The sentencing disconnect: Why sentencers need better information about community orders
“If you took out people who shouldn’t be in prison because they should be on alternative sentences, we’d lose 75% of the prison system, overnight. Because we’re not sentencing the people, we’re sentencing the crime, and what it is the judges and magistrates are expecting the sentence people to. We have to be a bit more empathetic – a lot of people don’t end up in court because they’ve had a wonderful life, there’s always a sad story attached.” – Lived experience member
The recent publication of the Sentencing Review has brought renewed attention to the sharp decline in the use of community sentences. Over the past decade, their use has dropped by around 50%, raising serious questions about how we support rehabilitation and reduce reoffending. Encouragingly, the Review offers hope that investment in community-based alternatives could help rebuild a more effective and compassionate justice system.
But for that to happen, we must first restore sentencers’ confidence in community sentences. At Revolving Doors, we believe a major factor behind their decline is a persistent lack of information. This issue isn’t new: reports as far back as 2017 highlighted a concerning gap in sentencers’ understanding of non-custodial options. Unfortunately, that gap remains wide today.
“When we’ve been working with magistrates on MHTRs (Mental Health Treatment Requirements), it was interesting to find out how little they knew about them. I think that’s why they don’t use them much.”
Through our work with magistrates, we’ve seen this knowledge gap firsthand. Sentencers often aren’t given a clear picture of what community sentences involve, or the difference they can make.
They rarely hear directly from people who’ve completed an Order or from those delivering the support. Without lived experience input, or even basic outcome data comparing Orders to short prison sentences, how can we expect sentencers to make fully informed decisions?
Another issue is that magistrates tend to only hear feedback when Orders have failed, usually from people back in court for breach or re-sentencing. But success stories rarely return to court. Those who have completed an Order, made progress, and moved forward with their lives aren’t visible in sentencing decisions. This imbalance feeds the misconception that community sentences are ineffective.
Where can sentencers get information?
A key reason for this disconnect lies in the decline of high-quality pre-sentence reports (PSRs). These reports once provided courts with detailed insights into a person’s history, the underlying causes of their offending, and professional recommendations for appropriate interventions. In 2014, over 32,000 standard delivery PSRs – long-form reports, which examine the person’s life, offending and which sentences might prevent reoffending – were produced. By 2023, that number had dropped to just 4,374.
In their place, we now see fast delivery and oral reports. Often based on brief interviews of less than 30 minutes, these typically offer a sentence recommendation in just a few lines, with little or no explanation. For people in the revolving door with complex needs and histories, this is catastrophic. Sentencers see a long list of prior convictions but get no context. Without understanding previous challenges, partial successes or the reasons an Order may have broken down, they are more likely to default to custody.
Another overlooked consequence is that magistrates no longer routinely receive updates on how someone experienced a community order if they return to court. As a result, they may assume the person simply failed to comply, missing crucial context like steady progress that was disrupted by a single event, or efforts made despite adversity. This lack of information can lead to more punitive sentences when a more balanced view might suggest a different path.
Traditionally, long-form PSRs also acted as a form of advocacy, outlining why a specific community order was not just suitable but likely to succeed. This helped sentencers understand the purpose and mechanics of different options, from Mental Health Treatment Requirements (MHTRs) to accredited programmes. That kind of insight has largely disappeared from the courtroom.
The importance of training and lived experience
Magistrates seem to want to send people to prison these days.
To rebuild trust in community sentences, better reports are needed – but also better information and support. Sentencers should receive regular, practical information sessions that include input from those who have delivered and completed these sentences. Hearing directly from people with lived experience can be transformative: it puts a face to the statistics, challenges assumptions and shows what rehabilitation can look like in real life.
Court clerks and advisors also have a crucial role. By equipping them with a deeper understanding of community sentencing, supported by lived experience perspectives, we can ensure that the advice they give in court is both informed and balanced.
A call for change
The decline in the use of community sentences is more than just a symptom of pressure on the justice system. It reflects missed opportunities to prevent reoffending, reduce harm and support lasting change. When sentencers lack the tools, knowledge and confidence to use these alternatives, we risk perpetuating a cycle of short prison sentences that do little to address the root causes of crime.
It’s time to change that. By investing in high-quality information, restoring the value of PSRs, and embedding lived experience into training and court processes, we can build a justice system that truly lives up to its rehabilitative promise.
