The Sentencing Act 2026 introduces significant changes to the sentencing framework in England and Wales, several of which came into force on 22 March 2026. Among the most notable is the extension of the maximum custodial sentence that may be suspended from two to three years. The reform has the potential to impact not only individual offenders but also the wider operation of the criminal justice system, particularly in the context of ongoing pressure on the prison estate.
The new legal position
As a consequence of the Act, courts now have the power to suspend custodial sentences of up to three years. The operational period of the suspended sentence may also extend to three years, during which time the offender will have to avoid further offending and may have to comply with specified requirements.
A suspended sentence allows an offender to remain in the community rather than serve an immediate custodial term. Provided that the individual complies with the terms of their sentence, a custodial sentence will not be activated. The change applies to both adult and younger offenders subject to certain exceptions. For example, extended determinate sentences (reserved for some particularly serious offences, combining a fixed prison term with an extended, supervised licence period) and sentences imposed on offenders of particular concern (similarly, reserved for those convicted of specified terrorism or serious child sexual offences, resulting in close supervision when released) cannot be suspended.
Where the shortest term commensurate with the seriousness of the offending exceeds 12 months but is no more than three years, courts must consider whether suspension is appropriate. The factors relevant to that assessment remain unchanged and mirror those that previously applied to sentences of two years or less.
Factors supporting suspension include:
a realistic prospect of rehabilitation in the community;
a low risk of reoffending or harm;
strong personal mitigation; and
that immediate custody will result in significant harmful impact upon others, including any dependent children or where the offender is pregnant or postnatal (i.e. has given birth in the previous 12 months).
Conversely, suspension is less likely where:
the offender presents a risk to others;
the seriousness of the offence requires immediate custody; and
there is a history of poor compliance with court orders and a low likelihood of future compliance.
The historical position
The extension to three years builds on an accelerated evolution of the suspended sentencing regime. By virtue of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, the maximum sentence that could be suspended was increased from 12 months to two years. Prior to that, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 had established the 12-month limit, replacing an earlier regime under the Criminal Justice Act 1967, which permitted suspension only in “exceptional circumstances”. In that sense, the current reform represents a further incremental expansion of judicial discretion, albeit within a familiar framework.
Policy context
The change follows David Gauke’s Independent Sentencing Review, commissioned in response to mounting pressure on prison capacity. The Review – published in May 2025 – recommended extending the upper limit of suspended sentences to three years as part of a broader strategy to reduce reliance on short-term custody. The approach was supported by important organisations within the criminal justice system such as the Criminal Bar Association.
Research also underpins the policy direction. A 2022 literature review by the Sentencing Council found that suspended sentence orders may avoid some of the “criminogenic effects” of imprisonment including negative peer influences within custodial settings. Similarly, analysis published in 2021 by the Sentencing Academy (a UK-based organisation dedicated to researching and promoting evidence-based sentencing practices) indicated that offenders given suspended sentences were less likely to reoffend than those given short custodial terms or community orders, although the precise reasons for this remain unclear.
Short periods of imprisonment can have a destabilising effect on individuals, often exacerbating the very factors that led them to offend. A brief custodial sentence could lead to the loss of housing, employment and the disintegration of relationships, making reintegration into society and the local community more difficult on release. The prison environment itself is not conducive to improved wellbeing or positive mental health outcomes. It is obvious that overcrowding, limited access to purposeful activity and high levels of violence could contribute to deteriorating mental health. Moreover, those entering the prison estate with existing vulnerabilities such as addiction and trauma could have ongoing treatment and support interrupted, which may further perpetuate the cycle of offending.
Against this backdrop, reform can be seen as both a response to immediate capacity pressures and a longer-term shift towards more rehabilitative and humane sentencing outcomes.
Prison overcrowding and sentencing practice
The context for reform is critical. Prisons in England and Wales are operating at or near capacity, with the government having implemented a range of emergency measures in recent years. This has included the use of police custody suites to house prisoners, temporary modular prison cells and expanded early release schemes.
The courts have already recognised prison overcrowding as a relevant factor in sentencing decisions. In R v Ali [2023] EWCA Crim 232 the Court of Appeal confirmed that the high prison population could be taken into account by a judge when determining whether to impose immediate custody or suspend a sentence, particularly in borderline cases.
In that judgment, the Court of Appeal quotes from a letter sent from the Deputy Prime Minister to the Lord Chief Justice in February 2023, which said: "You will appreciate that operating very close to prison capacity will have consequences for the conditions in which prisoners are held. More of them will be in crowded conditions while in custody, have reduced access to rehabilitative programmes, as well as being further away from home (affecting the ability for family visits). Prisoners held in police cells under Operation Safeguard will not have access to the full range of services normally offered in custody, including rehabilitative programmes.”
Earlier authorities have similarly acknowledged that overcrowding can undermine the effectiveness of rehabilitation in custody and increase the punitive nature of imprisonment (see R v Seed; R v Stark (2007) EWCA Crim 254; R v Kefford (Mark James) (2002) EWCA Crim 519).
As a result, courts have generally been encouraged to give careful consideration to non-custodial options where appropriate, particularly in the case of shorter sentences.
Impact
The practical impact of this reform is likely to be measured rather than transformative. Judicial discretion remains and the factors governing suspension are familiar. It is therefore unclear exactly how many cases will, in reality, fall within the newly extended two-to-three-year bracket that would not previously have attracted suspension. That said, the Independent Sentencing Review estimates a figure of 1,300 “isolated prison place savings” from this specific change.
There are legitimate concerns: increased reliance on suspended sentence orders may place further strain on already stretched probation services, which is likely to attract criticism from sections of the media and public concerned about the safety implications of offenders serving sentences in the community.
However, viewed in context, the reform is both pragmatic and proportionate. It does not radically alter sentencing principles, nor does it open the floodgates to widespread suspension of custodial sentences. Rather, it provides courts with a modest but meaningful extension of an existing tool, consistent with the wider policy objective of reducing reliance on short-term imprisonment.
With approximately 49,000 suspended sentence orders imposed in 2024, representing around 4 per cent of offenders sentenced (according to Ministry of Justice statistics), it remains to be seen whether this extension of the upper limit will materially increase usage. What is clear, however, is that the change represents a considered step towards a more flexible and rehabilitative sentencing framework, aligned with the aims of the Independent Sentencing Review and the ongoing need to address pressure within the prison estate.
Copyright & permissions
.png&w=256&q=75)
.jpg&w=3840&q=60)
