Exploring police use of diversion for sexual offences Open Access

The prevalence of sexual offending is a critical issue that challenges legal systems, communities, and public safety worldwide. Despite efforts to address sexual violence, it remains a pervasive issue (e.g. Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2024; Borumandnia et al., 2020). Traditionally, the criminal justice system has focused on punitive measures to address these offenses, often relying on legal proceedings and incarceration that may serve to protect the community by deterring or incapacitating offenders; however, it may not always address the underlying causes of offending behaviour (Bersot and Arrigo, 2015; Bull, 2009). The concept of diversion has emerged as an alternative to the conventional criminal justice approach, aiming to redirect individuals away from formal legal processes toward community-based or other forms of intervention (Klar-Chalamish, 2021). Diversion programs seek to address offending behaviour through treatment, education, or community-based alternatives, which, in turn, may reduce recidivism and the stigma associated with receiving criminal convictions (e.g. Daly, 2006; Lawler, 2025). Police play a crucial role in this process, often acting as gatekeepers, influencing both the accessibility and success of diversion programs (Bradford and Jackson, 2015).

However, there remains a significant gap in research regarding the role of diversion in policing practice, particularly in response to sexual offending. Police have substantial discretionary power in determining whether individuals are diverted from formal legal proceedings. Hence, understanding how police contribute to these diversionary pathways is crucial for improving the justice system's response and developing more targeted interventions to reduce sexual reoffending, as appropriate. This study aims to contribute knowledge to this gap, by examining the police actions against individuals accused of sexual offending over a 10-year period in Queensland, Australia, offering critical insights to inform policy and practice in addressing sexual harm.

The prevalence of sexual offending is a critical issue. One study, using data from the Global Burden of Disease database, suggested the global rate of sexual violence victimisation had remained unchanged for over 20 years (i.e. 1993–2017), around 1.2% for men and 2.7% for women, with some of the highest rates in Australia and Oceania (Borumandnia et al., 2020). However, other studies suggest that the prevalence is much higher, and it is widely acknowledged that most sexual offences remain unreported (e.g. Constantin et al., 2025). For example, another global prevalence study, involving a systematic review of literature with a focus on sexual victimisation, suggested the rates varied, up to 59.2% for women and 55.5% for men (Dworkin et al., 2021). Furthermore, a self-report study in Hong Kong indicated as many as 18% of young adults had engaged in sexually harmful behaviours toward others (Chan and Myers, 2023). In Australia, between 2010 and 2018, the rate of sexual victimisation had increased more than 30%, from 66.8 people per 100,000 to 90.2 (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2020). Since then, the rate of sexual victimisation has continued to rise, reaching the highest rate ever recorded by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 2024; to 136 people per 100,000 (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2024). The widespread nature of sexual offending and alarming prevalence rates in some jurisdictions, underscore the importance of understanding how sexual offending is addressed, in order to reduce its occurrence.

Given the gravity of such crimes, sexual offending is typically processed through formal legal mechanisms, such as police investigations, prosecution, and court. As sexual offending has long lasting impacts on mental, physical, social and economic well-being, these formal mechanisms can provide a level of protection from further harm (George et al., 2023). However, the criminal justice system faces persistent challenges in handling sexual offenses, including underreporting, revictimisation, and low conviction rates (Cashmore et al., 2019; Mathews et al., 2025; Jordan, 2015). Traditional justice responses have also been critiqued for their limited effectiveness in reducing recidivism and failing to adequately address the needs of victims, who may be retraumatised by legal proceeding (Bersot and Arrigo, 2015; George et al., 2023; McGlynn and Westmarland, 2019). This has led to a growing exploration of alternative or diversionary responses to sexual offending, such as restorative justice programs (e.g. Gxubane, 2016; Daly, 2006), which hold offenders to account while allowing opportunity for reparation.

