line in England and Wales's electronic monitoring system: nearly 9,000 people with active court orders requiring them to wear tracking tags were not wearing them. The group potentially included violent offenders and prisoners released back into the community — individuals the system was specifically designed to keep under surveillance.
The Ministry of Justice disputed the figure, placing the number of genuinely unmonitored individuals closer to 5,450 and arguing that many of the NAO's flagged cases were administrative anomalies still under review. The NAO acknowledged that errors, fitting delays, and refusals accounted for some of the gap — but warned that the true number slipping through undetected remained troublingly unclear.
The head of the NAO, Gareth Davies, was direct in his assessment: the system is not working, and its failure creates real risks to public protection. Police and probation officers frequently lacked the information or capacity to respond when someone stopped complying with their monitoring conditions — a gap that matters most precisely when the person in question is dangerous.
Underpinning the dysfunction is a staffing crisis. The probation service is short roughly 2,200 full-time officers, and those on the ground are already describing their workload as unsustainable. One officer told the BBC plainly: someone dangerous and unmonitored will eventually kill someone. The warning was not rhetorical — it was a forecast grounded in daily experience.
The government's ambitions make the stakes higher still. Under the Sentencing Act 2026, thousands of prisoners — including some convicted of serious offences — are expected to be released early into community supervision beginning in autumn 2026. Ministers project that 22,000 additional people per year will need tagging from 2027 onward. Officials point to a £700 million investment in probation, 3,600 trainee officers recruited over two years, and a £100 million commitment to electronic monitoring as signs of serious intent. Yet the contractor managing the tagging infrastructure, Serco, successfully fitted tags on only 62% of individuals visited within two attempts — a figure that reveals the distance between targets and reality. The question of whether the system can be rebuilt fast enough to carry the weight being placed upon it remains, for now, unanswered.
In March 2026, auditors discovered a troubling gap in how England and Wales tracks offenders ordered by courts to wear electronic monitoring tags. Nearly 9,000 people—potentially including violent criminals and prisoners freshly released from jail—were recorded as having active monitoring orders but no actual tag on their ankle. The National Audit Office, the government's independent financial watchdog, flagged the figure as evidence that the entire system had become unreliable and unfit for its core purpose: keeping tabs on people deemed dangerous enough to require constant surveillance.
The Ministry of Justice immediately pushed back. Officials said their own internal review counted only 5,450 unmonitored individuals, not 9,000. They argued the NAO figure represented the total number of cases under review to determine whether monitoring was actually needed—a distinction that matters, though it does little to resolve the underlying problem. The NAO acknowledged that some of the 8,900 cases involved administrative errors, people mistakenly flagged as tagged when they weren't, or individuals who had legitimately refused to wear a tag. But the office also warned that the real number of offenders slipping through the system unmonitored could be "significant."
The reasons people end up untagged are varied and sometimes mundane: system errors, delays in fitting appointments, refusal to comply, or the removal of a tag during arrest. But the most serious reason is that some people who should have been tagged never were in the first place. As of March 2026, roughly 28,700 people in England and Wales were actively wearing some form of electronic tag—curfew tags, location tags, or alcohol-monitoring devices—as part of their court or prison orders. The gap of nearly 9,000 represents a significant failure rate in a system designed to manage one of the most pressing challenges facing the criminal justice system: prison overcrowding.
The electronic monitoring infrastructure is meant to ease pressure on prisons by allowing offenders to serve their sentences in the community under strict conditions. Gareth Davies, the head of the National Audit Office, described the current setup as broken. "Electronic monitoring is central to managing pressures on prisons, but it is not working effectively, creating risks to public protection," he said. The report found that police and probation officers often lacked the information or capacity to respond quickly when someone breached their monitoring conditions—a failure that could have serious consequences if a dangerous offender simply stops complying.
