Skip to main content

Offenders: Electronic Tagging

Question for Ministry of Justice

UIN 244088, tabled on 11 April 2019

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many offenders have been given electronic tagging orders in each month since January 2013.

Answered on

24 April 2019

Electronic Monitoring is an effective criminal justice tool. It gives those on a tag a chance to maintain family ties and remain in work or education while providing additional safeguards.

The table below provides details of the average number of individuals on electronic tagging orders from January 2013 to March 2018. This is Management Information, is not published and has not had the level of scrutiny and quality assurance as for Official Statistics data.

The table below also provides information on how many notifications for new orders were issued every month from April 2014 to March 2018. The table from where the data is drawn can be found in Table 12.4 at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/annual-hm-prison-and-probation-service-digest-2017-to-2018. Data for 2014 is of poor quality and not available. Data from April 2018 to March 2019 will be published in July 2019.

Average number of offenders on electronic tagging orders in England and Wales, in each month January 2013 - March 2018 (1)(2)(3)

Monthly new electronic monitoring order notifications in England and Wales, in each month from April 2014 to March 2018 (1)(4)(5)

Month

Average number of offenders on EM order

Total notifications

July 2013

14,555

August 2013

14,384

September 2013

14,185

October 2013

14,284

November 2013

14,551

December 2013

14,585

January 2014

14,042

February 2014

14,096

March 2014

14,267

April 2014

14,224

5,975

May 2014

13,987

5,753

June 2014

13,879

5,564

July 2014

13,940

5,982

August 2014

13,912

5,635

September 2014

13,843

5,817

October 2014

13,973

6,353

November 2014

14,294

6,135

December 2014

14,446

6,236

January 2015

13,907

6,316

February 2015

13,902

5,872

March 2015

13,925

6,292

April 2015

13,803

5,804

May 2015

13,589

5,797

June 2015

13,516

6,218

July 2015

13,393

6,150

August 2015

13,389

5,310

September 2015

13,119

5,937

October 2015

13,197

5,802

November 2015

13,329

5,814

December 2015

13,415

5,647

January 2016

12,914

5,597

February 2016

12,781

5,585

March 2016

12,684

5,543

April 2016

12,614

5,458

May 2016

12,432

5,239

June 2016

12,223

5,373

July 2016

11,896

5,152

August 2016

11,628

5,237

September 2016

11,168

5,079

October 2016

11,222

5,029

November 2016

11,443

5,545

December 2016

11,743

5,149

January 2017

11,395

5,606

February 2017

11,559

4,982

March 2017

11,363

5,606

April 2017

11,350

4,576

May 2017

11,052

5,204

June 2017

10,843

4,968

July 2017

10,851

4,761

August 2017

10,713

4,803

September 2017

10,620

4,767

October 2017

10,781

4,771

November 2017

10,865

5,012

December 2017

10,961

4,197

January 2018

10,566

5,397

February 2018

10,925

4,718

March 2018

11,064

4,954

(1) These figures are drawn from administrative data systems. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system.

(2) Monitored subjects are unique subjects with a live EM order and with a tag fitted and Home Monitoring Unit (HMU) installed.

(3) Note that from the 12/07/2016 the Manchester caseload definition changed to include subjects with an active EM order. Previously it only included subjects with an active EM service. This means that subjects on a break in their service are included in the Manchester figures. This was done to align the Manchester and Norwich caseload definitions.

(4) One subject may be given multiple orders over the course of the year. In these figures each is counted individually. i.e. one person with four orders counts as four.

(5) Comprises notifications of new electronic monitoring orders received by the EM contractor that started between April 2014 and March 2018. In some cases the monitoring equipment may never have been installed, e.g. if the subject is taken into custody prior to installation. These cases are included in the total.