Diversionary responses typically aim to redirect offenders away from formal legal mechanisms and towards alternative interventions, often considered to be less punitive (Mueller-Smith and Schnepel, 2021). By addressing offending outside these formal legal mechanisms, the adverse effects of engaging with the criminal justice system can be mitigated, reducing the stigma around offenders and re-entry, and reducing the negative impacts on relationships and employment (Mueller-Smith and Schnepel, 2021; Porter, 2011). This type of response is more common for justice-involved young people but can also be used for adult offenders (Price et al., 2022; Richards, 2014). The use of diversion varies between jurisdictions, though it is usually restricted to first-time or early career offenders, young people and minor offences. In saying this, there are a growing number of examples of diversionary practices or programs being used to address sexual offending (e.g. Beck et al., 2022; Lawler et al., 2025).

In these instances, diversion programs commonly aim to reduce the likelihood of sexual reoffending, while protecting and supporting victims in the aftermath of the offence (Klar-Chalamish and Peleg-Koriat, 2021; Titcomb et al., 2012). One example, noted above, is restorative justice – a non-adversarial justice mechanism, focused on reparation and healing harm (e.g. Lawler et al., 2025; Price et al., 2021). Diversionary restorative justice programs most commonly include conferencing, victim-offender mediation and restorative circles. For sexual offending, specifically, research indicates these programs can reduce the rate and/or severity of sexual reoffending (e.g. Daly, 2006; Lawler et al., 2025). For example, Daly (2006) compared reoffending outcomes for young people who proceeded through court to those who participated in a restorative justice conferencing; overall reoffending rates were lower among those conferenced (48%) than those who proceeded through court (66%). Studies have also shown these programs may offer greater benefits than traditional justice system responses to victims of sexual offending, such as improved psychological and emotional well-being (e.g. Klar-Chalamish and Peleg-Koriat, 2021; Nascimento et al., 2023).

While restorative justice programs have shown promise, the broader landscape of diversion programs also demonstrate significant potential in addressing sexual offending, with research also showing reductions in recidivism and improvements in offender behaviour and attitudes for some programs (e.g. Goodman-Delahunty and O’Brien, 2014; Muthaphuli, 2017). For example, one study by Goodman-Delahunty and O’Brien (2014) demonstrated adults convicted of parental child sexual abuse offences who completed a community-based diversionary treatment program were 11 times slower to reoffend than those who were declined entry, after controlling for differences in risk profile; while another study by Muthaphuli (2017) indicated a diversionary treatment camp for young people charged with sexual offences had improved young people’s sense of belonging and connection to others, which facilitated improved attitudes toward and treatment of others (i.e. including peers, siblings, and females specifically). Hence, diversion programs can reduce victimisation and enhance community safety by reducing the risks associated with sexual reoffending.

Of note, there are very few empirical studies on the use of police cautions to respond to allegations of sexual offending – which are a type of formal warning issued to a young person in lieu of processing through the court system (Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) pt 2 division 2). One example by Daly et al. (2013) compared the use of formal cautions, restorative justice conferencing and court for young people who had committed a sexual offence, using data from 1995–2001. While the results seemed promising in terms of recidivism, the authors highlighted some of the complexities of sexual offending, which likely impacted study outcomes, such as the correlation between the nature of the offence (e.g. contact or non-contact) and type of justice response. Specifically, Daly et al. (2013, p. 258) stated, “the legal pathways are set in motion by a youth’s admission to an offence early on”; acknowledging that a key element in the effectiveness of these programs could be the role of police, who often act as gatekeepers – determining the point of diversion and, thereby, potentially influencing the success of such initiatives.

Police play a crucial gatekeeping role in the criminal justice system, wielding substantial discretionary powers, shaping case outcomes and influencing access to victim services. These powers enable officers to make judgement-calls, which – while essential – can allow for potential misuse and abuses (Bradford and Jackson, 2015). For example, studies have shown that officers' attitudes towards offenders and rehabilitation have influenced their willingness to use diversion (e.g. Pearce, 2021; Schaible et al., 2020). In most instances, this has been to the detriment of minority ethnic groups, such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people in Australia (e.g. Cunneen et al., 2021; Little et al., 2011). This is particularly important as experiences with police during youth have a direct correlation with further entrenchment with the justice system, whereby young people who receive punitive police actions (i.e. arrest) for first or second offences have worse justice outcomes, than those who are diverted (e.g. Cauffman et al., 2023; Little et al., 2011).

