Published On: 7th October 2026
Authored By: Catherine Joshy
De Montfort University, Dubai
INTRODUCTION
On 18 May 2026, the Ministry of Justice published the White Paper ‘Cutting Youth Crime, Changing Young Lives’,[1] which aims to significantly reform youth justice in England and Wales.[2] Youth offending has dropped dramatically over the past two decades. Cautions and sentences for children have fallen by 88%, and custodial sentences by 85%, since 2009/10.[3] Fewer children are entering the system than at any time in a generation. Yet, the government is trying to reform a system that is already improving. This article will look at the key proposals in the White Paper, compare them with the current legal framework, and assess whether these reforms are truly needed.
THE REASON AND PROPOSED REFORMS
The youth justice system has successfully reduced the overall number of cases. However, it now faces a smaller but more complex group of children who have multiple vulnerabilities.[4] Children in England and Wales today live in a world that is very different from that of past generations. They deal with challenges such as digital risks, mental health issues, and the lasting impact of the pandemic on education and poverty.[5] Additionally, the Southport Inquiry has called for reforms to improve multi-agency risk management.[6] It has highlighted failures to share information on increasing risks, urging accountability among agencies to fix these issues.
The White Paper suggests reforms focused on early intervention, stronger community responses, and less reliance on custody while keeping public safety a top priority.[7] It calls for earlier intervention by increasing investment in the Turnaround programme and better coordination between services that support children at risk of offending.[8] It also proposes new powers to address adults who exploit children for criminal purposes.[9] The aim is to create a more consistent community response by reforming out-of-court resolutions, ensuring uniformity in addressing low-level offences, and expanding community-based sentencing options.[10] At the same time, the White Paper reaffirms that custody should be a last resort for children whose risks cannot be safely managed in the community.[11] It also proposes a standalone offence of child criminal exploitation,[12] stronger protocols for children in care,[13] a review of disclosure requirements for childhood offences,[14] and a larger emphasis on restorative justice.[15]
At first glance, this seems like a well-thought-out reform package. But youth justice in England and Wales is not starting from scratch. Out-of-court resolutions, custodial thresholds, and exploitation-related offences are already governed by current laws, some of which are decades old and some more recent. The real challenge for the White Paper is not whether its objectives seem reasonable, but whether its proposals genuinely advance the law or just restate principles that already exist. Three of its core claims appear very different when compared to the existing framework.
REFORMS AGAINST THE EXISTING LAWS
First, the White Paper’s agenda addresses the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012, especially sections 135 to 138,[16] which link statutory youth cautions to formal admissions of guilt. This confession requirement creates systemic barriers for children from ethnic minority backgrounds, particularly Black boys, who often distrust the police and are less likely to admit guilt.[17] This results in increased court cases for minor offences and worsens racial disparities in youth justice.
To tackle this, the White Paper suggests deferred prosecution schemes with specific Home Office codes (Outcome 23 for children, Outcome 24 for adults) to label such cases as ‘resolved’, providing incentives for police forces.[18] This approach aims to remove the geographic ‘postcode lottery’ in youth diversion and proposes a future legislative review to replace the confession requirement with a more flexible ‘acceptance of responsibility’.[19] However, the success of this strategy depends on local funding and oversight. Without strong supervision, it may revert to ineffective out-of-court resolutions.
The claim of a ‘more consistent’ out-of-court response must be assessed against the current legal framework, which has provided police with alternatives to prosecution since 2012.[20] The inconsistency observed arises from how different police forces and local youth offending teams (YOTs) implement the law. This suggests a need for better guidance and resources rather than new legislation. If the aim for increased consistency means lowering the threshold for police intervention, it may counter the goal of reducing children’s contact with the justice system, possibly bringing more youths into formal processes instead of fewer. The specific legislative changes proposed in the White Paper are unclear and require careful examination rather than optimistic assumptions.
Furthermore, the White Paper stresses that custody should be a ‘last resort’, but this principle is already established in Section 230 of the Sentencing Act 2020,[21] which prohibits custodial sentences for children unless the offence is deemed ‘so serious’ that a community sentence isn’t appropriate. Still, courts often impose short custodial sentences for minor offences, leading to high reoffending rates, among those sentenced to under 12 months.[22] In response, the White Paper suggests increasing the minimum Detention and Training Order (DTO) term from 4 to 12 months[23] .This could, however, lead judges to choose longer sentences due to statutory constraints instead of community sentences. The claim to reserve custody for children whose risk cannot be managed elsewhere is not new but reaffirms existing laws. Instead of creating new principles, the White Paper aims to strengthen the existing framework by expanding community sentencing options, emphasising non-custodial alternatives to better meet the ‘last resort’ requirement.
