The significance of the judges within the Choices and Consequences and Prolific Intensive schemes: international lessons for England and Wales and back again

This research paper examines the significance of the judges in
the problem-solving courts of England and Wales’s Choices and
Consequences (C2) and Prolific Intensive (PI) programmes using the
lenses and language of therapeutic jurisprudence. These unique
schemes mobilise an intensive combination of strict control measures
(with a view to deterring people from reoffending) alongside a
personalised package of rehabilitative support overseen by a judge
in a problem-solving court. Our findings strongly indicate that the
judge-led problem-solving court is the bedrock of the schemes.
Acknowledging that this practice relies upon strong leadership
from a judge as a community convener with the authority and
profile to initiate and sustain the programme, this paper identifies
the strengths and barriers that this finding may pose. Our data also
points to the difficulties of achieving support for the model at all
judicial levels. Readiness (or lack of) within judges in the future could
hamper the prospects of both current and new schemes. Moreover,
finding a judge with a susceptible personality lowers chances. The
authors conclude that the UK’s current punitive, rapid results ethos of
the justice system is not working. The international problem-solving
court movement has shown that long-term success often ensues
when practices are embedded into a broader culture of rehabilitative
justice supported by visible communities. By tapping into the broader
international community, the key will be a changing cultural process
to make keen and compatible judges easier to come by.