In cases of sexual offending, research has explored the role of police as barriers to case progression (e.g. Yung, 2016), in terms of deterring disclosure (e.g. Murphy-Oikonen et al., 2022) and the adhering to rape myths (e.g. Gekoski et al., 2024). However, only a few studies – such as Tasca et al. (2013), Garza (2024) and Lapsey et al. (2021) – have examined the role of police as gatekeepers; and, even less research has investigated the impacts of this on outcomes for alleged perpetrators. Specifically, Garza (2024, p. 7) identified that sexual assault cases that did not align with rape myths (or “real rape schemas”) were less prioritised than those that adhered to these ideas, and Tasca et al. (2013) reported that failure to arrest in cases of sexual assault was predicted by police perceptions that the victim lacked credibility, largely due to a history of drug use or prostitution. As noted, most studies on police decision-making have focused on victim characteristics, such as credibility, age and alcohol use (Lapsey et al., 2021), creating a substantial gap in knowledge and understanding of how police assess alleged perpetrators of sexual offences and what influence this may have on discretionary decisions in police action.

Given the concerning prevalence of sexual offending and the potential – but underexplored – benefits of diversionary responses (where appropriate), it is timely to explore the role of police as gatekeepers in these cases. Hence, this study sought to explore the use of police diversion over time; and whether, and if so how, police responses differ between individuals accused of sexual offences, based on differences in demographics, with consideration of the type of offending. The study used policing data from one jurisdiction in Australia (i.e. Queensland), as a case study, over a period of approximately 10-years (2012–2021). In this context, police diversion refers to the actions available to Queensland police officers that do not result in a suspected perpetrator coming into contact with the court system (i.e. formal caution or restorative justice conference referral). In Queensland, the use of diversion is discretionary, within set parameters for young people and adults, such as severity of offence and prior criminal history (e.g. elderly first time offender) (Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) s 11; Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) ch 14 p. 3). The key findings from this study may be used to inform the continued refinement and development of policy and practice, to aid in the reduction of sexual recidivism through the appropriate use of diversionary programs. As sexual offending is a concern worldwide, these findings offer key lessons to support the global response to sexual harm.

This study used a quantitative research design, involving statistical analysis of existing policing data to examine the role of police as gatekeepers to diversionary responses in cases of sexual offending. Specifically, the study explored: (1) whether there were demographic differences (i.e. age, gender and cultural heritage) in the use of diversion, and how these differences changed over time; (2) how offending patterns differed by these groupings, and whether these patterns changed over time; and (3) whether the use of diversion could be predicted by demographic characteristics, when controlling for the influence of offence type and time (i.e. year). These three questions reflect a staged approach, that first established the patterns and trends in diversion practices and offending behaviours, before providing a more robust examination of police diversion practices.

The current study utilised police records obtained from Queensland Police Service (QPS), in Australia. The data was extracted from the Queensland Police Records and Information Management Exchange (QPRIME) database. The resulting dataset contained all cases of sexual offenses actioned by QPS between 1 January 2012 and 30 June 2021, which included 39,844 cases, with 22,864 unique alleged perpetrators and 56,636 total charges. All cases with unknown perpetrator cultural heritage or gender were excluded, as well as all cases whose age at “offence commencement” was indicated as under 10-years – aligning with the age of criminal responsibility in Queensland (Criminal Code Act, 1899, s29). Additionally, 24 cases were identified as outliers through visual inspection (i.e. boxplots) in SPSS, and were removed from the dataset. This resulted in a total sample of 38,384 cases, involving 21,887 alleged perpetrators and 53,261 charges.

Almost two-thirds of cases related to adult perpetrators (64.8%; n = 24,872) at the time the recorded offence/s had commenced, with ages ranging from 10 to 94 years (M = 29 years; SD = 15.91). Most of the cases were related to male perpetrators (88.5%; n = 33,953) and non-Indigenous individuals (81.4%; n = 31,239). Almost two-thirds of cases were recorded as assaultive offences (61.2%; n = 23,507), which included non-aggravated assault against a child (48.3%) and rape (26.1%) among other offences.

