The Sentencing Academy has published a new report, authored by Rory Kelly, Julian V. Roberts, Jonathan Bild and Raphael Freund, that explores public understanding of some key sentencing terminology and tests whether alternatives are more easily understood. The report is based on the findings of a survey of the public conducted by YouGov for the Sentencing Academy and the University of Galway in August 2025.
Read the full report here: Public Opinion and the Language of Sentencing
Key findings:
- The term ‘victims services levy’ is better understood than the present term ‘victim surcharge’.
- The term ‘victim impact statement’ is better understood than the present term ‘victim personal statement’.
- There was a lack of understanding of the consequences of breaching a community order.
- The term ‘suspended sentence of imprisonment subject to good behaviour’ was preferred to the current term ‘suspended sentence order’.
- There was a strong preference for describing sentences of imprisonment with reference to their custodial and non-custodial components. That would mean, for example, describing a sentence as one of two years in prison and three on licence as opposed to the current norm of describing that sanction as ‘five years’ imprisonment’.
- Attaching the minimum term to be served by the offender is the most successful way of informing the public about the meaning of a sentence of life imprisonment.
- Where a person is sentenced to a determinate sentence of imprisonment for a non-violent offence, respondents thought that they should serve 59% of that sentence in prison.
- Where a person is sentenced to a determinate sentence of imprisonment for a violent offence, that percentage rose to 83%.
- There were notably mixed views on the Government’s recent proposals to allow for earlier release points subject to an offender progressing toward rehabilitation with marginally more opposition than support for the proposal.
