Restorative justice

Introduction

In the early 1980s the notion of restorative justice was a new and completely undeveloped concept in the UK. As an individual with a background in teaching in schools, my first step into the criminal justice system was working as a teacher in a custodial institution. This experience was both enriching and disturbing. It occurred to me that custody was a very expensive way of making essentially ‘good’ people who had done ‘bad’ things ‘worse’. The early 1980s was also a period where the concept of ‘Nothing Works’ was in the ascendancy. Attempts to engage with young men in groups who were in custody around the subject of their offending was, by and large, for this practitioner, met with a litany of denial – of their victim, of the seriousness of their offences and of their own blameworthiness. Furthermore, reoffending rates were horrendous.

Seven years later I was now working in the community with young offenders with a brief to keep them out of custody. I was fortunate enough to embark upon a period of research funded by my employer into what was known at the time as victim-offender mediation. One of the caveats to the research fellowship was that I should bring something of use back to the agency for which I worked. The research gave me the time for the luxury of reflection and a real opportunity to look closely at the Wiltshire Juvenile Justice System, as it was then known.

In 1987 there were very relatively few places to go to speak directly with practitioners who were involved in restorative justice, or who had something to tell me. Those few that did exist were isolated and their views treated almost heretically. One conversation with my local probation service led to me being told ‘not to get my hands dirty in that’. I was told firmly that Probation resources were solely ‘for offenders’. Probation ‘provided a service to the Court’. The notion of justice taking place outside the Court arena was an anathema.

The opportunity given by the research project gave me the chance to reflect more deeply than normal on the nature of the criminal justice system and, in particular, upon its symbols. As a relative newcomer to the arena I had always been somewhat intimidated by the customs, language and architecture of courts. If it was intimidating for me, then for a young person it must have been both daunting and debilitating. Perhaps one of the most distinct and famous symbols is that of Lady Justice in gold, which sits atop the Old Bailey – a symbol that is so iconic it informs the views of many English people about the very nature of Justice. Lady Justice, as she is known, has a set of scales in her left hand and a raised sword in her right. She is helmeted but not, as widespread belief has it, blindfolded, and has many different incarnations around the world. The scales appear to represent the careful weighing of evidence and impartiality. It is the sword that reflects something more profound. It is the harsh punishment of the guilty. Quite clearly Lady Justice announces to all that our system of Justice is based upon punishment and retribution. The sword is not the symbol of community sentences, restorative outcomes or group work: ‘Justice threatens with a sword: she does not beckon to the therapist’s couch’ (Anglin, 2006).

There was very little evidence about the state of the local juvenile justice system and so I embarked upon some investigation. Further quantitative research into the criminal justice system saw many instances where the stated victim of the crime was ‘the State’. Even when a brief glimpse at the details of particular offence revealed specific names and locations, time and time again it was the State who was regarded as the victim. I began to feel sorry for the State. The whole apparatus of the Juvenile Court was focused upon the offender, although the offender − once his or her name was confirmed − played little part in the proceedings. Obviously, victims did not appear when young offenders pleaded guilty; however, their views were rarely represented in any meaningful way.

In his challenging and seminal text ‘Conflicts as property’, Christie (1977) shows how the various players in the drama of criminal justice – the administrators of the law − the crown, lawyers (prosecuting and defending) and the allied treatment services such as probation and social workers all serve to ‘steal’ the conflict from those most directly involved in it. In our traditional system of justice, conflicts become the property of specialists. The offender becomes an object for study and the primary focus resides there. Where a victim does attend court and participates in the proceedings it will be as a witness in the prosecution of the offender. They may leave the Court angry and humiliated through robust cross-examination (this is something I have experienced personally). By keeping the key participants apart in such a way there is an increased likelihood of the proliferation of stereotypes. If the victim does not come to know, communicate or have any human contact with his or her offender he or she may leave the process more frightened or angry than ever.

