What do we know about conditional cautions?

Nearly 3,000 conditional cautions are issued every week according to a new report

The Centre for Justice Innovation (CJI) has just published a briefing summarising the evidence relating to conditional cautions. This is a timely document since the Government is in the process of passing legislation to introduce a new ‘two tier’ out of court disposal (OOCD) framework, in which the new diversionary caution is substantially a like-for-like replacement for the existing conditional caution. Like the conditional caution, it will be possible to attach rehabilitative, reparative or punitive conditions to the new diversionary caution and these conditions have to be completed within an agreed timeframe. If they don’t comply, the offender may be prosecuted for the original offence.

Conditional cautions were introduced for adults in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and came into force in July 2004. They were intended to provide quick, effective and proportionate sanctions for low-risk offending, which also take into account the needs of the victim. In general, conditional cautions have been seen as the top tier of the existing six tier framework, reserved for the most serious offences for which an out of court disposal would be considered.

Where there is sufficient evidence to charge an offender, but where an authorised person (usually a police officer) decides that a conditional caution is appropriate (in line with the existing Code of Practice), criminal proceedings for that offence are halted while the offender is given an opportunity to comply with the conditions.

There are three main types of conditions that can be attached to a caution:

1. Rehabilitative conditions: These conditions focus on improving emotional well-being, health and social functioning and tackling the root causes and triggers leading to offending behaviour. They can include substance misuse interventions, anger management courses and debt management support.
2. Reparative conditions: Reparation focuses on making good any damage or loss incurred to the victim. This could include for example, repairing property damaged during the offence.
3. Punitive conditions: A punitive condition requires the offender to pay a financial penalty.

All conditions need to be completed within an agreed timescale. Where the conditions are complied with, the prosecution is not normally commenced. However, where the offender fails to comply without a reasonable excuse, criminal proceedings may be commenced for the original offence. In this case the conditional caution will cease to have effect.

Low uptake

The conditional caution has not been used extensively since its introduction in 2004: Its uptake was initially hindered by legislation which required the Crown Prosecution Service(CPS) to approve its use. Even when this changed, forces report that there remains a low uptake, alongside a steady downward trend in the overall use of out of court disposals since 2008 (available OOCD data suggests 642,872 were given in 2008 compared to 151,848 in 2021). Nevertheless, nearly three thousand conditional cautions issued every week remains a substantial number and this may well increase when there are just two Out of Court Disposals as opposed to the current six.

The impact of conditional cautions 

The evidence on the impact of conditional cautions on outcomes is very limited and tentative; perhaps because of their limited use. The CJI found no evaluations which examined whether conditional cautions reduce re-offending, either when compared to offenders given other out of court disposals or offenders who were prosecuted. There is, however, some limited evidence that victim satisfaction may increase when conditional cautions are used, but only where there is clear communication to and involvement of the victim.

The CJI argues that wider research indicates that it is likely that where early interventions are used as genuine alternatives to court prosecution, they can improve outcomes. The evidence base suggests when early interventions de-escalate contact with the criminal justice system, they are likely to reduce reoffending.

On the other hand, wider research also indicates that up-tariffing can increase re-offending. When interventions entail greater involvement in the justice system than would have otherwise been the case, the evidence also suggests it can actually increase re-offending.

Despite their limited use, there are some implementation lessons from conditional cautions which are likely to apply to future efforts to implement the diversionary caution, including the need for training, clear process mapping, clear eligibility criteria and the need for operations to be reviewed regularly to improve uptake and compliance.

This briefing is the first of a two-part series with the next briefing looking at how conditional cautions are currently being used, and what lessons can be identified which could be of wider interest to police implementing their replacement, the diversionary caution.