Recommendation 16

We asked HMPPS what information it shared with the judiciary to inform their sentencing choices. It explained that it had an extensive programme of engagement in place to ensure judges and magistrates were aware of available services. However, it told us that there were significant variations in the use of electronic monitoring between different courts, with differences in the use of types of tags imposed. Some courts made extensive use of radio frequency tags but do not use GPS and in others, it was the other way round. HMPPS made clear that it saw it as part of its job to ensure that sentencers, judges and magistrates have the information about what is available in their jurisdiction to make informed choices.29 23 Committee of Public Accounts, The electronic monitoring of adult offenders, Sixty-second Report of Session 2005–06, HC 997, 12 October 2006 24 HM Treasury, Treasury Minutes on the Fifty-eighth, Fifty-ninth, Sixty-first and the Sixty-second Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts 2005–2006, December 2006 25 C&AG’s report, paras 9 and 2.9, Figure 10 26 Q 71 27 Qq 58–59 28 Qq 59–60, 89 29 Q 62 Transforming electronic monitoring services 13