In the world of restorative justice there is then a recalibration of focus to include the victim. The crime ‘belongs’ to the victim just as much as it does to the offender. In a solely retributive system of justice, the victim, as Christie points out, can easily become a double loser:

Not only has he suffered, lost materially or become hurt, physically or otherwise … but above all he has lost participation in his own case. It is the Crown that comes into the spotlight, not the victim. It is the Crown that describes the losses, not the victim. It is the Crown that gets the chance to talk to the offender, and neither the Crown nor the offender is particularly interested in carrying on that conversation. The prosecutor is fed up long since. The victim would not have been. He might have been scared to death, panic-stricken, or furious. But he would not have been involved. It would have been one of the most important days in his life. Something that belonged to him has been taken away from the victim. (1977: 7−8)

We have witnessed over the last 25 years a move toward the acceptance of what has been described as a ‘personalization’ of justice in ways that may never have been envisaged (Easton, 2012). Restorative processes that bring together those responsible for crimes and those who are affected by them offer the opportunity for what Christie (1977: 8) terms ‘opportunities for norm-clarification’ (italics in original). A meeting between two parties, carefully handled, can bring about a dramatic restatement of values. Those who have been involved in the facilitation of this work will speak of the powerful impact upon offenders upon hearing how their actions have affected another human being. Conversely, victims rarely choose to become victims and restorative justice offers a powerful tool for self-empowerment. Rarely does the traditional criminal justice system offer these opportunities of meeting the needs of those who are closest to the offence. As Christie points out: ‘Lawyers are … trained into agreement on what is relevant to the case. But that means a trained incapacity in letting the parties decide what they think is relevant’ (1977: 8).

I described in the opening paragraphs of this introduction the difficulty of engaging with young offenders in a meaningful way while they were in custody. Denial of responsibility and denial of the victim were constants. Given the situation they were in, and subject to the influence of a group mentality, offenders would vaguely portray themselves as victims themselves possibly in an attempt to reach some form of equilibrium for the duration of their sentence. What quickly became very clear from my first forays into restorative justice is that one of the significant advantages in bringing together offenders and victims is the immense difficulty with which offenders are able to embark upon that process of neutralization described earlier. It is not easy to deny the feelings of your victim when you have to look them in the eye. As a facilitator in the process, it is not easy to deal with anger, upset and grief, but these emotions are real, have to be acknowledged and brought into the open. They are instruments toward greater understanding. There are two sides to every story and offenders, too, have their story to tell. My favourite Longfellow quote (and one borne out by experience) states: ‘If you knew the secret history of our enemies, you would find a sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all your hostility’ (1857:).

Further developments during the 1970s and 1980s

These early days led to a great deal of cross fertilization of ideas. One of the primary features of restorative justice is that its development has generally arisen from the ground up. It has blossomed out of the frustration of practitioners who have become frustrated with traditional approaches. Practitioners experiment with ways that appear to work. The whole ‘What Works’ agenda arose out of a similar frustration and a determination to do something better. It appeared to many that the needs of offenders, victims and community were not independent and that justice agencies had to work with all three in order to make any impact (Marshall, 2003 [1998]). One of the difficulties of this time though was the absence of any legal framework in which to operate.

The term restorative justice was first ascribed to Barnett (2003 [1977]) and refers to the restoration of the offender to a life that is law-abiding; the restoration of the victim who has received apology and restitution, and, finally, the community which through these processes has had restored those feelings of security that has been broken by the offence.

If the term restorative justice is new, its applications are not. Examples of differing societies who have adopted restorative process as the norm in dealing with crime and deviant behaviour are abundant and deserve a longer examination than this article can achieve: however, one might ask quite how societies who were deemed to be ‘primitive’ manage without the array of paraphernalia available to modern law enforcement agencies. The answer would be quite well. Earlier societies than ours had to deal with personal and property crime in ways that would not lead to devastating blood feuds. It is easy to assume from literature that history has always been brutal toward offenders and that punishment has been the universal way of responding to those who have violated the norms of the community. Doing something to the offender out of a desire for revenge does not always bring peace to a community. High custody rates, which are evident now in the UK, do not make us feel any safer. As Michalowski pointed out:

[T]he degree of social peace a society enjoys depends upon the nature of its social organisation, not upon its ability to capture and punish those defined as deviant. (1985:65).

Even comparatively recently in Anglo-Saxon times there is evidence of the payments made in restitution. Jeffrey (1957) referred to the Laws of Ethelbert around 600 AD which details a system of compensation known as – bot, wite and wergild. The wit was money paid to a mediator to cover the costs of overseeing the compensation plan.

