When we think about criminal justice, we often imagine courtrooms: barristers in wigs, judges delivering sentences, and cases being decided after careful deliberation. But during my time in the Criminal Justice Clinic, I learned that a significant portion of criminal justice happens somewhere else entirely. Ministry of Justice data reveals that 14% of cases dealt with by the criminal justice system are handled using out-of-court resolutions. Out-of-Court Resolutions (OoCRs) allow police to resolve issues without prosecution, and the decisions behind them are rarely scrutinised- despite shaping the experience of thousands of victims and suspects.

As part of my clinic experience, I had the opportunity to sit on an OoCR Scrutiny Panel alongside criminal justice professionals, including defence solicitors, prosecutors, magistrates, victim support specialists, and youth justice practitioners. Our role was to review police decisions and ask whether they were fair, proportionate, and consistent with guidelines. Because these decisions happen behind closed doors, scrutiny is the only way to ensure justice is not only done, but seen to be done.

OoCRs are designed to handle low-level offending quickly and proportionately. They include outcomes such as community resolutions or cautions, and often involve restorative measures like apologies, compensation, or rehabilitative programmes for offenders. In an overburdened justice system, OoCR serves an important purpose. Government statistics show that around 220,000 out-of-court disposals were issued in England and Wales in the year ending June 2025. This means hundreds of thousands of criminal cases are resolved without a trial, a judge, or formal court proceedings.

This raises an important question: how fair is it that some people are seen by a judge whilst others never step foot in a courtroom? Access to justice is not just about fairness in verdicts, it’s also about being seen, heard and treated transparently. When decisions happen behind closed doors, fairness and consistency can be compromised. Research suggests that the discretionary power given to officers and the lack of transparency in decision making results in inconsistent use of out-of-court disposals. This is precisely why independent oversight is so crucial.

Our panel examined nine anonymised cases in detail. Each case required careful consideration, not to re-try it, but to ask whether the police responses were proportionate and consistent. We looked for patterns, identified examples of good practice, and flagged decisions that should have been handled differently. These nine cases might seem few, but with hundreds of thousands of OoCRs each year, it’s easy to see how decisions could pass unnoticed without oversight. Scrutiny is the safeguard that holds the system accountable.

During our panel reviews, I was struck by how often police decisions seemed too lenient. In many cases, suspects received light resolutions that did not seem proportionate to the harm caused. For victims, this can be deeply frustrating. How is it fair for their experiences to be effectively minimised? Therefore, scrutiny is essential to ensure that justice serves both victims and the wider community, not just efficiency or convenience.

Justice outside the court room still has profound effects for the people involved. For victims, outcomes shape whether they feel their experience was taken seriously. For suspects, even a caution can carry lasting implications, from affecting employment prospects to appearing on enhanced background checks. My time on the OoCR Scrutiny Panel revealed that when justice happens behind closed doors, scrutiny is the lens that ensures fairness, transparency, and accountability in every decision made beyond the court doors.

Back to news list