A Turning Point for Restorative Justice: Reflections on the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts – Part I
The Independent Review of the Criminal Courts – Part I, chaired by the Rt Hon. Sir Brian Leveson, has arrived at a time of unprecedented pressure on the justice system. With more than 75,000 outstanding Crown Court cases and delays stretching over years, the human cost—to victims, defendants, families, and communities—has become unsustainable. As the report rightly observes: justice delayed on this scale is, in effect, justice denied.
The Restorative Justice Council (RJC) welcomes the Review’s principled and forward-looking recommendations. We are particularly encouraged by its clear and explicit recognition of restorative justice as a central component of justice reform. The report does not place restorative justice at the periphery—it positions it as an essential part of a strategic, system-wide response to the current crisis.
Restorative Justice in the Review
Of the 45 recommendations made, one marks a particularly important shift in national policy thinking:
Recommendation 8
“I recommend implementing Out of Court Resolutions alongside restorative justice for low-tier offences such as some thefts, public order offences, and drug misuse.”
This is a significant and welcome development. It frames restorative justice not as a discretionary add-on, but as a credible and structured response to harm—especially when integrated into Out of Court Resolution (OOCR) schemes. This reflects what the RJC, along with practitioners and researchers across the sector, has long advocated: restorative justice must be embedded into mainstream justice processes to realise its full potential.
The RJC’s Contribution to the Review
In early 2025, the RJC collaborated with Dr Katherine Doolin of the University of Auckland—an internationally respected expert in restorative justice and comparative criminal justice—to submit a comprehensive set of recommendations to the Leveson Review.
Our joint submission presented a strategic vision for how restorative justice could help rebalance the justice system in England and Wales. We focused on its role in reducing court backlogs through early intervention and diversion, while improving victim outcomes and community safety.
At the centre of our proposal was the creation of a National Restorative Out of Court Resolution Strategy—a coherent, structured diversion pathway for low-level, non-custodial offences. Rather than progressing through an increasingly overwhelmed court system, eligible individuals would be offered the opportunity to participate in restorative processes that promote personal accountability, community reparation, and meaningful engagement with victims wherever possible.
We recommended that eligibility be limited to those who accept responsibility for the offence or have indicated an intention to plead guilty. This ensures restorative justice is used ethically and effectively—supporting rehabilitation and desistance, while delivering reparative outcomes for all parties involved.
Expanding Access for Victims
A central theme in our submission was the need to strengthen victim access and choice. In line with the Victims’ Code, restorative justice should be offered to all victims. We recognised, however, that not all victims may wish—or feel ready—to take part directly. Alternative options such as using community representatives or written victim impact statements can still support offender understanding and accountability. Importantly, victims should retain the right to engage at a later stage if and when they feel ready.
Learning from International Models
We encouraged the Review to draw on effective international examples, particularly from New Zealand. The Te Pae Oranga initiative, a culturally grounded, community-led panel approach for adults, has demonstrated measurable reductions in reoffending. Similarly, Family Group Conferences for young people in New Zealand show a 30% reduction in reoffending when compared with conventional court processes. These models offer valuable lessons for building a UK-specific approach that is effective, inclusive, and culturally responsive.
Reforming the Legal and Policy Framework
To realise this vision, we proposed key legislative and procedural reforms. These include:
- Revising Crown Prosecution Service post-charge diversion policies
- Amending the Criminal Procedure Rules to widen eligibility
- Expanding the use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements to incorporate restorative elements
We also called for the introduction of legal safeguards. Where cases are diverted from court, they should be formally “withdrawn,” preserving the option for re-prosecution if necessary. Participation must always be voluntary, informed, and fair, with clear information provided to all parties at an early stage.
A National Framework for Delivery
Successful national rollout depends on the creation of a coherent, high-quality restorative justice framework. We recommended using the RJC’s established Practice Guidance and Standards for Restorative Practice as the foundation. With appropriate government backing, these standards can be embedded in OOCR schemes and adopted by local services across the country.
We also emphasised the need to leverage existing infrastructure. The RJC’s work with the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, and our established relationships with key agencies including the CPS, HMCTS, and NPCC, provide a strong starting point for national coordination.
To oversee delivery, we proposed the formation of a multi-agency task force to design, implement, and monitor the national rollout of restorative OOCRs. This task force would support consistency, uphold victim safety, and ensure quality through commissioned restorative services.
Investing in Restorative Services
We urged the Government to invest in the sector. As noted in the 2023 report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Restorative Justice, many services operate with limited funding and capacity, constraining both referrals and accessibility. Yet the evidence is clear: restorative justice delivers high impact at relatively low cost. Strategic investment could rapidly expand availability and uptake, ensuring that restorative justice becomes a core part of the justice system, rather than an occasional supplement.
Shared Priorities and Strategic Alignment
The Review’s recommendations strongly align with the priorities set out in our joint submission with Dr Doolin. In particular, we welcome its recognition of:
Restorative justice as a credible alternative to court: For low-level offending, restorative justice offers a more proportionate and timely route to resolution.
Clear eligibility and offence types: Offences such as theft, public order, and drug possession are well suited to restorative approaches.
Improved victim outcomes: The Review supports harm-focused, participatory processes that better meet victims’ needs.
Structured diversion and consistency: The strengthening of OOCRs (Recommendations 1–5, 10) provides the right policy infrastructure for integrating restorative justice.
National standards and training: The need to end the ‘postcode lottery’ in access to restorative justice is addressed through proposed standardisation.
Addressing disproportionality: Expanding pre-court disposals is rightly identified as a tool for reducing unequal outcomes—something the RJC has long championed.
From Recommendation to Implementation
The Review provides a detailed and thoughtful roadmap, but its value lies in what happens next. To ensure restorative justice is fully embedded into justice reform, we call for the following steps:
Swift implementation of Recommendation 8: Restorative justice must be available in all eligible OOCR schemes nationwide, with robust referral systems and practice pathways.
Adoption of national standards: The RJC’s existing Practice Guidance and Standards should be used as the national benchmark for quality and consistency.
Investment in infrastructure: This includes funding for training, service delivery, practitioner recruitment, and public engagement.
Partnership with victims and communities: Restorative justice must remain rooted in the needs of those most affected by harm. Victim voices should guide its design and delivery.
Cross-sector accountability: National and local bodies must be supported to oversee implementation, track outcomes, and ensure equitable access across regions.
A Moment of Opportunity
The Review marks a significant opportunity for justice reform in England and Wales. It offers a path not only to greater efficiency, but to a more proportionate, human, and victim-sensitive system.
Restorative justice, as the Review makes clear, is a vital part of that future.
The RJC stands ready to work with the Ministry of Justice, Police and Crime Commissioners, local services, and practitioners to help turn this vision into reality. We are committed to ensuring that restorative justice is available to every victim and every person who can benefit from it—regardless of geography, background, or agency involvement.
This is a watershed moment. The Review does more than endorse restorative justice—it calls for it to be embedded in the very foundations of how we do justice in this country.
We urge the Government and partners to respond with boldness, investment, and urgency.
The time for restorative justice is now.
Authors:
Jim Simon - Chief Executive Officer, Restorative Justice Council
Dr Katherine Doolin - The University of Auckland