Independent variables included demographics (i.e. age, gender, and cultural heritage) and basic offence details. “Age” was coded as 0 = youth (10–17 years) and 1 = adult (18+ years), based on the age at the onset of offending; “gender” was coded as 0 = Male and 1 = Female; and “cultural heritage” was coded as 0 = non-Indigenous Australian and 1 = First Nations Australian identity. The dataset included the Australia and New Zealand Standard Offence Classification (ABS, 2023) subdivision offence description, which were coded as “offence type”, where 0 = non-assaultive sexual offences and 1 = sexual assault. Non-assaultive sexual offences included non-assaultive sexual offences against a child (e.g. grooming or forcing a child to witness a sexual act), child pornography, wilful exposure, and non-assaultive sexual offences (not elsewhere classified; remainder). Sexual assault offences included rape, attempted rape, assault with intent to commit rape, carnal knowledge of children, non-aggravated assault against a child, incest, other sexual assaults (consent proscribed), and non-aggravated sexual assault (not further defined).

This study focused on one dependent variable, the “type of police action” in response to sexual offending. This was coded categorically, in line with codes contained within the provided dataset, as follows: 1 = arrest; 2 = caution; 3 = restorative justice conference; 4 = notice to appear; 5 = summons; 6 = warrant; 7 = other ^[1]; and 99 = not stated. Additionally, a binomial code was created, coded as 0 = diversionary (i.e. caution and restorative justice conference) and 2 = non-diversionary. All “other” and “non-stated” actions were excluded from analyses due to the diversity of responses recorded within the “other” category and potential of both categories to affect the results.

As noted above, a staged approach was used for the analysis. Several preliminary tests (bivariate analyses) were conducted to explore relationships between variables and determine independent variables from covariates for subsequent multivariate analyses. This is recognised as a mandatory precursor to more complex analyses, to ensure multivariate analyses do not prematurely attribute independent effects to certain variables (e.g. Bertani et al., 2018). First, Chi-Squared Tests for Independence were conducted to explore the relationship between age and police action, and type of diversionary action more specifically. Chi-Squared Tests for Independence were also conducted to explore the relationship between gender, police action and diversionary action and between cultural heritage, police action and diversionary action. Results of these analyses led to an exclusive focus on juveniles for the remainder of the study ^[2]. The dataset was split by gender and year for further examination of data. Second, for the juvenile sample only, Chi-Squared Tests for Independence were conducted to explore the relationship between type of offence and gender and cultural heritage, and between police action and offence category.

Having completed these preliminary tests, a hierarchical logistic regression was used to explore gender and cultural heritage as a predictor of police action, while controlling for the influence of offence category in the juvenile sample. All analyses used a confidence interval of 95%.

Table 1 presents the findings of the bivariate comparisons.

1. Does the use of diversion for sexual offences differ by perpetrator age, gender or cultural heritage? And, do these patterns differ over time?

As mentioned, the use of diversion did differ for sexual offences by perpetrator age, gender and cultural heritage. There was a significant relationship between the type of police action and age (X² (1, n = 32,915) = 22,460.50, p < 0.001, φ = −0.83). As reported in Table 1, there were stronger associations between adults and non-diversionary responses, and between juveniles and diversion, with the data indicating diversionary options may have been less accessible to adults during this time. With juveniles representing more than 99% of diversionary actions, the sample was restricted to juveniles only for the remainder of the study.

Within the juvenile group, there was a significant correlation between police action and gender (X² (1, n = 10,893) = 6,685.46, p < 0.001, φ = 0.45). There were stronger associations between juvenile males and non-diversion, and between juvenile females and diversion, indicating diversionary options were utilised more for juvenile female perpetrators than juvenile male perpetrators during the observation period. These same gender patterns are observed at each annual time point (i.e. 2012–2021) (Figure 1). Of those who were diverted (n = 8,405), 84.9% received a caution; with juvenile females more likely to receive a caution than males (94.5 vs 79.7%) (X² (1, n = 8,406) = 329.44, p < 0.001, φ = −0.198). See also Table 2.

