Issue 56: Winter 2016
“Restorative justice can be a real
force for good both for the person
harmed and the offender.”
Restorative justice
in the media
Pages 12–13
Nick’s
story
Photo by Ben Gold
Rt Hon Lord Justice Fulford,
Incoming Senior Presiding Judge
Early intervention in County
Durham Children’s Services
Annabel’s story
Pre-sentence restorative
justice – does it work?
Celine and Anneka’s stories
Restorative justice in the
youth justice system
Patron: HRH The Princess Royal
Company No. 4199237
Charity No. 1097969
Resolution
2
Contents
News in brief
4Early intervention in County
Durham Children’s Services
Restorative justice in custodial settings information pack
In February 2016, the RJC will publish an information pack
called Restorative justice in custodial settings. This pack
will provide prisons and young offenders institutions with
information on quality restorative justice delivery. It will
outline different delivery
models and relevant
information on how to support
restorative justice in prison. It
will also feature case studies
and articles illustrating effective
partnership working in practice to help prisons support
restorative justice for all who need it. The pack will be available
at: www.restorativejustice.org.uk/prison-pack.
6 Annabel’s story
8 My life as…
9Is it OK not to forgive?
10Pre-sentence restorative justice –
does it work?
12Restorative justice in the media –
a victim’s experience
14 Nick’s story
18Restorative justice in the youth
justice system
19The review into youth justice:
some thoughts from Northern
Ireland
Justice Select Committee inquiry –
have your say
The Justice Select Committee is holding
an inquiry into restorative justice and
welcomes views on any aspects of the
current and potential use of restorative
justice in the criminal justice system.
20NPS and CRCs – is the partnership
working?
22The restorative justice landscape
– a PCC’s view
24 Celine and Anneka’s stories
26Meet the restorative justice
magistrate’s champions
The RJC has consulted with members and will be submitting
a response to the Committee on behalf of the restorative
justice field by 31 January. We would also encourage our
members to submit individual responses to the inquiry by
that date, and guidance on doing so can be found at:
www.restorativejustice.org.uk/JSCenquiry. 272015 – a good year for the RJC
About the RJC
The Restorative Justice Council (RJC) is the
independent third sector membership body
for the field of restorative practice. It provides
quality assurance and a national voice
advocating the widespread use of all forms
of restorative practice, including restorative
justice. The RJC’s vision is of a restorative
society where everyone has access to safe,
high quality restorative practice wherever and
whenever it is needed.
New RJC independent complaints and appeals
examiner appointed
The RJC has appointed Richard Monkhouse as its
new independent complaints and appeals examiner
(ICAE). The ICAE takes an impartial view of appeals
against RJC decisions on membership, registration,
accreditation or approval, and investigates complaints
made against RJC registered trainers, practitioners or
Restorative Service Quality Mark organisations.
Resolution is the thrice yearly newsletter of
the RJC. Please get in touch if you have any
feedback or would like to submit an article.
Richard was chair of the Magistrates Association between
October 2013 and November 2015. He is a restorative justice
champion and has also undertaken restorative facilitation
training.
The articles in this newsletter express the
personal views of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the RJC.
©2016 RJC. Not to be reproduced without
permission.
T: 020 7831 5700
E: [email protected]
www.restorativejustice.org.uk
APPROVED
Restorative Justice Council
Beacon House, 113 Kingsway
London WC2B 6PP
TRAINI NG
Editor: Safi Schlicht
Graphic designer: James Alexander at
JADE Design
Fifteen training courses approved through the RJC’s Training
Approval Scheme
The RJC Training Approval Scheme (TAS) recognises quality
facilitation training courses in restorative practice. The RJC is
delighted to announce that, to date, 15 training courses have
been approved through the pilot of TAS. Details are available
at: www.restorativejustice.org.uk/TAS.
3
Issue 56: Winter 2016
Introduction
H
appy New Year and welcome to
the first Resolution of 2016. The
coming year will be an important one
for the restorative practice field. The use
of restorative approaches continues to
grow but cuts ushered in by the recent
spending review will affect everyone
working in or with the public sector,
while further reform of public services
will also have a significant impact.
Restorative practice will not be immune
from this.
One area where widespread reform is
expected is the youth justice system,
where a review currently being
conducted by Charlie Taylor is expected
to lead to significant upheaval. In this
issue an article by the RJC’s chair Graham
Robb, a former member of the Youth
Justice Board, explores the opportunities
that might arise from this, while Tim
Chapman sets out what we could learn
from Northern Ireland.
Also of interest to those considering
the future delivery of restorative
services to young people will be work
ongoing in Durham, where restorative
approaches are embedded across their
children’s services. This has required
training thousands of professionals and
introducing new ways of working across
council departments but the benefits
are clear. This initiative – and others
like it – demonstrates the many reasons
for embedding restorative practice
across agencies to achieve a consistent
restorative approach.
As always the benefits of restorative
practice are most eloquently and
powerfully described by people who
have been through the process. Nick’s
experience of meeting in a restorative
justice conference the man who killed
his twin brother left him able to say:
“I don’t feel like a victim any more.”
There can hardly be a more important
endorsement than that. Meanwhile the
experiences of Celine and Anneka, the
victim and offender in a case of death by
dangerous driving, show two different
perspectives of the same restorative
process.
Maybe of most interest to me personally
is Annabel’s story. Her experience of
burglary is an important reminder of
the impact that crimes that are often
seen as routine can have on the victim.
Annabel is also my sister and probably
the first person I met who had actually
participated in restorative justice. Until
then I had always seen it as a good thing
and a valuable part of the justice system,
but it was that personal connection
which helped steer me towards my
current role.
Reading it also served as a reminder to
me that victims of crime, and offenders,
are all around us. They are our friends,
families and neighbours. Most of the
people who are reading this magazine
will already be involved in restorative
practice in some capacity – we already
recognise its benefits. But we are in
the minority – RJC polling shows that
less than a third of people have heard
of restorative justice – and we all have
a role to play in acting as ambassadors
for its use and for the use of restorative
practice more broadly.
Take schools, for example. If we want to
see schools routinely using restorative
practice to deal with challenging
behaviour we need to get teachers,
governors and young people themselves
onside. But we also need to gain the
support of parents. That way, when a
child is bullied at school their parents
will support the use of a restorative
process rather than demanding the bully
be excluded. Win parents over and get
them to ask their teacher why they don’t
use a restorative approach, and that will
be more impactful than any research
study – and we all know parents.
While raising awareness is an important
part of the RJC’s role we cannot do all
of the much-needed work ourselves,
and nor should we. What we can do is
empower and enable our members to
champion the use of restorative practice
wherever and whenever you can. But
we need to know more about what you
need. What would help you to act as
advocates for restorative practice? Let
us know and we’ll do what we can to
provide it.
In exchange, I would ask you to
encourage your colleagues to join the
RJC. For professionals working in the
restorative practice field, membership is
the best way to be part of the restorative
community and to play a part in helping
us to build and shape the restorative
practice field. Joining the RJC provides
access to resources, networking
opportunities and opportunities for
professional development – it is a central
part of being a restorative practitioner.
As a membership organisation, you are
central to everything that the RJC does.
Our members give a huge amount of
time and energy to support the work
of the RJC and I would like to take
this chance to thank you all for your
input, your ideas and your advice. It is
invaluable to the RJC and I look forward
to continuing to work with you all in
what I am confident will be another
important year for the RJC and for the
restorative practice field.
Jon Collins
Chief Executive Officer, RJC
Resolution
4
Early intervention in County Durham
Children’s Services
C
ounty Durham Youth Offending
Service (CDYOS) has been working
restoratively for many years. In 2002
they began collaborating with lookedafter children’s services to roll out
restorative practice across the county’s
children’s homes, and it has been firmly
embedded in both areas for many years.
Gill Eshelby, the strategic manager for
CDYOS, said: “We were working with
our colleagues to prevent looked-after
children getting a criminal record and
trying to reduce police call-outs to
residential children’s homes.
“YOS staff were attached to each home
as a single point of contact so we began
by having a joint session with senior
managers in the homes about working
restoratively in order to stop children
from being criminalised. From there,
all children’s home staff were trained in
restorative approaches, and it underpins
all of their work – it’s part of their
culture now.”
This joined-up approach by the YOS and
looked-after children’s services yielded
impressive results. Gill explained: “These
are very vulnerable young people, and it
had a massive impact on the number of
them being cautioned or convicted – it’s
now the lowest it’s ever been. It also had
an impact on placement breakdowns
with fostering or adoption, reducing
placement moves by resolving issues
restoratively – so it’s spread much wider
than the children’s homes.”
In practice, the restorative work with
children and young people involved
what Gill refers to as “meaningful
conversations” which enable young
people to resolve their differences at
the lowest level and prevent escalation
of conflict. Where potentially criminal
behaviour did arise, the YOS developed
and implemented a Pre Reprimand
Disposal for young people with the
support of all partners including Durham
Constabulary. This avoided young people
being criminalised for low-level offences,
and restorative approaches were central
to its delivery.
In 2013, the Safe
Durham Partnership’s
Integrated Restorative
Practice Strategy
was developed to include all partners
working with children, young people,
families and communities. Carole
Payne, the head of Children’s Services
at Durham County Council, said: “Our
aim from the outset was to develop a
consistent training specification and
programme across services so that all
staff coming into contact with children,
young people, families and communities
would have the same understanding
and skills to use and develop restorative
approaches.”
Gill added: “The strategy set out to
have a coherent approach to restorative
practice across the whole spectrum, it
wasn’t just about crime and community
safety. It’s a ‘whole systems approach’
across the workforce, neighbourhood
wardens, antisocial behaviour wardens,
police, probation and health all working
in a restorative way.”
Although the use of restorative
approaches in Durham originated in
the YOS, creating a truly joined-up
approach involved working with a broad
range of partners. “Schools are largely
autonomous these days,” Gill said.
“Some of them are academies, which
is quite a different relationship. But in
the council’s Education
Service, we have an
Emotional Wellbeing
and Effective Learning
(EWEL) team, who since
early 2014, have taken
the lead for working with schools to
develop a restorative approach.
“They’ve developed a whole-school
best practice model and offer bespoke
restorative practice training to schools,
based on current practice and identified
needs. The one-day restorative
approaches foundation training includes
using restorative language and what we
call ‘impromptu’ restorative approaches
to teach young people the skills to
resolve their own conflicts.”
In addition to training teaching staff,
the EWEL team have run restorative
approaches training sessions for
lunchtime supervision and support staff,
and are embedding restorative practice
into school policies and procedures to
create “reflective schools”. Evaluation
and feedback from staff is used to
continually improve the model as it is
rolled out further.
