Three is the magic number: Why new Justice Secretary Alex Norris should turn his attention to the part of the Leveson Enquiry his predecessor missed
“I have no doubt that OOCRs and similar diversions have real value in diverting cases away from the criminal trial process, delivering justice faster for victims and offenders in less serious cases, whilst also enabling criminal justice partners to focus their resources on more serious cases. They can therefore play a vital role in addressing the wider crisis. As I have set out, wider use of OOCRs can also help to break the cycle of offending and draw on the leadership of local communities, helping to strengthen trust.” – Lord Leveson
This week the Rt. Hon. Alex Norris MP became the 16th Justice Secretary since the role was created in 2007, taking over a justice system in a mess. Backlogs stretching into 2030 leave victims waiting years and derail rehabilitation for people whose lives move on long before sentencing. For many whose offending is rooted in substance use, unstable housing, poor mental health and other social issues, the long wait, often without access to support, entrenches the very problems that drive offending. Everyone agrees something must be done.
Lord Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts was aimed at finding answers. Unsurprisingly, the recommendation on reducing jury trials caught the headlines. After much debate, it looks likely Norris will abandon those plans.
But the part of the report with the most potential to make real change has barely been mentioned.
Chapter Three of Leveson’s report focused on diversion and made 10 recommendations to expand its use. It was hugely disappointing this section received no attention from the last government.
Diversion allows the police to deal with matters swiftly and effectively, referring people onto an intervention – an out of court resolution (OOCR) – rather than sending a case to court. These interventions tackle the underlying causes of offending behaviour, such as mental health difficulties, alcohol misuse and substance abuse. Traditionally aimed at young people and those without existing criminal records, diversion does not have to b limited in this way.
Offending 2 Recovery (O2R) in the West Midlands shows what is possible. Funded by the West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner, it diverts individuals committing low-level offences linked to drug or alcohol addiction away from the traditional criminal justice process and into structured support. Commonly used in cases such as shop theft where substance misuse is a key driver, it is having impressive results and showing that OOCRs represent better value for money than courts.
Lord Leveson referenced evidence from other countries, noting that Canada offers a much wider variety of programmes than England and Wales, including addiction treatment and mental health interventions.
So why has this part of the enquiry not made the headlines or caught ministers’ attention?
It might be because the Justice Team ordered Leveson’s Report and policing sits under the Home Office, meaning both departments seem to take the view it is not a matter for them. Fourteen individuals have held responsibility for policing since the Home Office and MoJ became separate departments in 2007. Strangely working together does not seem to be a consistent part of either department – with each working in a siloed way. Looking at diversion as a solution reducing reoffending just is not part of the approach.
Practice across the country, on diversion, is inconsistent, and the National Police Chiefs’ Council have raised concerns about this. The way police measure outcomes also deincentivises OOCRs, as they are not counted as positive results. There is no legal requirement for an officer to offer an OOCR, even where the nature of the offence, the individual’s previous record, and the victim’s view suggest it is the best outcome. Local leadership therefore significantly shapes practice. Some mayoralties and Police and Crime Commissioners have shown particular interest in developing OOCRs, and others have not. Where there is good diversion practice, both police and politicians seem reluctant to highlight it, possibly due to a fear of being seen as ‘soft on crime.’
But diversion is not being soft, it is being solution‑focused and pragmatic about the best way to prevent re‑offending, which is by tackling its causes.
For diversion to really work, the MoJ and Home Office need to work together. Otherwise, the problems will continue.
We might be hopeful that Alex Norris is the man to do this. His previous health and prevention responsibilities give him a background that may be receptive to the argument that repeat offending is often connected to unmet needs around mental ill health, substance use, homelessness, trauma and neurodivergence. While his experience as a policing minister means he understands the operational pressures facing the police and the relationship between policing, diversion and the wider criminal justice system.
So, we hope Alex Norris is able to work with Shabana Mahmood, to look at Leveson’s suggestions with fresh eyes and think what they can achieve by working together on Chapter Three’s implementation.