There were also significant associations between cultural heritage and police action in the juvenile group overall (X² (1, n = 10,893) = 377.06, p < 0.001, φ = −0.19; see Table 1); a pattern observed in every year examined; whereby the proportion of juveniles from First Nations backgrounds receiving diversionary referrals was significantly less than non-Indigenous juvenile. As illustrated in Figure 2, the long-term trends in these police actions indicate that diversion was more accessible to non-Indigenous juveniles, than juveniles from First Nations backgrounds, though both groups experienced an increase in the use of diversionary referrals overall during this period. While both groups (i.e. juveniles from First Nations backgrounds and non-Indigenous juveniles) were more likely to receive a caution than a referral to a restorative justice conference, juveniles from First Nations backgrounds were more likely to be referred to a restorative justice conference than non-Indigenous juveniles (X² (1, n = 8,406) = 6.14, p = 0.013, φ = 0.027).

As there were significant variations by gender, this variable was utilised to explore cultural heritage at a deeper level, with the sample split by gender. There were significant correlations between cultural heritage and police action overall for males (X² (1, n = 7,833) = 273.34, p < 0.001, φ = 0.19; see Table 1) and females (X² (1, n = 3,061) = 18.71, p < 0.001, φ = 0.08), and in every year observed, for juvenile First Nations males ( Appendix); whereby juveniles from First Nations backgrounds received significantly less diversionary referrals, than non-Indigenous juveniles overall, which was most apparent for juvenile males from First Nations backgrounds. As illustrated in Figure 3, the long-term trends in these police actions indicate that diversion was most accessible to non-Indigenous juvenile females and least accessible to juvenile males from First Nations backgrounds.

1. How do offending patterns differ by perpetrator gender and cultural heritage?

Having identified significant correlations between the type of police action and perpetrator age, gender and cultural heritage, it was necessary to briefly examine the offending patterns of perpetrators to provide context and determine whether these patterns may have also influenced the type of police actions. A significant correlation between the type of police action and the offence category (i.e. assaultive or non-assaultive) was identified (X² (1, n = 10,894) = 2,092.34, p < 0.001, φ = 0.44), indicating non-assaultive offences were more likely to receive a diversionary police action. Exploring this further, there were also significant correlations between offence type and gender (X² (11, n = 13,512) = 2,675.80, p < 0.001, φ = 0.45), and between offence type and cultural heritage (X² (11, 13,512) = 1017.18, p < 0.001, φ = 0.27). These correlations indicate and that there were greater proportions of juvenile male perpetrators and juveniles from First Nations backgrounds having committed assaultive offences, than juvenile females or non-Indigenous juveniles. Hence, females and non-Indigenous juvenile were more likely to receive diversionary police actions, proportionate to type of offence.

1. Can the use of diversion among juveniles be predicted by perpetrator, gender or cultural heritage, when controlling for offence type and time?

A hierarchical logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine whether gender or cultural heritage were unique predictors of police action taken within the juvenile sample, while controlling for the influence of offence category and time. The covariates – offence category and year – were entered at Step 1, explaining 77.2% of the variance of action taken, which was statistically significant for both covariates (Table 2). Gender was entered at Step 2, with a small change to the model of 0.1%, accounting for 77.3% of the variance of action taken for sexual offenses. Cultural heritage was entered at Step 3, improving the model to account for 78.9% of the variance of police action taken (i.e. diversion or otherwise), a small but significant increase. As shown in Table 3, the odds of receiving a non-diversionary response was seven times greater for cases involving assaultive offences, with offence type making the strongest unique contribution to the model, recording an odds ratio of 7.0. Further to this, juvenile male perpetrators were 81.0% less likely to result in a diversionary action, than those involving female perpetrators, controlling for the influence of offence category and year. Additionally, cultural heritage had also made a unique contribution to the model, recording an odds ratio of 2.0, which suggests that cases with juveniles from First Nations backgrounds are twice as likely to result in a non-diversionary action, than those involving non-Indigenous perpetrators. Year was also significant, although made the smallest contribution to the model, with arrest being 9.0% less likely over time.