In such small interdependent communities bonds were strong and interactions personal. Motivation to resolve conflict and address the needs of those affected by it was seen as a community problem and responsibility. It provided an impetus for all members of the community to resolve the conflict – most commonly by kin-based restitution, and in a restorative manner (Marshall, 2003 [1998]).

It is from different communities and cultures that modern day practitioners took inspiration and direction. Hopkins (2009) refers to different strands that have impacted upon the UK. The first is a case in the Mennonite community in Kitchener, Ontario in which two young men who had vandalized numerous properties met with their victims. This was the beginning of the VORP (Victim-Offender Reconciliation Programme), which spread through Canada and later into the UK. The second strand came out of the Maori Culture in New Zealand, where disproportionately high numbers of young Maori men were finding themselves on the wrong side of the law and finding themselves in custody. The Family Group Conferencing model, which arose out of New Zealand, came directly from the Maori practice of members of the community sitting together in a circle to find ways forward in what is known as a Wanau Conference. Directly as a result of the successful Maori experience, Police in New South Wales in Australia began to look at different ways of dealing with young offenders. Police there developed a ‘scripted conference model’ (Moore and O’Connell, 2003 [1994]), which, following visits to the UK, had a massive impact upon developments in the UK – particularly by the Thames Valley Police in the mid- to late 1990s. The final strand referred to by Hopkins is that of the First Nation Communities in Canada, and especially in the Yukon who have developed sentencing circles. These circles involve the community in deciding the appropriate sentence and ways forward for an offender, endorsed by a Judge who also takes part in the process. Perhaps from this experience we have the first signs of life of the Neighbourhood Justice Panels, which are beginning to have a presence in this country.

A changing paradigm?

What draws these strands together is the willingness of people to think, act and do things differently by working outside established practice and, often, at the margins of the legal framework. For my part, after I finished my research in 1987, I established a Juvenile Liaison Panel together with Wiltshire Police in order to discuss current cases of offending behaviour where a decision had to be made whether to prosecute or caution. For the next few years my work consisted mainly of bringing together victims and offenders in restorative meetings. We were able to achieve high rates of diversion from the criminal justice system, and support this work by providing restitution and apology for victims, which would not otherwise have been possible.

In 1993 I participated in the making of a film about a series of restorative meetings between an offender and his victim. In short, the offender, along with others, had stolen a car and in the act was confronted by the victim who tried to stop them. The car was driven at the victim and he was knocked on to the roof, and cast aside. The car was later abandoned after being damaged along the way. The offender (who was in care) gave himself up and wanted to know that the man was alright. The case came to a liaison panel and we agreed that I should attempt a restorative meeting and the process began. Coincidentally, I had been approached by a film-maker who I regarded as a mentor in my restorative justice world. Both parties, victim and offender agreed that we film the process.

The series of meetings were successful. The offender apologized and made an offer of financial reparation, which was accepted. This was a better deal than might have been gained by going to Court. The victim was allowed and encouraged to tell his story. There was a great deal of anger, upset and hurt but, once expressed and the charge ‘earthed’, rationality took over. The two were able to see the humanity in each other. Apology leads to forgiveness and, though there were difficulties along the way, the case was resolved. I occasionally meet the ‘offender’ who is no longer an ‘offender’. We are both nearly two decades older. He has never been in trouble since and our conversations tend to gravitate around the difficulty of bringing up children. Our last conversation was about the perceived poor response and lack of restorative practice at a local comprehensive where bullying was becoming a problem. The language spreads.

The programme was shown nationally and stimulated debate. On the day of the Programme the Guardian (23 August 1994) published an article by Philip Priestley, the maker of the film, and my mentor. He posed the question:

Can punishment survive in the modern world – or might it disappear as suddenly and as utterly as Soviet communism … is the criminal justice system on the verge of what historians of science call a paradigm shift? This is a sudden and cataclysmic change in the dominant ideas that are used to order a field of knowledge. Darwin’s theory of evolution was a paradigm shift in biology. Einstein’s theory replaced Newtonian physics. Is punishment ripe for such a dethronement?

