Recent developments

Restorative justice

In its response to the consultation and proposals in Breaking the Cycle (Ministry of Justice 2010), the Coalition Government proposed to increase the range and availability of restorative justice approaches across the criminal justice system. It is clear from Breaking the Cycle that the Coalition government hopes that its proposals will have implications for the reduction of re-offending (ibid: para 79).

September 2011 saw the launch of a Restorative Justice Register of qualified restorative justice practitioners, funded by the Ministry of Justice and the Restorative Justice Council (see http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/register/).

Several new texts have recently been published reporting on research or theorising about restorative justice: we refer you to the ‘Further Reading’ section of this website.

6.1 Restorative Justice policy pp 173-181 (also pp 194-200)

A Working Paper on the use of Restorative Justice (RJ) has been published by the Commission on English Prisons Today. This discussion paper is accessible via www.prisoncommission.org.uk and provides the background to the issues considered at the first meeting of the Restorative Justice Working Group and a précis of the focus of current discussion. One of the side headings in the report gives a flavour of their emerging conclusions: 'The Current State of Play: all talk and no action'. The paper is particularly critical of the way that the use of RJ in reprimands and warnings appears to have decreased rather than increased (see also Chapter 8).

6.2.3. Confiscation

A Home Office research project, reporting in 2009, sought to identify the extent of attrition (financial loss) in the confiscation order process and why it occurs. The research included analysis of 2006/07 confiscation data held on the central Joint Asset Recovery Database (JARD) and an examination of a sample of 155 confiscation order cases from five police force areas. The report notes that the amount of criminal proceeds recovered in recent years has increased markedly – from approximately £25 million in 2001/02 to approximately £136 million in 2007/08 However, the analysis of the JARD data ‘revealed a striking overall reduction between the value of criminal benefit initially assessed by Financial Investigators (FIs) and the amount eventually recovered – a total reduction of around 95 per cent. The research suggested however that ‘attrition in overall financial terms is affected much more by a small number of high value cases than the large volume of low value ones’ (Summary p.1: see Bullock, K., Mann, D., Street, R. and Coxon, C.  (2009)Examining attrition in confiscating the proceeds of crime, Home Office Research Report 17). 
There was also a research focus on enforcement: see Bullock, K. (2010) ‘Enforcing financial penalties – the case of confiscation orders’ Howard Journal vol 49(4) pp 328-339 which draws on interviews with actors in the confiscation order process to examine the processes through which confiscation orders are enforced.

6.3.2 Restorative justice for young offenders pp 194-198
Restorative Justice Disposals (YRDs: Pilot Scheme)
The pilot taking place 2008-9 operates as below (information taken from YJB web-site accessed 20.5.09):

How the YRD works

• Only young people between the ages of 10-17 who have not previously received a Reprimand, Final Warning, Caution or other disposal are eligible.
• A young person may receive only one YRD.
• Serious crimes, such as weapons, sexual and drug offences, are not eligible for a YRD.
• The victim and offender both need to agree to participate in the YRD, which will be facilitated by an authorised officer trained in restorative justice techniques.
• The process must be resolved within a reasonable time – on the street or shortly after.
• The process involves a meeting between the victim and offender, an apology and may include additional action to right the wrong caused.
• The YOT is informed after the YRD is issued providing an opportunity to identify early risk factors and get the right agencies to step in with appropriate support to a young person.

The YRD is recorded locally and not on the Police Nation Computer. The pilot will end in 2009 with a subsequent evaluation to consider the potential of introducing it nationally. See: www.yjb.gov.uk/en-gb/practitioners/CourtsAndOrders/Disposals/YouthRestorativeDisposal

Kelly Richards, ‘Police-referred restorative justice for juveniles in Australia’ Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice no. 398, Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, August 2010

The abstract given is as follows:

This preliminary paper provides an overview of the legislative and policy context of restorative justice measures for juveniles in each Australian state and territory, highlighting the diverse characteristics of current restorative practices. Further, it provides an indication of the numbers and characteristics of juveniles who are referred by police to restorative justice measures and the offence types for which they are most commonly referred. A number of key points about the application of restorative justice measures to juveniles in Australia’s jurisdictions are highlighted, including that juveniles were referred to conferences primarily for property crimes and that Indigenous juveniles comprised higher proportions of those sent to court than to conferencing. This paper argues that more detailed data on the offending histories, offence types and offence seriousness of juveniles referred by police to restorative justice processes would enable a more finely-grained analysis of restorative justice for juveniles in Australia.

See also Sherman L, Strang H and Woods D (2010) Recidivism patterns in the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE). Canberra (available at   http://www.aic.gov.au/criminal_justice_system/rjustice/rise/recidivism.aspx)

The  4th report of RJ research begun in 2001, conducted by Cambridge University and funded by the U.K. Home Office (comparing approximately 400 adult cases in which offenders attended restorative justice conferences to approximately 400 adult cases in which they did not) found that restorative justice conferences decreased reoffending by an average of 27 percent. Victims participating in the conferences found the experience helpful and positive. In addition, the report found conferences to be much more cost-effective than conventional justice processes. (See Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Dignan, J., Edwards, L., Hibbert, J., Howes, M., Johnstone, J., Robinson, G. and Sorsby, A. (2008) Does restorative justice affect reconviction? The fourth report from the evaluation of three schemes. Ministry of Justice Research Series 10/08. London: Ministry of Justice.)

6.4.1. What role for victims? pp 200-201

A review of the treatment of victims and witnesses was published by the Ministry of Justice in November 2009: S. Payne, Redefining Justice: Addressing the individual needs of victims and witnesses available at:
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/redefining-justice