This study explored whether police responses differed between individuals accused of sexual offences, with a focus on diversion, and found that responses did differ based on the nature of the offence (i.e. assaultive or non-assaultive) and the accused’s age, gender and cultural heritage. Using policing data from Queensland, Australia, over a period of approximately 10 years (i.e. 2012–2021), the findings show that young non-Indigenous females were most likely to be issued a police caution, compared with other groups (e.g. young females from First Nations backgrounds or young non-Indigenous males) – which is arguably the most lenient response in these data. As most diversionary responses were issued to young people, the study focused on this sub-sample. The findings showed that young males were more likely to be arrested than young females, even when controlling for the type of offense (i.e. assaultive or non-assaultive). Similarly, young people from First Nations backgrounds were more likely to be arrested than non-Indigenous young people, which reflects existing evidence of police bias toward First Nations young people in this jurisdiction (e.g. Little et al., 2011). In saying this, the findings did also clearly show that the type of offence had the strongest influence on the type of police response than all other variables considered, indicating that its use is arguably more aligned with the perceived magnitude of the offense. However, there are significant complexities to consider in interpretation, as First Nations young people were overrepresented in assaultive offences and face greater disadvantages stemming from systemic bias (e.g. Adams et al., 2020), which are likely reflected in the offending data. Hence, this study underscores the need for clear, evidence-informed guidelines and training to support decision-making around diversion for cases involving sexual offending.

The findings align with traditional views of diversion evident in existing literature. For example, traditional views of diversion reserve these alternative justice responses for young people and minor or less severe offending (e.g. Price et al., 2022; Richards, 2014). In this study, over 99% of diversion responses were issued to young people, indicating support for the notion that access to diversion should be limited to young people – particularly in cases of sexual offending. Additionally, the results showed that diversion was statistically more common in non-assaultive offences, than assaultive offences, which provides further support for the existing idea that diversion should be used in cases where the harms are considered to be minor or less severe. While traditionally punitive police responses (e.g. arrest) were the most common response to sexual offending in this study overall, these findings illustrate that diversionary practices are tentatively being used to address sexual offending in Queensland, increasing slightly over time, and predominantly for non-assaultive cases. While diversion itself is not an emerging practice, the utilisation of diversion in cases of sexual harm specifically has remained relatively limited (e.g. Beck et al., 2022; Lawler et al., 2025).

Examining these findings closer, as noted above, young non-Indigenous females were most likely to receive a diversionary response, which likely reflected that young females were also most likely to engage in non-assaultive offensives. This reflects recent findings by Hull et al. (2024), who utilised this same dataset, identifying an increase in females coming into contact with the police for sexual offences, and that young non-Indigenous females were most likely to engage in online child sexual abuse offending. In their study, these online cases largely included child sexual abuse material offences. However, other research has highlighted the complexities of child sexual abuse material offences by young people, which may include self-produced child sexual abuse materials and sharing images of others without consent (e.g. “revenge pornography”) (Crofts et al., 2015; eSafety, 2017; Leet et al., 2015). This raises important considerations about the most appropriate ways the justice system could respond to youth-perpetrated sexual offending, depending on the circumstances of these offenses. A nuanced approach is deemed most appropriate; one which can attend to the complexities of sexual offending by young people and associated harms. Hence, greater use of diversionary responses may be warranted.

The benefits to addressing sexual offending outside formal legal mechanisms have been established in diversion literature (e.g. Mueller-Smith and Schnepel, 2021; Porter, 2011). Specifically, studies have shown that cautions and restorative justice programs can reduce the rate and/or severity of sexual offending (e.g. Daly, 2006; Daly et al., 2013; Lawler et al., 2025), while restorative justice programs can also provide benefits to victim-survivors of sexual offending, such as validation and the healing of relationships (e.g. Klar-Chalamish and Peleg-Koriat, 2021; McGlynn and Westmarland, 2019). Hence, those young people (and the few adults) who received a diversionary response were likely to experience a greater benefit from this police action, than those who were responded to by other means. However, the findings show that the use of diversion was somewhat limited, especially referrals to restorative justice conferencing. This highlights a missed opportunity to provide a greater number of people – both those who have harmed and those who have been harmed – with access to these potential benefits. Of course, diversion is not appropriate in all cases, but the pattern of use (i.e. the traditional view of diversion) suggests there may be scope to increase the utilisation of diversionary responses to sexual offending, as appropriate, to enhance justice outcomes and increase community safety through positive behaviour change (e.g. Muthaphuli, 2017).

