Twenty years ago today, I walked out of prison. Tomorrow marks 20 years since I started SOS.
I have been thinking about those two dates while watching the latest debate about early release. Yesterday, people began leaving prisons in England and Wales under the new release arrangements. Today, I am marking a point in my own life that could never have told the whole story of what would follow.
A release date tells us when somebody leaves custody. It cannot tell us where they will sleep, whether they can support themselves lawfully, or whether help will be there when they struggle. Those questions deserve a much larger place in the conversation.
My experience gives me reason to believe in change. It also makes me wary of any account that reduces it to a single decision, a powerful speech or an instruction to make better choices.
The concerns deserve a serious responseFor a victim, an earlier release date can mean renewed fear. For a family, it can change the safety arrangements they thought they could rely on. Nobody should have to watch a political argument unfold while wondering whether the person who harmed them can reach them.
The Victims’ Commissioner’s statement on 1 October challenges whether the safeguards promised by ministers can be delivered consistently. It raises concerns about capacity, coordination and the resources available to probation. Those are practical questions about protection, not objections to be waved away.
Read the Victims’ Commissioner’s statement
There are also serious questions about the conditions inside prisons. BBC reporting, syndicated on 24 September, described leaked guidance warning governors about using inadequate cells as overcrowding worsened. That reporting concerns prison capacity and cell safety. It should not be confused with the separate rules determining who qualifies for release.
Read the BBC report on prison capacity, syndicated by Yahoo
The public should be able to expect honest explanations of both: the pressures inside custody and the arrangements for managing people outside it. Uncertainty makes it harder to trust assurances, particularly for people who already feel the system has let them down.
What changed on 1 OctoberThe House of Commons Library explains that the Sentencing Act 2026 changes the automatic release point for eligible people serving standard determinate sentences in England and Wales. Some move from release at 40 per cent or halfway through the custodial term to one third; others move from two thirds to halfway. Exclusions and sentence type matter. The changes do not apply to everyone in prison.
Read the Commons Library explanation of the release changes
Release is not the end of the sentence. The Ministry of Justice describes a period of intensive community supervision followed by a further period on licence. Conditions, monitoring and the possibility of recall remain part of the arrangements. Which restrictions apply depends on the case.
Read the government’s explanation for victims
That framework matters. So does what happens when somebody tries to live within it. We need to know whether the services required to make it work are available and whether concerns are acted on quickly. A rule on paper does not explain who will deal with a problem on a Friday afternoon.
The first night deserves as much attention as the release dateStart with an ordinary question: where is this person sleeping tonight? An address written on a form needs to be somewhere they can actually go. It needs to be appropriate to the risks involved and compatible with any restrictions intended to protect victims.
Then consider the next morning. Can they reach their probation appointment? Do they understand the conditions placed on them? Can they obtain food and a legitimate income? If they need treatment or medication, has somebody checked that support continues?
ITV’s reporting from the prison gates on 1 October included people expressing concern about housing and how they would cope after release. Those individual accounts cannot tell us how everyone released will fare. They do show why the conversation has to extend beyond the number of places freed.
Read ITV’s reporting from the first day of releases
People remain responsible for their actions. Practical support makes it more possible to meet that responsibility. Asking somebody to comply while leaving obvious obstacles unresolved is a poor foundation for the outcome we say we want.
Probation cannot provide every part of a new lifeProbation has a vital role in supervision and public protection. Prison staff also work under pressures that deserve to be understood. Neither service can supply every home, treatment appointment, job opportunity or trusted relationship that a person may need.
Local authorities, health services, charities and employers have responsibilities and opportunities here. Families may want to help, but we should not assume they can absorb every difficulty. Some need support themselves; some relationships are unsafe and require firm boundaries.
Support needs to lead somewhereGood intentions need clear arrangements. Who has confirmed the accommodation? Who knows what treatment is in place? Who follows up a missed appointment to understand what happened, while responding appropriately to any risk? Who helps resolve a problem before different services begin passing it between them?
These are questions about the quality of the whole response. They also matter for staff. We cannot keep asking committed workers to compensate through personal effort for gaps that require organisational decisions, resources and coordination.
Support should open a realistic route towards stability and contribution. That can include learning, work and the chance to be trusted with responsibility. It also includes honest feedback, boundaries and consequences. Believing in someone’s potential does not require pretending there are no risks.
What I want remembered about my own releaseToday I am proud of the distance between 2 October 2006 and 2 October 2026. But I do not want the anniversary to become a story about succeeding entirely alone. Support and Peer Advisor training through St Giles belong in the account alongside my own decisions and effort.
Starting SOS the day after my release gave the next chapter a direction. The work that followed has involved other people, learning and sustained commitment. A single anniversary cannot hold all of that, any more than a release-day photograph can tell us what another person will become.
My story is not a guarantee of anybody else’s future. It is a reason to take the possibility of change seriously, and to ask what opportunities we make available for it.
That is the question I want us to carry beyond this week’s headlines. Have we made it possible for someone to build a life that does less harm and offers something back? Are victims safer, better informed and properly supported? Are the people responsible for supervision equipped to do their jobs?
There will be difficult cases and setbacks. We should examine them honestly, without turning every failure into proof that nobody can change, or every success into proof that support is unnecessary.
Twenty years ago, I walked out of prison. What happened next has filled my life. I want us to take what happens next just as seriously for the people leaving now.
Dr Junior Smart OBE, FCGI is the founder of SOS and director of Smart Training &
Consultancy. This article is a personal reflection.
