Howard League blog · 4 Sep 2026
Early release and the progression model: what recent changes to the Sentencing Act now mean
Prisons and sentencing have been much in the news this summer, since the new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, announced he would be making changes to measures being brought in by the Sentencing Act 2026.
This legislation, which became law in January, makes a range of changes which we initially discussed here and which have been implemented in stages across the course of the year.
One of the most important measures in the Act is the introduction of a new sentence progression model for the majority of people serving sentences in custody. Originally due to come into force at the beginning of September, the government has now pushed commencement back to the beginning of October and has restricted eligibility for earlier release under the new progression model.
This blogpost describes what the progression model would originally have involved, what changes have been made, and asks what this now means for the prison system as a whole.
How were people being released from prison before the Sentencing Act and what was the progression model going to change?
The new progression model affects people on standard determinate sentences (SDS).
Prior to this new model, most of those on SDS would spend up to half of their sentence in custody before being released under supervision in the community, with the precise point of release – at either the 40% point (for the majority) or at the 50% point – dependant on the nature of their offences. A second group of those on SDS sentences, who are in prison for serious violent or sexual offences, were released after spending two-thirds of their sentence in custody.
For most of those on SDS, the new model means spending one-third of the sentence in custody, one-third under intensive community supervision, and one-third on licence but with no active supervision from probation. For the second group of those on SDS, who would have been released at the two-thirds point of the sentence, the progression model would see that group spend 50% of their sentence in custody.
Release at these various points will be automatic, although the government claims that release will be conditional on good behaviour and conduct while in custody. Poor behaviour could result in serving longer in custody, administered through the existing disciplinary sanction of additional days.
What has now changed?
The government has now introduced a range of exemptions to those eligible for the progression model. The Prime Minister initially confirmed on 4 August that the progression model would be delayed from commencing in September and that people serving sentences for rape, serious child sexual and grooming offences would no longer be eligible for earlier release. A second government announcement on 30 August introduced further exemptions, excluding those sentenced for ‘unlawful killing’. This includes offences such as manslaughter and death by dangerous driving.
A full list of these offence-based exclusions can be found here.
For people currently in prison, implementation of the progression model was always planned to be phased, with tranches of releases depending on sentence length. There will be 10 of these tranches, with the first commencing on 1 October 2026 and the last commencing on 8 June 2027.
Exact numbers of people to be released in each tranche are dependent on the mix of the prison population at any given time but a Ministry of Justice analytical report has estimated both the numbers of people who will be released and the numbers of people who are now excluded from being released earlier. It suggests that 4,500 people currently in prison will be released over the 10 tranches, and 1,400 are now ineligible due to the new offence exclusions.
What does this mean for prisons?
The uncertainty over the summer as to what would happen has made it extremely difficult for prison staff to plan for the changes being brought in this October and has caused confusion and distress for those on SDS in prison.
Beyond this immediate impact, there are far-reaching consequences that may hasten the next capacity crisis in prisons, where the government risks running out of cells. The progression model was designed to stave off this crisis but at most it was only ever going to buy the government a few years, as the prison population is projected to increase to between 98,000 and 103,600 by March 2030.
Crucially, the government’s own Impact Assessment to the Sentencing Act acknowledged that any reduction for prison demand from the legislation’s measures would not result in prison place savings. This was before the latest changes restricting the scope of the progression model, which leave the government in an even tighter spot than before.
In addition to the continuing challenges around capacity, none of the measures discussed above do anything to address the day-to-day reality of what it means to live and work in an overcrowded prison system. Instead, without further action from government, overcrowding in prisons will only get worse and will continue to cause acute crisis behind bars.
Andrew Neilson
Director of Campaigns
Comments
-
James says:
I fully support what Julie has said here
and I think that Julie has raised a really important point about rehabilitation, progression and public protection.I would also add that EDS prisoners are very much being overlooked in this debate. They are excluded from the new progression model, yet they are still prisoners who should have the opportunity to demonstrate genuine rehabilitation, sustained good behaviour and a reduction in risk.
This isn’t about saying everyone should simply be released early. It’s about asking whether there should be an individual assessment of each prisoner rather than effectively saying that their sentence type means they cannot benefit from the same progression principles.
There is also a serious question around reoffending. If the purpose of custody is not just punishment but also rehabilitation and reducing future offending, then we need to make sure prisoners have meaningful opportunities to address the causes of their offending and demonstrate that they have changed. Simply keeping someone in custody for longer does not automatically mean they will be safer when eventually released.
Lord Carter has also raised this issue and specifically put forward proposals concerning EDS prisoners and the possibility of Parole Board consideration at the 50% point. His argument was that the Parole Board could consider a much wider range of factors, including whether someone had addressed their offending behaviour, addiction issues and whether they could be safely managed in the community.
That is the discussion I think we need to be having.
