Bail Reform and Community Safety: Why the Sentencing Act 2026 Deserves a Second Look
March 2026 I wrote to Rt. Hon. David Lammy MP, Secretary of State for Justice, Lord Chancellor, in my capacity as the Shadow Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Social Justice at Birmingham City Council, asking him to review certain elements of the Sentencing Act 2026 before it’s implementation March 2026.
The Sentencing Act 2026 represents one of the most significant changes to the criminal justice system in recent years. Its stated aim is understandable: to address pressures on the prison estate, reduce unnecessary remands, and create a more proportionate system of justice.
However, while reform is often necessary, it is equally important to ensure that changes do not create unintended consequences. There is growing concern that some of the new bail and remand provisions risk undermining community safety, weakening public confidence in the justice system, and placing additional pressure on police forces already stretched to their limits.
Public Safety Must Remain the Priority
One of the most significant changes under the Act is the presumption that defendants should not normally be remanded in custody where there is “no real prospect” of receiving a custodial sentence if convicted.
On paper, this appears reasonable. In practice, however, it risks returning persistent offenders to the community while they await trial.
Many offences that damage neighbourhoods and quality of life—such as repeat theft, anti-social behaviour, harassment, criminal damage, and lower-level violence—may not individually result in imprisonment. Yet collectively they can have a devastating impact on local communities. Residents who experience repeated offending often feel abandoned by the system, particularly when offenders appear to face few immediate consequences.
The danger is that a policy designed to reduce prison numbers may inadvertently increase the number of offences committed before cases even reach court.
More Defendants on Bail Means More Opportunities to Reoffend
The reality is straightforward: when more defendants are released pending trial, some will inevitably commit further offences.
This creates a cycle that benefits nobody. New offences lead to additional investigations, further court hearings, more victims, and increased pressure on police resources. Cases become more complex, sentencing decisions become more difficult, and court backlogs continue to grow.
Rather than reducing pressure on the criminal justice system, there is a risk that the burden is simply shifted elsewhere.
The Importance of Deterrence
A successful justice system relies not only on punishment but also on deterrence.
The public must believe that criminal behaviour carries consequences that are both certain and timely. If suspects are routinely released shortly after arrest and are able to continue their daily activities while awaiting trial, there is a danger that the perceived risk of offending diminishes.
This perception matters. Communities judge the effectiveness of the justice system not only by legal outcomes but by what they see happening around them. When consequences appear delayed or absent, confidence in the system can quickly erode.
Shifting Pressure from Prisons to Policing
Supporters of the reforms argue that bail conditions can effectively manage risk. Measures such as electronic monitoring, curfews, exclusion zones, and reporting requirements certainly have a role to play.
However, these safeguards are only as effective as the systems enforcing them.
Police forces already face significant demands on their time and resources. Delays in fitting electronic tags, difficulties monitoring compliance, and slow responses to breaches can all undermine the effectiveness of bail conditions. As more defendants remain in the community, enforcement responsibilities increasingly fall on the police.
The result may simply be a transfer of pressure from overcrowded prisons to overstretched police services.
The Domestic Abuse Concern
My greatest personal concern relates to victims, particularly victims of domestic abuse. A longstanding campaigner against Domectic Abuse, the Chair of a new Charity establishing themselves supporting women post trial and abuse, and after seeing the commissioning of countless Council Domestic Abuse strategies, this remains an area I feel victims of abuse need more protection and clarity around not less.
For many years, restrictions on bail in domestic abuse cases provided an important period of separation between an alleged victim and an alleged abuser following charge and before trial. This separation often gave victims the space and confidence needed to engage with the justice process while reducing opportunities for intimidation, coercion, or manipulation.
Under the new framework, that protection appears significantly weakened.
While courts retain powers to impose conditions and can refuse bail where a defendant poses a significant risk of physical or psychological harm, the move away from a clearer domestic abuse exception introduces a more subjective threshold. Victims may feel less protected and more vulnerable during the period leading up to trial.
This is particularly concerning given the already high number of domestic abuse cases that collapse before reaching court. Any reform that risks reducing victim confidence could further undermine efforts to secure justice for survivors.
A Call for Balance
Criminal justice reform is necessary. The prison estate faces undeniable challenges, and no government can ignore the need for a more efficient and sustainable system.
But reform should never come at the expense of public safety, victim protection, or confidence in the rule of law.
The Sentencing Act 2026 risks placing too much emphasis on reducing remand populations without fully accounting for the wider consequences for communities, police forces, and victims. In particular, the protections historically afforded to victims of domestic abuse deserve urgent reconsideration.
The true measure of any justice reform is not how many prison places it saves, but whether it keeps communities safe, supports victims, and maintains public confidence in the law. If these reforms fail that test, then Parliament must be prepared to revisit them before the consequences are felt on our streets.
Justice must be both fair and effective. If we lose sight of either principle, it is the public who ultimately pay the price.