However, The White Paper is considerably more specific regarding the reforms related to youth rehabilitation orders(YRO). Currently, most first-time guilty pleas must be resolved with a referral order, which is valid for twelve months.[24] The plan to make the YRO available for up to three years, with up to eighteen conceivable requirements, constitutes a true statutory reform, not simply a better use of existing powers.[25]Though, this is only progress if it eliminates custody-related danger, not if it just extends monitoring to more children by default.
Lastly, the proposed standalone offence of child criminal exploitation aims to fill perceived gaps in existing law, particularly regarding how children involved in criminal activities are treated. This claim requires careful scrutiny since the Modern Slavery Act 2015 already addresses exploitation through coercion and deception related to minors.[26] This law has been used to prosecute offenders in ‘county lines’ operations that recruit children for drug transportation.[27] Moreover, current guidelines allow exploited children to be treated as victims, allowing police the discretion to divert them from criminal charges. There is, however, a genuine case for the new offence. The Modern Slavery Act was built around trafficking and forced labour,[28] not the grooming and coercive control specific to child exploitation. A bespoke offence could match that conduct more precisely, sharpen sentencing, and signal that exploiting a child into crime is a distinct wrong.
CRITICISMS
Even if the proposals in the White Paper are legally sound, they expose important flaws in how we intervene in the youth justice system. The Howard League for Penal Reform cautions that the idea of ‘earlier intervention’ could lead to greater state involvement with children for behaviours that did not require formal action previously.[29] This raises concerns about net-widening. Changing the thresholds could weaken the principle that custody and formal processes should be used only as a last resort.
The Transition to Adulthood Alliance points out an important issue: the reforms stop at age 18, ignoring neuroscience evidence that shows brain development related to impulse control and risk assessment continues into the mid-twenties.[30] This arbitrary cut-off treats a significant number of still-maturing young people as adults for sentencing and disregards evidence that supports earlier interventions.
The Agenda Alliance raises further concerns by acknowledging the White Paper’s understanding of the unique pathways to offending for girls — often involving exploitation and trauma. However, it criticises the lack of specific measures for girls.[31] There is also concern about proposals that might impose sanctions on parents or caregivers, which conflicts with the principle of prioritising the child’s best interests as stated in the Children Act 1989.[32] This raises questions about whether the focus should be on protecting children rather than punishing their families.
WHAT IS GENUINELY NEW AND WHAT IS CONTINUITY DRESSED AS REFORM
The document reveals a contrast in the proposals of the White Paper, separating genuine legal innovation from simply repackaged continuity.[33] Notably, the child criminal exploitation offence and the disclosure review represent significant shifts in legal frameworks by introducing a dedicated charge for child exploitation and revisiting the impact of childhood offences, respectively. These changes require primary legislation and redefine legal positions for children and young adults.
In contrast, proposals like ‘custody only when necessary’ and a focus on restorative justice reinforce existing laws rather than change them fundamentally. They build upon elements in the Sentencing Act 2020[34] and current restorative practices without introducing new legal standards.[35] Similarly, the Turnaround programme, while receiving additional funding, is an ongoing initiative rather than a new approach.[36]
The reform of out-of-court resolutions is still unclear. It depends on whether ‘consistency’ will lead to stricter statutory criteria for police discretion or better guidance within existing frameworks from the LASPO of 2012.[37] This uncertainty means the reform cannot be accurately assessed until more legislative details are clarified.
