The Magistrates’ Association is calling for urgent national reform of Out of Court Resolutions (OOCRs), warning that their inconsistent administration, and use in cases such as assault of an emergency worker, domestic abuse and even knife crime, is creating a “parallel justice system” that risks undermining transparency, judicial independence and public confidence.
OOCRs – used by police forces and intended for low-level, first-time offending – were highlighted by Sir Brian Leveson in his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts as a valuable tool for reducing the courts’ backlog, removing the need for many less serious cases to go to court.
Crime statistics show that in the last year, OOCRs have increased by 10 percent, reflecting levels last seen in 2017.
Despite this, the Association has raised concerns that there is no consistent national mechanism for scrutiny or accountability.
Concerns have been raised before, the Association said.
Both an analysis of research from the Magistrates’ Association in 2022, which showed significant variation and weak governance across England and Wales, and the Government’s draft code of practice for Diversionary and Community Cautions in August 2023, have resulted in little change.
This “fragmented oversight creates a postcode lottery in decision making, where offences of similar seriousness may be dealt with very differently from region to region”, the Association continued.
It said that because many OOCRs are not recorded on the Police National Computer, magistrates may be unaware of a defendant’s prior conduct or any conditions previously imposed by police.
This can obscure patterns of repeated offending, particularly in domestic abuse and stalking cases, where escalation is common.
The Association said that unchecked expansion also threatens key principles of the justice system:
-
Open justice: OOCRs are not administered publicly, unlike court sentences, leading to a lack of transparency and record-keeping.
-
Judicial independence: some OOCRs now mirror or exceed court powers, but lack the sentencing guidance and training given to magistrates.
-
Consistency: inconsistent enforcement of OOCRs nationwide undermines fairness and damages public trust undermines fairness and damages public trust.
David Ford, National Chair of the Magistrates’ Association, said: “Out of Court Resolutions have a place in a modern justice system, but their use is neither transparent nor consistent. We have a situation where police in some areas are imposing conditions that mirror court sentences – with little oversight and no public scrutiny. That risks creating a shadow justice system operating beyond the view of victims, other police forces, the public, and even the courts.
“We’re calling on the Government to act now. OOCRs should complement the courts, not replace them. Only a clear national framework, proper accountability, and full visibility for magistrates will restore confidence and protect the integrity of judicial decision-making.”
Recommendations for urgent reform
- Clarify boundaries between police and court powers: Limit OOCRs to genuinely low-level offending (for example, low-value theft, minor criminal damage, drunk and disorderly, etc), to ensure judicial oversight for more serious crimes.
- Mandatory scrutiny in every police force: Every force must host an independent OOCR scrutiny panel, that produces publicly available quarterly data.
- Statutory national oversight: Establish a national framework and oversight body, jointly accountable to the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office – to monitor consistency and ensure local panels operate under uniform standards.
- Transparent reporting for the public: All forces should publish clear information on their OOCR definitions, volumes and outcomes.
- Full disclosure to the courts: Ensure magistrates can see all OOCRs previously issued to a defendant.
-
Youth-specific scrutiny panels: Establish dedicated panels for youth cases, reflecting the distinct safeguarding and developmental needs of younger defendants.
