Labour’s plan to release thousands of killers, thugs and paedophiles early – including two of PC Andrew Harper’s killers – thrown into chaos as nine in ten probation officers vote for industrial action
Labour's plan to release thousands of prisoners early in England and Wales has been thrown into disarray after probation officers voted overwhelmingly for industrial action. The National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO) said nine in ten of its members backed the move, raising the prospect of disruption to a scheme that would see killers, violent offenders and paedophiles freed ahead of schedule, including two of the men convicted over the murder of PC Andrew Harper.
The vote, held on 11 August 2026, was described as only "indicative", meaning a further official ballot must take place before any industrial action can legally proceed. Union sources said they intended to press ahead with a formal poll following the strength of today's result, putting further pressure on the government's early-release strategy, which has already proved highly controversial given the profile of offenders it covers.
- Nine in ten probation officers back industrial action over early release plan
- Vote is only "indicative"; a formal ballot must follow for legal strikes
- Scheme includes early release of killers, thugs and paedophiles, including PC Harper's killers
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of early release schemes argue that England and Wales's prisons are dangerously overcrowded, leaving too little capacity for safe, humane conditions or effective rehabilitation, and that a managed, risk-assessed release programme is a necessary short-term fix rather than a reckless giveaway. They point out that most of those released under such schemes are lower-risk offenders serving determinate sentences, that probation supervision continues afterwards, and that investing in rehabilitation and reducing reoffending ultimately protects the public better than simply warehousing more people in crumbling, understaffed jails. They would also note that probation officers' industrial action reflects a resourcing crisis that predates this particular policy, and is itself an argument for investing in the service rather than abandoning reform.
The case against
Critics argue that any scheme releasing serious violent or sexual offenders before their full sentence is served risks public safety and betrays victims and their families, who were promised a certain term of justice at sentencing. They contend that an overstretched, under-resourced probation service – as evidenced by officers themselves voting overwhelmingly for industrial action – is in no position to safely monitor a sudden influx of releases, making the policy's timing particularly reckless. For them, the priority should be building more prison capacity and properly funding probation before any early release is contemplated, not reducing sentences to manage a capacity problem the government itself has failed to solve.