This guidance post sets out the evidentiary framework governing how polygraph-derived information can — and cannot — be used in licence recall decisions in England and Wales. It draws on the statutory text of the Offender Management Act 2007, the HMPPS Polygraph Examinations Policy Framework (re-issued 8 January 2026), the Ministry of Justice Domestic Abuse Bill factsheet, and the MoJ-commissioned evaluation of the mandatory polygraph pilot (Gannon et al., 2012). Full references appear in the Sources list.

Key points

  • A polygraph result — including a “significant response” or “Deception Indicated” outcome — cannot be used as the basis of recall to custody.[1]
  • Disclosures made during any part of the polygraph session that suggest the individual can no longer be safely managed in the community can be used as the basis for recall.[2]
  • Section 30 of the Offender Management Act 2007 creates a statutory bar on the use of any statement or physiological reaction from a polygraph session in criminal proceedings against the released person.[3]
  • Information from the session may nonetheless be shared with the police or other agencies under lawful gateways; those agencies may then conduct independent investigations which may lead to further charges or recall.[4]
  • Following a clinically significant disclosure (CSD), offender managers may take one of at least five recorded actions, of which recall is only one.[5]

The Statutory Text: OMA 2007, Section 30

The primary statutory provision governing the admissibility of polygraph-derived evidence in criminal proceedings is section 30 of the Offender Management Act 2007. The provision reads:

30 — Use in criminal proceedings

(1) Evidence of any matter mentioned in subsection (2) may not be used in any proceedings against a released person for an offence.

(2) The matters so excluded are—
(a) any statement made by the released person while participating in a polygraph session; and
(b) any physiological reactions of the released person while being questioned in the course of a polygraph examination.

(3) “polygraph examination” and “polygraph session” carry the same definitions as in section 29.[6]

The scope of this exclusion is broad. As the HMPPS Policy Framework confirms, it extends to information obtained during the pre-test interview, the post-test interview, and the examination itself.[7] Examiners should note, however, that section 30 is a bar on use in criminal proceedings against the released person; it does not prevent the information from being used for other supervisory or risk-management purposes.

The HMPPS Policy Position on Recall

The HMPPS Polygraph Examinations Policy Framework (re-issued 8 January 2026) sets out the operational policy on recall in the following terms:

“The policy position is that the result of a polygraph examination cannot be used as the basis of recall. However, information gathered from any part of the polygraph session may be passed onto the police or other relevant agencies, where a legal gateway permits. The police may use the information to conduct further investigations which may result in further charges and/or recall. Additionally, any disclosures made by the person on probation during the polygraph process, that suggest the individual can no longer be safely managed in the community can be used as the basis for recall.”[8]

Key distinction. The Policy Framework draws a clear line between the polygraph result (a classification of “Deception Indicated”, “No Deception Indicated”, or “Inconclusive”) and disclosures — verbal statements made by the person during any phase of the session. The result alone cannot trigger recall; disclosures can, where they meet the “safely managed in the community” threshold.

The MoJ Domestic Abuse Factsheet

The extension of mandatory polygraph testing to persons released on licence for relevant domestic abuse offences under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 operates on the same evidentiary principles. The Ministry of Justice Domestic Abuse Bill factsheet states:

“Information from the polygraph cannot be used in criminal courts as evidence against the individual who is subject to testing. People on supervision subject to a polygraph testing licence condition cannot be recalled to custody solely on the basis of returning a significant response.”[9]

This confirms that the recall restrictions applicable under the OMA 2007 sexual-offences framework also apply to the domestic-abuse cohort.

Three Legal and Procedural Tracks Compared

The following table summarises the three distinct tracks that govern how different categories of polygraph-derived information are treated.

Track Type of information Can it ground recall? Can it be used in criminal proceedings? Key source
1. Polygraph result (e.g. “significant response” / DI outcome) The classification produced by scoring the physiological data No — cannot be used as the basis of recall[10] No — physiological reactions are excluded under OMA 2007 s.30(2)(b)[11] HMPPS PF (2026); OMA 2007 s.30
2. Disclosures (verbal statements during any phase of the session) New information volunteered by the person during pre-test, in-test, or post-test interview Yes — if the disclosure suggests the individual can no longer be safely managed in the community[12] No — statements made during a polygraph session are excluded under OMA 2007 s.30(2)(a)[13] HMPPS PF (2026); OMA 2007 s.30
3. Information shared with police / other agencies Session information passed via lawful gateway (e.g. MAPPA, OMA 2007 s.14) Indirectly — further investigation by the receiving agency may itself result in recall[14] Not the polygraph-session material itself (s.30 applies), but independently obtained evidence from the subsequent investigation may be admissible HMPPS PF (2026); OMA 2007 ss.14, 30

Actions Following a Clinically Significant Disclosure

A clinically significant disclosure (CSD) is defined as new information disclosed by the individual that leads to a change in how they are managed, supervised, or risk-assessed, or to a change in the treatment intervention they receive.[15]

The MoJ-commissioned evaluation of the mandatory polygraph pilot (Gannon et al., 2012) found that, following a CSD, offender managers in the polygraph group were more likely than those in the comparison group to take action. The five categories of action recorded were:

  1. Increasing supervision or controls, including recall;
  2. Informing a third party;
  3. Changing supervision focus;
  4. Informing a MAPP meeting or processes;
  5. Issuing a warning to the offender.[16]

Caveat. Recall is only one of several possible responses to a CSD. The decision to recall lies with the offender manager and the responsible authority, not with the polygraph examiner. The examiner’s role is to record the disclosure accurately and communicate it to the supervising offender manager.

