His comments, made on LBC Radio, come amid concerns over the release of violent and sexual offenders convicted of violence against women and girls, including stalking and domestic abuse.

A recent report by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation found that almost half of electronic tags used to monitor offenders in England and Wales were not fitted on time, with the watchdog warning delays could leave victims exposed to a risk of harm.

Sir Mark said the Metropolitan Police was receiving more than 100 tag-breach cases a day from probation services.

He said more than 95 per cent of the tagging breaches resulting in an arrest were followed by the suspect being released back into the community on the same conditions, which he argued provided little deterrent.

The Commissioner said the situation was contributing to growing pressure on officers, particularly as more offenders were being managed in the community, rather than held in custody.

He also said the number of people failing to appear at court had risen, with the Met receiving almost 1,600 arrest warrants a month, compared with about 800 at the beginning of the year.

Sir Mark said the force had arrested around two to three offenders released under Labour’s early-release scheme each week since the beginning of August, adding police were increasingly focused on identifying those considered the most dangerous and prolific.

He said he was particularly concerned about repeat domestic abusers and stalkers, describing some as potentially “very difficult” and dangerous offenders.

One woman, who said her stalker is due to be released in January, told the Commissioner she was angry and did not feel safe, questioning whether enough had been done to reduce the risk posed by his release.

Sir Mark said he shared concerns about the impact of the early-release policy on communities, while acknowledging decisions over sentencing and imprisonment ultimately rested with the Government and courts.

He also pointed to a wider problem created by the mismatch between sentencing policy and prison capacity, saying successive decisions had left the prison estate unable to accommodate the number of people being sentenced.

The commissioner cited the case of Robert Sabat, who pleaded guilty to murdering his former partner, Dickiesha Nurse, 42, in south London in October 2025 after being released from prison.

Sir Mark described the case as a “horrific example” of the potential consequences when dangerous offenders are returned to the community.

The Government said it had inherited a prison system “on the brink of collapse”, and argued that failing to reduce the prison population would have placed further pressure on police forces.

A spokesman said public safety would remain the priority, pointing to “increased police funding, additional neighbourhood officers and greater investment in probation”.

The Government also said it was introducing tougher controls for offenders released on licence, including expanded electronic tagging and new restrictions on where some offenders can go.

It said victims would also be given greater input into licence conditions.

Met Police Re-Arrests Three Early-Release Prisoners Each Week as London Sees Over 100 Tag Breaches per Day

London’s criminal justice system is facing renewed scrutiny after figures reportedly showed that the Metropolitan Police re-arrests an average of three prisoners released early from custody every week, while electronic monitoring systems record more than 100 tagging breaches a day across the capital.

The figures have reignited debate over public safety, prison overcrowding and whether early-release arrangements are being supported by effective supervision. They also raise questions about the ability of police, probation services and the prison system to manage people returning to the community while protecting victims and the wider public.

For residents concerned about crime, the numbers may appear to suggest that the system is struggling to maintain control over offenders released before completing their original sentences. For criminal justice specialists, however, the crucial issue is what the figures actually represent: a re-arrest does not automatically mean a person has committed another serious offence, and a tagging breach does not necessarily indicate that someone has committed a new crime.

Understanding those distinctions is essential to evaluating the effectiveness of early release and electronic monitoring.

Why early-release prisoners are being re-arrested

Early release has been used by successive governments as one way to manage pressure on Britain’s overcrowded prisons. When the prison population approaches operational capacity, ministers face difficult choices about how to accommodate new prisoners while maintaining safe and workable conditions inside existing facilities.

One option is to change the point at which certain eligible prisoners can be released, subject to legal requirements and any applicable conditions. Such measures can create additional capacity, but they also place greater demands on probation services and other organisations responsible for supervising people in the community.

The reported average of three re-arrests each week by the Met Police has therefore attracted attention. It raises questions about why these individuals returned to police custody, what conditions they were subject to and whether any further offending occurred after release.

There are several possible reasons for a re-arrest. A person may be suspected of committing a new offence, be wanted in connection with an earlier investigation or be arrested because of an alleged breach of release conditions. The circumstances differ, and the figures should not be interpreted as proof that every individual re-arrested has committed another crime.

Nevertheless, repeated contact with police can place additional demands on an already stretched criminal justice system. Each case requires officers to establish the circumstances, gather relevant evidence and determine whether further action is justified.

The public interest lies in ensuring that release arrangements are accompanied by effective risk assessment, clear conditions and appropriate monitoring.

More than 100 tagging breaches a day

The reported number of electronic-tag breaches across London has also become a focus of concern. More than 100 incidents a day would amount to over 36,500 incidents across a full year if that daily rate continued.

However, the word breach requires careful interpretation. Electronic monitoring systems can generate alerts when a person leaves a restricted area, fails to meet a curfew requirement, tampers with equipment or otherwise appears not to comply with the terms of monitoring. Some alerts may require immediate intervention, while others need to be checked before authorities can establish what happened.

A breach alert is not the same as a confirmed criminal offence. Nor does the number of alerts necessarily represent the same number of individuals: one person may generate more than one alert, and different monitoring arrangements carry different conditions.

Even with those qualifications, a high volume of alerts creates a practical challenge. Authorities need sufficient staff and reliable procedures to assess each incident, identify potentially serious risks and respond quickly when intervention is required.