These events took place 19 years ago and it would be safe to say that the paradigm in the meantime has not yet shifted. For the restorative optimists I do believe that there is a sense that the ice is melting. In researching for the purpose of the conference and my plenary session I looked into definitions of ‘paradigm’ and what causes a ‘shift’ in what might be regarded as a radical change in underlying beliefs or theory. The conclusion that I came to was that doubt in existing methodology, and its corresponding ethos, was a significant factor, as was the concept of critical mass (i.e. the number of fellow professionals beginning to believe in the efficacy of different modes of thought). Most significantly I came to the conclusion that a change in the law was a significant factor in affecting the majority view, particularly of professionals in the field.

In this respect the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998, and the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence of 1999 were very important. The former began to raise the possibilities of restorative justice but it is the latter that introduced a new restorative process mainly for first time offenders who plead guilty at the first appearance. The Referral Order brings together offenders and family, victims and supporters, and is chaired and facilitated by trained members of the community with the assistance of the local youth offending service whose role in the meeting is to advise. The purpose of the meeting is to create a contract that contains a programme of intervention to reduce the possibility of re-offending and a form of reparation where appropriate. It would be wrong to say that Referral Orders have been a total success because of the lack of take up by victims, but where this issue has been addressed and properly resourced, victims do participate and find the process very beneficial. This model, provided by the Referral Order and the Family Group conference is to be extended within the Youth Justice system. Without a doubt the success and hard work that has gone into Referral Orders over the last decade can provide a solid foundation for Probation in its work with adult offenders in similar restorative processes such as Neighbourhood Justice Panels. The Green Paper, ‘Breaking the Cycle’ (Ministry of Justice, 2010), particularly with an expressed but cautious commitment ‘to the increasing use of restorative justice practices’, presages change. We have not, at the moment, seen the momentous ‘paradigm shift’ that more hopeful among us might have anticipated. Neither have we witnessed a reversal in the polarity or movement from a negative system of justice based upon punishment and retribution to a positive system based upon reconciliation and restoration. But there is movement.

Developments in other ‘people’ professions

Toward the end of my working life I have steadily moved into training people primarily in the development of restorative justice work. It is my personal perception that, by and large, professionals who care about their work tend to seek out ways that make their work more satisfying, and that will make an impact for them.

Once restorative justice had made its way back into the UK in the 1990s it became apparent that other professions such as teaching had begun to use its methods, processes and language. In this regard the very term restorative justice is something of a handicap in a school context. It has negative association with the police, law-breaking and courts. In the context of education the term restorative practices or restorative approaches have now made their way into common currency.

However we might want to call it there is something about it that strikes a chord with many teachers. Working within an ethos of empathy and inclusivity, and a value base that promotes trust, respect and a value of feelings and rights, restorative practice is an approach that puts repairing the harm done to relationships and people over the need to assign blame and dispense punishment (Wright, 1993 ). Taking its lessons in methodology from criminal justice, restorative practice in a school setting teaches that conflict within a community is normal – particularly when that community is composed of growing children and adolescents. Of paramount importance are the skills and insights learned through the participation in its resolution that bring about emotional, intellectual and social growth. Another aspect of the benefits of restorative practice is the possibility it brings for community building. It is not merely about repairing but also about the maintaining and building of relationships to create schools or other establishments where both children and teachers are happy to go each day to learn and work. At the heart of this is the understanding that develops about the importance of relationships, and how we help manage them. As one Deputy Head said to me, in a moment of insight mid-way through a course: ‘if we could sort out relationships, learning would take care of itself’. Children and young people learn the value of responsibility for their own behaviour in an environment that is restorative. By learning how to accept responsibility for behaviour and its impact upon others they develop key communication skills for life. Change in behaviour is from ‘inside-out’ rather than a result of fear or coercion and there are concomitant benefits in increasing social and emotional literacy and self-esteem.

The outcomes and statistics are astounding. Hull as a city is home to 57,000 children and young people. It is densely populated, multi-cultural and has high levels of unemployment, crime poverty and need. It has though, undertaken to become a Restorative City (RJC, 2010) and in doing so, is in the process of training all of those who work with its youngsters. In Riverside, one of seven areas in the City, through the adoption of restorative practices, the following results have been achieved by the schools in that area (RJC, 2010): 73 per cent less classroom exclusion, 79 per cent less pupil to pupil verbal abuse and 73 per cent less pupil to staff abuse. Overall there are 80 per cent fewer fixed term exclusions. There has been savings of nearly £60,000 per term in supply costs for one secondary school. My experience of training teachers and working in schools is that children and young people ‘get it’, probably quicker than adults. They observe and see some form of natural justice and fair process, and experience the exhilaration of having a part and a voice in the outcome.

