Beyond the courtroom: The Leveson Review and the unrealised potential of out-of-court disposals
This month we held a forum with members to talk about diversion, coinciding with Lord Brian Leveson publishing his Independent Review into the Criminal Courts. As the review sets out, the Court system is in crisis: in December 2024, there were around 75,000 open cases in the Crown Court, and trials are being listed as far ahead as 2029.
Whilst understanding the impact these delays can have on victims, the report also acknowledges that delays in trials worsen the economic and psychological situation for defendants, creating significant stress and uncertainty that harms personal relationships and ultimately prevents access to rehabilitation.
For those in the revolving door of crisis and crime, the issues that caused offending are likely to be far more deeply entrenched by the time any sentence is given, and so reoffending is far more likely than if some kind of intervention had been given at the point of arrest.
‘‘With the backlog in Court, pre-conviction intervention is better. My mate was charged with something after being on bail for 2 years with a trial expected for 2028. So, by the time it’s sorted any needs at the point of the crime have been missed.“
At Revolving Doors, we have long made the case that diversion is a better outcome for many of those arrested for low-level offending where there is a clear underlying health or social problem such as substance use or poor mental health. So, we are delighted with the focus the recommendations place on out-of-court disposals (OOCDs).
However, as with the Independent Sentencing Review, Lord Leveson’s recommendations will only drive the change desperately needed in the justice system if they are met with firm commitment from policymakers and those responsible for implementing the solutions each review has outlined.
For sorely-neglected OOCDs, this also means a concerted effort to ensure that the conditions, uses and benefits of different types of resolutions are better recognised and utilised by police and advocated for by lawyers in the police station to ensure their full potential can at last be realised.
| Diversion recommendations from Leveson |
| Use Out of Court Resolutions (OOCRs) like cautions or conditional cautions whenever appropriate in charging decisions. |
| Create a standard way to manage OOCRs, including proper training for police and lawyers, and regular reviews by local justice boards. |
| Encourage police and prosecutors to review old cases to see if OOCRs could be used. |
| Evaluate digital tools that could make using OOCRs easier and more efficient across England and Wales. |
| Support changes to Outcome 22*, so OOCRs are counted and recognised equally with other outcomes. |
| Invest more in rehab programmes for drugs, alcohol, and health issues, with consistent standards nationwide. |
| Review the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act to make it simpler and support people who have turned their lives around. |
| Use OOCRs together with restorative justice for less serious offences like minor theft, public disorder, or drug use. |
| Expand the Deferred Prosecution Scheme by updating the law to allow its wider use. |
| Agree on which offences qualify for OOCRs, with input from police, prosecutors, and the Ministry of Justice. |
Given how high the Court backlog is, why have of out-of-court disposals (OOCDs) been so underused?
“We need a national framework to set out diversion criteria, we need a mechanism for sharing good practice and we need an enhanced cross organisational communication strategy so services can work together.“
Whilst some police forces do use OOCDs to good effect, their use is completely inconsistent across the country – common in some, but rare in many others.
Research has suggested many police officers lack sufficient training to understand when or how to appropriately apply measures like Outcome 22 (where someone is referred to support services rather than being charged). Targets set to the police incentivise them to focus on achieving clear outcomes such as charges or arrests, rather than the harder-to-quantify but often more sustainable outcomes that result from OOCDs.
Additionally, officers may have limited awareness of local support or intervention programs, reducing the practical options available for diversion. There need to be ways of correcting this. Even when diversion is used, there is often no formal follow-up to ensure that individuals actually engage with the support offered.
“Police do a difficult job, they see a lot of failure. They get used to thinking nothing works so it’s hard for them to have compassion. They need to be informed of ways to build compassion. They need to be taught about trauma and what can work.”
Police are by no means the only group who could make better use of OOCDs. The Law Society, who also supported these recommendations, have highlighted the ‘vital role’ of solicitors in ensuring OOCDs are properly utilised.
“Solicitors should be arguing for diversion at the Police Station. They are meant to be advocates.“
How can out-of-court disposals stop the cycle of crisis and crime?
Our members welcomed Leveson’s emphasis on out-of-court disposals. For them, being put into the court system did nothing to stop their reoffending as it did not lead to any support for the unmet needs behind their actions.
“If people are always nicking things to be sold there’s clearly something wrong. I’d think this person cannot continuously be doing this just because they want to be doing it. When they get arrested they’re always off their head. We need to find out what’s actually going on behind all of this.”
“If these services were offered a lot earlier I’d have bitten their ear off for help. Our behaviour can be stopped I think, without silly jail terms that lead to more drug use and worse mental health.”
Members highlighted the need for police and the wider system to look beyond repeated low-level offences and ask why these behaviours continue, rather than simply cycling people through arrests and court appearances.
One concern sometimes raised about OOCDs is that they can be detrimental to victims, potentially leaving them feeling that justice has not been served. However, Lord Leveson says multiple studies have concluded that victim satisfaction with OOCDs is comparable to, or better than, other prosecution options. Our members agreed with this view.
‘Diversion can meet the needs of the victim. It can be good for them. They can feel like they have received justice. We need to publish an OOCD strategy and have a culture shift in what ‘punishment’ means.’
Why it’s time to recognise out-of-court disposals as a positive outcome
If Lord Leveson’s recommendations on counting and recognising OOCDs as a positive outcome is implemented it could be transformative, incentivising their use.
We now wait in anticipation to see which of Lord Leveson’s recommendations are implemented by the government, hoping to see them following the evidence in this area and realising the full potential of out-of-court disposals to end the cycle of crisis and crime.
