Hundreds of children made to wear GPS tags by UK's Ministry of Justice

Hundreds of children who have committed serious crimes are being given GPS ankle tags each year, allowing the UK’s Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to track their location 24 hours a day, New Scientist can reveal. Children as young as 12 are being monitored as part of the scheme, which began in 2021. Campaigners and researchers say the tags’ use is unnecessary and their effectiveness unproven.

“We know from existing research by medical and human rights organisations that GPS tagging is often experienced as an open-door prison and is highly stigmatising,” says Lucie Audibert at Privacy International, a UK charity. “I would also question the necessity and proportionality of tracking these children’s GPS location every minute of the day.”

GPS ankle tags were first introduced in England and Wales in 2018 to monitor adults convicted of offences such as burglary or knife crime who had been released from prison on probation. The tags can record an individual’s movement 24 hours a day and can be used to ensure that the offender stays away from certain locations, such as a victim’s home, and that they attend court-mandated appointments.

Use of the tags was extended in March 2021 to under-18s who had committed serious violent or sexual crimes. Now, a freedom of information request by New Scientist has revealed that, in 2021, 388 children under the age of 18 were made to wear a GPS tag. The youngest was 13 years old. The figures for 2022 show that 550 children were monitored using a GPS tag, including a 12-year-old.

Northern Ireland doesn’t use GPS tags and Scotland doesn’t use them for child offenders. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson says the tags are used in England and Wales to safeguard children and help steer them away from crime or exploitation by criminals.

“They might also be used to ensure they attend school or stay away from areas with known gang activity or associates,” said the spokesperson. “Their welfare is always our top priority and clear safeguards ensure it is only used when absolutely necessary.”

But Elizabeth Paddock at the University of Nottingham, UK, who has carried out a systematic review of electronic monitoring for offenders, says it is unclear whether the tags achieve these goals. “Very few good-quality studies exist and very few published studies show lower recidivism rates for those on electronic monitoring,” she says.

“It is crucial to assess how and why electronic monitoring deters criminal behaviour in the short-term and whether the method can achieve longer-term offender change,” says Paddock.

“Just like any other intervention used in criminal justice, it can be used effectively for the appropriate purposes and, likewise, can be ineffectively used where it should have not been applied in the first place,” she says.