There is also evidence that a quiet revolution has been going on in other areas of public service. Adoption of restorative practices by the police in Hull at a cost of £259,000 yielded a saving of at least £3.5 million by reducing entrants to the youth justice system (by twice the national average) and cutting custodial sentencing by 23 per cent. Re-offending is below half the national rate (McDonald, 2012).

The police have been significant entrants to the world of restorative justice. In my own employing authority of Wiltshire, a system of community resolution has resulted in very encouraging results. Police officers have the discretion, in certain cases, to help victim and offender find some form of resolution. This has resulted in a vast reduction in the numbers of young people and adults unnecessarily entering the criminal justice system. It has been achieved with a victim satisfaction rate of 97 per cent (reported by employees of the Justice division of the Police Service in Wiltshire, personal communication).

In many other areas services have elected to adopt restorative practices. Most notably of these are those residential establishments who look after young people in a residential setting. Many services will now request training around team building. Having experienced the benefits for clients, staff now want the benefits for themselves. Wherever people collect and work there is likely to be some conflict. Restorative practice is about developing processes that allow all sides of the story to emerge. It recognizes that the people with the problem also have the solution, which, with some skilled help and facilitation, they are encouraged to find. This is not always the case where an offence has been committed and there are, I believe, additional important dynamics in the field of restorative justice within the field of criminal justice.

One of the challenges around restorative work is to ensure consistency. It has long been a belief of mine that teachers, youth offending staff, probation officers, police officers, residential staff, anti-social behaviour officers (and indeed anyone who works with people) should all have a similar core of training. In the restorative pyramid described by Hopkins (2004) it is essential that there is a firm foundation of an ethos and value that builds on empathy, trust, respect and the importance of human feelings, needs and rights. Building upon that base there comes the development of skills (e.g. of communication, active listening and facilitation) before the tip of the pyramid – the processes − receives attention. In a sense, the processes of restorative practice or restorative justice are its ‘public face’. This may be a restorative conversation, one-to-one, a mediation session or a larger conference, a Referral Order Meeting, a Neighbourhood Justice Panel, a circle within a class or a staff meeting to resolve difficult interpersonal ‘issues’.

Restorative justice concerns itself with ‘relationship’ and the repair of it when it has been harmed. If we were to ask a group of individuals what they need when they have been harmed, and correspondingly what they need when they have harmed someone, the answers would be very much the same: someone to listen to my story; empathy; time to think; an acknowledgement of the harm done (or correspondingly an opportunity to explain and apologize); things to be put right or a chance to put things right; reassurance it won’t happen again or depending upon the side of the fence, a reassurance that the matter has been dealt with.

At a deeper level it is also a function of the restorative process to encourage participants to be aware of their own deeper needs. By this I mean that there are a number of universal needs that we all have: food, shelter, love, acceptance and so on. Often offenders will adopt strategies to get these needs met in ways that harm others and this can become particularly apparent in a restorative process, or a restorative conversation. An example might be the perfectly legitimate need for respect and ‘to be someone’. In a sense we do not argue about the need but we can question the strategy adopted for getting it met.

Restorative justice: Concepts and the continuum

So what are the ideas that pull restorative justice and practice together. Howard Zehr, is a good place to begin:

Crime is a violation of people and relationships. It creates obligations to make things right. Justice involves the victim, the offender, and the community in a search for solutions which promote repair, reconciliation and reassurance. (1990: 118)

In an earlier work Zehr (1985) develops the ideas of differing paradigms represented on the one hand by retributive justice, and on the other, by restorative justice. In the former, crime is a violation of the law and the State, while in the latter, crime is defined as harm to people and community. In the former, violation by the commission of crime creates guilt, whereas in the latter, it creates obligation (to put right). In the retributive system, there is a dependence upon professionals and ownership by the State. The focus of restorative justice is ownership by those most directly involved.

