This article by Claire Ely at the Centre for Justice Innovation explores how Outcomes 22 and 23 could transform youth justice by widening access to diversion and reducing unnecessary court proceedings.. It argues that they build on New Zealand’s ‘not denied’ approach, which allows children to engage in restorative processes without making a formal admission of guilt. With further formal guidance, these Outcomes could become a central pillar of a fairer, more effective youth justice system.
Details
Home Office outcome codes are used by police forces in England and Wales to track the final status of a recorded crime investigation. Outcome 22 is used where a diversionary intervention has taken place and the case does not meet the public interest test for further action. It is an informal outcome, resulting in no further action. Whilst Outcome 22 can be used for adult and youth cases, this month, Outcome 23 has been introduced specifically for youth cases. Outcome 23 allows for deferred prosecution while a child completes agreed diversionary conditions. Successful completion results in no further action, however, if the child does not comply, the prosecution decision is upheld. Importantly, both outcomes do not require a child to admit the offence.
Research shows that the requirement to admit the offence particularly affects children with SEND or communication needs, and Black, Brown and Racialised children. New Zealand’s ‘not denied’ approach shows that diversion can still support accountability without requiring a formal admission.
Commentary
For youth justice professionals, the article suggests, the key is for Outcome 22 and 23 to be treated as potential Child First tools, and not merely administrative flexibility. A ‘no contest’ route would allow practitioners to ask whether a child can be supported to understand and repair harm, rather than whether they can give an adult-style admission at the start of the process. This is particularly important for children with SEND, communication needs or low trust in the justice system, who may be less able or willing to make a full admission and as a result enter court unnecessarily, but may still benefit from diversion. Clearer national guidance and recognition of Outcome 22 and Outcome 23 as positive, intervention-led outcomes would help reduce local inconsistency, encourage confident use of deferred prosecution and allow inspectorates to scrutinize whether children are receiving meaningful support rather than being administratively ‘closed’ out of the system. In the meantime, practitioners should be alert to cases where the evidential threshold is met but prosecution is not in the public interest and should consider whether restorative or supportive work with victims, families and communities can safely address the harm.