Middlesbrough’s knife-carrying criminals can avoid jail sentences if they accept mental health support
Police documents show that some first-time and low-level offenders in Middlesbrough who admit carrying knives or other bladed weapons may avoid prosecution by completing the Cleveland Divert programme, which offers mental health and other support. The scheme has drawn renewed scrutiny after recent unrest in Teesside, with critics arguing that diversion can appear too lenient, while supporters say it reduces reoffending and eases pressure on prisons and courts.
Participants must admit the offence, show remorse and pledge not to reoffend; they can be referred for help with mental health, substance misuse, education or housing, and may undertake restorative justice, although victim meetings and community repayment are not compulsory. The programme had 1,853 participants from 2018 to 2025; of 322 participants between April 2025 and March 2026, 19 had carried a weapon or bladed article. Cleveland’s Police and Crime Commissioner says 4.7% of participants reoffended, compared with 32.9% across the Cleveland Police area.
- Knife carriers may avoid charges through Cleveland’s diversion scheme.
- Supporters cite lower reoffending and reduced system pressure.
- Critics say diversion risks fostering perceptions of leniency.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters argue that carefully targeted diversion recognises that some first-time, low-level knife carriers are better prevented from reoffending through early intervention than through prosecution alone. Requiring an admission, remorse and engagement with mental health, addiction, housing or education support can address the circumstances that contribute to offending, while reported reoffending figures suggest the approach may protect the public more effectively and reduce pressure on courts and prisons. They see it as proportionate discretion, not an absence of consequences.
The case against
Critics argue that carrying a knife is inherently serious because it can rapidly turn intimidation, disorder or personal vulnerability into grave harm, and that avoiding prosecution risks weakening deterrence and public confidence. They may question whether non-compulsory victim contact or community repayment provides sufficient accountability, particularly amid concerns about local unrest. From this perspective, a criminal justice response should set a clear boundary against weapons while support is provided alongside, rather than instead of, a formal sanction.