Blog

Early Release Revisited

5th August 2026

The Sentencing Act 2026 contained provisions authorising the early release of prisoners in England and Wales. These were to come into force in September 2026. Prisoners who had previously been eligible for early release at the two-thirds point in the sentence would henceforth be released after having served half the sentence. Prisoners who would have been released at the half-way point would now be released even earlier, after serving one- third of their sentence in prison.

The Starmer Government’s early release reforms were necessary in light of the prison capacity problem, yet ill conceived. As the proposals became more widely known, public and media criticism has grown. The Government has just completed a (very) rapid review of the early release scheme. As a result of this review, some additional offences, including rape, have been excluded from the scheme, while prisoners serving sentences for serious crimes such as manslaughter remain eligible.

Moving forward, the Government should consider a series of steps.

First, the Government should specify that the current, accelerated release arrangements are a time-limited response to a pressing but short-term problem of prison overcrowding. Overcrowded prisons lead to more interpersonal violence and self-harming, and prevent the necessary rehabilitation that reduces re-offending. Later release points should be reinstated once the prison estate has sufficient capacity.

Second, the Government should commit to excluding all serious violent crimes from the current and any future early release scheme. Prisoners serving sentences for manslaughter are an obvious example of an offence that the Government failed to exclude as a result of the current review. There are approximately 150 cases of manslaughter per year, so excluding prisoners serving sentences for this offence would not have significantly reduced the effectiveness of the early release scheme. From the perspectives of public safety or public confidence, early release decisions should consider the nature and seriousness of the crime for which the prisoner was incarcerated.

Third, the Government should adopt a 50% rule for all future prison release programmes. Prisoners should always serve at least 50% of their sentence in prison, whether the Government returns to a two-tier automatic release arrangement (50% or two-thirds) or moves all prisoners to a 50% release point. Reducing a prison sentence by two-thirds (release at the one third point) undermines public, victim, and stakeholder confidence in the sentencing process. In addition, truth in sentencing is affected. The ‘penal weight’ or value of a prison sentence is reduced when only a third is served inside. Community sentences or fines are not reduced in a similar way.

Fourth, the previous and current Government’s scheme have disregarded a key recommendation of the 2025 Independent Sentencing Review. That Review argued that prisoners should earn early release by taking steps towards rehabilitation. Most offenders ‘would be released at the one third point if they have engaged constructively with the prison regime.’ The Review described this as an ‘earned progression’ model.

The Starmer Government quietly ditched the ‘earned’ element in favour of an automatic release without any requirement to earn the earlier release. The Ministry of Justice stated: if prisoners ‘behave badly, they may spend longer in custody’. This is a very different approach to granting early release – one which is better described as ‘Unearned Early Release’. This approach sends the wrong message to prisoners.

The Government should revert to an ‘earned’ progression model: prisoners should have to earn their earlier release through actively working towards their rehabilitation. They cannot do this unless the Government provides adequate educational and training opportunities in prison. If early release depends upon the prisoner attending a training course, the prison estate must ensure that these programs are available nationally. The scheme also needs to make clear to prisoners what is expected of them beyond merely complying with institutional rules.

Fifth, since short term prison population crises are likely to arise again, the Government should commission an expert panel of stakeholders to review all possible alternatives to short-term prison overpopulation. The Government rushed the Sentencing Act through Parliament, allowing only minimal amendments. The current rapid review that has slightly amended the release program was the product of just a few days. A time-limited advisory committee could conduct a rapid review of the many alternatives that have been proposed in recent weeks. This Committee should be charged with examining both short-term and long-term solutions. Research by the Sentencing Academy and others has shown that longer sentences – or what has been termed ‘sentence inflation’ – is the principal contributor to the increase in the prison population.

Beyond the advisory committee, the Government would do well to engage to a greater degree with key stakeholders in the area. The Starmer Government should have consulted on its sentencing legislation and planned a rapid review of the scheme 12 months after implementation. Instead, there was no public consultation or engagement with the Independent Sentencing Review or the subsequent Sentencing Bill, and the Government dismissed almost all suggested amendments as the legislation proceeded through Parliament. Many of these proposed amendments were made by some of the most experienced jurists, including former Lord Chief Justices. The imprudence of this haste to legislate has now become apparent.

Finally, the new Government would do well to accept a recommendationof last year’s Independent Sentencing Review that the Starmer administration disregarded: it should launch a public awareness campaign to explain the changes being implemented or contemplated.