Electronic tags are not being fitted on time for almost half of offenders in England and Wales, with some people waiting as long as five months before being monitored. Inspectors have warned that the delays could put victims at risk and undermine confidence in court and prison orders.
A report from His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) found that only 55% of GPS and radio frequency tags were installed within the required timeframe. Alcohol monitoring tags performed slightly better, with 60% fitted promptly.
Electronic Tags Delayed for Months
Inspectors found that some offenders waited more than two weeks for equipment, while one in 10 people experienced delays of five months after they were supposed to have been tagged.
The report said delays contributed to repeated breaches of court and prison orders. One reason identified for tags not being installed on time was that some individuals did not make themselves available for fitting.
Electronic monitoring is used by the Probation Service to enforce conditions imposed by courts or prisons. The systems can track curfews, movements and alcohol use, depending on the type of tag imposed on an offender.
There were 27,847 people subject to tagging orders with equipment in England and Wales as of June 2026.
Martin Jones CBE, HM Chief Inspector of Probation, warned that technology alone could not provide effective public protection without proper professional oversight.
“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.
Jones added that expanding tagging programmes without fixing existing weaknesses risked “overpromising and underdelivering on public protection”.
GPS Tags Raise Victim Protection Concerns
The report also found that data collected by electronic monitoring equipment was not always used effectively. Major violations were raised and investigated in only 46% of relevant cases, according to inspectors.
There was also limited evidence that electronic monitoring was being consistently used to encourage changes in offenders’ behaviour.
Victims’ Commissioner Claire Waxman OBE said people affected by crime needed to be told immediately when a tagging order was delayed. She warned that failing to provide that information could create a “false sense of security” for victims.
Waxman said a “robust response” was needed when offenders breached their conditions. However, she also raised concerns about whether overstretched probation services had enough capacity to respond effectively.
Electronic monitoring currently involves three main types of tags: curfew tags, location tags and alcohol tags. The equipment is intended to help authorities manage offenders in the community while supporting risk management, safeguarding and victim protection.
When offenders breach their conditions, they can face a return to prison, a new court order or a formal warning, depending on the circumstances.
Electronic Monitoring Expansion Planned
The findings come as the government prepares to expand electronic monitoring as part of wider changes to the criminal justice system. The Sentencing Act 2026 is intended to reduce pressure on prisons by allowing more offenders to be managed in the community.
Thousands more prisoners are due to be released early from October under the new legislation, with most expected to require electronic tagging.
The Ministry of Justice said the government was committed to expanding the use of electronic monitoring and had allocated £100m for the programme.
“Public protection” remained the government’s priority, a Ministry of Justice spokesperson said. The department also said tag installation rates had increased by nearly 50% since 2024.
The government said the tagging expansion formed part of a wider £700m investment in probation and community services. It said 2,300 trainee officers had been recruited during the previous two years, with another 1,300 planned for this year.
The government argues the expansion will allow dangerous offenders to be kept under closer surveillance. However, the HMIP findings highlight concerns about whether existing systems and probation services can manage the increased demand while ensuring electronic monitoring provides the level of protection expected.