Targeting the UK’s high recalls should be a priority of the Independent Sentencing Review.
The Crime and Justice Studies’ submission to the Independent Sentencing Review outlines 10 recommendations on key issues, such as sentencing trends, the use of short prison sentences, and joint enterprise prosecutions. Among these, we called for urgent action to address the problem of prison recall.
By way of context, the current number of individuals in prison on recall in the UK is 12,920. In 1993, it was less than 100. Furthermore, this recall population is projected to increase.
Why do our recall rates matter?
Exploring the reasons behind these high recall rates extends beyond the prison system’s incapacity to cope with a growing recall population. The cycle of recall and re-release often traps individuals in a revolving door of custody, reducing their chances of successful long-term resettlement by disrupting housing stability, secure employment, and essential social ties.
Despite fluctuations in annual trends, overall crime rates today are significantly lower than they were in the 1990s. Yet the recall population has skyrocketed in the same period.
This dramatic rise is at odds with some of our European counterparts, where recall populations remain notably lower. According to the Council of Europe’s Annual Penal Statistics, some comparable jurisdictions have far fewer individuals in prison on recall. For example, in 2023, Spain reported only 247 people on recall in 2023, in sharp contrast to the UK figures at the time (12,068 people).
Possible drivers of high recall rates
Successive legislative changes appear to have prioritised enforcement over rehabilitation, including the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, and the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014. These changes have increased the number of recall-eligible offenders (for instance, mandatory community supervision for shorter sentences), broadening the scope of license conditions and increasing the likelihood of recall for breach.
This is not to say the UK probation officers typically recall individuals arbitrarily. However, the sheer number of standard and additional license conditions – generated through a digital tool called Effective Proposal Framework (EPF) – can increase the risk of technical breaches. EPF uses factors such as age, gender, geographical location, offence, and risk level to create a recommended list of licence conditions, which may not always be fully tailored to each individual. Consequently, licences can become overly restrictive and more easily triggered.
One key reason for the difference between recall populations in the UK and Western Europe may lie in the decision-making process. In the UK, the power of recalls sits within the probation service, whereas in many European countries it will require judicial oversight – e.g. police or probation may make an application for recall, but the decision is ultimately made by a judge or parole board. The judicial oversight can act as a measure against unnecessary recalls.
Recommendations for reform
The Centre recommends that we follow the lead of other European countries who have successfully been kept recall rates low. This could include tightening governance around recalls by introducing judicial or Parole Board oversight, ensuring that recall remains a proportional response, reserved for cases that pose genuine public safety risks.
This measure could also serve as an additional safeguard, and perhaps reduce reliance on the EPF tool – or at least lessen the number of automatically applied license conditions. Although probation officers do have the authority to override EPF recommendations, they often will choose not to, as any subsequent reoffending after waiving these recommendations would reflect poorly. Introducing judicial oversight could provide an extra layer of authorisation and reduce the risk of ‘blame’ that may be attributed to probation.
While this may initially put pressure on an overburdened judicial system, the significant long-term reduction in recall rates will be a marked relief across not only the courts, but also probation, prisons, and reintegration services. Additionally, the positive impact on resettlement would lead to lowered recidivism rates.
Ultimately, the recall system should not be a driver of the UK’s rising prison population. Instead, return to prison should function as originally intended: a last resort for managing serious public safety risks.