Additionally, the disparity in police responses highlighted by the findings further illustrate the crucial gatekeeping role of police recognised in extant literature. For example, the gender disparity, with young females disproportionately represented in diversionary responses, aligns with literature dating back to the 1980s (e.g. Alder, 1984). Research has also shown that cultural minority groups, particularly the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people of Australia, are most likely to be negatively impacted by police discretion (e.g. Cunneen et al., 2021; Little et al., 2011). However, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people are disproportionately exposed to personal stressors and systemic disadvantages, which have been significantly associated with the onset of sexual offending, with sexual behaviours that are often more complex than those of non-Indigenous young people (Adams et al., 2020). As such, this finding likely reflects both the systemic bias and continuing disadvantages experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and police bias, and thereby provide further justification for effective policy and actions developed in partnership with First Nations Communities to address these disadvantages and reduce disparity in police actions.

While this study focused on sexual offending in Queensland, the findings provide valuable insights and lessons for police responses to sexual offending in other jurisdictions. Given the gender disparity in police responses, the findings have implications for all police agencies and the communities they serve, to examine practice and explore the merits of diversion for sexual offending, as described above. Additionally, the findings of disparity by cultural heritage have particular relevance for similar jurisdictions – such as New Zealand and Canada, where Indigenous Peoples are also over-represented in criminal justice measures. All police forces should work together with Indigenous Peoples to develop and implement appropriate responses to sexual offending, considering the full utility of diversionary responses to reduce deeper levels of contact with the criminal justice system.

There are three primary limitations with this study. Firstly, this study did not examine influences on police decision-making, such as attitudes toward diversion – particularly for cases of sexual offending – or case details (i.e. victim characteristics), which could have significant correlations with the type of police action taken. Rather, this study’s focus was on the outcomes of these decisions and, thereby, the potential implications for people accused of sexual offences. Secondly, as more than 99% of diversionary responses were issued to young people, it was not possible to explore the utilisation of diversion when the person accused was an adult. Finally, this study did not take into account variables related to the systemic disadvantages faced by First Nations young people, which would yield greater insight into the disparity in police actions. This was beyond the scope of this paper.

Future research should build on the findings of this study and examine police decision-making through interviews and/or surveys of police officers, victim-survivors and people accused of sexual offences. It should also obtain additional data, such as case reports and indicators of disadvantage (e.g. socioeconomic status, education attainment and familial incarceration; Adams et al., 2020), and consider a longer timeframe or cross-jurisdictional data to explore further influences on police actions, as well as the use of diversion for adults accused of sexual offending. Future research should also explore the impacts of these police responses, in terms of future offending patterns.

The authors stress that diversionary responses may not be appropriate in all cases of sexual offending. However, this too should be explored further through interviews with police, victim-survivors and perpetrators of sexual harm, to determine in which circumstances diversion should be utilised, and how. This would provide valuable understanding to better support police decision-making in cases of sexual offending and increase access to the potential benefits of diversion for both the person harmed and the person committing harm.

This study highlights trends in police responses to individuals accused of sexual offenses; demonstrating that the nature of the offence, as well as age, gender, and cultural heritage significantly influenced the likelihood of receiving a diversionary response. The findings reflect traditional views of diversion, showing that it was primarily reserved for use with young people and for minor or less severe offences. However, given the benefits of diversion, there is a strong case for expanding the scope of diversionary responses, where appropriate. Additionally, this study emphasises the gatekeeping role of police, particularly for young males and young people from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds, who were more likely to be arrested than their non-Indigenous or female counterparts. While this may reflect systemic disadvantages, rather than individual officer bias, it reinforces the need for targeted reforms to ensure fair and equitable access to diversion. Future research should explore police decision-making and consider the long-term impacts of these responses. As the evidence for the use of diversion for sexual offending remains relatively limited, this study provides foundational knowledge and highlights the potential for more innovative and inclusive approaches to justice.