Restorative Justice within Scottish Criminal Justice

SASO Glasgow6th March 2008

Niall Kearney

UN Definition

Restorative process

A restorative process is any process in which the victim and the offender and, where appropriate, any other individuals or community members affected by a crime participate together actively in the resolution of matters arising from the crime, generally with the help of a facilitator.

Handbook on Restorative Justice Programmes, UNITED NATIONS, New York 2006

Howard Zehr

“Restorative Justice is a process to involve, to the extent possible, those who have a stake in a specific offense and to collectively identify and address harms, needs, and obligations, in order to heal and put things as right as possible.”

The Little Book of Restorative Justice, p. 37, Goodbooks, PA, 2002

Victims

• Reduced crime victims’ post-traumatic stress symptoms and related costs;

• Provided both victims and offenders with more satisfaction with justice than CJ;

• Reduced crime victims’ desire for violent revenge against their offenders

Restorative Justice: the Evidence, Smith Institute London 2007.

Offenders

• Substantially reduced repeat offending for some offenders

• Provided both victims and offenders with more satisfaction with justice than CJ;

• Doubled (or more) the offences brought to justice as diversion from CJ

Restorative Justice: the Evidence, Smith Institute London 2007.

Policy

A. UN Economic and Social Council: Resolutions and decisions adopted by the Economic and Social Council at its substantive session of 2002 (1 – 22 July 2002)

B. CoE Committee of Ministers Recommendation No R(99) 19 re mediation in penal matters

C. Council of Europe Framework Decision 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings

D. Scotland: • Partnership for Government Agreement (2003-2007)• National Standards for Youth Justice Services• National Guidelines on Diversion to Social Work and Other

Service Agencies as an Alternative to Prosecution • para 2.8.4 of National Objectives and Standards Social Enquiry

Reports

RJ Practice - youth

• Referrals by Reporter or Hearing• Services provided in each Local Authority Area

by range of Councils or Vol Orgs• Best Practice Guidance and manuals• Outcomes:

74% no offending within 12 months92% of victims recommend RJ

Some underlying influences/theories

• There is more to justice than what happens in court

• Addressing the harm caused by crime in a safe way

• Giving people a better future

Some Key Dates

• 1985 First Rep and Med Diversion service - Edinburgh• 1992 Sue Warner’s evaluation of Diversion

Glasgow & Edinburgh• 1999 Sacro’s Annual Conference• 1999 McIvor and Barry’s evaluation of Diversion

Edinburgh, Motherwell & Aberdeen (Med & Rep)• 2002 first Court referred RJ intervention• 2003 first post sentencing RJ intervention for

violent crime• 2005 SPS initiates RJ interventions within Cornton Vale• 2005 Sacro’s Annual Conference – see: www.sacro.org.uk• 2006 RPS established• 2007 Name change to Sacro RJ – Diversion services

Sacro Practice - adult

1. Diversion

2. Court Based RJ (pilot)

3. Post sentencing context (pilot - TASC: Talk After Severe Crime)

Diversion SummaryAims of Diversion

a.     To provide a positive alternative for persons accused of relatively minor offences to be diverted from prosecution in suitable cases

b. To offer victims of crime the opportunity to be consulted about how they view the offence and to be involved in how they consider it could be resolved.

   c. To enable accused persons to make amends for their actions to the victim of their crime.

  d.      To provide opportunities to challenge the behaviour of an accused which could prevent the recurrence of the alleged criminal behaviour and thereby avoid criminalisation.

   e. To enhance the overall ability of communities to resolve conflicts more effectively by the use of volunteer mediators and the service users’ experience of the scheme.  

Diversion Referral Criteria

1. All cases referred are marked for prosecution2. An identifiable victim3. An issue that would benefit from RJ4. No more than two accused / victims5. No outstanding court orders6. Other charges do not compromise validity7. Accused is 16 + and not subject to supervision8. Cases should relate to the funding area

Diversion Case Profiles

• Dishonesty• Damage• Assault• Breach of the Peace• Other

Diversion - Outcomes• People make use of it as an alternative - 35% to 47% conversion• High success rate when both participate -

82%• Over 75% of outcomes did NOT involve

money changing hands• Large potential for greater use

Examples of Diversion agreements

1. Useful work2. Finance3. Non harassment4. Apology5. Issues resolved6. Referral to another agency

Court Based RJ (pilot)• Target: Cases where the offending has had a serious

impact on the victim(s). • Currently funded on a spot purchase basis on request

to Sacro

Aims (Sacro) a.      To offer better outcomes for victims of crimes being dealt with by the Sheriff Court.

   b.      To offer sentencers additional information on which to base sentencing decisions

  c.      To help reduce the risk of re-offending  

Edinburgh Evening News 18 September 2002

“Girl gang forced to face their victim”

“BEATEN: Neil Davidson after he was attacked by young female thugs. “

/wEPDwU

Post sentencing for severe crime (pilot)• Target: Crimes of severe violence, for example: murder,

culpable homicide, assault. • Currently funded on an spot purchase basis on request

to Sacro

Aims (Sacro)To offer those directly affected by severe crimes the opportunity to:

a. Move towards personal healing, recovery and reconstruction

b. Attend to needs they feel were left unaddressed by the criminal justice process

c. Increase their awareness and understanding of the human consequences of the offence

The Herald 14 June 2006

“ Why we went to meet with the man who killed our son.

A bereaved couple tell Lucy Adams the reasons they back a controversial restorative justice scheme that has criminals face the consequences of their actions. “

Recommended Reading

Conflict as Property by Nils Christie,

British Journal of Criminology, Vol 17 pp1-15 January 1977

Conclusion

• People will use RJ • Partnership working is essential• Plenty of scope for development

Useful websites

• www.restorativejusticescotland.org.uk

• www.sacro.org.uk/carruthersaddress2005.pdf

• www.smith-institute.org.uk/pdfs/RJ_full_report.pdf

• www.unodc.org/pdf/criminal_justice/06-56290_Ebook.pdf

• www.cjsw.ac.uk

• www.euformrj.org