Gill chairs the Integrated Restorative
Practice Steering Group, which oversees
and co-ordinates the joined-up
restorative practice work of the
Safe Durham Partnership including
children’s services, the office of the PCC,
neighbourhood services, secure services,
the YOS, health, police, prisons and
schools. Since 2010, the youth justice
system in Durham has seen a 46.8%
reduction in the number of offences
5
Issue 56: Winter 2016
Case study – residential
children’s home
committed and a 51.5% reduction in
the number of young people offending,
which Gill attributes to the effective
collaboration of different services. She
said: “If you don’t embed restorative
approaches across all the agencies
coming into contact with children
and young people, you end up with
a disjoint.” There has also been an
impressive 82.9% reduction in first time
entrants to the youth justice system
since 2007-08 – from 1,129 young
people in 2007-08 to 193 in 2014-15.
“By all working to the same vision, you
add value,” Gill said. “In the middle of all
this work there are young people, so no
matter which service or agency you work
for, you need to be working together to
improve outcomes.”
A number of staff across the council and
partnership are now trained to train
others in restorative approaches, which
makes the strategy sustainable in the
longer term. Gill said: “That means we
can pool our resources to achieve our
ultimate aim of becoming a restorative
county. Obviously that’s a huge ambition
for an authority of this size with a
population of about half a million, but
we are looking to ensure that everyone
who works with children, young people
and families works in a restorative way.”
In fact, restorative practice within County
Durham has developed to such an extent
that the 2013 strategy is now out of date
and is being revised. Gill said: “Across the
whole county, including the police, we’ve
trained over 1,000 people in restorative
approaches for the benefit of children,
young people and families. We’re
currently refreshing and embedding
restorative approaches as part of our
Transformation Plan for Children’s
Services.”
The updated strategy will incorporate
a new performance management
framework to consistently manage
outcomes. Gill said: “It will use the ‘so
what?’ question to ask how we know
things are working. We want to capture
meaningful feedback so we’re not just
using quantitative measures, but also
qualitative. We’re looking at ways of
measuring feedback from both young
people and adults.”
A number of calls were made to
the police from members of the
local community. A couple of boys
from the children’s home were
ringing door bells and in some cases
removing them from walls.
She continued: “Achieving 100%
consistency is quite challenging, but in
Durham we’re on a journey together
with a strategy we’ve all signed up to,
and people see that using restorative
approaches is the best way to work.”
The local beat officer came to the
home and spoke to the boys involved.
Preparation work was carried out
with the boys involved and the local
residents affected by the behaviour, in
order to support a restorative process.
With such positive outcomes in Durham,
other local authorities may consider
following suit. Gill said: “It’s not an easy
undertaking – it requires vision, energy,
commitment, political buy-in from
councillors and strategic leadership from
all partners.
It was clear that the boys had not
considered that their actions would
cause any harm. They explained that
they didn’t have anything to do and
just thought they were having fun.
When they listened to the impact
they had on the people living in the
area they were visibly shocked and
ashamed.
“We’ve done all this work within existing
budgets and resources in County
Durham. We’ve worked together and
changed what we do to develop a shared
understanding and make restorative
approaches part of our day jobs.”
Carole Payne said: “Our strategic aim is
to become a restorative county creating
a culture of restorative approaches
throughout our communities and
within partner agencies and services.
We believe we’re well on the way to
achieving that.
“Changing people’s lives is a high aim,
but we really think we’re doing it.
We’re improving outcomes for young
people, families and communities at the
earliest point by using restorative early
intervention.”
In a straitened economic climate, local
authorities are facing difficult decisions
about where and how to make savings.
In spite of this, Gill is confident that
restorative practice will continue to
develop and grow in Durham. She
concluded: “In five years’ time, it will be
how we’ve reduced escalation to more
expensive services. It’s already saving
money in the youth justice system – and
can do so across all services.
“Using restorative approaches is not
rocket science – it’s common sense, and
clearly the best way to work.”
One lady said that she thought she
was being targeted and that they had
wanted to break into her home – she
had been through a similar experience
in the past. The boys apologised and it
was obviously very sincere.
The boys were able to reassure the
people who they met with that they
had not intended any harm and that
they would not do it again. They
understood that their actions had
caused harm even though they hadn’t
intended any.
The boys agreed to repair any damage
that was caused to property with
support from staff at the home.
The people who had their doorbells
removed and their evenings disturbed
were reassured that they weren’t
being deliberately targeted and that
the behaviour would not be repeated.
6
Photo by Ben Gold
Resolution
Annabel didn’t
realise how much
being burgled
had affected her
until she came
face to face
with the young
offender. Here,
she talks about
how restorative
justice helped
her to feel like
her house was a
home again.
“M
y partner, Howard, and I
bought our house in January
2010, but it was an absolute wreck and
needed a lot of work. It was our first
home together, and we were staying
in rented accommodation nearby
while builders made it habitable for
us. We were very excited, and would
visit every few days to see how work
was progressing and plan our new life
together.
“Just as the building work was coming
to an end, I got a call from the police to
say the house had been broken in to. We
were upset, and it was quite annoying
because we were so close to moving in,
but we were also quite pragmatic – the
damage wasn’t extensive, and nobody
had been hurt. The burglars were caught
on CCTV while they climbed out of the
window, and they were picked up by the
police shortly afterwards. They were only
15, so they were released after being
charged.
“Two days later, we went to visit the
house and found we’d been broken in
to again. This time, the house had been
vandalised and obscene graffiti had been
sprayed all over the upstairs rooms. I was
really upset – the first time, I’d managed
to shrug it off, but the second time made
me want to sell up immediately. I was
convinced that the same boys had come
back, and the house no longer felt like
our own. It felt like all our excitement
at creating our dream home had been
ruined. Howard tried to reassure me, but
I just didn’t want to live there any more.
“Because we hadn’t been living in the
house, making an insurance claim was
a huge problem, and took weeks to sort
out. The boiler had been wrecked by
the burglars, and they’d ripped up some
of the floorboards to get to the copper
pipes. The rooms they’d vandalised had
just been decorated, so all of that work
needed to be done again. Before we
bought the house, we’d walked round
7
“A few weeks later, I was contacted by
the local youth offending team [YOT]
about the young men who’d broken
in. Both boys had been found guilty
of the first burglary and had received
community sentences. I already knew
about restorative justice and the positive
effects it can have on young offenders,
so I asked for it straight away. One of the
boys wasn’t prepared to meet us, but
the other boy – James – agreed.
“James came from a troubled
background, and he moved out of his
parents’ house and went to live with
his sister in Bournemouth while our
meeting was being set up, so there was
a delay while his case was taken on by
a new YOT. After several months, they
contacted us to say that we could meet
him, and we took the day off work and
travelled to Bournemouth. James didn’t
turn up.
“At that point I started to give up, but
the staff at the YOT persuaded me to
try again. They had a strong support
network around James, who had by
then moved out of his sister’s and was
living in supported accommodation, and
they really wanted him to meet us. A
new date was set, and once again, we
travelled to Bournemouth. This time,
James did turn up, and I was shocked
when I saw him. I’d imagined him to
be large for his age – a really menacing
figure. Instead, I was confronted by a
tiny, child-like boy. He was nothing at all
like I’d expected.
“The effect on James was even more
profound – he was horrified to see my
distress and realise that he’d caused it.
I cried as I told him about the fact that
it was our first house together, and that
he’d almost made it impossible for me
to live there. He hadn’t been charged for
the second break-in, so I didn’t force him
to admit that he’d done it. I did bring it
up, though, and talked about how it had
made me feel. He didn’t deny doing it.
“Seeing me so upset made Howard
more determined to make James realise
that what he’d done had really had an
impact. He told James how hard it had
been for us to save up the deposit for
the house, and how we’d had to borrow
extra money after the break-in made our
insurance premium increase by several
thousand pounds.
“When James spoke, he said that he’d
thought the house was being renovated
by developers and hadn’t realised that
it belonged to a ‘real’ person. It hadn’t
occurred to him for a second that he
might be hurting someone, and he was
shocked to be confronted with the effect
he’d had on us. He was also genuinely
apologetic. When he’d come into the
room, his body language was closed and
defensive – he was clearly expecting us
to be quite aggressive. By the end of the
conference, his remorse was visible.
“I thought James was really brave to
face us, and I told him so in our meeting.
Other people can tell you about the
harm that you’ve caused, but it’s
completely different to being confronted
by the person you’ve harmed. For an
offender, having your victim look you in
the eye and tell you exactly how they
feel is a wake-up call. It also challenged
James’ belief that he was carrying out a
victimless crime. With restorative justice,
there’s nothing to hide behind – it really
made James see for the first time how
his actions were affecting people.
“For me, the process was much more
emotional than I’d expected it to be. It
had taken almost a year to arrange the
conference. By that time we’d finally
moved into the house, and I thought
I’d got over my negative feelings about
it. My motivation for taking part in
restorative justice had been purely about
giving James the opportunity to face up
to what he’d done, so it came as a huge
surprise to realise that I still had so many
emotions about what had happened.
“It started off being about my
convictions – if you believe in restorative
justice you really need to put your
money where your mouth is. But in the
end, it turned into something that was
beneficial to me, too. It allowed me to
put the burglaries behind me once and
for all and start feeling like my house was
my own again.
“It also gave me a sense of perspective
about what had happened. Seeing
James in person made me realise that
crime isn’t always committed by big,
menacing people who deliberately target
you. Sometimes it’s just little, troubled
teenagers who would run a mile if
confronted. I’m really glad I did it, and I
hope it had an impact on James.”
The RJC would like to thank Annabel for sharing
her story with us.
Photo by Ben Gold
the local area and talked to people in the
nearby pub, and it seemed like a really
friendly area – exactly the type of place
we could be happy in. The break-ins
ruined that.
Issue 56: Winter 2016
“The whole time we’d been talking
about doing restorative justice I’d felt it
was something I needed to do for James’
benefit and I hadn’t really thought about
how I felt about the break-ins at all. My
main aim was to make him think about
two things – why did he think it was
OK to break into someone’s house and
damage it, and how did he think it was
going to make that person feel? But the
moment I went into the conference I
suddenly felt really upset. It was entirely
unexpected, and Howard was shocked to
see me in such a state.
Annabel and Howard now share their home with their 18 month old twins Dylan and Meg.
