Community

Opposition grows to public naming of offenders in Community Payback schemes amid child welfare concerns

Thursday, 23 October 2025 4:04AM UTC

Major opposition from justice groups and charities challenges plans to publicly identify offenders in Community Payback initiatives, citing risks to children's well-being and rehabilitation efforts as proposals become part of the upcoming Sentencing Bill.

Plans to publicly "name and shame" individuals participating in Community Payback schemes have sparked significant opposition from justice experts and charities, who warn that such measures could inflict serious and lasting harm on children with parents involved in the criminal justice system. The proposals, slated to be included in the Government’s forthcoming Sentencing Bill, would allow the authorities to identify offenders publicly, ostensibly to increase transparency and community reassurance. However, critics argue this approach risks undermining rehabilitation efforts and exacerbating social stigma around offenders and their families.

A coalition of more than 20 justice organisations and individuals has written to the new Justice Secretary, David Lammy, urging him to reconsider the plans. Their letter emphasises that community payback schemes, when properly managed, serve an important rehabilitative function by enabling offenders to repay their debts to society. They express concern that "naming and shaming" could produce "unintended, yet undeniably harmful consequences" for thousands of children and young people whose parents are subject to unpaid work penalties. Highlighting the vulnerability of these families, the letter cites Government data showing that nearly 200,000 children annually experience parental imprisonment, a recognised adverse childhood experience linked to social and psychological hardship. The signatories caution that public exposure of offenders risks deepening the stigma and shame these children face, potentially leading to bullying and emotional distress.

The letter is supported by notable figures including Andy Keen-Downs, CEO of the Prison Advice and Care Trust, Dr Carol Homden of Coram, and Pia Sinha of the Prison Reform Trust. Their concerns echo warnings from legal experts who have criticised Clause 35 of the Sentencing Bill for potentially adding humiliation that deters offenders from participating in and benefiting from rehabilitation. Martin Jones, HM Inspector of Probation, has also voiced anxiety that such public naming could lead to increased dropout rates from community orders.

The Ministry of Justice, however, maintains that unpaid work orders are a form of public atonement designed to show offenders giving back to communities they have wronged. A spokesperson asserted that the Sentencing Bill includes measures to enhance the visibility of these sentences, aiming to reinforce public confidence that justice is being served.

The debate over public identification of offenders is not new and has seen mixed views historically. For example, in 2005, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities warned against publicly naming youths given antisocial behaviour orders, fearing it would grant them unwanted "street credibility" and undermine rehabilitative goals. Similarly, in 2012 Louise Casey, who had a key role in developing the Community Payback scheme, criticised its implementation after reports revealed offenders engaging inadequately with their duties, dubbing aspects of the system a "holiday camp for offenders," thus raising questions about proper oversight and effectiveness.

Other sectors have also seen attempts at "naming and shaming" as a tactic to enforce behavioural standards, with varying degrees of controversy. Northern Ireland’s Communities Minister announced plans in 2025 to name individuals convicted of benefits fraud as a deterrent, though this raised privacy concerns. HM Revenue & Customs’ use of public shaming for corporate tax avoidance has similarly met criticism over due process and potential reputational harm without full legal adjudication.

These examples highlight the complexity of employing public exposure as a punitive or corrective tool, suggesting that while transparency may serve public interest, it must be balanced carefully against the risks of collateral damage, particularly to families and the prospects for offender rehabilitation.

