Ministers Propose Naming and Shaming Offenders Completing Community Sentences

Published: 26 September 2025, The English Chronicle Desk

The UK government is moving to introduce powers that would allow probation officers to photograph, name, and publicly identify individuals completing unpaid community sentences in England and Wales. The sentencing bill, currently progressing through Parliament, would give legal authority for the first time to publish the names and images of offenders ordered by courts to undertake work such as clearing litter, scrubbing graffiti, or maintaining public spaces.

Officials argue the measure is intended to increase public confidence in community sentences and to demonstrate that justice is being visibly delivered. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “Unpaid work forces offenders to publicly atone for their crimes and give back to the communities they have wronged. It is punishment that works. Through the sentencing bill, we will increase the visibility of this sentence even further and allow the public to see justice being served. Anyone who refuses to comply faces a return to court or even time behind bars.”

However, critics warn that the policy could have serious unintended consequences, including undermining rehabilitation and placing additional pressure on offenders’ families. Martin Jones, HM Inspector of Probation, expressed concern that the policy might act as a disincentive for offenders to complete their sentences. “I am very concerned about seeking to name and shame people undertaking unpaid work. I think it could act as a disincentive to rehabilitation and some may refuse to turn up,” he said. “If offenders are turning up to do the work, I do not see a reason why they should also have their images published, particularly when the evidence shows that reintegration back into communities and employment are key to preventing reoffending.”

Ian Lawrence, general secretary of the probation officers’ union Napo, highlighted the potential impact on offenders’ families. “This proposed policy serves no value to the rehabilitation of offenders but could have potentially devastating effects on innocent family members, namely children,” he said. “It seems to only serve as a form of humiliation, not just for the offender but those around them. It also could potentially place people on unpaid work at risk, especially if it involves those that commit sexual offending.”

The government plans to expand the use of “community payback” orders as an alternative to custodial sentences, allowing offenders to serve between 40 and 300 hours performing unpaid work in their local communities. Offenders typically wear high-visibility jackets branded with the words “community payback,” a practice that has already been criticised in a Ministry of Justice report for contributing to feelings of stigma and shame. Nearly five million hours of unpaid work were carried out in the year to April 2024, demonstrating the scale of the programme.

According to a Ministry of Justice policy paper, probation officers will assess whether an offender’s circumstances warrant an exemption from publication. The paper states: “During their initial appointment, practitioners will assess whether an individual’s circumstances pose a risk to themselves or others that justifies an exemption.” Officials have also indicated that further exemptions will be defined in legislation at a later stage.

Social justice organisations have warned that public shaming could have the opposite effect of the government’s stated aim of rehabilitation. Campbell Robb, chief executive of Nacro, a charity working with offenders, said: “Naming and shaming those on community payback doesn’t deliver justice. Instead, it risks pushing people further to the margins, making it harder for them to find work, rebuild their lives and move away from crime. Stable housing, access to recovery, employment opportunities, and wellbeing services are proven to reduce reoffending. If we want to break the cycle, we must invest in people’s potential – not just punish their past.”

The sentencing bill is being framed as part of a wider strategy to divert offenders away from overcrowded prisons, providing them with the opportunity to atone for their crimes while contributing to their communities. Officials argue that making the process public increases transparency and reinforces the principle of accountability. They believe that visual confirmation of community payback can foster public trust in the criminal justice system.

Despite government assurances, the debate highlights a tension between punishment, rehabilitation, and public perception. Critics argue that publicly naming offenders risks undermining the rehabilitative purpose of unpaid work and could exacerbate social stigma, making reintegration more difficult. Meanwhile, proponents insist that visibility strengthens public confidence and emphasizes that justice is being actively served within local communities.

As Parliament considers the bill, questions remain over how exemptions will be applied, the scope of published information, and safeguards to protect vulnerable offenders and their families. With community payback playing an increasingly central role in the criminal justice system, the outcome of this legislative push will have implications for how offenders are publicly held accountable and reintegrated into society.