Information-Sharing Gateways and MAPPA Referrals

The HMPPS Policy Framework directs that information from the polygraph examination should be shared with partners under MAPPA or other appropriate information-sharing arrangements, for example section 14 of the Offender Management Act 2007.[17]

This creates a pathway by which polygraph-derived information, whilst inadmissible in criminal proceedings under section 30, can still contribute to the broader risk-management picture. The receiving agency — typically the police — may then undertake independent inquiries. Any evidence generated through those independent inquiries is not caught by the section 30 bar, because it is not itself a statement or physiological reaction from the polygraph session.[18]

Practical Implications for Examiners

The framework described above has several direct implications for polygraph examiners conducting mandatory examinations under the HMPPS programme. Examiners should ensure that their session conduct, record-keeping, and report wording are consistent with the Standards of Practice and the following operational requirements.

Session conduct

  • Be aware that the entirety of the session — pre-test, in-test, and post-test — falls within the scope of the section 30 exclusion.[19]
  • When a disclosure arises during any phase, record it contemporaneously with sufficient detail to enable the offender manager to assess whether the disclosure meets the “safely managed in the community” threshold.

Record-keeping

  • Distinguish clearly in examination records between (a) the test result (the scored physiological outcome) and (b) verbal disclosures made by the person.
  • This distinction is operationally critical: the two categories attract different legal and procedural consequences, as the comparison table above illustrates.

Report wording

  • Examination reports communicated to offender managers should not recommend recall. The recall decision is the responsibility of the supervising authority.
  • Reports should present disclosures factually and without editorialising, enabling the offender manager to exercise their professional judgement on the appropriate supervisory response.
  • Where a result is “Deception Indicated” or yields a significant response, the report should note the result but should not frame it as a basis for recall.

Glossary

OMA
Offender Management Act 2007. The primary legislation enabling mandatory polygraph testing of certain released persons in England and Wales. Sections 28–30 concern polygraph conditions, sessions, and the exclusion of polygraph evidence from criminal proceedings.
CSD (Clinically Significant Disclosure)
New information disclosed by the person during a polygraph session that leads to a change in their management, supervision, risk assessment, or treatment intervention.[20]
MAPP (Multi-Agency Public Protection)
The arrangements and processes through which the police, the probation service, and the prison service work together — and with other agencies — to manage the risks posed by violent and sexual offenders living in the community.
MAPPA (Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements)
The statutory framework established under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (ss.325–327) through which responsible authorities and duty-to-cooperate agencies jointly manage high-risk offenders in the community.
HMPPS
His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. The executive agency of the Ministry of Justice responsible for correctional services in England and Wales, including the administration of the mandatory polygraph programme.
APA
American Polygraph Association. A professional membership organisation for polygraph examiners. APA certification applies to individual examiners; the APA is not a UK body.
DA Act / Domestic Abuse Act 2021
United Kingdom legislation that, among other provisions, extended mandatory polygraph testing under licence conditions to persons convicted of relevant domestic-abuse-connected offences (s.76).
Significant response
A term used in polygraph testing to describe a physiological response to a relevant question that meets or exceeds a defined scoring threshold, often associated with a “Deception Indicated” classification. Under HMPPS policy, a significant response alone cannot be the basis of recall.[21]
PCSOT (Post-Conviction Sex Offender Testing)
A specialised application of polygraph testing used in the ongoing supervision and treatment of persons convicted of sexual offences, conducted after conviction rather than as part of a criminal investigation.
Licence condition
A requirement imposed on a person released from custody on licence, breach of which may lead to recall. The polygraph condition requires the released person to attend and participate in polygraph sessions at specified intervals.

Sources

  1. Offender Management Act 2007, section 30. legislation.gov.uk. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/21/section/30.
  2. HM Prison and Probation Service. Polygraph Examinations — Instructions for Imposing Licence Conditions for Polygraph on People Convicted of Sexual Offences (PCoSOs), Terrorist and Terrorist Connected Offences: Policy Framework. Re-issue date 8 January 2026. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/695e66418ab0677c14afdfd0/polygraph-examinations-pf.pdf.
  3. Home Office / Ministry of Justice. Domestic Abuse Bill 2020 Factsheets: Mandatory polygraph tests factsheet. GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-abuse-bill-2020-factsheets/mandatory-polygraph-tests-factsheet.
  4. Gannon TA, Wood JL, Pina A, Vasquez E, Fraser I. The Evaluation of the Mandatory Polygraph Pilot. MoJ Research Series 14/12. 2012. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-evaluation-of-the-mandatory-polygraph-pilot.

This post is operational guidance published by the British Polygraph Society for the information of polygraph examiners, offender managers, and the informed public. It does not constitute legal advice. The statutory polygraph regime in England and Wales is administered by HMPPS under the Offender Management Act 2007 and the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; the BPS has no role in the administration of that regime. Readers requiring advice on specific cases should consult a suitably qualified legal practitioner.

Tags daa-2021 hmpps legislation oma-2007 pcsot standards-of-practice
← All News