Debate and discussion around restorative justice usually reveals great anxiety about the perceived absence of punishment and likelihood of civilization falling apart. In truth, retributive justice and restorative justice are not poles apart. A victim who is hurt wants the offender to ‘feel’ as they do. They desire reciprocity. If they feel they have not been heard they will feel hard done by, and thoughts of revenge emerge. Both systems recognize that the balance has been thrown by the wrong doing. The true difference is that retributive justice believes that pain or punishment will reciprocate. Many would argue that punishment is counterproductive.

Advocates of restorative justice are generally realists. They may dream of a day when justice is totally restorative but will recognize that in this fast changing society in which we live the reality is different. A better and attainable dream is that restorative justice is the norm, and there will be many occasions when the more traditional form, with all its advantages, is more appropriate. As Zehr (2002) points out; ‘We also must not lose those qualities that the legal system at its best represents: the rule of law, due process, a deep regard for human rights, the orderly development of law (p. 60).

There is, then, a continuum upon which the two systems sit. It has been argued in this article that there are many shortcomings in the traditional retributive system. There are many dissatisfactions and poor outcomes for those directly affected by crime. These shortcomings may well be answered by the application of restorative justice. There will, though, be many cases that are too difficult or horrible to be worked out by those most directly involved (i.e. the victim and offender) and society must have a system of sorting out the ‘truth’ as best as it can when people deny responsibility. The realistic goal, therefore, is to move to processes that are restorative as quickly as possible – but where appropriate. The overall aim then is to move a little further up the continuum.

As argued earlier in this article, many innovations within criminal justice come from the ground up, by people striving to find better answers and better ways of doing. The term ‘community’ appears consistently in writing about restorative justice. There is often a danger of attempting to replicate systems in completely different cultures, and so, what works in southern Australia may not work in inner London. It is likely that the principles that apply in Southern Australia will apply in inner London but the way they manifest in a restorative process may be different. Zehr (2002) is clear that a context approach to justice should take into account local needs and traditions, and that we should therefore be cautious of top-down strategies for implementing restorative justice.

The evidence and existing practice

My own experience is that the recurring focus upon the offender is the first trap into which many fall. Restorative justice is about quality, and is just as much about the victim (to whom the offence belongs) as it is for the offender. So let us begin with the victim. A study by Shapland (2008) conducted in Northumbria, London and the Thames Valley gave a victim satisfaction rate of 85 per cent. Restorative justice brought about a significant fall in the frequency of offending behaviour by 14 per cent and there were 27 per cent fewer crimes committed by those who had experienced restorative conferencing. The economic case is equally clear. Evidence from the Restorative Justice Council (RJC, 2010) indicates the use of restorative justice saves the criminal justice system nine times what it cost to deliver. These are savings of £60 miliion each year.

Restorative justice on the ground

We have already made reference to the impressive proliferation of restorative practice in different professions and discussed the benefits. It is over the past decade that steady and significant progress has been made in its use within the youth justice system. In previous paragraphs reference has already been made to the use of Referral Orders – as a brief reminder this particular order is, with some exceptions, given to all young people who appear in court for the first time and plead guilty. It sets up a meeting facilitated and led by a community member and which is conducted restoratively, and at which victims have a right of attendance. What is apparent though is that these orders are now mainstream and account for almost 49 per cent of all orders made in the youth court; furthermore, Referral Orders account for the lowest rates of re-offending compared to all the other orders made in that court – with the exception of the absolute discharge (Ministry of Justice, 2012a). No-one would pretend that Referral Orders are without challenge; most notably, in some areas, the poor rate of attendance of victims. Their success, however, is an indicator of the potential for restorative justice as it currently works on the ground. Clearly the Youth Justice Board and Ministry of Justice have put their faith in efficacy of restorative justice and have stated their intention of widening the use of restorative justice at every stage in the youth justice system and state that ‘it should be an underlying principle for all youth justice disposals, from out of court disposals and Referral Orders to Youth Rehabilitation Orders, and within custody’ (Ministry of Justice, 2012b: n.p.).

