Clause 35 of the Sentencing Bill: A dangerous step backwards for women and children

Clause 35 of the Government’s new Sentencing Bill has been framed as a move towards transparency, allowing probation services to publish names and photographs of people carrying out unpaid work as part of community sentences. Ministers argue this will reassure the public that justice is being done. In reality, it risks devastating consequences for women and their children.

Community sentences are not a soft option; they combine punishment with rehabilitation. Unpaid work serves as a clear punitive measure. Similarly, curfews and electronic tags restrict liberty, reinforcing accountability. At the same time, these measures provide opportunities for people to develop skills and reintegrate into society, which custodial sentences often fail to achieve. This balance is crucial: community sentences work best when they allow people to rebuild their lives quietly and safely. Public exposure through ‘naming and shaming’ risks sabotaging that process, pushing women further to the margins and increasing the likelihood of reoffending. It is performative justice—prioritising optics over outcomes.

For many women, unpaid work requirements are imposed for low-level, non-violent offences, often linked to poverty, coercion, or abuse. These sentences are intended to be rehabilitative, enabling women to remain in their communities and care for their children. Publishing their names and photos undermines that purpose entirely. It compounds stigma, making it harder for women to access employment, housing, and support services. Worse still, it punishes their families, who already live under the shadow of a parent’s conviction.

Children are the hidden victims here. Research shows that parental involvement in the criminal justice system can lead to bullying, social isolation, and long-term mental health impacts. Clause 35 will amplify these harms. Imagine a child seeing their mother’s photo shared online or in local media, branded as a criminal. The shame and fear this creates can fracture family relationships and erode trust in the institutions meant to protect them. Organisations like Birth Companions, which work with pregnant women and mothers in the justice system, warn that this measure flies in the face of the Government’s own commitments to safeguard vulnerable children and uphold the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

For clarity, the media can already publish names and sentences from open court proceedings under the principle of open justice, which raises serious questions about the necessity of Clause 35 in the first place.. The desire for headlines are once again leading us away from the evidence of what works.

The Sentencing Bill contains many positives, including greater flexibility in sentencing, which hold huge potential for more appropriate responses to pregnant women and parents of dependent children. But Clause 35 undermines these gains. Justice is not served by heaping harm on top of harm. If the Government is serious about reducing crime and protecting families, it must scrap this harmful provision.

Transparency matters, but so does the hope for a better future. Clause 35 delivers neither.

The Birth Companions Institute is dedicated to achieving better care, equity and justice for pregnant women, mothers and their babies.