New research reveals crisis of confidence in criminal justice – and how to rebuild trust

Nearly two-thirds of Britons feel likely to be a victim of crime in the next year amid a crisis of confidence in the criminal justice system, according to major new research by the Common Ground Justice Project.

Held to Account – the culmination of months of engagement and research with voters, victims and people with lived experience of the justice system – further finds that:

• A majority (53%) of women under-35 feel likely to suffer a violent or sexual crime in the next year

• Fewer than one in five (18%) of all voters think offenders usually face real consequences

• The public don’t rate the justice system as doing a good job on any of its core functions

• Voters are less divided on criminal justice than the debate suggests – they want a balance of punishment and rehabilitation and are most united by the principle of people taking responsibility for the harm they’ve caused

Held to Account is the Common Ground Justice Project’s most in-depth study yet of the loss of confidence in the criminal justice system and what the public actually want from reform to rebuild trust.

The depth of the confidence crisis is stark. The sense that crime has become 'consequence-free' is now a mainstream view: fewer than one in five Britons believe offenders usually face real consequences. Within the justice system, only the police command the confidence of half the public (at 51%), while courts, prisons, probation and youth justice all fall below. Those who lack confidence blame underfunding, ineffectiveness and unfairness as much as perceived leniency. Meanwhile, fear of victimhood is high, with declining trust in the justice system appearing to feed a wider sense of disillusionment with politics and government among British voters.

On solutions, the public's answer is for accountability that cuts both ways: for people who commit crime to be held to account for the harm caused, and for the justice system to deliver on its promises.

The findings also reveal more common ground than often assumed by the political debate on crime. Most voters and victims want the justice system to deliver clear consequences and rehabilitation together. The idea that offenders should take responsibility for the harm they've caused emerges as the strongest area of agreement across political divides.

The report builds on the Common Ground Justice Project’s inaugural 2025 publication, Course Correction, which first revealed the public's demand for major change and the central importance of accountability to voter attitudes. Held to Account deepens this through a pioneering investigation into what the public mean by 'accountability' for crime, finding three key steps that voters want to see: offenders owning the harm caused, paying through proportionate punishment, and changing behaviour to prevent further victims. But they also want more honesty and effective delivery from a justice system they see as failing on its promises, further compounded by the issue of early prisoner releases.

A chapter looking at the example of accountability for prolific low-level offending finds that policy packages which combine clear consequences with treatment or repair win the broadest support – beating both punishment-only and rehabilitation-only packages across party lines.

Based on these findings and the common ground identified, the report makes a series of recommendations for policymakers and campaigners, including:

• Make clearerconsequences and public safety the foundation for bolder action on rehabilitation

• Prioritise tackling prolific and low-level crime which is driving voter mistrust, including through addiction treatment

• Communicate more honestly about sentencing – to victims and the public

• For politicians to work across parties on a long-term plan to fix the justice system.

Jacob Dunne, co-founder of the Common Ground Justice Project, said:

“The crisis of confidence in British justice should alarm us all. When so many people feel likely to become victims of crime – including a majority of young women expecting to experience violent or sexual crime – we need to ask serious questions about our justice system. 

“But what gives me hope is that the public agrees on far more than our political debate suggests. We’re inviting politicians of all parties who want to move beyond the point-scoring to work with us – building on that common ground and delivering change that rebuilds trust and actually keeps the public safe.”

Jess Brown-Fuller MP, Liberal Democrat justice spokesperson, said:

“This report should be a wake-up call to the Government. A functioning justice system relies on trust, and that trust has been eroded to a crisis point after decades of mismanagement and complacency. It speaks to a much wider mistrust in our political systems in general. 

“If the justice system continues to be used as a political football, we’ll never fix the prisons capacity crisis, the revolving door of repeat offending or the severe delays in our courts. I commend the Common Ground Justice Project for focusing on finding solutions that transcend party politics so the general public can trust our institutions once more.”

Rupert Matthews, Reform UK Police and Crime Commissioner for Leicestershire, said:

“The public generally understands that crime and public safety is a complex issue and that there needs to be a balance between punishment and rehabilitation. The public are correct. Rehabilitation will not by itself solve the problems. Punishment, and the near certainty of punishment, is required too. So is crime prevention.” 

Jonathan Hinder, Labour MP for Pendle and Clitheroe, said:

“From police to prisons, courts to probation, criminal justice has been seen as the public service that could be left to rot. These results show that we are still living with the consequences of that attitude. 

“This Labour government must be radical if it is to improve confidence in the system. While the public finances are obviously tight, a comparatively small investment in criminal justice could make a big difference to restoring trust. I urge ministers to consider this as they prepare for the upcoming Budget.”

Bridgertonactress Genevieve Chenneour, who has spoken about being the victim of a violent attack, said:

“The finding that more than half of young women expect to experience violent or sexual crime is deeply disturbing to me. Violence doesn’t only take something from you in the moment – it can alter the way you inhabit the world afterwards.

“I believe in accountability and rehabilitation, but victims cannot simply be forgotten once a conviction has been secured. Justice cannot only be about what happens to the offender. We also need to ask what happens to the person who has to live with what they did.”

ENDS

• Held to Account is based on months of public engagement research conducted between June and August 2026, including a national survey, a conjoint policy experiment, in-depth AI-moderated 1-to-1 interviews, and five focus groups held across the UK.

• The national survey was commissioned and funded by the Common Ground Justice Project and undertaken by Focaldata, which surveyed 1,493 UK adults aged 18+ between 5–8 June 2026. Data are weighted by age, gender, education, region and recalled 2024 general election vote. Focaldata also conducted the AI-moderated interviews and the conjoint experiment. Full data tables for the national survey will be available on Focaldata's website.

• The focus groups were carried out independently by the Common Ground Justice Project, including a group of people with lived experience of prolific offending convened in partnership with the charity Revolving Doors.

• The Common Ground Justice Project is an independent non-profit engaging the public in a new conversation about criminal justice – using those insights to drive reforms rooted in the common ground. The project is hosted by the Centre for Justice Innovation (UK charity no. 1151939).

• The Common Ground Justice Project is strictly non-partisan and retains full independence over our research and work. We are funded by philanthropists and charitable trusts and foundations and receive nothing from government sources. While some of our donors are anonymous, we only accept funding from those who back our mission of finding common ground — not from those seeking influence, publicity, or control over our conclusions.