Resolution
8
I
have always been interested in
forensic psychology and have worked
within the criminal justice field for over
10 years. After studying psychology and
sociology at university, I spent a number
of years working in the private sector
in the North East, before returning to
education to study a Masters in Forensic
Investigation. My life as... a restorative justice and
community resolution co-ordinator
I started working for a local authority
covering a number of departments
which gave me a breadth of knowledge
and understanding of the key functions
of neighbourhood management. In
2007 I became the antisocial behaviour
co-ordinator covering two districts
for a community safety partnership
in North Yorkshire. The role involved
co-ordinating a joined-up and effective
response to antisocial behaviour across
agencies in diverse locations, working
with both vulnerable victims and
perpetrators. My team achieved a fiveyear reduction in antisocial behaviour
and were recognised nationally for our
work.
It was within this role, working with
young people at risk of entering the
criminal justice system, that I first
became aware of restorative practice
and its application within a community
setting to address antisocial behaviour.
In May 2013, I relocated from North
Yorkshire to take on the role of
restorative justice and community
resolution co-ordinator for Sussex Police.
As part of my role I manage
the restorative justice hub covering
Brighton and Hove which brings together
agencies like Victim Support, Sussex
Pathways, PACT, National Probation
Service, Community Rehabilitation
Companies and HM Prison Service
to deliver restorative justice. It also
provides a space for our team of
volunteer facilitators to discuss cases,
share best practice and meet the needs
of those accessing the restorative justice
service. Over the past two and a half years
we have grown the restorative justice
service from post-sentence for serious
acquisitive and violent crime to
assessing cases from all crime types and
responding to the needs of those taking
part. Part of the development of the hub
has meant the roll-out of sensitive and
complex case training which has further
equipped us to respond to these needs.
We are currently being assessed for the
RSQM, which we hope to have achieved
by 2016.
As part of my personal development
I continue to facilitate conferences
in prisons and in the community for
offences from assault and harassment
to wounding, hate crime and sexual
offences. I was really humbled recently
by receiving a Divisional Award for my
restorative justice work.
Every conference I’ve worked on has
moved me, but some of the most moving
have been those I have facilitated for
sexual offences where balance and
control has been restored. I have seen
conferences change the way both those
harmed and the harmers have viewed
themselves, the offence and the labels
they have applied. Hearing that ‘a weight
has lifted’ has allowed them to reframe
how they go forward.
I also have a keen interest in national
developments in the field. When I hear
of restorative practice in hostel settings
and with looked-after children I’m struck
by the life-changing impact it can have
when applied outside the criminal justice
system and how the different contexts of
restorative practice are interlinked.
I’ve been working on a project with the
community safety partnership to launch
Brighton and Hove as a restorative city,
which pledges to meet the needs of
those harmed by crime and conflict
by ensuring access to safe, secure and
effective restorative practices. The
project seeks to bring all the restorative
work currently happening throughout
the city together and further embed it in
a wider practice context.
I would very much like to see further
investment and development in
restorative justice – it makes sense. It
provides people with the opportunity
to reframe an event that has occurred,
reducing the likelihood of it happening
again. This not only has an implication
on the individual but also agencies who
work with them and society itself – it
empowers people to move forward
positively.
Kate Davies MSc
9
Issue 56: Winter 2016
Is it OK not to forgive?
Tom Leavesley is a survivor of childhood sexual abuse.
He is the UK ambassador for Survivors Manchester, a
charity supporting men and boys who have survived
sexual violation. He regularly writes about issues
affecting survivors on his own website, tomsurvivors.uk,
and is a contributor to The Huffington Post.
L
ike many others, the first time I
heard about restorative justice was
when Laura Coel’s story about meeting
her paedophile stepfather appeared in
the media. It was hugely impactful in
terms of raising awareness of restorative
justice, and the feedback Laura got
on social media was overwhelmingly
positive and supportive. Many advocates
of restorative justice have long been
calling for survivors of sexual crimes
to have the opportunity to meet
perpetrators. Interviewed alongside
Laura, Jon Collins said that in many parts
of the UK there is still a “blanket ban”
and sexual abuse survivors are being told
they can’t participate.
For those not familiar with the case,
Laura hit the headlines in October 2015
as one of the first survivors of childhood
sexual abuse to talk publicly about
meeting her abuser through restorative
justice. She spoke eloquently about what
had happened to her as a child and was
widely praised for her bravery. Laura’s
comments about forgiving her stepfather were seized upon by journalists.
‘Why I forgave my stepdad who abused
me’ was the Daily Mirror’s headline.
‘Woman whose stepfather sexually
abused her from the age of eight relives
how she met him 22 years later... to
tell him she forgave him’ was the Daily
Mail’s.
With headlines like that, some might
have been left thinking that restorative
justice is about forgiveness alone.
Knowing nothing about the process
beforehand, that was certainly the
impression I was left with.
It is understandable why journalists want
to explore the idea of forgiveness. It’s
sensational, almost unbelievable, that
someone like Laura would forgive the
person who harmed them. Forgiving
the unforgiveable makes for a great
headline. It sells newspapers and gets
hits. But forgiveness is not the whole
story, as I have discovered.
As a survivor of childhood sexual abuse,
the idea of forgiveness had not entered
my mind, let alone become something
I wanted to pursue. At 12 years old, I
was groomed and abused by a trusted
family friend during the school summer
holidays. Only recently have I found my
voice and broken the 20-year silence I
was sworn to keep. Throughout police
questioning and the trial, the man who
abused me showed no remorse and
accused me of lying. He was sentenced
to five years imprisonment in December
2014.
victim impact statement? Does he think
he deserves forgiveness? Is he sorry?
My head was full and I couldn’t quite
believe what I was thinking. There was
no way I was going to forgive him and
that was that. Yet, a creeping feeling
followed me all the way home. This
was the start of my own research into
restorative justice. What I found really
surprised me. Yes, forgiveness is one
of the many benefits but it is not the
primary aim.
In my victim impact statement I wrote:
‘When I finally found the courage to tell
my story, your insidious presence was
felt yet again, as I had to watch loved
ones cry for what happened to me. You
have left a trail of destruction and you
deserve to carry that guilt until the end
of your days. I can never forgive you for
what you did and nor do you deserve
forgiveness.’
I suspect this is a feeling shared by many
survivors, but something shifted in me
when I heard Laura speaking with such
positivity. Sitting in my car, I was in awe
listening to her talk to Jeremy Vine on
the radio – she was so composed and so
brave.
In the car, I reflected on my own
unanswered questions. I thought
about my decision to waive my right to
anonymity and why it was important for
me to tell my story in my own words.
I wondered what Alan, the man who
abused me, was thinking. Did he realise
the pain and suffering he caused me?
What does he have to stay about my
Like many of the journalists covering
Laura’s story, I’d missed the point.
Perhaps I’m starting to understand how
this frustrates those associated with
restorative justice. The media coverage
left me with the impression this was
a black and white issue. Not ready to
forgive? Move along please.
The more I read, the more I understand
that restorative justice is about taking
back control and empowering the victim.
It is about having an opportunity to ask
those unanswered questions in a safe
and controlled way. And it can help
diffuse fears of a chance meeting with
the perpetrator in the future.
Most importantly for me, restorative
justice gives victims an opportunity
to redefine what they feel about the
crime committed against them. Of the
accounts I’ve read so far, almost all
describe, in one way or another, the idea
of entering as a victim and walking out
as a survivor.
Tom Leavesley
Resolution
10
Pre-sentence
restorative justice –
does it work?
The pre-sentence restorative justice pathfinder in Crown Courts, developed and
implemented by Restorative Solutions with the support of Victim Support, explored
how well pre-sentence restorative justice worked in order to inform its extension
nationally. The pathfinder pilot has now concluded, and an evaluation report by the
Institute for Criminal Policy Research (ICPR) was released in November 2015.
F
ollowing the 2010 general election,
the coalition government committed
to restorative justice being an option at
any stage in the criminal justice system.
The Crime and Courts Act 2013 created
the opportunity for restorative justice
to take place ‘pre-sentence’, with judges
and magistrates given the power to defer
sentencing in order to enable restorative
justice to take place.
The pre-sentence pathfinder set out
to determine how well restorative
justice conducted post-conviction but
pre-sentence would work in practice.
Jessica Jacobson, co-director at ICPR and
one of the report’s authors said: “The
pathfinder sought to assess the value
of pre-sentence restorative justice in
light of the new statutory provision. It
also provided an opportunity to look at
whether embedding restorative justice
within the judicial process could help
it become a more routine, mainstream
activity rather than – as has often
seemed to be the case – an ‘add-on’
feature of the criminal justice system.”
The pathfinder was carried out in 10
Crown Courts across England and
Wales, nine of which are included in
the evaluation. Eight of the sites began
participating in February and March
2014, and the ninth in November 2014.
Cases were identified from court lists
and local police systems, and victims’
details were accessed from the police
systems. Project managers or facilitators
contacted the victims after charge and
prior to the offender’s plea.
In cases where the victim was interested,
the project manager would find out
if the defendant was going to plead
guilty and if they wanted to take part
in restorative justice. A request could
then be entered to defer sentence for
restorative justice to take place. During
this adjournment, if both victim and
offender did not withdraw their consent,
restorative justice could take place.
It was at the discretion of the judge
whether this would factor into their
ultimate sentencing decision.
A total of 2,273 victims were identified
within the scope of the pathfinder.
Contact was made with 1,201 victims. Of
these, 446 were interested in restorative
justice. The defendant pleaded guilty in
179 of these cases and there were 147
adjournments for restorative justice to
take place. These led to 55 conferences
and 38 other restorative justice activities
completed at the pre-sentence stage.
Where restorative justice took place the
results were uniformly positive, leading
the report to conclude it could be a
timely and helpful intervention. Of those
who participated in a conference, 95%
thought it had affected them in a
positive way while none found it
had affected them in a negative way.
Seventy-seven % of participants who
rated their experience out of 10 gave it a
nine or 10. The report notes that victims
and offenders both expressed relief
and spoke of a weight being lifted from
them due to the process. There are lessons to be learned from
this for the future use of pre-sentence
restorative justice nationwide. As Jessica
concluded: “One of the key messages is
that pre-sentence restorative justice can
offer victims a voice within a criminal
justice process that is otherwise often
perceived as excluding or silencing them.
Equally, pre-sentence restorative justice
can promote the active engagement
of defendants who may otherwise be
almost entirely passive and disengaged
throughout the prosecution and court
process.”
The evaluation also highlights the
benefits of restorative justice taking
place as early as possible in the criminal
justice process, rather than waiting until
after the offender has been sentenced.
