You sat through the trial. You heard the verdict. And then the sentence landed and it felt wrong — too short, too soft, nowhere near what the harm deserved. Most people assume nothing can be done about that. In a narrow but real set of cases, something can — and since 29 June 2026, victims have significantly more time to do it.
This is a guide to the Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) scheme: what it is, who can use it, and exactly what changed when the Victims and Courts Act 2026 came into force.
What the ULS Scheme Actually Is
Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 gives the Attorney General a power to refer a Crown Court sentence to the Court of Appeal if it appears to be unduly lenient — not just a bit soft, but outside the range a judge could reasonably have imposed. The scheme only applies to certain serious offences: those triable only on indictment, plus a specified list of either-way offences (including some sexual and violent offences) added by ministerial order over the years.
Anyone can write to the Attorney General’s Office and ask for a sentence to be reviewed under this scheme — a victim, a bereaved family member, or any member of the public. The Attorney General (or Solicitor General) then decides whether the case meets the threshold and, if so, applies to the Court of Appeal for permission to refer it. The Court of Appeal can then increase the sentence, leave it unchanged, or occasionally decide the original sentence was, if anything, too severe.
The catch has always been the clock. Under Schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice Act 1988, notice of an application for leave to refer had to be given within 28 days of the sentence being passed — full stop. Miss it, and the door closed, regardless of how obviously lenient the sentence was or how recently the victim had even learned the scheme existed.
What Changed on 29 June 2026
Section 13 of the Victims and Courts Act 2026 amends that 28-day rule — but it does so in two distinct steps, and the difference between them matters.
The first is a modest top-up. If the Attorney General receives a request to review a sentence in the last 14 days of the original 28-day window, the deadline for giving formal notice of the application is extended to 14 days from the date that request was received. This exists to stop the Attorney General’s Office being forced to rush a decision simply because someone got in touch close to the deadline — it protects the process, not really the individual.
The second is the significant one. The Court of Appeal now has an express power to allow notice to be given after the 28-day period (and any 14-day top-up) has already expired, provided three things are all true:
- the request to review the sentence came from a person who is a victim as defined in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 — broadly, someone directly harmed by the offence, or a close relative where the victim has died;
- notice of the application is given within six months of the sentence being passed (or, if the request reaches the Attorney General in the last 14 days of that six-month window, within 14 days of that request being received); and
- the Court of Appeal is satisfied it is in the interests of justice to allow the late notice.
That third condition is doing real work. This is not an automatic six-month deadline for everyone. It is a discretionary safety net, available only to victims (not the wider public), and only where the Court of Appeal agrees it is fair to allow it. In practice, factors likely to matter include how much of the delay was caused by the victim not being told about the scheme in the first place — which brings in the second change.
The Duty to Actually Tell People
Section 14 of the Act amends the Victims’ Code so that it must now include provision for informing victims — specifically those falling within the statutory definition — that they have the opportunity to ask the Attorney General to refer a case under the ULS scheme. This targets the problem that has quietly undermined the scheme for years: a strict 28-day deadline is close to meaningless if nobody tells you it exists until it has already passed. The extended six-month route and the new information duty are designed to work together.
One important limit: both the six-month safety net and the new duty to notify only apply to sentences passed on or after 29 June 2026, the date these provisions came into force. If the sentence in question was passed before that date, the old 28-day rule applies in full, with only the narrow 14-day top-up potentially available.
Worked Examples
Can still apply: A sentence is passed on 10 July 2026 for a serious assault. The victim was never told about the ULS scheme by the prosecuting authority. She learns about it from a support charity three months later, on 12 October 2026 — well outside the original 28 days but within six months of sentencing. She is a victim within the statutory definition, and the delay was caused by not being informed. This is exactly the situation the new discretionary power exists for; the Court of Appeal would need to be satisfied it is in the interests of justice, but the case for allowing late notice is strong.
Cannot apply: A neighbour who attended the trial out of general interest, but who is not a victim of the offence, wants a sentence reviewed five months after it was passed. Because the six-month safety net is only available to victims as statutorily defined, this person could still ask the Attorney General to consider the case within the original 28 days, but cannot rely on the extended window if that deadline has passed.
Cannot apply: A sentence was passed on 15 June 2026, two weeks before the reforms came into force. The victim wants to rely on the six-month window after missing the 28-day deadline. Because the sentence pre-dates 29 June 2026, the new safety net does not apply to this case at all — only the old rules govern it.
How to Actually Do It
A request to review a sentence under the ULS scheme is made in writing to the Attorney General’s Office, setting out the case name, court, date of sentence, and the reasons the sentence is considered unduly lenient. There is no prescribed form and no fee. The request does not need to be drafted by a lawyer, though it helps to be specific about which aggravating features the sentencing judge may have underweighted, or which sentencing guideline range was departed from and why that departure looks wrong.
If you are inside the original 28 days, get the request in as early as possible — the process from request to any Court of Appeal hearing takes time regardless. If you are a victim and you are now outside 28 days but within six months, say so explicitly in your letter, explain when and how you found out about the scheme, and ask the Attorney General to support an application to the Court of Appeal for permission to give late notice under the new provision.
The Bigger Picture
None of this changes the underlying test: the sentence still has to be unduly lenient, not merely one the victim personally disagrees with, and the vast majority of requests are not referred. What has changed is that a rigid, largely unforgiving 28-day cliff-edge has been softened for the people the scheme exists to help, and paired with an actual obligation on the system to tell them the door is there before it closes. For anyone navigating a criminal case without a lawyer, that combination — a longer runway plus a duty to be told about it — is the difference between a right that exists on paper and one that can actually be used.
