Electronic Monitoring And Offender Tagging
1. Concept of Electronic Monitoring and Offender Tagging
Definition
Electronic Monitoring (EM), often referred to as “offender tagging”, is a system used by criminal justice authorities to track and monitor the movements or activities of offenders using electronic devices, typically an ankle or wrist bracelet.
It is a non-custodial measure—that is, an alternative to imprisonment—and may be applied:
As a condition of bail,
As part of a community sentence,
During parole or early release, or
As part of post-release supervision.
Purposes of Electronic Monitoring
Reducing prison overcrowding by allowing certain offenders to remain in the community.
Ensuring compliance with curfews, geographic restrictions, or rehabilitation programs.
Promoting reintegration and reducing reoffending rates.
Public protection, by monitoring high-risk offenders’ locations.
Legal Basis (UK Context)
Electronic monitoring is governed under:
Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000,
Criminal Justice Act 2003,
Offender Management Act 2007,
And related Home Office/Ministry of Justice regulations.
Courts or probation services may impose EM as a condition of:
Bail (Bail Act 1976),
Community Orders, or
Home Detention Curfew during release from custody.
2. Case Law Discussion (Five Detailed Cases)
Case 1: R (on the application of C) v Secretary of State for Justice [2008] EWCA Civ 882
Facts:
The claimant was released from prison on Home Detention Curfew (HDC) with an electronic tag. Later, his curfew was revoked due to alleged breaches. He challenged the decision on the basis that the revocation procedure violated his right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Issue:
Was the recall from electronic monitoring (HDC) lawful, and did it respect due process?
Held:
The Court of Appeal held that the Secretary of State must act fairly and reasonably when revoking curfew releases. However, because HDC release is an executive discretion, it is not the same as a legal right, so full Article 6 protections do not apply.
Principle:
While offenders have no absolute right to remain on HDC, administrative fairness must guide recall or revocation decisions. EM is therefore a privilege with procedural safeguards.
Case 2: R (on the application of Carmichael) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWHC 2849 (Admin)
Facts:
The claimant was subject to a curfew with electronic monitoring under an Immigration Act order. He claimed the curfew amounted to unlawful detention under Article 5 of the ECHR.
Issue:
Does a curfew enforced through electronic tagging constitute “deprivation of liberty”?
Held:
The High Court held that a 12-hour curfew, while restrictive, did not reach the level of total deprivation of liberty. It was instead a restriction compatible with Article 5.
Principle:
The court distinguished between restriction on movement (permissible) and deprivation of liberty (impermissible without lawful detention authority).
Electronic monitoring can be lawful provided the restrictions are proportionate and clearly justified.
Case 3: R (on the application of Secretary of State for the Home Department) v JJ and others [2007] UKHL 45
Facts:
The appellants were terrorist suspects placed under control orders involving 18-hour curfews, electronic tagging, and strict movement limits. They claimed the orders amounted to deprivation of liberty under Article 5 ECHR.
Issue:
At what point does an electronically monitored curfew become unlawful deprivation of liberty?
Held:
The House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) held that such severe restrictions, combined with tagging and lack of social contact, amounted to deprivation of liberty under Article 5.
Principle:
Electronic monitoring is lawful only if proportionate and not so extensive as to replicate imprisonment.
Control orders with excessive restrictions breach human rights.
Case 4: G4S Care and Justice Services Ltd v Department of Justice (Northern Ireland) [2011] NIQB 80
Facts:
A private contractor (G4S) provided electronic monitoring services under a government contract. Disputes arose regarding compliance, breaches, and the reliability of monitoring data.
Issue:
Were the contractual and procedural standards for EM administration adequate?
Held:
The court held that the state retains ultimate responsibility for ensuring EM systems function fairly, even when outsourced. The accuracy, integrity, and reliability of data are essential for justice.
Principle:
Electronic monitoring, if poorly managed, can lead to wrongful breach findings or unjust recalls.
Accountability remains with the state, not private contractors.
Case 5: United States v. Knights (2001) 534 U.S. 112 (U.S. Supreme Court)
Facts:
Knights was on probation with a condition requiring him to submit to searches. He was electronically monitored, and evidence of a new crime was found during a search without a warrant.
Issue:
Was the search, conducted without a warrant but under EM supervision, a violation of the Fourth Amendment?
Held:
The U.S. Supreme Court held the search reasonable. The reduced expectation of privacy for individuals under electronic monitoring justified the state’s action.
Principle:
Electronic monitoring involves a trade-off between liberty and supervision. While privacy rights remain, reasonable intrusions linked to monitoring are constitutionally valid.
3. Key Legal and Ethical Issues
Proportionality – The level of restriction must match the risk or offence.
Privacy & Data Protection – GPS and surveillance data must comply with privacy laws (e.g., UK GDPR).
Accountability – The state remains responsible even if EM is outsourced.
Human Rights – EM must not breach Articles 5 (Liberty), 6 (Fair Trial), or 8 (Privacy) of the ECHR.
Rehabilitation vs Punishment – EM should support reintegration, not extend punitive control.
4. Conclusion
Electronic Monitoring and Offender Tagging have become integral tools in modern criminal justice, balancing public safety with individual liberty. Courts have consistently upheld EM’s lawfulness, provided:
It is proportionate,
Procedurally fair, and
Respectful of human rights.
When misapplied—such as overly restrictive control orders or faulty systems—courts have intervened to protect constitutional and human rights principles.
RELATED Blog
comments