Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the adequacy of current review and oversight mechanisms in cases where the police issue a conditional caution without a charging decision being made, particularly in circumstances where the individual has not made an admission of guilt; and what steps her Department is taking to ensure that such cases are subject to scrutiny and avenues for challenge.

The use of conditional cautions is governed by a clear statutory framework and established safeguards. They are provided for under sections 22 and 23 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and are subject to the Ministry of Justice’s Code of Practice for adult Conditional Cautions.

The framework requires an admission of guilt. While this does not need to be made prior to the decision that a conditional caution is appropriate, the offender must make a clear and unambiguous admission at the point the caution is administered. Conditional cautions can therefore only be issued where an admission has been made, and where the evidential and public interest tests are satisfied.

Oversight of Out of Court Resolutions (OOCRs), is exercised locally through OOCR scrutiny panels. These panels provide independent challenge and assurance, often including external members such as community representatives. Their role is to identify learning and support improvements in practice, rather than to reinvestigate individual cases or replace formal accountability mechanisms. They contribute to transparency, accountability, and public confidence by enabling external scrutiny of policing decisions. These panels typically include representation from partners such as the Police and Crime Commissioner, Crown Prosecution Service, HM Courts and Tribunals Service, victim support services and probation. In the summer of 2025, around two thirds of forces / Police and Crime Commissioners had published minutes of their out of court scrutiny panels on their websites.

The Ministry of Justice holds policy responsibility for the OOCR framework, including the Code of Practice and associated guidance, and has supported the development of local scrutiny arrangements. Many police forces have established panels, often linked to Local Criminal Justice Boards (LCJBs), to provide oversight, promote transparency, a support consistency in decision-making.

Following Part 1 of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, it was recommended that there should be a clear expectation that robust local scrutiny arrangements should be in place to oversee the use and appropriateness of OOCRs. The Government are considering the recommendations from this Review and will respond to them in due course.