Nearly Half of Electronic Offender Tags Fitted Late, Watchdog Warns Victims at Risk

A new report from His Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) has found that almost half of electronic monitoring tags used to track offenders in England and Wales are not being fitted on schedule, creating significant risks for victims and undermining the effectiveness of court and prison orders.

The inspection found that just 55% of GPS and radio frequency tags were installed within the required timeframe. Alcohol monitoring tags performed slightly better, with 60% fitted promptly, but the overall picture remains one of widespread delay across the tagging system.

In some instances, offenders waited more than two weeks beyond the deadline for their equipment. More troubling still, approximately one in ten individuals waited up to five months after the required fitting date before a tag was finally attached.

These delays have serious consequences. According to the report, late fitting has led to repeated breaches of court and prison orders, meaning that restrictions intended to protect the public and monitor offenders' behaviour were simply not in force during the gap periods.

Electronic monitoring is employed by the Probation Service to enforce curfews and other conditions attached to court or prison orders. As of June 2026, a total of 27,847 people in England and Wales were subject to tagging orders involving monitoring equipment.

HM Chief Inspector of Probation Martin Jones CBE warned that the technology risks creating a misleading impression of safety when it is not supported by effective professional practice. He said there was a "real danger" that electronic monitoring could generate a false sense of assurance, and cautioned that expanding tagging programmes without first addressing their weaknesses could amount to overpromising and underdelivering on public protection.

The report also identified that data generated by the tags was frequently underused. Major violations were raised and investigated in only 46% of relevant cases, meaning that even when tags were operating and collecting information, the resulting intelligence was not consistently acted upon.

Inspectors further noted that they found little evidence to suggest electronic monitoring was being applied consistently as a tool to promote behaviour change among offenders, raising questions about whether the system is achieving its rehabilitative aims alongside its surveillance function.

The HMIP report acknowledges that some delays were caused by individuals failing to make themselves available for fitting appointments. However, the scale and pattern of the delays suggest broader systemic issues within the tagging and probation infrastructure.

Victims' Commissioner Claire Waxman OBE said victims needed to be informed immediately whenever tagging was delayed, because not knowing could give them a false sense of security about the protections in place. She also called for a robust response when breaches occur, but expressed real concerns about whether overstretched probation services would be capable of delivering that response.

There are three main categories of tags currently in use: curfew tags, location tags, and alcohol tags. Each is designed to impose strict controls on offenders as part of their punishment, while also managing risk, supporting safeguarding, and protecting victims.

Offenders who breach their orders face consequences that include immediate return to prison, a court order, or a formal warning, depending on the circumstances and severity of the violation.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson responded to the findings by stating that public protection remains the government's priority. They pointed to what they described as the biggest expansion of tagging in British history, supported by £100 million in funding, and noted that tag installation rates have risen by nearly 50% since 2024.

The spokesperson also highlighted a record £700 million investment in probation and community services, alongside the recruitment of 2,300 trainee officers over the past two years and a further 1,300 planned for this year. These measures, they said, would ensure dangerous offenders are kept under closer surveillance than ever before.

The government's plans to significantly expand electronic monitoring were announced earlier this year as part of the Sentencing Act 2026, which seeks to ease pressure on the prison system by managing more offenders within the community rather than behind bars.

Under this legislation, thousands more prisoners will be released early from October, and most of those released will require tagging as a condition of their supervision. The HMIP findings therefore raise urgent questions about whether the tagging system can cope with the increased demand that these releases will generate.

The report's conclusions place the government in a difficult position. On one hand, electronic monitoring is central to its strategy for reducing prison overcrowding and managing offenders in the community. On the other, the inspection evidence suggests the current system is already failing to fit tags on time, use tag data effectively, or consistently support behaviour change.

Without addressing these weaknesses, the expansion of tagging risks delivering the very outcome the Chief Inspector warned against: a system that appears to offer robust public protection but in practice leaves victims exposed and orders unenforced during critical periods of delay.