An electronic tag can provide useful information about a person’s location or compliance with a curfew, but it cannot replace professional supervision. Its effectiveness depends on the quality of the monitoring system, the speed of response and the wider arrangements in place to manage the person being monitored.

If alerts are not assessed promptly, the technology may provide information without delivering the intended public-safety benefit.

The challenge facing the probation service

Probation officers play an important role in helping people released from prison comply with their conditions and reintegrate into society. Their work can include assessing risk, arranging appointments, monitoring behaviour, coordinating support and responding to warning signs.

When large numbers of prisoners are released within a short period, the demands on probation can increase substantially. Officers may need to manage more cases while continuing to supervise people whose circumstances require intensive attention.

The challenge is not simply the number of people being supervised. Different individuals present different levels of risk, and effective supervision requires resources to be directed according to the circumstances of each case.

A person convicted of a relatively minor offence may require a different level of monitoring from someone with a history of serious violence or repeated breaches of court orders. Risk assessments must be based on the available evidence and updated when circumstances change.

If supervision becomes overstretched, important warning signs may be harder to identify and appointments or interventions may be delayed. But additional resources alone will not solve every problem: effective communication between police, probation, prisons and electronic-monitoring providers is equally important.

The reported figures therefore raise a broader question about whether the different parts of the justice system have the capacity and information needed to manage released prisoners effectively.

The government’s case for early release

Governments that introduce early-release measures generally argue that they are necessary to manage prison capacity and prevent overcrowding from undermining the operation of the justice system.

Overcrowded prisons can make it harder to provide education, rehabilitation and purposeful activity. They can also increase pressure on staff, complicate the management of vulnerable prisoners and make it more difficult to prepare people for release.

Early release, where legally available, can help relieve some of those pressures. It may also allow eligible prisoners to return to work, maintain family relationships and access services that support rehabilitation.

But early release is not a substitute for a sustainable prison strategy. If it is used repeatedly to deal with capacity problems without sufficient investment in prison places, rehabilitation and community supervision, the same pressures may return.

The government must therefore explain how its release policy fits into a wider plan for prisons and public protection. That includes setting out which prisoners qualify, what exclusions apply, how risks are assessed and what happens when conditions are allegedly breached.

Public confidence depends on people understanding that release decisions follow clear rules and that credible threats are acted upon.

Public safety and the risk of reoffending

For victims and their families, the central concern is whether an offender’s release creates an unacceptable risk. Their concerns deserve serious consideration, particularly when an offence involved violence, intimidation or repeated harm.

However, decisions about release and supervision must also distinguish between levels of risk. Treating every released prisoner as equally dangerous would ignore the differences between offences, individual circumstances and evidence of rehabilitation.

The purpose of supervision is to manage those differences, enforce legal conditions and intervene where there is evidence of increasing risk. When a breach is reported, authorities need to determine its seriousness and respond accordingly.

A new offence, an alleged breach of a curfew and a technical problem with monitoring equipment are not equivalent events. Reliable statistics should distinguish between them so that the public can understand where the greatest problems lie.

The most useful measures of success would include the number of confirmed breaches, the speed with which serious alerts are investigated, the number of people charged with new offences and rates of reoffending over a clearly defined period.

Those measures would provide a more complete picture than arrest totals or raw alert counts alone.

What London needs from its criminal justice system

The Met Police, probation services and the government each have responsibilities in ensuring that early release does not undermine public safety.

Police need clear procedures for dealing with individuals suspected of further offending or violating release conditions. Probation officers need manageable caseloads and access to relevant information. Electronic-monitoring providers need reliable equipment and systems that allow urgent alerts to be identified quickly.

The authorities should also explain how they prioritise incidents. If a monitoring system generates more than 100 alerts a day, the public needs to know how many involve serious risks, how many are resolved without enforcement action and how quickly the most urgent cases receive attention.

Transparency would help distinguish between a genuinely dangerous pattern and a large volume of alerts that includes technical or administrative issues.

At the same time, the government must address the underlying pressures that have contributed to the use of early release. A long-term strategy should consider prison capacity, sentencing policy, rehabilitation, employment opportunities and support for people leaving custody.

No single intervention will eliminate reoffending. But a system that combines appropriate sentencing with credible supervision and effective rehabilitation is better placed to manage the risks associated with release.

Accountability must follow the evidence

The reported figures have created a difficult political challenge for ministers responsible for prisons and public safety. They raise legitimate questions about whether the current arrangements are working as intended and whether agencies have enough resources to respond effectively.

But the numbers alone do not establish that early release has caused an increase in crime, nor do they prove that every tagging breach represents a dangerous offender evading supervision. Those conclusions would require more detailed evidence about the individuals involved, the nature of the breaches and subsequent outcomes.

The appropriate response is to examine the data carefully, identify any weaknesses and make the findings public. If serious breaches are not being investigated quickly enough, procedures and resources may need to change. If repeat offending is concentrated among particular groups or circumstances, interventions should be designed around that evidence.

Ultimately, public confidence depends on a justice system that can explain its decisions and demonstrate that it takes risks seriously.

Early release may remain one tool for managing prison capacity, but it must be accompanied by effective supervision, reliable monitoring and clear accountability. Londoners are entitled to expect that electronic tags will be used meaningfully, that serious warning signs will not be ignored and that people released into the community will be managed according to the risks they present.

The most important question is not simply how many prisoners are re-arrested or how many tag alerts are recorded. It is whether the system identifies genuine threats, responds proportionately and protects the public while administering justice fairly.