Why we’re focused on “accountability” in 2026

By Sam Boyd, Co-Founder, The Common Ground Justice Project

***

An air of mistrust and pessimism hangs over many parts of British public life. In few areas is this felt more strongly than in crime and justice.

Slogans like “two-tier justice” and “lawless Britain” cut through with increasing potency because they capture a growing feeling that the rules no longer apply evenly. That wrongdoing has become consequence-free. Images of brazen shoplifting, phone-snatching or fly-tipping animate voters for the same reason. For many, fairness and accountability appear to have broken down. The social contract has frayed.

When I sat in focus groups about crime for our research at the Common Ground Justice Project, these sentiments came through loud and clear. As one Reform voter in South Bolton said:

“For the poorer in our communities, their journey to prison is very quick. But if you have money you'd probably get off and that's wrong.”

Controversial high-profile sentencing decisions, from Huw Edwards to Lucy Connolly, are often cited as representing a wider lack of consistency.

A TOP PRIORITY

Throughout our conversations with the public, the idea of accountability shines through as a clear area of common ground across divides, from victims to prison-leavers. This is backed up by our polling showing accountability as a joint-top priority for all voters, and clear first among groups including victims and women:

What should be a priority for the criminal justice system in this country? Select up to three.

Source: Common Ground Justice Project & More In Common, 2025

Filter by Group

Show All Priorities

Data shows the proportion of respondents who selected each priority in their top 3. "Holding people accountable for what they've done" is highlighted in green.

The 5 R’s

Yet when people talk about accountability, they’re often talking about different things: facing consequences, taking responsibility, making amends, or something else.

From listening deeply to voters across the country, we’ve identified five forms of accountability (we’re calling them the ‘Five Rs’) we hear most often:

1. Repercussions – people should face consequences for wrongdoing, via punishment that is proportionate to the harm caused.

2. Responsibility – people should take responsibility for what they have done, acknowledging the harm caused.

3. Repair – people should take steps to repair the harm caused, whether to victims directly or the wider community.

4. Reform – people should take steps to change their behaviour, address the drivers of their offending and stop causing further harm.

5. Reintegration – people should contribute to society through work, participation and being a law-abiding citizen.

This framework offers a way to understand better: which forms of accountability matter most, to whom, and in what circumstances? Where are the tensions, and where is there alignment across divides? What do these ideas look like in practice?

We may also ask: how well do different parts of the justice system enable these aims, and what are the conditions that make them more likely? In a recent deep-listening dialogue with voters in Nottingham, for example, participants suggested that people are more likely to be accountable when they have good relationships, a stake in society, and opportunities to make amends and contribute. 

Rebuilding trust

There is much more to understand here, and this way of thinking about accountability is only a starting point, a way of opening up the conversation.

But our emerging findings are clear: accountability holds significant potential as a central pillar for popular and effective justice reform. It also offers a possible escape from the rhetorical tug-of-wars of “punishment vs rehabilitation”, or “tough vs soft” justice, that lead nowhere fast.

By listening more closely to what people mean when they call for accountability, we’ll move a step closer to a justice system that cuts crime and restores trust and confidence in the country.