The significance of the judge 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.