The report notes that pre-sentence
11
Issue 56: Winter 2016
restorative justice “provides victims
with answers, sooner rather than later,
to their questions about the offence”,
adding that “these answers can help
victims to address their worst fears …
and to start the process of ‘closure’ or
‘moving on’ from the offence.”
Jessica said: “Data-sharing seems to
be a perennial difficulty in restorative
justice initiatives, as in a great many
other criminal justice activities that
depend on input from several agencies.
The question of how to overcome this
problem is of critical importance.
The number of people who took part in
a conference was, however, lower than
expected, caused by multiple obstacles
which stood in the way of a higher
uptake of restorative justice during the
pathfinder project. Data-sharing was one
such issue, and led to the low number
of victims being contacted. Reluctance
to share data between agencies has
long been recognised as a barrier to
successful referrals leading to restorative
justice. In this project, access to
information about cases being brought
before the Crown Court was readily
available, but obtaining details on the
victims in the cases proved to be much
more difficult.
“One of the important lessons from
this pathfinder is how important it is to
access comprehensive, accurate data on
victims that only the police are likely to
hold. Whatever agency is responsible
for delivering restorative justice must
establish a meaningful and practical
protocol for accessing the requisite
police information. Any such datasharing arrangements must fully address
potential obstacles to data-sharing
between statutory and non-statutory
organisations.”
Often, even where local agreements
were set up, the data was not always
complete or accurate. This meant that
the restorative justice services could
not always contact victims, and project
managers were unable to get the details
of victims who had not been referred
to Victim Support. The police held the
essential data about both victim and
offender, and putting agreements in
place so that the project managers could
obtain this data was often a convoluted
and complicated process. Each site had
to make individual arrangements with
the relevant police force.
Other issues involved cases not being
within the scope of the pathfinder – the
study did not include sexual offences,
for example, which made up a larger
proportion than expected of cases
seen in the court sample. The offender
also needed to plead guilty in order for
restorative justice to take place, and the
number of guilty pleas was significantly
lower than expected. Many may have
gone on to plead guilty at a later point,
but late guilty pleas placed an impossible
administrative burden on the restorative
justice project managers.
Issues also arose around when to contact
the victim – waiting until after the
offender had pleaded guilty introduced
an unnecessary delay, while contacting
them too early ran the risk of rushing
them into the process. Whether to
contact the victim before the offender
was also an issue. If they were keen to
take part but the offender then said no
or pleaded not guilty, this could cause
the victim disappointment and waste the
time and effort of preparation put in by
the project manager.
However, the evaluation did not
demonstrate a lack of interest in
restorative justice among victims.
As Jessica observed: “We know that,
overall, 37% of victims with whom
initial contact was made expressed an
interest in restorative justice. Given
that initial contact was often simply by
telephone, and many victims may have
known little or nothing about restorative
justice, particularly pre-sentence, this
speaks positively to their interest in
participation.”
Clearly, the evaluation demonstrates the
challenges of implementing restorative
justice within the court system. But the
high victim satisfaction rates – and the
fact that 91% of victims who participated
thought that the conference had affected
them in a positive way – demonstrates
its value. The challenge now is to
consider how it can best be delivered,
potentially by integrating it into wider
local services. As Jessica concluded:
“To make sure restorative justice is
offered at the right time for all victims,
pre-sentence restorative justice should
be made available as an integral part of
service provision.”
Resolution
12
Restorative justice in the media –
a victim’s experience
© The Forgiveness Project / Photo by Brian Moody
Anyone with an interest in restorative justice will
probably have heard of Rosalyn Boyce, whose story
received widespread media coverage after she met the
man who raped her. In terms of raising awareness of
restorative justice, people who have been through the
process provide the most compelling evidence of its
power, but what is it like to become the focus of such
widespread media attention?
I
n 1999 Rosalyn Boyce was attacked
and raped by a stranger who broke
into her home. Fifteen years later, she
met the offender in a restorative justice
conference. At the time of the attack,
Rosalyn wanted no contact with the
media. She said: “I wasn’t in any position
to do that at the time, but a few months
afterwards, I made a decision that if I
ever decided to use the story it would be
for the benefit of other people.”
Rosalyn’s attacker was caught and given
three life sentences. After years of
struggling to cope with the aftermath,
she decided that she had to meet him.
The restorative justice conference finally
took place in 2014. Rosalyn said: “After
the conference, I was stunned that it had
gone ahead. Even up to the last minute,
it seemed like it might not take place
and for about a month afterwards, I was
slightly euphoric.
“About a year later I was approached
by a journalist from the Mirror, and I
decided that it was the right time to talk
more publicly about my experience – I
felt ready. I was very aware that people
who’ve experienced serious sexual
crimes like I had don’t usually go through
restorative justice, so my main aim was
to let people know that it can be done
and it does work.”
The RJC works with both victims and
offenders to bring their stories to a wider
audience as part of its awareness raising
work. Safi Schlicht, the RJC’s senior
communications manager, said: “It’s
great that restorative justice is receiving
such positive media coverage, and we’re
very grateful to all of the people who
share their stories with us and go on to
do wider media work.
“Like Rosalyn, many victims choose to
talk to the media because they want
to help others who have had similar
experiences, and doing so can be very
empowering. We want to make sure
that any work we do with them to
promote restorative justice is a positive
experience and doesn’t cause further
harm.”
Rosalyn’s story appeared in the Sunday
Mirror, several weeks after she was
initially interviewed. She said: “It’s
quite surreal seeing your own story in
print – you read it and it’s almost as if it’s
happened to someone else. Some of the
people I’ve met in the last 10 years or so
didn’t know anything about my past, so
they were shocked to find out what I’d
been through.”
For newspapers, in particular, the
addition of strong images is an additional
incentive for covering a story. With
extensive archive material available,
they can often locate material unknown
to the victim. Rosalyn said: “I was very
happy with the story when it went out,
except for the fact that I hadn’t realised
they were going to print a picture of Lee
Hill, the man who raped me. That came
as a shock.”
As Rosalyn experienced, one of the
challenges in dealing with the media is
the lack of control over what is finally
published or broadcast. Safi said: “Part
of our role when liaising between
victims and the media is to manage
expectations. On the one hand, we’re
able to prepare the interviewee for what
they’re likely to be asked to do, and on
the other we can tell the broadcaster or
journalist when we feel something really
isn’t going to be appropriate. Effectively,
we provide a buffer between the victim
and the journalist, and this can be
useful.”
The day after the Mirror article came out
Rosalyn was contacted by a number of
other newspapers, and was interviewed
again. As her story gained momentum,
she received a call from Loose Women,
a daily talk show on ITV. She said: “I’d
warned my close friends and family that
they might be seeing me in the paper,
but I hadn’t really thought much further
than that.
“When Loose Women got in touch
I asked my family’s advice, because
appearing on TV seemed more exposed,
somehow. They were unanimous – we
all knew that the story was going to be
short-lived, so it seemed sensible to
get as much coverage as possible while
people were still interested.”
Rosalyn agreed to the interview, which
was broadcast live in July 2015. She said:
“The team at Loose Women surprised
me, because I’d never watched it before
I went on and didn’t have a particularly
high opinion of it.
“But from the first time they contacted
me to long after the programme aired,
they were brilliant. They kept in contact,
they sent me flowers after the show,
they followed up to see how I was – the
whole experience was entirely positive.”
13
While broadcasters are generally very
careful when it comes to sensitive stories
like Rosalyn’s, they have no control over
the ensuing social media activity. In
addition to a large number of positive
and supportive comments, Rosalyn also
encountered some criticism around her
decision to meet her attacker. She said:
“I knew that by putting my story out in
the public arena, I was never going to
get 100% positive feedback, and I think
that’s very important for other victims to
realise.
“Everyone’s entitled to their own
opinions – that’s what the media’s about
– so you have to be able to take that on
the chin and deal with it. But if someone
comes to me with a negative comment
about what I’ve done, I’m more than
willing to have that debate.”
Rosalyn highlights the need for anyone
considering engaging with the media
to be fully prepared
for what
Issue 56: Winter 2016
they are about to do. She said: “You
need to have support, and you need to
communicate with the people close to
you about what you’re doing. You also
need to feel strong in yourself.”
She continued: “My experience [of
working with the media] was positive,
but I was very clear about what I was
getting into. I also had my family behind
me – they know that when I make a
decision to do something, I’ve thought
it through, and nothing appeared in the
media that they didn’t already know
about.”
Rosalyn is now a prominent advocate
for restorative justice, and is working
with PCCs to help raise awareness of the
positive effects it can have in cases like
hers. She concluded: “At the end of the
day, this is my story, and I put it out there
in the hope that it would help other
people. I know from the feedback I’ve
had that it’s had that effect, and I hope it
continues to do so.”
,
Nick s
story
14
Nick has spent 16
years learning to
live with the loss
of his twin brother,
Simon. Here, he
talks about how
restorative justice
helped him to
stop feeling like a
victim.
Photo by Ben Gold
Resolution
15
“I grew up in Cumbria, in the Lake
District, with my mother, father and
my two brothers. Richard is the eldest.
Simon, my twin, and I were born three
years after him. Simon and I were
identical, and we were always very
close. As kids, we enjoyed a very happy
upbringing in rural Cumbria. Our passion
together was supporting our beloved
football team, Carlisle United.
“Simon and I went to different
universities, and after I graduated I
moved to work down in the South East.
Richard and Simon stayed in the North,
working in our dad’s printing business
in Birkenhead. Simon was a very happygo-lucky person, always living life to the
full. While I settled down fairly early, he
stayed single and enjoyed going out with
his friends and having fun, but we still
saw each other regularly.
“Simon and I celebrated our 30th
birthday together at the beginning of
August 1998 with a lovely family party. A
few weeks later my wife Julie and I were
going to Cumbria to visit some friends
for the Bank Holiday, and we stopped
in to see my parents on the way. Simon,
who lived close by, wasn’t there as he’d
already made plans, but he said he’d see
us later during the weekend.
“We were in Cumbria, driving, when I got
a call from my dad on my mobile phone.
He insisted I pull over and call him back
from a call box. The strange irony is that
we were just outside the hospital where
Simon and I were born when Dad said:
‘Simon’s been murdered – you need to
come home.’
“It’s hard to describe what happened
next – for several days, we were like
zombies. We knew very little other than
the fact that Simon had been beaten
up and drowned and the police were
conducting a murder investigation. We
were taken to the pond where Simon
drowned, and I went on TV to appeal for
information.
“A few days later, the police still didn’t
have any leads, so I took part in a
reconstruction for local TV channels.
About 10 days after Simon’s death the
story had reached the national media
and I was about to go on Crimewatch
when I got a call from the police to say
they’d caught his killers.