The staffing crisis underpins much of the dysfunction. The probation service is short roughly 2,200 full-time officers, a shortfall the government expects to reduce to around 1,500 by September 2026. Probation officers interviewed by the BBC expressed deep anxiety about what lies ahead. One officer described the current workload as unsustainable and warned that the planned expansion of community-based monitoring would make things worse. "There aren't enough of us, and we have no idea how the government is going to make it work so that nobody is at risk," the officer said. "Because something bad will happen, someone who is dangerous and isn't monitored will kill someone."
The government is betting heavily on electronic monitoring to absorb the pressure. Under the Sentencing Act 2026, thousands of prisoners are expected to be released early into the community starting in autumn 2026, with estimates suggesting killers, rapists, and sex offenders could be among them. Most will require tagging. Ministers project that 22,000 additional people per year will need to be tagged from 2027 onward. Yet the system that is supposed to track them is already struggling. Serco, the private security contractor that manages the tagging infrastructure for the government, met its target of completing 95% of tag-fitting visits on time. But it actually succeeded in fitting tags on only 62% of the individuals it visited within two attempts—a gap that suggests either resistance from offenders or logistical problems that go beyond simple scheduling.
The Ministry of Justice framed its response in terms of investment and progress. Officials noted that the government had inherited "a failing tagging system with record backlogs" and claimed that installation rates had climbed by nearly 50% since 2024. They pointed to a £700 million investment in probation services and the recruitment of 2,300 trainee probation officers over the previous two years, with another 1,300 hired in the current year. The government also announced a £100 million commitment specifically to electronic monitoring, including tagging offenders before release for the first time. Yet these figures, however substantial, do not address the core finding of the audit: the system is not working as designed, and the gap between the number of people who should be monitored and those who actually are remains dangerously wide. As the government prepares to release thousands more offenders into the community, the question of whether the infrastructure can handle the load remains unanswered.
Citações Notáveis
Electronic monitoring is central to managing pressures on prisons, but it is not working effectively, creating risks to public protection.— Gareth Davies, National Audit Office chief
There aren't enough of us, and we have no idea how the government is going to make it work so that nobody is at risk.— Anonymous probation officer interviewed by BBC
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does the Ministry of Justice dispute the NAO's figure so sharply? Are they just protecting themselves?
It's partly that, but the disagreement is also technical. The NAO counted 8,900 cases flagged as having an active order but no tag. The Ministry says many of those cases are still under review—they haven't determined yet whether the person actually needs monitoring. It's a real distinction, but it doesn't change the fact that thousands of people who should be tagged aren't.
So some of those 8,900 people might legitimately not need tags?
Yes. Some were tagged by mistake in the system. Some refused to wear one. Some are in the process of getting fitted. But the NAO also said the real number of people who slipped through the cracks—who should have been tagged and weren't—could be "significant." That's the part that keeps auditors and probation officers awake at night.
The probation officer quoted in the story sounds genuinely frightened. Is that fear justified?
Look at the numbers. You're short 2,200 probation officers. You're about to release thousands more offenders into the community, including violent ones. The system for tracking them is already failing to tag nearly 9,000 people. And the contractor fitting the tags only succeeds 62% of the time. Yes, the fear is justified.
The government says it's investing heavily—£700 million in probation, £100 million in monitoring. Why isn't that working?
Money helps, but it's not magic. You can't hire and train 2,300 probation officers overnight. You can't fix a broken data system in a year. And you can't expand a service that's already stretched thin without creating more risk. The government is trying to solve a prison overcrowding crisis by pushing people into the community faster than the monitoring system can handle.
What happens if someone who should be tagged isn't, and they commit a serious crime?
That's the scenario nobody wants to contemplate but everyone in probation is bracing for. The officer quoted said it plainly: something bad will happen. Someone dangerous won't be monitored, and someone will be hurt. It's not a question of if, in their view, but when.
Is there a way out of this?
The NAO says the government needs to improve data quality, fix the system's efficiency, and make sure the contractor actually fits tags on people it visits. But that takes time. The government is trying to move fast. Those two things are in tension, and the public is caught in the middle.