Domestic Abuse Survivor Fears Attacker Without Tag

Published: 02 November 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

A domestic violence survivor in England says she is living in constant fear after her former partner, who was convicted following a violent attack against her, was released from prison without being fitted with an electronic tracking device.

Michelle, 38, said she has been left deeply concerned for her own safety and that of her four children because the man remains free in the community despite previous breaches of his probation conditions. She said relatives have been sleeping on the floor of her home in case her former partner attempts to return or attack her again.

The case has highlighted wider concerns about the way electronic monitoring is managed for offenders released from prison, particularly where there are known risks to victims of domestic abuse. Hundreds of survivors are understood to have questioned why offenders are not routinely fitted with tracking devices before leaving prison when their release conditions require electronic monitoring.

Michelle said she believes the device should be fitted before an offender walks out of the prison gates. In her case, she was told after her former partner’s latest release that a GPS tag would be fitted to monitor his movements. But weeks later, she says no device has been installed.

Her former partner was first arrested after an alleged assault in early 2024. Michelle said he punched her in the face before returning to her home the following day, kicking in the front door and threatening her with a knife.

According to Michelle, the confrontation became particularly frightening when her teenage son intervened. She said her former partner held her down by her hair while waving a knife and that her 16-year-old son had to intervene to pull him away.

The man was subsequently convicted of two counts of assault by beating and one count of affray. He was sentenced to 38 months in prison in November 2024.

When he was released in February 2025, conditions were imposed requiring him to stay away from Michelle’s home and the town where she lives. However, Michelle said he repeatedly breached the conditions.

She reported breaches in July 2025 and again in April and August 2026. Photographs uploaded by the man and people associated with him allegedly showed him attending parties and visiting pubs in areas from which he had been prohibited.

Michelle reported two of the breaches, after which he was recalled to prison on each occasion for 56 days. He was released again on 15 October 2026.

Before his release, Michelle said her police liaison officer reassured her that a GPS monitoring device would be fitted. Instead, she has been left waiting while worrying that the man could return to her home or attempt to approach her children.

She has since moved from her former five-bedroom rented home into a static caravan after receiving advice from her local council. The change has significantly affected her family’s daily life, she said, with concerns about allowing her children to go outside and fears about what could happen during the night.

Michelle said the authorities were aware of her former partner’s previous breaches and his history of violence, making it difficult for her to understand why he could be released into the local area without his movements being monitored.

Her concerns were raised in parliament by Vikki Slade, the Liberal Democrat MP for Mid Dorset and North Poole. Slade questioned why domestic violence survivors with children were not receiving stronger protection when offenders were released.

The wider issue has also attracted scrutiny from prison and probation inspectors. A report published this week found that almost half of offenders who were supposed to receive electronic monitoring were not tagged promptly after release. In some cases, the delay was reported to have lasted as long as five months.

The findings have raised questions about whether the current system provides sufficient protection for victims and whether offenders can be effectively monitored during the period immediately after leaving prison.

The report also examined the performance of Serco, the private contractor responsible for fitting electronic monitoring devices. Inspectors found that the company had been considered to have met its performance targets in circumstances where attempts had been made to fit tags, even when the devices had not ultimately been installed and activated.

One significant reason for tags not being fitted was that offenders were not present at the address where contractors had been instructed to find them. Inspectors said this accounted for roughly one-third of the 5,000 offenders in the community without electronic tags.

The figures have prompted renewed calls for changes to the system. The Prison Officers’ Association has suggested that prison officers should be trained to install and activate electronic monitoring equipment before prisoners are released.

Mark Fairhurst, the organisation’s national chair, wrote to Justice Secretary Alex Norris proposing that the government assess whether electronic tagging should be brought back under greater public-sector control.

He argued that the documented problems with tagging, combined with the importance of protecting the public and the availability of an experienced prison workforce, justified a formal examination of whether some responsibilities currently carried out by private contractors should be handled by prison staff.

For victims of domestic abuse, the debate is more than an administrative question. Electronic monitoring can be particularly important when an offender has been ordered to stay away from a victim or a specific area. A delay in installing a device can leave survivors uncertain about whether restrictions are actually being enforced.

Michelle’s experience illustrates the emotional impact that uncertainty can have on families already affected by violence. She said she has changed her living arrangements and restricted her children’s freedom because she remains worried that her former partner could return.

The Ministry of Justice said the government had inherited a justice system facing serious problems following years of underinvestment and that it was taking measures to address them. The department said it was pursuing the biggest expansion of electronic monitoring and intended to tag more offenders before they left prison.

Serco said it attempted to fit an electronic monitoring device to every person who was required to wear one. The company said that when fitting a device was not possible, or when an individual breached their release conditions, the relevant authorities were informed and were responsible for deciding what further action should be taken.

The competing explanations have left victims and campaigners focused on a central question: whether an electronic monitoring system can provide effective protection if there are delays between an offender’s release and the installation of a working device.

The issue is particularly sensitive in domestic abuse cases because victims may already have experienced repeated threats, intimidation or violence. Knowing that an offender is subject to restrictions can provide some reassurance, but that confidence can be severely weakened when monitoring arrangements are not in place.

Michelle’s case has therefore become part of a wider debate about how offenders are managed after release and how the criminal justice system protects people who remain at risk. Her experience also raises questions about whether victims should have clearer information about the status of monitoring arrangements and what action authorities can take when a tag is not fitted promptly.

For Michelle and her children, however, the issue remains immediate and personal. She says she is trying to rebuild her life while remaining fearful that the man who previously attacked her could appear again.

The wider concerns over electronic tagging now place additional pressure on the government to demonstrate that monitoring arrangements work effectively from the moment an offender is released. For victims living with the consequences of domestic violence, the difference between an intended safeguard and one that is actually operating can be critical to their sense of safety..