Issue 56: Winter 2016
“We were relieved that the two people
responsible had been caught. We were
also incredibly angry, and we didn’t want
them to be free, and live normal lives.
We wanted to see justice being done.
I remember thinking that they didn’t
deserve to be referred to as human
beings, whoever they were.
“Over the weeks that followed, we were
able to piece together some of what
had happened to Simon. He had gone
to a nightclub with his friends. It was a
good night, by all accounts, but at some
point he lost contact with his friends.
CCTV showed him leaving the club alone,
and we know that he was meant to be
staying with a friend who lived nearby.
He set off towards his friend’s house, but
didn’t really know where he was going.
Then he bumped into the two young
men who would eventually murder him.
“Both of the men responsible for Simon’s
death were previous offenders who were
quite well known in the area. One of
them had been released from a young
offenders institution that morning. They
had met up earlier that day and had
been drinking and smoking cannabis.
Simon had been drinking quite heavily
himself that night, so he probably wasn’t
fully appreciative of the danger he might
be putting himself in when they walked
him to a local park.
“In the park the two men saw an
opportunity to rob Simon and started
to attack him. Simon, being Simon,
wouldn’t have fought back – neither of
us were like that. He had no money on
him, only his cash card, so they beat
him to try and get the PIN number.
They stamped on him and kicked him
unconscious. I remember seeing him in
the mortuary afterwards and his head
was black and blue.
“They then threw Simon in the pond
next to where they’d attacked him.
He drowned. He was found the next
morning by a man walking his dog.
“For the next few hours, Simon was an
unidentified missing person, because
he had no ID on him. Eventually, on
Sunday afternoon, his flatmate raised
the alarm because Simon hadn’t come
home. My dad phoned the police and
was asked to come and identify the
body they’d found in the pond. Dad has
never wanted to talk about that – he was
utterly devastated, as was my mum. We
all were.
“The trial took almost a year to come to
court. It was very nerve-racking, but as a
family, we wanted to be there for Simon
and see justice being done. The trial was
extremely upsetting in many respects.
When the pathologist was talking about
Simon’s injuries, he described the
trauma from sustained kicks and blows
to his head. My mum had to run out of
the courtroom – she couldn’t bear to
listen to it.
“Both of the accused pleaded not guilty,
but the verdict was unanimous. One of
the offenders was 19 at the time, and
he received a life sentence of at least
12 years. The other, who was 16, was
sent to prison for at least 10 years. I
remember the emotion and tears when
the foreman of the jury announced the
guilty verdict for both.
“We felt fortunate that they had both
been caught and sentenced, because
many murder cases never reach that
stage. They were going to prison, and we
tried to get back to normality and move
on. The early years were very tough,
and I had a lot of counselling. My mum
suffered from alcoholism for a number
of years as a result of the pain of losing
Simon. She’s recovered now, but she’s
very lucky to be alive. My mum and
dad now try to live their lives as full as
possible in memory of Simon.
“The Victim Liaison Service kept us
fully informed as the offenders passed
through the prison system and in 2012,
we started attending their parole
hearings, where we were able to read
out our victim impact statements. It was
the first time since the trial that we were
able to see Simon’s killers and describe
to their faces the impacts of their actions
on us as a family, and it was a very
powerful experience.
“Reading my impact statement in front
of one of the offenders – Craig – would
become a key factor in my decision to
take part in restorative justice. My mum
had been in just before me and read
out her statement. We never read
each other’s statements, but I know
hers was very moving, because when I
walked in Craig was in tears.
Resolution
16
“He was visibly shaken, and when I read
my statement I looked him straight in the
eye for the first time and really told him
how hurt I was.
“At that point Craig was an inmate at
HMP Grendon, where he’d heard a talk
by the father of a murder victim about
restorative justice. It had a big impact on
him, and he had already put in a request
for us to meet him in a restorative
justice conference. I knew nothing about
restorative justice at this point – in the
16 years the prisoners had been in jail,
I’d never heard of it.
“Seeing Craig’s emotions when I read
out my statement made me think that
he was beginning to understand what
he’d done and feel remorse, but he
wasn’t allowed to speak while I was
in the parole hearing. When he had
been sentenced all those years ago,
to us he was just a 16 year old lowlife on Merseyside – he had no real
understanding of the enormity of
what he’d done. Although he was the
younger of the two, we saw him as the
more intelligent and felt he was the
ringleader.
“That day in the parole hearing, I
saw someone completely different
– a grown-up man who was trying to
recover. He’d spent the best part of
his life in jail, and for all those years I’d
imagined him to be an evil monster.
I realised then that I really wanted
to meet and talk to him, and I came
out that day determined to explore
restorative justice.
“In August 2014 our victim liaison officer
put me in touch with Mandy and Jenny,
two restorative justice facilitators, and
we went through a series of preparation
exercises over several months. Those
meetings were to explore what I wanted
to get out of the proposed conference
with the offender, and to prepare both
me and Craig. Mandy and Jenny also
talked to me about the potential impact
of the meeting – I was likely to get
information that I might never be able to
share with my parents because it would
be too upsetting for them. My parents
didn’t want to be a part of the meeting
with Craig, but were very supportive of
me doing it.
“I also met up with Ray Donovan, who
had been through restorative justice
with the three men who killed his son
Christopher. Ray mentored me through
the process, and having the support of
someone who truly understood what
I was about to go through was really
valuable.
“My wife was very much involved in
the preparation for the conference, and
she was there on the day to support
me. She had never really got to know
Simon because we were married soon
before he died, and we’d only been
going out together for about a year. She
never had the chance to understand
our relationship as twin brothers. That
was a loss, and something she needed
to express to Craig. I prepared a lot
of questions for Craig, and I had a file
of photos and newspaper cuttings to
show him. By the time the meeting
came round, I was thoroughly prepared,
thanks to the time Mandy and Jenny had
spent with me.
“I was definitely nervous that morning.
It was the first time I’d been in a
high-security prison, and there was
a complicated security process to go
through. Once we were in, we were
shown into the prison chapel, where the
meeting would take place. There was a
circle of chairs, and a small, screened-off
area in case I needed time out. We had
already decided where everyone would
sit, and how the meeting would begin.
“When Mandy asked if I was ready I felt
tears welling up – I was very emotional.
But I got myself together and Craig was
brought into the room. I’d seen him
just a few months before at his parole
hearing, but he hadn’t been allowed to
speak then, so I hadn’t heard his voice.
Mandy began the meeting by inviting
Craig to talk about what had happened
and how he came to meet Simon on that
day. It only took a minute or two before
the conversation started flowing easily.
“I started talking about my background,
Simon, and everything that led up to that
day. I showed Craig pictures of Simon’s
grave, and some newspaper clippings.
I also showed him photos of our 30th
birthday, just three weeks before Simon
died. The pictures had a big impact
on Craig, and he spent a lot of time
reflecting on them – we learned after the
meeting that the pictures of Simon really
helped bring home the impact of what
he’d done to our family.
“I wanted to get answers to some of
the details around Simon’s death, and
I was prepared to go very deep even if
it was going to be really painful. I also
wanted to hear Craig express how sorry
he was, and I felt that he had wanted
to express that after seeing him at the
probation hearing. I made it very clear
to Craig that the meeting was not about
me forgiving him – I can never forgive
him. It was about me getting answers to
many questions about Simon’s death,
unknowns that I had reflected on over
the last 16 years. I went into the meeting
with a very exploratory mindset and a lot
of questions, but wanting to let it flow
whichever way it went.
“Mandy’s role as the facilitator was
very important, and she prompted and
probed and led the meeting really well.
17
Issue 56: Winter 2016
Finally, we got to the point where I said:
‘Craig, tell me how you killed Simon.’
He looked me straight in the eye, and
took me, step by step, through what had
happened that night. He’d done a lot of
work while he was in prison on accepting
the enormity of what he’d done, so he
was ready for the conversation we had.
“Looking back now, it was an amazing
experience. I’ve seen a side of the man
who murdered my brother that’s shown
me he’s a recovering person, who is
genuinely sorry. I consider myself lucky
because there are a lot of very serious
offences that never get to this point of
reconciliation. To get the connection I
had with Craig takes a lot of time and
also a willingness to have an open mind
– for me the circumstances were right
and we synchronised. In fact, it could
have possibly happened sooner if we’d
known about restorative justice earlier.
“Craig was embarrassed and ashamed,
but he was very matter of fact, and
honest. He talked about Simon crying,
and begging them to stop beating
him. He said at one point: ‘I can’t use
the word ‘sorry’ to make up for what
I’ve done – it’s hollow, and it’s got no
meaning. I was an evil person when I
killed your brother, and I can’t take that
away.’
“Mandy, Jenny and I realised afterwards
that if there was one thing we could
have improved, it was the end of the
meeting. We hadn’t thought about it
enough beforehand, and one of the
things we maybe should have done was
to have a longer period of silence at the
end, to reflect on the enormity of what
had been said. That would have allowed
us to think about whether there was
anything else which we wanted to say.
“When I walked out of the prison I was
on a high – I felt like I wanted to go
straight into another meeting with Craig.
It was exhausting, though, and I went
through a whole load of mixed emotions
in the next few days. Mandy, Jenny,
and I held several debrief meetings in
the weeks that followed to explore my
thoughts and feelings, and they did the
same with Craig.
“I don’t feel like a victim anymore. I am
just a human being who has experienced
and now lives with the impact of a
serious crime on my family. Restorative
justice I feel allows you to ‘close’ and
lose the victim tag. The hurt will never
go away of course, but I’ve shown the
courage to step up, face and talk to the
offender – it’s an incredible piece of
closure.
Photo by Ben Gold
“I also got a deep insight into Craig’s
background, which helped me to
understand how damaged as a person
he’d been when he killed Simon. It
wasn’t an excuse, but it helped partly to
explain why he’d come to be where he
was that night. He said to me: ‘I was just
so angry – it wasn’t Simon I was kicking,
it could have been anybody. I was taking
my anger out on him, and we went really
hard into him. I was damaged, taking my
anger out on society.’ He gave me a lot
of insight into why he was such a nasty
person, and the years of prison and the
therapy he’s had have helped him to
realise that. He showed great remorse
that day for the hurt he had caused our
family.
“Restorative justice is a very powerful
thing to do. It gives you some closure,
some answers. It fills gaps that you may
wonder about for your whole life. And it
gives you a chance to tell your side of the
story and tell the offender the impact of
what they’ve done. Craig said to Mandy
and Jenny after the meeting: ‘I didn’t
know many of the things Nick told me – I
had no idea.’