CONCLUSION
The White Paper introduces a disclosure review and a stand-alone child criminal exploitation crime while restating preexisting frameworks like restorative justice and custody as a last resort. It is a combination of considerable reform and reinforced ideals. Although they are still unproven, its out-of-court resolution innovations show promise. To empower young people, the document advocates for support, education, and direction rather than just punishing juvenile offenders. However, the efficacy of the reforms ultimately depends on how they are carried out.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRIMARY SOURCES
- Children Act 1989
- Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012
- Modern Slavery Act 2015
- Sentencing Act 2020
SECONDARY SOURCES
- Agenda Alliance, ‘Agenda Alliance Responds to the Youth Justice Reform White Paper’ (Agenda Alliance, 21 May 2026) <https://www.agendaalliance.org/news/agenda-alliance-responds-to-the-youth-justice-reform-white-paper/> accessed 13 August 2026
- Howard League for Penal Reform, ‘The Youth Justice White Paper’ (Howard League Blog, 22 May 2026) <https://howardleague.org/blog/the-youth-justice-white-paper/> accessed 13 August 2026
- Lammy D, ‘The Youth Justice Reform and Delivery Plan’ HCWS31, 18 May 2026 <https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2026-05-18/hcws31> accessed 13 August 2026
- Ministry of Justice, Cutting Youth Crime, Changing Young Lives: The Youth Justice System Reform and Delivery Plan (White Paper, CP 1585, 2026) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cutting-youth-crime-changing-young-lives> accessed 13 August 2026
- Transition to Adulthood Alliance (T2A), ‘T2A’s Take on the Youth Justice White Paper’ (T2A, 20 May 2026) <https://t2a.org.uk/2026/05/20/t2as-take-on-the-youth-justice-white-paper/> accessed 13 August 2026
- ‘Youth Justice White Paper – Five Key Themes’ CYP Now (18 May 2026) <https://www.cypnow.co.uk/content/analysis/youth-justice-white-paper-five-key-themes> accessed 13 August 2026
- Why Me?, ‘Government Highlight Restorative Justice in New Youth Justice White Paper’ (Why Me?, May 2026) <https://why-me.org/2026/government-highlight-restorative-justice-in-new-youth-justice-white-paper/> accessed 13 August 2026
[1]Ministry of Justice, Cutting Youth Crime, Changing Young Lives: The Youth Justice System Reform and Delivery Plan (White Paper, CP 1585, 2026) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cutting-youth-crime-changing-young-lives> accessed 13 August 2026 (‘White Paper’).
[2]David Lammy, ‘The Youth Justice Reform and Delivery Plan’ HCWS31, 18 May 2026 <https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2026-05-18/hcws31 > accessed 13 August 2026.
[3]White Paper (n 1) para 1.18.
[4]White Paper (n 1) Executive Summary, para ii.
[5]White Paper (n 1) Executive Summary, para i.
[6]White Paper (n 1) para 2.47.
[7]White Paper (n 1) Executive Summary, paras v–xi; Lammy (n 2).
[8]White Paper (n 1) paras 2.40–2.46.
[9]White Paper (n 1) para 2.17.
[10]White Paper (n 1) Executive Summary, para viii; ch 3, s 1.
[11]White Paper (n 1) 37 (box preceding para 3.1) and Foreword, 4.
[12]White Paper (n 1) para 2.17; Executive Summary, para vii.
[13]White Paper (n 1) para 2.13.
[14]White Paper (n 1) Executive Summary, para xiii.
[15]White Paper (n 1) para 3.19; Why Me?, ‘Government Highlight Restorative Justice in New Youth Justice White Paper’ (Why Me?, May 2026) <https://why-me.org/2026/government-highlight-restorative-justice-in-new-youth-justice-white-paper/> accessed 13 August 2026.
[16]Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, ss 135–138.
[17]White Paper (n 1) para 3.7.
[18]White Paper (n 1) para 3.13.
[19]White Paper (n 1) paras 3.6, 3.16.
[20]Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (n 16); White Paper (n 1) para 3.5.
[21]Sentencing Act 2020, s 230.
[22]White Paper (n 1) para 3.81.
[23]White Paper (n 1) para 3.97; Howard League for Penal Reform, ‘The Youth Justice White Paper’ (Howard League Blog, 22 May 2026) <https://howardleague.org/blog/the-youth-justice-white-paper/> accessed 13 August 2026.
[24] White Paper (n 1) para 3.86.
[25] ibid.
[26]Modern Slavery Act 2015, s 2.
[27]White Paper (n 1) para 2.18.
[28] (n 26)
[29]Howard League for Penal Reform (n 23).
[30]Transition to Adulthood Alliance (T2A), ‘T2A’s Take on the Youth Justice White Paper’ (T2A, 20 May 2026) <https://t2a.org.uk/2026/05/20/t2as-take-on-the-youth-justice-white-paper/> accessed 13 August 2026.
[31]Agenda Alliance, ‘Agenda Alliance Responds to the Youth Justice Reform White Paper’ (Agenda Alliance, 21 May 2026) <https://www.agendaalliance.org/news/agenda-alliance-responds-to-the-youth-justice-reform-white-paper/> accessed 13 August 2026.
[32]Children Act 1989, s 1; Agenda Alliance (n 28).
[33]‘Youth Justice White Paper – Five Key Themes’ CYP Now (18 May 2026) <https://www.cypnow.co.uk/content/analysis/youth-justice-white-paper-five-key-themes> accessed 13 August 2026.
[34]Sentencing Act 2020, s 230 (n 21).
[35]White Paper (n 1) para 3.19; Why Me? (n 15).
[36]White Paper (n 1) paras 2.40–2.45.
[37]Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (n 16); White Paper (n 1) para 3.14.
