by Olivia Burgess
The government’s new Sentencing Bill 2025, now being debated in the House of Lords, has been presented as a progressive shift away from short custodial sentences and towards community-based alternatives. Short sentences increase recidivism and disrupt lives without providing meaningful support. As such, this is a promising and ambitious step, and something long called for by those in the criminal justice system (CJS) sector, including Hibiscus in our submission to the Independent Sentencing Review which informed the Bill. However, the Bill contains profound and concerning oversights in relation to the likely impacts on Black and minoritised migrant women.
The Bill introduces a stronger presumption in favour of suspended sentences and community orders, aimed at reducing the use of short prison terms. However, it leaves the deep and entrenched racial disproportionality at every stage of the CJS unaddressed. Without tackling discrimination in arrest, charging, conviction, and sentencing, Black and minoritised migrant women will benefit from these reforms far less than others, creating further inequality.
While the Bill expands community sentences, it also reflects the government’s renewed emphasis on the punitive rather than the rehabilitative. New powers would allow courts to impose measures including income reduction orders, movement restrictions, electronic monitoring, and publication of names and photographs. We have profound concerns about all these measures as they will impact the ability of individuals to meaningfully engage with rehabilitation and rebuild their lives. In particular, the public disclosure of identities risks putting the safety of those subject to it at risk, particularly for victim-survivors of violence against women and girls (VAWG) and trafficking survivors.
Also striking is the lack of mention of support. The Bill contains almost no provision for services, safety planning, rehabilitation, or specialist interventions, except for the option to end probation supervision early in some circumstances. The government has previously stated that such provisions are more appropriately made in policy, as opposed to legislation, however without statutory obligation this often does not materialise in practice. Notably, there has been no additional support for those in contact with the CJS announced throughout this government, despite the clear need. For those with complex needs, this absence is untenable. For many Black and minoritised migrant women, the roots of offending are in their multiple unmet needs and the inequalities they experience, whilst facing barriers to accessing mainstream support: addressing these must be the priority.
Another troubling element of the Bill is its requirement that the Sentencing Council secure approval from both the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor before issuing or amending sentencing guidelines. This represents a significant diminution of independence. It appears to respond directly to the Council’s progressive guidance on Pre-Sentence Reports earlier this year. The insertion of political oversight risks narrowing the Council’s ability to reflect evidence, expertise, or the experiences of marginalised groups.
Of particular concern, is the removal of the minimum custodial period before deportation can be initiated. These risks cutting short the time needed to seek legal advice, lodge an appeal, access specialist support, or challenge unsafe decisions. For Black and minoritised migrant women who are victim-survivors of VAWG or trafficking, the implications are even more dangerous.
The Sentencing Bill 2025 offers the appearance of progressive reform, but not the substance. It moves people out of prison only to bring punishment deeper into the community and through weaponisation of deportation. For Black and minoritised migrant women, already disproportionately policed and punished, the risks are considerable.