“In recent years as the killers of my
brother started to go through the release
process, I’ve wrestled with the question
of whether they deserve a second
chance. In many senses the justice
system answers this question for you in
moving the prisoners through the system
to ultimate release. Restorative justice
helped me understand that all people
can make a serious mistake in their life
and be given a second chance – even
murderers, even the murderers of my
twin brother. Craig will be out one day
soon, and will be given the chance to
rebuild his life, and we as a family have
to accept that he will be given a chance
to hopefully give something back to
society when he comes out.
“I’ve always thought in recent years that
I wanted something positive to come out
of Simon’s death, and the starting point
for that was telling Craig that he had a
chance to do something good with his
life when he gets released from prison. I
said to him: ‘If you can prevent just one
family going through what we’ve been
through, then that’s a success.’ I hope
that sharing my story might help other
people by encouraging them to take part
in restorative justice and benefit from it
as much as I have.”
The RJC would like to thank Victim Support and
Nick for sharing his story with us.
Resolution
18
Restorative justice in the youth justice system
In September 2015, Michael Gove set up a review of the youth justice system. Led by
Charlie Taylor – a former head teacher and chief executive of the National College of
Teaching and Leadership – it is due to report in summer 2016, with an interim report
expected in January or February. The review is looking at the youth justice system as
a whole and is expected to recommend significant structural change. In this article the
RJC’s chair, Graham Robb, considers what that change might look like.
T
his review presents a significant
opportunity to ensure that
restorative justice is placed at the
heart of the youth justice system.
While restorative justice already plays
an important role in addressing youth
crime, there is more that could be done
to embed its use across the system. So
what improvements could be made?
process, the reoffending rate was 27%
compared to 33% for the control group,
and for each pound spent on the YRI
compared to the alternative there was a
return of nearly £3 to the public sector.
It is a clear success all round. Some other
areas already run similar schemes, but
this approach should now be replicated
across the country.
First, restorative justice should be central
to how low-level crime and antisocial
behaviour is dealt with out of court. We
know that restorative justice, as part
of an out of court disposal, can help
to divert young people away from the
justice system while supporting changes
in their future behaviour. It can also
provide a meaningful response for the
victim, which is not always the case
with a youth caution. At a time when
police resources are tight, it is also a
cost-efficient way to deal with low-level
offending and antisocial behaviour.
Second, referral orders are in need of
a shake-up. While some areas use the
referral order process as an opportunity
for a genuinely restorative intervention,
others do not. Victims are rarely involved
in youth offender panels and some are
barely restorative at all, despite the
intention that they should be based on
restorative principles. Initially hailed as
a significant step towards introducing
restorative justice into the youth justice
system, in practice too often they
have failed to deliver. This is a missed
opportunity.
As an example of this approach, in Surrey
the Youth Restorative Intervention
(YRI) – run jointly by Surrey Police and
Surrey County Council’s Youth Support
Service – has become the default
disposal for young offenders who admit
an offence. It links young offenders into
mainstream services, where required,
while also enabling restorative justice
to take place. An evaluation found that
91% of victims were satisfied with the
There should therefore be a move
towards a fully restorative model, based
on the success of the approach taken in
Northern Ireland and described on the
facing page by Tim Chapman. Using a
restorative approach to deal with most
offending by young people – either as
an alternative to court or as part of a
community order, through a system
equivalent to that in Northern Ireland
– would ensure that both offenders and
victims could benefit.
Third, there should be a greater use
of restorative practice within young
offender institutions (YOIs) and other
secure institutions holding young people.
At a time when violence within the youth
estate is a real concern, this should
be a priority. Some YOIs are already
exploring how they can use a restorative
approach as part of their management
of challenging behaviour. At HMP & YOI
Parc, for example, restorative justice
has been successfully trialled as the
default response to conflicts between
offenders or between offenders and
staff. Not only has this contributed to a
marked difference in the behaviour of
the inmates and the atmosphere on the
wings, it has also led to a rise in inmates
self-referring for more traditional victimoffender conferencing. There are other
examples of good practice that could
be drawn on, including Atkinson Secure
Children’s Home, Lincolnshire Secure
Unit and G4S Medway Secure Training
Centre, which have all achieved the RJC’s
RSQM.
Fourth, we need to ensure that
wherever challenging young people
come into contact with authority, both
inside and outside the justice system,
they are dealt with consistently using
a restorative approach. This means
stronger partnerships between the
youth justice system, the police and
institutions in other sectors such as
schools and care homes. To this end,
Charlie Taylor’s review needs to work
with Martin Narey’s concurrent review of
children’s residential care to ensure that
their recommendations align. The use of
restorative practice is one issue that is
clearly of relevance to both.
Overall, there is clear evidence in
support of using restorative justice
throughout the youth justice system.
Northern Ireland has demonstrated that
this can work in practice, with impressive
results. While much of Charlie Taylor’s
review is likely to focus on the youth
justice system’s structures and processes,
it must consider all aspects of how best
it can deliver an effective response to
crime for both victims and offenders.
Restorative justice should therefore be at
the centre of its recommendations.
Graham Robb
Chair, RJC
19
Issue 56: Winter 2016
The review into youth justice: some thoughts
from Northern Ireland
S
ince 2002 restorative justice has been
the primary means of addressing the
harm caused by the offending of young
people in Northern Ireland. Any young
person who admits to an offence will be
offered a youth conference. This can be
done through the prosecution service or
through the youth court for more serious
cases. A youth conference is facilitated
by a co-ordinator who is responsible
for engaging and preparing the young
person responsible for the harm, his or
her parents or carers and supporters, the
persons who have suffered the harm and
their supporters and other appropriate
members of the community. A police
officer must also be present and the
young person may bring a lawyer who
will ensure that rights are observed.
The youth conference is facilitated
by the co-ordinator supported by the
police officer. The purpose of the youth
conference is to agree a plan to repair
the harm to the victims and to reduce
the risk of further offending. Once an
agreement is made it is sent in the form
of a detailed report to the prosecution
service or the youth court depending
upon the source of the referral. If ratified
by the prosecutor, the agreement is
voluntary but if not completed in full
the prosecution service can consider
a prosecution for the original offence.
If ratified by the court it becomes an
enforceable youth conference order. The
agreement is supervised, supported and
enforced by a social worker in the Youth
Justice Agency.
The overwhelming majority of
young people consent to a youth
conference. There have been over
12,000 conferences since 2003. There
is a high level of victim participation
considering that many offences have
no direct victim. Over 90% of victims
report that they are fully satisfied with
the restorative process and its outcome
and state that they prefer it to the court
process. The agreements are rigorously
supervised and there is a very high
level of completion. The reoffending
rates for young people who participate
in conferences
are consistently
lower than other
community
supervision orders
and significantly
lower than
custody. Northern
Ireland also has
a low level of
sentencing young
people to custody.
have complex
needs often due
to their own
experience of
victimisation in the
past. They need
special attention
and time to turn
their lives around.
This intensity
of support and
supervision
requires great
commitment and
expertise and does
not come cheap.
What can we
conclude from
the Northern Irish
experience?
• A modern youth
justice system
can aspire to more than the one aim
of preventing further offending. It can
also prioritise the need of the victim
for justice and reparation.
• The active participation of members
of the public who have been affected
by a harmful incident can enhance
the public’s understanding of and
confidence in the justice system.
• Young people, who agree to make
amends and to take steps to avoid
further offending, are more likely to
keep to their commitments if they
make promises to victims in the
presence of people whom they care
about than if they make them to a
court.
• Victims rarely want young people to go
into custody.
In England and Wales the youth justice
system and its partners have succeeded
in reducing the numbers of young
people entering the system and being
committed to a custodial centre. In
general, youth crime is no longer a
serious public issue.
There is, of course, a very small group of
young people who offend persistently
and cause a great deal of harm. They
Fortunately most
young people who
harm others are
not a serious risk to the public. I believe
that this presents the government
with an opportunity to make a real
commitment to restorative justice within
families, schools and communities as
well as within the justice system. Society
helps young people to learn the values
and norms that they will need as they
mature into adult citizens through
participation in restorative processes.
Such a commitment would further
prevent offending and save money so
that the youth justice system could really
focus its resources and expertise on the
young people most in need. A shift in
policy and funds could also change the
whole youth justice discourse.
Rather than focus on offending and
public protection, we could ask ourselves
a question: How do we wish to raise our
children so that they can flourish in the
Britain of the future?
Implicit in this question is another. What
reasons do we want young people to
give for not harming others? Because
they fear getting caught and punished?
Or because respecting others’ rights is
the right thing to do?
Tim Chapman
Ulster University
Resolution
20
NPS and CRCs – is the partnership working?
Transforming Rehabilitation divided the probation
service into 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies
(CRCs) and the National Probation Service (NPS).
Probation duties were divided between the two
agencies, with the NPS being responsible for high
risk cases, pre-sentence reports and referrals, and
CRCs being responsible for designing and delivering
innovative services with low to medium risk offenders.
The relationship between the NPS and CRCs is
incredibly important for restorative justice. How well
it is working remains to be seen.
In February 2015, 21 new CRCs
across England and Wales began
delivering services under Transforming
Rehabilitation, and the National
Probation Service was set up. CRCs
manage the majority of offenders in
the community, design and deliver
innovative new rehabilitation services,
and deliver specific interventions and
services for offenders managed by either
CRCs or the NPS. The NPS prepares
pre-sentence reports in court to help
with selection of the most appropriate
sentencing, assesses offenders in
prison to prepare them for release on
licence, and helps all offenders serving
community sentences to meet their
requirements.
interact with the NPS. They also reported
that their funders and commissioners
were confused about what the CRCs and
NPS will resource.
How well this division of labour
works was not tested in Transforming
Rehabilitation’s forerunner, the
Peterborough Prison Pilot, which tested
how well outsourcing rehabilitation
services on a payment by results basis
worked. The relationship and division of
duties was unexplored.
Problems with how the NPS and CRCs
work together are going to have a
serious effect on how much of a role
restorative justice plays in an offender’s
rehabilitation. There is an important
role that the NPS can play in creating
opportunities for it to take place, but
also myriad problems with the current
set-up of probation that could stand
in the way of its development. Most
importantly, the role of the NPS in
producing pre-sentence or stand-down
reports pre-sentence is vital to this
pathway.