If rehabilitation genuinely matters, it should matter to EDS prisoners too. Public protection must remain paramount, but rehabilitation, risk assessment, probation supervision and Parole Board scrutiny can all work together.
EDS prisoners shouldn’t simply be forgotten because of the type of sentence they received. If someone genuinely changes, that progress should have a meaningful opportunity to be recognised.
The House of Lords needs to listen to Lord Carter, he makes so much sense and changes need making -
The new legislation fails IMHO to tackle one of the key sources of overcrowding – which is recalls and re-offending. In Q1 according to the HMG’s own data HMPPS recalled more prisoners than they released (despite an active early release scheme being in place. There are 2 possible reasons for this: (1) reoffending, in which efforts to rehabilitate those in prison are failing, or (2) “hair-trigger” recalls for minor license infractions, by an overworked and under-resourced probation service. The answer to (1) is better resources for in-prison rehab and (2) is a campaign to educate the public that people can (and do) change.
-
Cheryl Hastings says:
My ex husband is in for an accusation of sexual assault on his “partner”, a crime he would never commit (I’ve known him for nearly 30 years)! I sat through his whole trial, there was not a scrap of evidence and the DNA test which would have exhonoureated him was not submitted. The whole justice system needs addressing!!
-
Jonathon says:
To Julie’s comment above. I agree that every individual should be given the chance for early release, based on their individual personal circumstances. That won’t happen as OMU has already drowned in most prisons and probation is on its knees on the outside. So we will continue to work on generalised buckets based on the types of crime and sentence, of which EDS is one. Sadly the premise that “the Government is introducing a progression model based on rehabilitation, behaviour and the need to manage an increasingly overcrowded prison system” is, I fear a false one. Rehabilitation activity, per Charlie Taylor’s extensive reviews, is pretty much nowhere in the pecking order of our criminal justice system. It sits a long way behind building more prisons to cope with more sentences, more custodial terms and longer timeframes, which all fits the politicians’ wildly mis-used “tough on crime” trope. We have not seen that tide being turned in this century and I fear it is not likely any time soon. This latest effort will be a cock-up, as ever, and as Andrew states, the numbers, with their associated tension, will just keep rising. There has to be a better way.
-
Julie says:
I welcome the discussion about the prison population crisis and the need for a fairer, more sustainable approach to sentencing and release. However, I believe there is a significant omission from this debate: people serving Extended Determinate Sentences (EDS).
If the Government is introducing a progression model based on rehabilitation, behaviour and the need to manage an increasingly overcrowded prison system, why should EDS prisoners be automatically excluded from having the same opportunity to demonstrate their progress?
I am not arguing that serious offences should be minimised, or that public protection should ever be compromised. I am asking why there cannot be an individual assessment of an EDS prisoner’s conduct, rehabilitation, risk and readiness for supervised release.
Someone who has spent years in custody engaging with rehabilitation, maintaining good behaviour, completing relevant programmes and demonstrating that they have changed should surely have some route by which that progress can be recognised. Their sentence type should not automatically mean that their rehabilitation is irrelevant.
There is also a wider question of fairness. If the prison system is already under enormous pressure, and the Government is prepared to allow some prisoners to progress earlier under strict licence and supervision arrangements, why exclude an entire category without considering the individual circumstances of those prisoners?
A carefully managed release is very different from simply “letting someone out”. Licence conditions, probation supervision, recall provisions and risk assessments can all form part of a structured transition back into the community.
If rehabilitation genuinely matters, then it should matter for EDS prisoners too.
The conversation should therefore not simply be about who is eligible and who is excluded. It should ask whether there is a fair, evidence-based mechanism for recognising genuine rehabilitation across the prison population, while maintaining public protection.
EDS prisoners should at least have the opportunity to have their individual progress considered. They should not be written off as a group.More needs to be done such as parole reviewing at 50% rather than at two thirds , prison should be about rehabilitation which it is clearly not
-
Michelle Smith says:
My son got a long sentence, hardly no evidence, they just put him in a gang of people
They found nothing in his flat and they even close the Poca as he didn’t have anything
His first ever offence the judge sentenced him to 14 years 8 months
That’s why your prisons are full
I’m so angry
Leave a Reply
-
Join the Howard League
We are the world's oldest prison charity, bringing people together to advocate for change.
Join us and make your voice heard -
Support our work
We safeguard our independence and do not accept any funding from government.
Make a donation
Im not sure how and if these changes will go any way to fix a broken system. It seems to me that there are still a number of issues that need to be addressed.
– We send far too many people to prison, mainly because there is no effective alternative and too much political pressure on policy makers (it doesnt win votes!)
– Prisons and Probation are not equipped to deliver effective rehabilitation activities from day one
– Preventative education isnt a core part of young peoples development
– Our systems are definitely not built to allow/require real multi agency approaches