Claire Ely, Head of Criminal Justice Practice, explores how Outcome 22 and 23 could become a central pillar of a fairer youth justice system, widening access to diversion and helping to ensure that no child reaches a courtroom unnecessarily. This builds on our briefing drawing on lessons from New Zealand’s “no contest” approach, which centres victim engagement and meaningful accountability without making shame or guilt a gateway to support.
The recent Home Office and Ministry of Justice guidance on knife crime, particularly its emphasis on deferred prosecution for first-time knife possession by children, has reignited debate about how we use diversion and out-of-court resolutions.
There is much to say about the guidance itself. But for the purposes of this blog, we focus on the quieter, more technical yet potentially transformative part of the system: Outcome 22 and the new Outcome 23 - we are not talking about knife offences here (Outcome 23, when used in child knife possession offences has different expectations and recording requirements; see aforementioned guidance for more details).
Outcome 22 is a Home Office outcome code intended to capture cases where a diversionary intervention has been used and the case does not meet the public interest test for further action. It is an informal outcome, resulting in no further action (NFA), and is used for both adult and youth cases. Outcome 23 (introduced this month for children) is where a deferred prosecution is offered and the decision to prosecute is put on hold, whilst the child completes the agreed diversionary conditions. Should the child fail to comply, then the prosecution decision is upheld. However, successful completion of the conditions will result in no further action being taken. Both do not require a child to admit the offence but have differing consequences if the child fails to engage with the diversionary intervention.
With clearer national direction, Outcome 22 and 23 could operate in a way similar to New Zealand’s “no contest” approach, opening up diversion to children who are currently excluded.
The problem: admission as a barrier to diversion
As our recent briefing highlights, England and Wales have made significant progress in reducing the number of children entering the formal justice system. But this is a milestone, not the finish line.
One of the clearest remaining barriers is the requirement for a child to admit the offence before accessing diversion.
This requirement prevents otherwise suitable cases from being resolved out of court, exacerbates racial and systemic inequalities (particularly where trust in the system is low) and disproportionately affects children with SEND or communication needs. In practice, it means that children for whom the evidential threshold is met but who give no comment interviews, partial accounts, or do not fully admit guilt, are often escalated unnecessarily into the court system.
Learning from New Zealand: “not denied” and “no contest”
New Zealand offers a compelling alternative. Its system allows diversion to proceed where an offence is “not denied”, rather than formally admitted.
This seemingly small shift has significant implications. It enables children to engage in restorative processes without a formal admission, allows meaningful work to take place with victims, families, and communities, and focuses on accountability, understanding, and support rather than confession.
In effect, it creates a form of “no contest” pathway: the child does not formally admit guilt but accepts participation in a process to address the harm. Around half of Family Group Conferences in New Zealand proceed on this basis, dramatically widening access to diversion.
Learning for England and Wales
The relevance to England and Wales is clear. There is a well-documented lack of trust in the justice system among some children, particularly those from minoritised communities. This can make admissions less likely, not because the evidence is lacking, but because confidence in the process is.
At the same time, many children struggle to give coherent accounts in police interviews, may dispute aspects of an allegation, or are simply not developmentally ready to engage in the way the system expects them to.
At present, these children are often excluded from diversion, not on the basis of risk or harm, but because of process requirements and system expectations. The result is that cases which could be resolved constructively instead move into formal proceedings.
Outcome 22 (and now Outcome 23): an underused lever for reform
Outcome 22 already provides a mechanism to do things differently. NPCC guidance makes clear that it can be used to record cases where prosecution is not in the public interest and Outcome 23 can be used to support deferred prosecution approaches, where intervention takes place instead of immediate court action.
The new knife crime guidance reinforces this direction of travel, supporting deferred prosecution for children in appropriate cases, including first-time possession offences.
However, two key challenges remain. First, there is significant inconsistency in how Outcome 22 is used across police forces. Second, it continues to be widely perceived as a “negative” or purely administrative outcome, rather than a constructive intervention. This combination limits its effectiveness and undermines confidence in its use.
Reframing Outcome 22 and 23 as a “no contest” pathway
With clearer guidance, Outcome 22 and 23 could function as a structured “no contest” pathway in England and Wales. Cases where the evidential threshold is met could still be diverted, even where a full admission is not forthcoming. Children could engage in restorative or supportive interventions, with work taking place alongside victims, families, and communities, and the case ultimately resolved through Outcome 22 or 23 either as NFA or deferred prosecution. This is already happening but not in a consistent manner, more on that later.
This would ensure that children are not excluded from diversion simply because they do not or cannot formally admit guilt.
A longstanding call: making Outcome 22 a positive outcome
For this to happen, a more fundamental shift is needed.
For years, police leaders, the Youth Justice Board, and third sector organisations, including ourselves, have called for Outcome 22 to be recognised as a positive outcome. This is not simply a question of language. It is about recognising the value of diversion and deferred prosecution, legitimising the work done with children outside court, and supporting consistent, confident use of these approaches across the country. Some progress has been made here, with Outcome 23 being recorded as a positive outcome but only in child knife crime cases. At present, the framing of Outcome 22 and 23 (for all other offence types) risks undervaluing meaningful intervention and discouraging its use in cases where it could deliver better outcomes for children. Reframing it as a positive, intervention-led outcome would bring it into line with the wider policy direction set out in the new knife crime guidance
What needs to happen next
The current moment presents a clear opportunity for the Home Office and Ministry of Justice to act.
First, guidance should provide greater clarity on admission, explicitly supporting the use of Outcome 22 and 23 without requiring a full admission and enabling a “no contest”-style approach.
Second, there must be a stronger drive for national consistency, with clear expectations for police forces, particularly in relation to deferred prosecution.
Third, Outcome 22 and 23 (for all offence types) should be formally recognised as a positive outcome, reflecting its role in delivering diversion and supporting children.
Crucially, these changes would also enable the inspectorates -HMICFRS and HMIP -to more effectively assess and scrutinise this work. At present, the ambiguity around these outcomes makes it difficult to evaluate both the quality and impact of diversionary practice. A clearer national framework, combined with its recognition as a positive outcome, would allow inspectorates to develop more robust measures of success, assess consistency across forces, and ensure that children are receiving meaningful interventions rather than simply being administratively “closed” out of the system.
Conclusion: from missed opportunity to system reform
England and Wales have already made significant progress in reducing the number of children entering the formal justice system. But too many still reach court unnecessarily.
New Zealand’s “no contest” approach shows that it is possible to widen access to diversion without compromising accountability.
We already have the tools to do the same.
With clearer guidance, greater consistency, and a shift in how it is understood, Outcome 22 and 23 could move from being an administrative category to becoming a central pillar of a fairer, more effective youth justice system.