Nearly Half of Offender Electronic Tags Fitted Late, Watchdog Warns Victims Placed at Risk

Nearly half of the electronic monitoring tags used to track the movements of offenders in England and Wales are not being fitted on schedule, according to a new report from His Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP). The findings raise serious concerns that victims are being exposed to unnecessary danger while offenders remain unmonitored for extended periods.

The inspection 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, but the overall picture points to a system struggling to keep pace with the demands placed upon it. In some cases, offenders waited more than two weeks for equipment, while roughly one in ten individuals waited as long as five months beyond the deadline for tagging.

Electronic monitoring is employed by the Probation Service to enforce curfews and other conditions attached to court or prison orders. Tags serve as a tool for managing risk, supporting safeguarding measures, and protecting victims. As of June 2026, a total of 27,847 people in England and Wales were subject to tagging orders with equipment. The scale of the programme makes the delays identified in the report particularly troubling, since each late fitting represents a gap in the surveillance that courts and victims rely upon.

According to the report, the delays have contributed to repeated breaches of court and prison orders, as offenders remain free from the restrictions that tagging is meant to enforce. The report also notes that in some instances individuals simply did not make themselves available for fitting, though this accounts for only part of the problem.

Martin Jones CBE, HM Chief Inspector of Probation, warned that the technology alone cannot deliver protection. "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 addressing their weaknesses risks overpromising and underdelivering on public protection.

The inspectorate's findings go beyond installation delays. Data generated by the tags was frequently underused, with major violations raised and investigated in only 46% of relevant cases. Inspectors found little evidence that electronic monitoring was being applied consistently to encourage behaviour change among offenders, suggesting that the full potential of the technology is not being realised.

Claire Waxman OBE, Victims' Commissioner for England and Wales, stressed that victims must be informed immediately when tagging is delayed. She said that a delay could give victims a "false sense of security" if they believe an offender is being monitored when in fact no tag has been fitted. Waxman also called for a robust response when breaches occur, but expressed real concerns about whether overstretched probation services are capable of delivering that response.

The report categorises tags into three main types. Curfew tags enforce restrictions on movement during specified hours, usually overnight. Location tags use GPS technology to track an offender's whereabouts. Alcohol tags monitor consumption through the skin and are used to enforce sobriety conditions. Each type is intended to manage risk while also supporting safeguarding and victim protection. When offenders breach their orders, they may be returned immediately to prison, issued a court order, or given a formal warning, depending on the circumstances.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson defended the government's record, describing public protection as its top priority. The spokesperson pointed to what was described as the biggest expansion of tagging in British history, supported by £100 million in funding, and said tag install rates had risen by nearly 50% since 2024. The department also cited a record £700 million investment in probation and community services, including the recruitment of 2,300 trainee officers over the past two years, with a further 1,300 planned this year, to ensure dangerous offenders are kept under closer surveillance than ever before.

The report's publication comes amid a broader push to expand electronic monitoring across the justice system. Plans announced earlier this year as part of the Sentencing Act 2026 aim to ease pressure on prisons by managing more offenders in the community. Under the new law, thousands more prisoners are due to be released early from October, and most of them will require tagging. That expansion will place additional demands on a system that the inspectorate says is already failing to fit tags on time and to act on the data they produce.

The combination of early releases and late tagging creates a potentially dangerous gap. Offenders released without functioning tags may face no effective supervision, while victims who have been assured that monitoring is in place may remain unaware that protection is not yet operational. The inspectorate's warning that tagging can create a false sense of assurance applies both to the public and to the individuals the system is meant to protect.

The government's funding commitments and recruitment targets indicate awareness of the pressures facing probation and community services. However, the inspectorate's findings suggest that investment alone may not resolve the underlying problems. Consistent fitting schedules, better use of tag data, and a reliable response to breaches will be essential if the expansion of tagging is to deliver the public protection it promises.

The report ultimately raises a central question about the balance between technology and professional practice. Electronic tags can only function as a protective measure when they are fitted on time, monitored effectively, and integrated into a probation system with the capacity to act on the information they generate. Without those elements, the expansion of tagging risks becoming a headline achievement that fails to keep victims safe.