Another development, driven by the police, and which may herald change is that of ‘community resolution’, which takes place ‘pre-court’. Where implemented, it allows discretion by Police officers on the ground to deal with offences without automatic recourse to the criminal justice system. In minor offences, officers can consult with victims about their wishes. Should the offender also agree, the offence may be resolved by means of apology, verbal or written, and material or financial reparation. In some areas there has been a massive and significant reduction in numbers of young people being processed through the criminal justice system and resulting in criminal records. In Wiltshire, the area in which I worked, (according to performance data between 2010 and 2013) there has been a staggering 66 per cent reduction in the numbers of young people entering the criminal justice system for the first time. It has been accompanied by a very high rate of victim satisfaction. The upside to this is that it allows the growing numbers of people in youth justice teams (who have already had the benefit of restorative justice training) to work restoratively with those young people who are in the system, at pre-court stage (where cautions may be supported), at Referral Order stage, and at post sentence stage, within the Youth Rehabilitation Order. The fact that there are now growing numbers of Victim Liaison officers within such teams has had a significant impact upon the culture of teams. It has the capacity to bring a sea change to the prevailing outlook in favour of restorative justice. The history of youth justice can provide a pointer for the probation service.

Restorative justice and the probation service

This article began by recounting my personal experiences many years ago at a time when restorative justice was uncommon within the probation service. Clearly there are areas around the country where restorative justice has become embedded and there is innovative practice, but until recently restorative justice has not been considered core business. As in the early days of youth justice, there is no legal framework to underpin such work. Some years later the situation has changed, or more pertinently, it has the potential to change. All discussion about restorative justice is tempered by the uncertainty facing the service itself. There is, for example, scant mention of restorative justice in the Transforming Rehabilitation Consultation document (Ministry of Justice, 2013).

The Green Paper Punishment and Reform: Effective Community Sentences (Ministry of Justice, 2012c) does, though, make important statements of intent. It sets out the Government’s commitment to the increasing use of restorative justice and its aim of increasing the use of restorative justice practices. There are also statements about improving the level and standard of practice.

There are specifically three areas where we might shortly expect to see some surge in restorative activity. The first of these areas is in training. The Green Paper (Section 113) committed £1 million toward the provision of training for over 1000 Probation and Prison staff to establish restorative justice as a more common part of community orders. Similarly, the Probation National Occupational Standards Review has proposed the inclusion of restorative justice, thus ensuring that it becomes a core of skills and knowledge for probation officers to acquire.

The second very specific area in which restorative justice may begin to make an impact is in the area of sentencing. Consultation with the Probation Chief Officers Association, and in particular with Stephen Czajeswski, who has the lead responsibility for restorative justice, pointed toward the benefits of restorative justice as being seen to work well within a Specified Activity Framework. In the Government response to consultation on the Green Paper (2013) there is also a positive response to the support of respondents for increasing use of pre-sentence restorative justice. There is the further step of the introduction of an amendment to the Crime and Courts Bill to provide for courts to defer sentencing to allow for restorative justice in cases where both victim and offender are willing to participate.

The third area in which we may see significant progress is in pre-court restorative justice and in particular the development of Neighbourhood Justice Panels. The Ministry of Justice have indicated a wish to work with 15 local areas to develop panels bringing victims, offenders and members of the community together to respond to low-level crime by using restorative justice and other reparative processes. It is to be hoped that Neighbourhood Justice Panels can learn from the experience of Referral Order Panels (and their membership), which have developed and thrived within the youth justice arena.

The challenges and the opportunities ahead

Restorative justice is, for many in the probation service, a new venture. For many it will present a challenge. For others, it is welcome, overdue and will present opportunities. It can offer a fresh view and different horizons. If we wish to allow an effective, plural, community-based version of restorative justice to develop there are lessons to be learned. Restorative justice can be arduous. It can be time consuming. Its underlying principle is that crimes ‘belong’ to victims just as much as they do to offenders. Their needs are as important as the needs of the system that administers justice and, in order to thrive, restorative justice requires the possibility of devolution of power. Restorative justice and its vision can often be subverted and therefore requires multi-agency structure, support and a consistency of perspective that these factors can bring. There is, I believe, enough in prospect to begin progress. There is the allocation of funds for training by an accredited body to ensure that roll out should be consistent. There is a specific focus on areas where progress can begin, and be measured. There is the mention of the focus on professional standards and the absolute necessity of ensuring that probation works alongside bodies such as the RJC. Among other organizations, The RJC have been a voice for both restorative practices and restorative justice and has done much to ensure the dissemination of new ideas, innovation and good practice. The prize for enabling a plural, community-based restorative justice to develop is a criminal justice system that has the confidence of the public, one that is accessible and gives a voice to those who, in some way, are affected by crime.