This means that, nearly a year into
Transforming Rehabilitation, many
things about the NPS and the role
that it plays are unclear to CRCs and
other providers. In early 2015 Clinks,
working with the National Council for
Voluntary Organisations, surveyed
charities involved in delivering probation
contracts and found that there is much
confusion. Charities delivering services
were unclear to what extent they would
In order to give offenders the most
appropriate rehabilitation, the division of
labour between the NPS and CRCs needs
to work smoothly – their relationship is
crucial. Some have described the NPS
as the ‘gatekeeper’, recommending
which cases should be referred to CRCs,
and what an appropriate sentence
should involve. Initial reports from Her
Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation
(HMIP) suggest that there are serious
issues with their relationship, although it
is showing signs of improvement.
First, it is important in order for
restorative justice to be used as part of
a community sentence. The Offender
Rehabilitation Act 2014 introduced a
new Rehabilitation Activity Requirement
(RAR) as one of the options that can
be included as part of a community
or suspended sentence. The Act
explicitly states that an RAR can include
restorative justice. The NPS court staff
play a role in assisting sentencers to
identify cases suitable for an RAR,
including outlining options available as
part of the RAR, while the CRC provider
ultimately determines what forms a part
of this requirement.
HMIP found that there was little
consultation by the NPS with the CRCs
pre-sentence about suitable sentencing
proposals as part of the pre-sentence
report, partly due to pressures on the
NPS to produce a growing number
of reports. Alarmingly, the NPS staff
felt that they were becoming less
knowledgeable about the services that
different CRCs provided. The NPS felt
that this would lead to difficulties in
making appropriate proposals.
This hampers the ability of the NPS to
recommend an RAR involving restorative
justice. They may not know how well
the CRC would be able to provide the
service, or if the CRC has restorative
justice specialisms that would make a
case particularly important for them to
take on. The NPS court staff must assist
sentencers in their understanding of the
possible interventions, including when
restorative justice may be implemented
as part of sentence. If they are unable
to do this it is a serious impediment to
restorative justice taking place.
21
A secondary issue around the NPS’s
requirement to deliver pre-sentence
reports is whether they will help to
ensure that pre-sentence restorative
justice can take place. The Crime and
Courts Act (2013) gives Crown Court
judges, district judges and magistrates
the power to adjourn sentencing in order
to allow restorative justice to take place.
In the pathfinder pre-sentence
restorative justice project (the evaluation
of which is discussed elsewhere in this
publication) dedicated project managers
were used to highlight suitable cases
to refer on for assessment. In the
future, however, whatever models are
developed for delivering pre-sentence
restorative justice, NPS staff are likely to
be involved. If there is not widespread
knowledge about restorative justice
within the service – and if they do not
understand provision in the area – this
could be a significant problem.
Issue 56: Winter 2016
There is also a further opportunity for
the NPS to work with CRCs. The NPS can
choose to deliver restorative justice to
the offenders that they manage, and
one way of doing this is by purchasing
from the CRC. However, at the moment
this does not seem to be happening.
This may in part be due to the NPS not
knowing about the capabilities of the
CRC to deliver a high quality service,
but there are also deeper-seated
problems. A misperception of the cost of
restorative justice is one of these issues.
Metrics for success may also be flawed,
holding back the NPS from purchasing
restorative justice.
These are not insurmountable obstacles.
How best to incentivise the NPS is a
crucial question that must be answered,
and will be important in determining
their levels of interest in and uptake of
restorative justice. The NPS may be put
off restorative justice by conferences
not going ahead, but creating outcomes
based on pre-conference work and
preparation will help to create a mindset shift away from the idea of ‘failure’ if
conferences don’t take place. Concerns
about cost could also be addressed
by the creation of rate-cards, to avoid
misperceptions and provide clarity.
Finally, and arguably most importantly,
there needs to be good communication.
CRCs need to be clear about their
restorative justice ‘offer’ to the NPS, and
the NPS needs to be prepared to take
this advice on board and make it into
part of the recommendations contained
in pre-sentence reports. This can open
the gate to more offender-initiated
restorative justice across the criminal
justice system.
Resolution
22
ince becoming PCC for
The restorative S
Essex I have placed
victims at the heart of all I
justice
do. Late in 2014 we secured
£600,000 of funding from
landscape –
the Ministry of Justice to
support victims and to
a PCC’s view
develop restorative justice
in Essex. My challenge was
Nick Alston became
Essex’s first police and
crime commissioner
(PCC) in November 2012.
Having made the decision
not to stand for re-election
in 2016, in this article
Nick looks back on his
significant contribution
to improving restorative
justice services in the
county.
to use the funding in the most effective
way to improve victims’ experiences of
the criminal justice system and reduce
reoffending. Additionally, our outcomes
and successes needed to be measurable
if the service we were developing was to
have any kind of longevity.
As readers of this publication will know,
restorative justice is a process which
gives victims the opportunity to meet
or communicate with those who have
offended against them. It very directly
holds offenders to account and helps
them take responsibility for the harm
they have caused. Both parties – victims
and offenders – can discuss next steps
and the offender can then make amends.
In a criminal justice landscape which
is increasingly seeking to prioritise the
needs of victims, restorative justice can
and should play a vital part.
My office recruited a restorative justice
development manager in December
2014 to lead the Essex Restorative
Justice Hub. Emma Callaghan had
a background in restorative justice,
having led the restorative justice service
in Leeds Prison, which was the first
custodial establishment to receive the
RJC’s RSQM. In her new role Emma
began delivering an integrated, victimfocused restorative justice service across
Essex.
Working with partner
agencies and in particular
Essex Police, the Essex
Restorative Justice Hub was
launched as a pilot in the
west of the county in April
2015. We took the decision to
accept cases involving either
crime or antisocial behaviour
(ASB), recognising that ASB can cause
considerable harm to victims, especially
those that may be vulnerable or have
additional needs. The Hub gives people
whose lives are affected by ASB the
chance to address and resolve the issue,
which is becoming even more important
as the police find it increasingly difficult
to attend less serious ASB incidents.
The feedback we have had from those
involved in neighbour disputes has
been very positive – restorative justice
has the potential to resolve even the
longest-running tensions and repair
communities.
The work of the Restorative Justice
Hub has also been beneficial to other
services in Essex. With police resources
diminishing, we are able both to
support victims and to reduce the
likelihood of reoffending by facilitating
communication, both direct and indirect,
between those involved in crime or
conflict. One Essex Police officer who
had referred a case to the Hub said:
“[The Restorative Justice Hub] is a
helpful service as there is an expectation
on police to oversee and take control
of incidents that fall below the level
of criminality.” While these types of
incident are a drain on increasingly
stretched police resources, they can
escalate very quickly. Restorative justice
is a very effective way of ensuring that
does not happen.
23
Referrals have also been received from
Victim Support, Essex Community
Rehabilitation Company and Chelmsford
Prison. The work that Emma and
her team do not only helps victims,
but also takes the pressure off these
organisations.
The Essex Restorative Justice Hub relies
on well-trained volunteer facilitators,
and we have a strong support system in
place to enable them to carry out their
roles safely and professionally. Our Hub
coordinator, Janet Lunn, ensures that
they receive regular supervision and
continued training and development and
Emma supports them as needed through
their cases. The volunteers have proved
to be invaluable – they are enthusiastic,
flexible and proactive in what they do.
The positive feedback that we receive
from participants in restorative processes
is a testament to the hard work and high
skills that they bring to the service.
We recently hosted two launch events
to roll out the services of the Restorative
Justice Hub across the whole county.
One of our volunteers gave a compelling
speech about her experience of being
a volunteer. She told the audience:
“Volunteering with the Hub is so
rewarding. Everyone has something to
give and this role has made me realise
that I have got so much more to give
than I thought. I am passionate about
restorative justice after seeing the
process from preparation to the positive
conclusion.”
Volunteers are a valued resource and
I look forward to seeing their number
grow as our service expands and the
demand for restorative justice increases
from victims of crime across Essex.
Issue 56: Winter 2016
With the needs of victims so paramount
to what we do, the evidence from
our pilot phase has been positive – all
participants who gave us feedback said
they would recommend the process to
others. I recently had the privilege of
meeting a victim of an assault who had
worked with our facilitators. Anthony*
is just one victim who opted to use the
services of the Essex Restorative Justice
Hub after he was assaulted by an older
boy. Following a police investigation
Anthony decided he wanted to meet the
boy to ask him why he carried out the
attack. He said: “After the attack I was
petrified, I couldn’t step foot outside the
door and I couldn’t sleep.”
Anthony bravely spoke about his
experience at our launch event and also
on local radio. He said: “I felt like my
attacker was just going to get a slap on
the wrist which is why I decided I wanted
to meet him. As soon as he walked in
the room he said sorry straight away.
That shocked me – I didn’t even think he
would turn up. Afterwards I felt really
free again, like I could do anything that I
wanted to do.”
Anthony said the perpetrator in his
case told him he had turned his life
around since the incident and said he
had “learned his lesson”. Anthony’s
case quite clearly demonstrates how
restorative justice can have a positive
and profound effect on both the victim
and the perpetrator. I look forward to
more victims across Essex benefiting
from the very worthwhile services of the
Essex Restorative Justice Hub.
The roll-out of our service is not the end
for us and there is plenty more work to
do, which I hope will continue under
the next PCC. Our Hub currently does
not accept cases involving domestic
violence or sexual offending and this is
something that Emma is keen to develop
for the future. Emma said: “I would like
to deliver a service which doesn’t reject
a referral based on the nature of the
offence. However, I understand that we
have a long way to go to increase our
skills and confidence before we can take
on sensitive and complex cases such as
these.” In the meantime our Hub will
continue to work with services such as
RSQM holders Essex Youth Offending
Team to tackle cases which we currently
cannot accept.
As we look forward, we will continue to
engage with our partners and the public
to refer cases for restorative justice
and to increase take up from victims to
ensure they benefit from the process.
We have a great communications and
media team who promote the work we
do across the county and we are hopeful
that if victims understand restorative
justice and what it can do for them, they
will be more confident in accepting the
help that we can offer.
We must continue to learn from
our experience, and our Hub team
continually request feedback. To prove
the effectiveness of our new service
we are now seeking to gain the RSQM
accreditation ourselves within the
next year. I believe the benefits from
restorative justice, to victims and on
reducing reoffending, will far outweigh
the costs of running the service and
we will continue to measure outcomes
in order to back this assertion. In a
landscape where there is constant
scrutiny on how and where money is
being spent, this is vital to the future of
restorative justice delivery.
Nick Alston
Police and Crime Commissioner, Essex
*Anthony’s name has been changed
Resolution
24
Celine and
Anneka’s
stories
Celine’s mother was killed when the car she
was travelling in was hit in a head-on collision.
The driver who caused the accident was
convicted of death by dangerous driving and
sent to prison for three and a half years. Here,
both women explain the impact of the crime and
how restorative justice allowed them to rebuild
their lives.