📌 Reference Map:

Paragraph 1 – ^[1] (Mirror), ^[3] (Russell Cooke)
Paragraph 2 – ^[1] (Mirror)
Paragraph 3 – ^[1] (Mirror)
Paragraph 4 – ^[3] (Russell Cooke), ^[1] (Mirror)
Paragraph 5 – ^[1] (Mirror), ^[4] (Evening Standard)
Paragraph 6 – ^[2] (Community Care), ^[4] (Evening Standard)
Paragraph 7 – ^[6] (Irish News), ^[7] (ContractorUK)

Source: Noah Wire Services

More on this

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/plans-name-shame-people-community-36116571 - Please view link - unable to able to access data
https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2005/10/20/name-and-shame-plan-may-backfire/ - In 2005, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) expressed concerns over plans to publicly identify young individuals subject to antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs). COSLA's social work spokesperson, Eric Jackson, argued that such measures could be counterproductive, potentially granting 'street credibility' to youths under 16 with ASBOs, thereby undermining rehabilitation efforts.
https://www.russell-cooke.co.uk/news-and-insights/news/sentencing-bill-clause-35-why-publicly-naming-offenders-undermines-rehabilitation - Legal experts have criticised Clause 35 of the Sentencing Bill, which proposes publicly naming and shaming offenders assigned unpaid work requirements. They argue that this approach adds unnecessary humiliation to sentences and may deter offenders from engaging in rehabilitation, potentially undermining the effectiveness of community-based sentences.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/community-service-a-holiday-camp-6509133.html - In 2012, Louise Casey, who helped develop the Community Payback scheme, criticised its implementation, describing it as a 'holiday camp for offenders'. This criticism followed undercover footage revealing offenders engaging in minimal work and even illegal activities during community service, highlighting significant flaws in supervision and programme effectiveness.
https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/charities-involved-in-unpaid-work-schemes--named-and-shamed--on-website.html - In 2013, the campaign group Boycott Workfare compiled a list of charities participating in mandatory work activity schemes, urging the public to 'name and shame' these organisations. This initiative aimed to hold charities accountable for their involvement in unpaid work schemes, sparking debate over the ethics and transparency of such programmes.
https://www.irishnews.com/news/northern-ireland/gordon-lyons-to-name-and-shame-those-convicted-of-benefits-fraud-IVRVQKRSD5D6PG3RQKFC2T2B5A/ - In 2025, Northern Ireland's Communities Minister Gordon Lyons announced plans to publicly 'name and shame' individuals convicted of benefits fraud. This approach aimed to deter fraudulent claims and uphold the integrity of the benefits system, though it raised concerns about privacy and the potential impact on families of those convicted.
https://www.contractoruk.com/news/0015621why_hmrcs_name_and_shame_tax_avoidance_power_raises_concerns_around_due_process.html - HMRC's use of 'name and shame' tactics to publicise companies involved in tax avoidance schemes has sparked concerns regarding due process. Critics argue that this approach lacks full legal proceedings, potentially harming reputations without sufficient evidence, and question the effectiveness of such public shaming in deterring tax avoidance.

Noah Fact Check Pro

The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may warrant further investigation.

Freshness check

Score: 8

Notes: The narrative appears to be recent, with no evidence of prior publication. The earliest known publication date is 23 October 2025. The report is based on a press release, which typically warrants a high freshness score. No discrepancies in figures, dates, or quotes were found. No similar content has appeared more than 7 days earlier.

Quotes check

Score: 10

Notes: No direct quotes were identified in the provided text, suggesting original or exclusive content.

Source reliability

Score: 7

Notes: The narrative originates from The Mirror, a reputable UK newspaper. However, the report is based on a press release, which may indicate a lack of independent verification. The Ministry of Justice's stance is presented without additional corroboration from other reputable outlets.

Plausability check

Score: 6

Notes: The proposal to publicly 'name and shame' individuals in Community Payback schemes aligns with previous government actions, such as naming employers who fail to pay the National Minimum Wage ([gov.uk](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/national-minimum-wage-rogues-to-be-publicly-named-and-shamed-under-new-plans?utm_source=openai)). However, the lack of supporting detail from other reputable outlets raises concerns about the narrative's credibility. The tone and language used are consistent with official communications.

Overall assessment

Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN

Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM

Summary: The narrative is recent and appears original, with no significant discrepancies or recycled content. However, the reliance on a press release without independent verification and the lack of corroboration from other reputable outlets raise concerns about the narrative's credibility. Further verification from additional sources is recommended.

Criminal Justice
Rehabilitation
Child Welfare