What do victims want? New report on out of court resolutions
This is a blog by our Communications and Campaigns Manager, Keeva Baxter.
Transform Justice recently published a report titled ‘Beyond the courtroom: do out of court resolutions work for victims?’. The research provides a useful insight into the needs of victims of crime who are often failed by the court process, and how out of court resolutions could meet their needs.
The report is based on a poll of 1,235 victims and in-depth interviews with 25 victims whose cases were resolved out of court.
What do victims want?
The research investigated what the main priorities were for victims after a crime has occurred. The participants identified three key priorities:
- For the person not to do it again
- To have the crime resolved quickly
- For the police to acknowledge what happened and take it seriously
Punishment was the most favoured way to achieve these aims for the surveyed victims of crime. However, many also responded positively to the use of out of court resolutions to meet these needs.
“Victims whose cases were resolved without going to court were more likely to say the justice system was supportive, just, easy and healing than those whose crime went to court or was unresolved. In particular they saw it as a sensible and proportionate response and were grateful to avoid the stress and hassle of court and to get a quick resolution. Many also liked how it gave them a say over how the issue was dealt with. When it worked well, victims felt supported, acknowledged and understood.”
Whilst the results found mostly positive feedback about out of court resolutions, some respondents had concerns, primarily that “it was too soft on the person who did it, or that it wasn’t effective at addressing the harm caused or stopping the person doing it again.”
Overall, the victims in Transform Justice’s survey were “supportive of resolving more crimes without going to Court.”
How does Restorative Justice fit into out of court resolutions?
The first reference to Restorative Justice is in the foreword to the report, where Dr Peter Neyroud, Associate Professor in evidence-based policing at Cambridge University, reflects on his experience as chief constable of Thames Valley police.
“Nearly 25 years ago, I chaired the programme to develop a conditional caution. I was the chief constable of Thames Valley Police and the national lead for out of court disposals. The policy was intended, above all, to reduce the use of court for minor offences, but I also wanted to see a greater use of restorative justice (for which my own force was a pioneer) and more opportunities for victims to have a say in the way that their crimes were resolved. When we launched the idea, I was accused by the Sun of being “an apology for a Chief Constable” for supporting restorative justice rather than punishment.
However, I was pretty confident, after working on cautions for more than 20 years, that many victims would be happy to trade a court case for speed and a focus on preventing future offending. Even then the courts were slow. In 2025, slow has become glacial and the need to find better solutions has become even more urgent.”
As Neyroud emphasises, the need for change is urgent, and Restorative Justice, alongside out of court resolutions, could form part of the solution.
One of the primary principles of Restorative Justice is that it is voluntary from both sides. Both the victim of crime and the person who caused the harm have to want to participate. This means that people who committed crimes cannot be mandated to take part under an out of court resolution, as it would violate the voluntary nature of the process. Having said this, Restorative Justice can still play a key part in resolving crimes outside of the court system.
For example, people who have committed crimes could be given information on the process and mandated to explore whether Restorative Justice is right for them. If the referral to the service, rather than participation in any particular restorative programme, is the condition of an out of court resolution, it can stay in line with the restorative principle of voluntarism.
The report also highlighted how victims want to “hold people accountable and to make them understand the consequences of their actions”, “educate people about the impact of their actions and deter them from doing it again”. Restorative Justice is an ideal way to meet these needs, allowing victims to have their say, share the impact the crime had on their lives and encourage a change in behaviour.
Yet, the report’s findings on Restorative Justice were not all conclusive:
“We showed victims a scenario of someone being arrested for shouting racist abuse at their taxi driver. In this context, victims were more supportive of prosecution resulting in a court fine than they were of resolving the crime without going to court using a restorative justice process (where the taxi driver agrees to meet with the person who did it, ask them questions, explain the impact of the crime and discuss how to make amends). Although more victims agreed than disagreed that resolving the crime through a restorative justice process was a good use of justice system resources and a good way to stop the person doing it again, and that they would like to see more crimes resolved like this, they were even more supportive of dealing with it in court. Victims also felt that neither resolution provided adequate punishment for the person who did it.”
The final reference to Restorative Justice in the report demonstrates how many victims do want a restorative resolution, but aren’t always given the option.
Ultimately, ensuring that victims of crime and those who have caused the harm are aware of the option of Restorative Justice, will lead to a more ‘just’ outcome. We believe that victims of crime should be given all the information they need to make an informed choice about their recovery. By letting them know about Restorative Justice, and including it as an option through an out of court resolution, more people will get access to meaningful justice, whatever that looks like for them.
