We use some essential cookies to make our website work. We’d like to set additional cookies so we can remember your preferences and understand how you use our site.
You can manage your preferences and cookie settings at any time by clicking on “Customise Cookies” below. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Cookies notice.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Sorry, there was a technical problem. Please try again.
This site is a beta, which means it's a work in progress and we'll be adding more to it over the next few weeks. Your feedback helps us make things better, so please let us know what you think.
Out of Court Resolutions (OoCR) allow the police to deal quickly and proportionately with low level, often first time offending which can be appropriately resolved without a prosecution at court.
Delivered ethically and effectively to the right people and in the right circumstances, they provide swift and meaningful justice for victims, and hold offenders accountable for their actions and reduce re-offending.
GMP is committed to ensuring that the use of Out of Court Resolutions is done proportionately and appropriately and victims are at heart of this process. A scrutiny panel is held every two months and alternates between youth and adult cases. The panel consists of representatives from the CPS, Magistracy, Victims Services, Youth Justice Services, GMCA and GMP. It is chaired by the a councillor from the Greater Manchester Police, Fire and Crime Panel.
The aim of the scrutiny panel is to determine whether the method of resolution is considered appropriate based on a review of the information/evidence available to the decision maker at the time. The panel will consider the severity of offence, evidence present at the time of disposal and officer’s rationale in the decision making process, including whether decisions were victim focused.
At each panel 32 randomly selected cases are scrutinised and scored accordingly to whether the resolutions were considered appropriate for the circumstances and in line with local policy and national guidance.
Panel score |
March 2025 |
1. Appropriate and consistent with policy / guidance
|
16 |
2. Appropriate but inconsistent with policy / guidance
|
8 |
3. Inappropriate and inconsistent with policy / guidance
|
7 |
4. Inappropriate but consistent with policy / guidance
|
0 |
5. Unable to make a decision due to insufficient information being available
|
0 |
Total cases heard |
31 |
The below table is the current running total since we began collating the data.
Panel score |
Overall |
Appropriate and consistent with policy / guidance
|
358 |
Appropriate but inconsistent with policy / guidance
|
117 |
Inappropriate and inconsistent with policy / guidance
|
284 |
Inappropriate but consistent with policy / guidance
|
5 |
Unable to make a decision due to insufficient information being available
|
56 |
Total cases heard |
820 |