Explore SmartTC training and reflective practice
I have been thinking about those two dates while watching the latest debate about early release. Yesterday, people began leaving prisons in England and Wales under the new release arrangements. Today, I am marking a point in my own life that could never have told the whole story of what would follow.
A release date tells us when somebody leaves custody. It cannot tell us where they will sleep, whether they can support themselves lawfully, or whether help will be there when they struggle. Those questions deserve a much larger place in the conversation.
My experience gives me reason to believe in change. It also makes me wary of any account that reduces it to a single decision, a powerful speech or an instruction to make better choices.
The concerns deserve a serious responseFor a victim, an earlier release date can mean renewed fear. For a family, it can change the safety arrangements they thought they could rely on. Nobody should have to watch a political argument unfold while wondering whether the person who harmed them can reach them.
The Victims’ Commissioner’s statement on 1 October challenges whether the safeguards promised by ministers can be delivered consistently. It raises concerns about capacity, coordination and the resources available to probation. Those are practical questions about protection, not objections to be waved away.
Read the Victims’ Commissioner’s statement
There are also serious questions about the conditions inside prisons. BBC reporting, syndicated on 24 September, described leaked guidance warning governors about using inadequate cells as overcrowding worsened. That reporting concerns prison capacity and cell safety. It should not be confused with the separate rules determining who qualifies for release.
Read the BBC report on prison capacity, syndicated by Yahoo
The public should be able to expect honest explanations of both: the pressures inside custody and the arrangements for managing people outside it. Uncertainty makes it harder to trust assurances, particularly for people who already feel the system has let them down.
What changed on 1 OctoberThe House of Commons Library explains that the Sentencing Act 2026 changes the automatic release point for eligible people serving standard determinate sentences in England and Wales. Some move from release at 40 per cent or halfway through the custodial term to one third; others move from two thirds to halfway. Exclusions and sentence type matter. The changes do not apply to everyone in prison.
Read the Commons Library explanation of the release changes
Release is not the end of the sentence. The Ministry of Justice describes a period of intensive community supervision followed by a further period on licence. Conditions, monitoring and the possibility of recall remain part of the arrangements. Which restrictions apply depends on the case.
Read the government’s explanation for victims
That framework matters. So does what happens when somebody tries to live within it. We need to know whether the services required to make it work are available and whether concerns are acted on quickly. A rule on paper does not explain who will deal with a problem on a Friday afternoon.
The first night deserves as much attention as the release dateStart with an ordinary question: where is this person sleeping tonight? An address written on a form needs to be somewhere they can actually go. It needs to be appropriate to the risks involved and compatible with any restrictions intended to protect victims.
Then consider the next morning. Can they reach their probation appointment? Do they understand the conditions placed on them? Can they obtain food and a legitimate income? If they need treatment or medication, has somebody checked that support continues?
ITV’s reporting from the prison gates on 1 October included people expressing concern about housing and how they would cope after release. Those individual accounts cannot tell us how everyone released will fare. They do show why the conversation has to extend beyond the number of places freed.
Read ITV’s reporting from the first day of releases
People remain responsible for their actions. Practical support makes it more possible to meet that responsibility. Asking somebody to comply while leaving obvious obstacles unresolved is a poor foundation for the outcome we say we want.
Probation cannot provide every part of a new lifeProbation has a vital role in supervision and public protection. Prison staff also work under pressures that deserve to be understood. Neither service can supply every home, treatment appointment, job opportunity or trusted relationship that a person may need.
Local authorities, health services, charities and employers have responsibilities and opportunities here. Families may want to help, but we should not assume they can absorb every difficulty. Some need support themselves; some relationships are unsafe and require firm boundaries.
Support needs to lead somewhereGood intentions need clear arrangements. Who has confirmed the accommodation? Who knows what treatment is in place? Who follows up a missed appointment to understand what happened, while responding appropriately to any risk? Who helps resolve a problem before different services begin passing it between them?
These are questions about the quality of the whole response. They also matter for staff. We cannot keep asking committed workers to compensate through personal effort for gaps that require organisational decisions, resources and coordination.
Support should open a realistic route towards stability and contribution. That can include learning, work and the chance to be trusted with responsibility. It also includes honest feedback, boundaries and consequences. Believing in someone’s potential does not require pretending there are no risks.
What I want remembered about my own releaseToday I am proud of the distance between 2 October 2006 and 2 October 2026. But I do not want the anniversary to become a story about succeeding entirely alone. Support and Peer Advisor training through St Giles belong in the account alongside my own decisions and effort.
Starting SOS the day after my release gave the next chapter a direction. The work that followed has involved other people, learning and sustained commitment. A single anniversary cannot hold all of that, any more than a release-day photograph can tell us what another person will become.
My story is not a guarantee of anybody else’s future. It is a reason to take the possibility of change seriously, and to ask what opportunities we make available for it.
That is the question I want us to carry beyond this week’s headlines. Have we made it possible for someone to build a life that does less harm and offers something back? Are victims safer, better informed and properly supported? Are the people responsible for supervision equipped to do their jobs?
There will be difficult cases and setbacks. We should examine them honestly, without turning every failure into proof that nobody can change, or every success into proof that support is unnecessary.
Twenty years ago, I walked out of prison. What happened next has filled my life. I want us to take what happens next just as seriously for the people leaving now.
Dr Junior Smart OBE, FCGI is the founder of SOS and director of Smart Training &
Consultancy. This article is a personal reflection.
Explore SmartTC training and reflective practice
RSS Feed