Leveson courts review: turning ambition into action

Perspectives

---

Manon Roberts, Senior Strategy & Insight Manager

Thursday 10 July 2025

Yesterday marked the publication of Part 1 of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts in England and Wales, led by Sir Brian Leveson. 

While the review covers a broad range of themes, one of its central recommendations is the expansion of out-of-court resolutions (OOCRs), something Crest has long advocated for in relevant research and consultancy work. In this blog, we explore what needs to happen to ensure OOCRs are implemented effectively and can deliver meaningful impact. 

A moment for bold reform

As Crest Advisory outlined in evidence submitted to the review, the pressures facing the courts are neither new nor temporary. By the end of 2019 — before the Covid-19 pandemic — the criminal justice system was already under severe strain. Crest’s modelling identified the courts as a key bottleneck, with case volumes up 48%, leading to a 24% increase in the time from offence to completion in magistrates’ courts and a 31% increase in Crown Courts. The problem has only deepened since. A 2022 Criminal Justice Joint Inspection found the average Crown Court case had been outstanding for 282 days before getting underway, and nearly 60% of trials had been postponed at least once.

Years of underfunding, staff attrition and piecemeal reform have left the criminal justice system hollowed out. While emergency measures — such as extra funding for the CPS, extended sitting hours, or the introduction of the Common Platform case management system aimed at improving the sharing of criminal case information in courts — have aimed to stem the backlog, they have not tackled the fundamental shortage of capacity or personnel. 

Fragmented interventions, introduced in isolation, risk compounding inefficiencies and pushing pressure from one part of the system to another. As we highlighted in our 2021 report, stabilising the courts backlog without increasing capacity in prisons, probation, and legal aid simply shifts the problem downstream.

A right - and radical - diagnosis

The Leveson review rightly recognises that we cannot rely solely on expanding court capacity to solve the crisis. In fact, our analysis showed that to clear the backlog alone, the system would have needed to double criminal court capacity — an expansion we estimated would cost up to £400 million. Government commitments to expand Nightingale Courts and increase Ministry of Justice spending, while welcome, have fallen short of what is needed, particularly for the courts themselves, where the bottleneck remains most acute.

That is why it is so significant that Sir Brian has placed a strong emphasis on structured reform, ‘designed to send fewer cases to the courts altogether’. The recommendation to expand the use of OOCRs reflects a long-standing position of Crest Advisory — that tackling the courts backlog requires not just investment in infrastructure, but a shift in how the system deals with low-level offending in the first place.

OOCRs offer a faster, more proportionate and often more effective response to minor crime, particularly for first-time or low-risk offenders. They are not new: police forces already have access to community resolutions, simple or conditional cautions, penalty notice disorders (PNDs or spot fines) and other forms of pre-court action. But their use has declined, leaving thousands of cases unnecessarily progressing to court at considerable cost — with 79% of the 1.15 million sentences issued in the year ending June 2024 being fines, most of these (73%) handed out for non-motoring summary offences. Many of these could and should have been dealt with earlier and more efficiently.

Importantly, OOCRs are not simply about convenience. When used well — and combined with restorative justice, behavioural interventions or support services — they offer better outcomes for victims and help break the cycle of reoffending. The evidence is clear: schemes trialled across England and Wales have succeeded in reducing repeat offending and alleviating pressure on the courts. Yet nationally, diversion remains patchy, under-evaluated and underused.

Public confidence is essential

We agree with Sir Brian: scaling up OOCRs must be done carefully. If these measures are to carry weight — both with practitioners and the public — they must be seen as meaningful responses to offending. This means ensuring they are not just quick exits from the system, but offer swift, certain and fair justice, backed by interventions that tackle the root causes of offending, such as substance misuse, mental health issues, or debt.

Polling on public attitudes to justice reform conducted by Crest in 2021 underscore both the challenge and the opportunity when it comes to building public support for diversion. Awareness is currently low — more than two-thirds of respondents could not correctly identify what an OOCR is and fewer still recognised common types such as community resolutions, despite their frequent use. 

However, when provided with clear explanations, most people supported their use for low-level crimes, first-time offenders and individuals experiencing vulnerability — particularly victims of domestic abuse, those at risk of suicide, and people with health, housing or addiction issues. There was strong support for a tiered approach (where diversion is available for minor offences on a first occasion, but not for repeat or more serious offending) and for involving victims in decision-making. This suggests that confidence can be built if the use of OOCRs is clearly targeted, proportionate, and focused on rehabilitation and harm reduction. 

Confidence, in short, depends not just on communication — but on the quality and consistency of the disposals themselves.

What next?

Sir Brian Leveson’s endorsement of OOCRs is a welcome step, but implementation will be the real test. Crest’s research and consultancy work points to key principles that must underpin reforms that aim to reduce the front-end demand on courts using OOCRs.

First, OOCRs must be tailored to the individual and address the root causes of offending, whether that is substance misuse, housing instability, or trauma. Youth Offending Teams already use this approach effectively, but similar models are needed for adult offenders. There is good practice out there — such as the Durham Checkpoint Programme and West Midlands DIVERT programme — but provision remains patchy and underfunded. If OOCRs are to be meaningful, they must be linked to high-quality support, with appropriate funding and clear incentives for local services to invest in early intervention.

Second, any expansion must be evidence-led and data-driven. That means robust monitoring of outcomes, including reoffending, victim satisfaction and cost-effectiveness. Disposals that work should be scaled up. Those that don’t must be reformed or retired. Yet as things stand, data on OOCR use is inconsistent and often unpublished. A national dataset, disaggregated by police force and type of disposal, would support better local decision-making and allow for more meaningful scrutiny.

Third, there must be national standards and greater oversight. The use of OOCRs currently varies widely across the country, leaving room for inconsistency. Scrutiny panels have a key role to play here, but they need clearer expectations, greater transparency from forces, and stronger links to national policy.

Finally, public confidence is non-negotiable. Our polling shows the public is open to diversion but only if it is done well, with the right safeguards in place. That includes giving victims a voice, ensuring the response is proportionate, and making clear that alternatives to court are not a ‘soft option’ but a smarter one. Police forces must be more open about how OOCRs are used, and more accountable for the outcomes.

OOCRs alone won’t solve the court backlog — but they are essential to reducing demand in the long term. The Leveson review provides a clear direction of travel. The task now is to build the infrastructure, investment and confidence to deliver it.

If you’re interested in how Crest can support and advise on out-of-court resolutions and other criminal justice system reforms, please get in touch on contact@crestadvisory.com or visit www.crestadvisory.com to find out more about our work.