Watchdog Warns Late Electronic Tag Fitting Leaves Victims Exposed Across England and Wales

Nearly half of all electronic monitoring tags intended to track offenders in England and Wales are not being fitted within the required timeframe, according to a new report from His Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP), which warns that the delays are placing victims at serious risk.

The inspection found that only 55% of GPS and radio frequency tags were installed on schedule, while the figure for alcohol monitoring tags stood slightly higher at 60%. In practical terms, this means thousands of court and prison orders are going unenforced for weeks or even months at a time.

In some instances, offenders waited longer than five months beyond the date their tag should have been fitted, the report said. One in ten individuals experienced a delay of five months, while others faced waits of more than two weeks for the equipment to be installed. The findings point to a system under significant strain and raise questions about whether the rapid expansion of tagging can be delivered safely.

Electronic monitoring is used by the Probation Service to verify compliance with curfews and other conditions attached to a court or prison order. As of June 2026, a total of 27,847 people in England and Wales were subject to tagging orders involving equipment. The tags fall into three categories: curfew tags, location tags and alcohol tags, each designed to impose strict controls on an offender as part of punishment, risk management, safeguarding and victim protection.

Martin Jones CBE, HM Chief Inspector of Probation, said the consequences of poor implementation could be severe. "There is a real danger that electronic monitoring creates a false sense of assurance if the technology is not matched by effective professional practice," he said. He added that expanding tagging programmes without first addressing their weaknesses "risks overpromising and underdelivering on public protection" — a warning that goes to the heart of the government's plans to move more offenders out of custody and into the community.

The report also identified a range of causes behind the late fittings. In some cases, offenders simply did not make themselves available at the appointed time. But the scale of the problem suggests broader systemic issues, including capacity constraints within the services responsible for installation and monitoring.

The data collected by the tags is also being underused, according to inspectors. Major violations were raised and investigated in only 46% of relevant cases, meaning that breaches of tagging conditions frequently went without a proper response. Inspectors found little evidence that electronic monitoring was being applied consistently to encourage behaviour change, undermining one of the core aims of the scheme.

Victims' Commissioner Claire Waxman OBE said victims must be told "immediately" when tagging is delayed, because not knowing could give them a "false sense of security". She called for a "robust response" whenever breaches occur, but expressed "real concerns" about how "overstretched" probation services would be able to deliver that response. Her comments highlight the tension between the promise of technology and the human capacity needed to act on the information it produces.

Under current arrangements, offenders who breach their orders can be returned to prison immediately, issued with a court order or given a formal warning. The effectiveness of those sanctions depends heavily on tags being fitted on time and the resulting data being acted upon promptly — two areas where the inspection found clear failings.

The Ministry of Justice defended its record, saying public protection was the government's priority. A spokesperson said the government was delivering the "biggest expansion of tagging in British history", backed by £100 million in funding, and noted that tag installation rates had risen by nearly 50% since 2024. The department also pointed to a record £700 million investment in probation and community services, including the recruitment of 2,300 trainee officers over the past two years and a further 1,300 this year, which it said would ensure dangerous offenders are kept under closer surveillance than ever before.

The inspection comes at a pivotal moment. Plans to significantly widen the use of electronic monitoring were announced earlier this year as part of the Sentencing Act 2026, which is intended to ease pressure on prisons by managing more offenders in the community. Under the new law, thousands more prisoners will be released early from October, and most of those individuals will be required to wear a tag. The report's findings therefore carry immediate implications for a policy that is already in motion.

Charities and victim support groups have long argued that community-based sentences only work when the technology is reliable and the supervision behind it is properly resourced. The inspection suggests that neither condition is currently being met consistently. Delays in fitting equipment, combined with gaps in following up on violations, risk eroding public confidence in a system that is being asked to do more with each passing year.

The report's publication also follows earlier warnings about the early release scheme. In August, the probation chief inspector cautioned that the accelerated release of prisoners could lead to more serious crimes if monitoring and support were not sufficiently robust. That concern now appears more concrete, with the latest findings showing that the infrastructure meant to track released offenders is already falling short.

For victims, the practical effect of these failures can be profound. A tag that arrives months late offers no protection during the intervening period, and a breach that goes uninvestigated leaves a court order effectively unenforced. The inspectorate's verdict is that the technology itself is not the problem — the problem is the professional practice surrounding it, and the resources available to make that practice effective.

The government's expansion programme will require not only more tags but also more staff, better data systems and clearer accountability when things go wrong. Whether the promised investment can close the gap between ambition and delivery will determine whether electronic monitoring becomes a genuine tool for public protection or, as the chief inspector warned, an overpromise that leaves victims more exposed than before.