*Celine’s story
“My mum and I were extremely close.
She was my rock and my moral compass.
I loved her.
“When Mum was diagnosed with cancer,
I started travelling from my home
in Oxfordshire to hers in Hull every
weekend. Eventually, I moved back to
Hull on my own to be with Mum as she
went through treatment – she had lumps
in her breasts and then in her lungs
removed. It was a terrible time, but we
were so happy when we were finally told
she was in remission.
“Just two months later, the police came
and told me that my mum had been
involved in a car accident. She was
supposed to have been with me that
weekend, but I had quite a bad cold
so she didn’t come to stay as we were
protecting her while her immune system
was weak.
“The police told me that Mum was at
the hospital so I assumed she was alive.
Then, when we got to the hospital, the
nurse told me the wrong name – for
a moment, I was hugely relieved that
there had been a big mix-up. That made
the shock even worse when I found out
that Mum was dead.
“I was told that I couldn’t have my
mum’s body for a funeral because the
offender, Anneka, was allowed
to request a second postmortem. It took Anneka nearly
two weeks to make her mind
up about that, which was quite
devastating.
“I lost six weeks of my life because I
didn’t know where the hell I was. I had
a complete breakdown – there aren’t
words to describe it. It’s extremely
difficult for people who haven’t
experienced it to grasp the depths of it.
“The court process took two years, and
Anneka pleaded not guilty until the
day of the trial. Finally, she changed
her plea to guilty and was bailed for a
pre-sentence report. By that time, I’d
had enough – I couldn’t keep coming
to court, and I needed an end to the
process. For me, it put everything on
hold. I didn’t grieve – I couldn’t even
register my mum’s death until over 12
months after the accident. The whole
thing was horrendous.
“I was familiar with the criminal justice
system through my work in probation
services, and I asked in my victim impact
statement for restorative justice to be
part of the sentencing. I felt that it would
be important for me and Anneka, in
helping to give me some peace and to
make her understand the full impact of
what she’d done.
“I was put in touch with two restorative
justice facilitators, Edwin and Avril, and
they were fantastic. They talked me
through the process and explored what
I might get out of it, and what would
happen if my expectations weren’t met.
They came to see me three or four times
before the meeting and would visit
Anneka afterwards, shuttling between us
for about eight months to prepare us for
our meeting.
“During that time, I prepared questions
and looked at the emotional impact
of sitting in the room with someone
who’d killed my mum – to me, she
seemed completely oblivious to what
she’d done. Edwin was able to help me
balance myself a little because it could
have been too emotionally driven to the
point where I might not have achieved
anything that I’d wanted. His support,
and Avril’s, was absolutely fantastic.
“Everything about the meeting was
organised in advance, from the layout of
the room to when there was going to be
tea and coffee to deciding that I would
go in first. There were no surprises
whatsoever, which made it a lot easier.
25
Issue 56: Winter 2016
“I spoke first. I talked about the
emotional impact of losing my
best friend, of not being able to
function properly – including in
my job – because of it. My mum
and I were extremely close and
losing her was like ripping off one
of my arms. Anneka wasn’t aware
of the isolation that she caused
me and the many, many other
effects her actions had caused.
“I was able to be very frank, and I
was able to ask questions. It was
never meant to be about hitting
her over the head with things – it
was about making her fully aware
of the grief and the pain, and the extra
pressure of having to go through a very
long criminal justice process because
she wouldn’t take ownership and
responsibility. Finally, the penny dropped
and Anneka understood how bad the
impact was on me.
“She told me that she thinks about my
mum every day and she was clearly
remorseful – that was the first time that
I had the opportunity to see that from
her. It was hugely valuable to know that
she does think about my mum, she does
think about her actions and she is trying
to make things better in her life.
“Anneka apologised, and it was a
genuine apology. I don’t think she ever
set out to do what she did. And I needed
to see her remorse.
“The meeting was done in a very
respectful, considerate way for both
of us and I actually gave Anneka a
hug before I left. Afterwards, it felt
like a weight had been lifted off of my
shoulders. I felt a lot lighter.
“I think I did what my mum would have
wished for, which was to forgive. I’ll
never forget, but I have that element of
forgiveness and meeting Anneka made
that possible. I needed to do it and I
don’t think I would be in the position I
am now if I hadn’t.
“I’d absolutely recommend restorative
justice to other victims of crime. It’s
about sharing and understanding. It’s
a forum where you are able to share
those things which have probably gone
unnoticed – because people don’t
understand – and it gives you the
opportunity to be heard.
“It’s also a chance for the offender to
feel the pain that I did, but with remorse
and understanding that they’ve got a
second chance and they need to live
their life in the best way they can.”
*Anneka’s story
“Four years ago, I was driving to work on
a quiet country road. I was sending a text
as I got to a corner and I skidded and hit
an oncoming car head on. The driver was
injured, but the passenger – Mary – was
killed.
“I went into shock and was taken to
hospital. When I was discharged the next
day, I came home and acted like nothing
had happened. It wasn’t until my first
police interview that it actually hit home
what had happened and how serious it
was. I’d pushed it to the back of my mind
to try to deal with it, but in the interview
I had to accept it – someone had lost
their life because of me. I can’t even
describe the feeling of realising what I’d
done. It was completely overwhelming
and the guilt was terrible.
“I was convicted of death by dangerous
driving. I received a three and a halfyear custodial sentence and a five-year
driving disqualification. I served half of
that sentence and for the rest of it I’m
on licence.
“Restorative justice was mentioned quite
early on in my sentence, but it wasn’t
until I got to an open prison in York that
my probation officer wrote to me saying
that it was an option that we could look
at. I knew immediately that I wanted
to do it. It seemed like the least I could
do for the victim’s family to try to help
them move on. I had meetings with the
restorative facilitators – two probation
officers – and got the process moving
forward. The probation officers met
with me and then the victim’s daughter
several times, making sure we were both
comfortable with the restorative process
and that we were well prepared.
“Before the meeting, I didn’t know how
to feel or what to expect. I remember
walking up the stairs and my legs were
like jelly, but it was in the room that
everything started to hit me again. I got
very nervous and worried about how it
was going to go and how everyone was
going to react. It was really nerve-racking
– harder than all of my sentence put
together.
“I’d seen Celine in court, but at that
point I’d tried to block everything out.
In the meeting it didn’t feel like she was
the same person. Sitting close to her, it
was really hard to sit and look Celine in
the eye and even try to apologise to her.
I could see clearly how much damage I’d
caused her.
“We both got a chance to speak. Celine
went first – she really wanted to know
what was so important to me that I
had to send that text while driving. She
wanted that closure, I think, and I tried
to answer as best I could. Before the
meeting, I could only imagine how she
was feeling, but to come face to face
with her I had to actually live it.
“Celine said to me in the meeting:
‘What’s done is done. You’re really sorry,
and now you need to move forward with
your life – do something positive with it.’
That immediately made me feel better,
but I’ll never be able to fully take it on
board because my guilt is my own, and
I’ll feel guilty every single day for the rest
of my life. I said to her: ‘I don’t know if
an apology’s relevant. I don’t know if
it’ll mean anything to you.’ But I wanted
her to know how sorry I was and that if
I could go back in time and change it all
then I would.
“Immediately after the meeting I felt
this huge relief – like a little bit of guilt
had been lifted. That guilt is never going
to go away completely, but at least I’d
managed to sit down and speak with
Celine and tell her how sorry I am.
She said that she could move on after
meeting me, so that was a massive
weight lifted off of my shoulders.
“I don’t feel restorative justice would
work for everyone but it really helped
me – it was so positive. Offenders need
to understand exactly how they’ve
made their victims feel. They sit in their
cell and they don’t realise that. I didn’t
realise half of what I put that family
through, so it really had an impact on
me.”
The RJC would like to thank West Yorkshire NPS
Victim Liaison and Restorative Justice Unit and
Celine and Anneka for sharing their stories with us.
*Anneka and Celine’s names have been changed.
Resolution
26
Magistrate’s champions
In October 2015 the RJC hosted a national event for the judiciary on restorative
justice. There was an excellent turnout from the magistracy and following the event,
an initiative to promote magistrate’s champions saw a number of successful recruits.
In this article, we hear from two magistrates on why they chose to become restorative
justice champions.
Raymond Gandhi, Leicestershire and Rutlands
Magistrates branch
Why did you choose to become a restorative justice
magistrate’s champion?
I first became interested in restorative justice in 1999 when
I was doing a Master’s degree in Criminology and Criminal
Justice at Loughborough University, long before it became
established in the UK. This meant that when I was approached
about becoming a restorative justice magistrate’s champion, I
was eager to take part.
What convinced you that restorative justice works?
I have watched restorative justice grow from being an obscure
theory that most of my fellow students had not heard of, to
something increasingly used in the mainstream. It can help
victims to get closure which might not happen any other way.
For the offender, they can learn to put it behind them and
move on too. Historically, this has mainly been done through
out of court disposals and I became interested in getting
restorative justice more integrated throughout the criminal
justice system.
How do you believe restorative justice can make a difference?
When there is an opportunity for the offender to meet the
victim in a restorative justice meeting, they get the chance
to hear about the impact of their actions on the person
affected and what this has meant for them. That’s important
because each side gets closure and sees things from another
perspective.
If you could change one
thing, what would it be?
I would like every case,
even cases coming through
the court system, to have
a restorative element so
that everyone who wants
restorative justice has
the opportunity to take
part in it.
Veen Rama, Kent branch
(North and Central Kent
bench)
Why did you choose to
become a restorative justice
magistrate’s champion? I’m an experienced
magistrate, and restorative
justice has interested me
for quite some time. I find
that the court process,
while fair to all parties,
always seems to leave a vacuum around
the feelings of the victim even though justice may have
been seen to be done. This also applies to many defendants.
Restorative justice seems to fill that vacuum. It gives victims
a sense of internal control and a chance to have their voice
heard by the person who has harmed them. The harmer sees
a path to take responsibility for their actions. This conversation
or communication opens a doorway to well-being for both
parties and has a great rehabilitative impact on the harmer.
What convinced you that restorative justice works?
The process creates a strong supportive environment for
harmers to rehabilitate and gives the victim a sense of wider
societal justice. As a magistrate I see my role as ensuring that
a process is adhered to while doing all I can to help the people
involved. Restorative justice provides this opportunity.
How do you believe restorative justice can make a difference?
It gives the victim a sense of power, a voice and remedy
beyond the four walls of a court. The defendant has an
opportunity to confront not only the victim through a
challenging process, but it also gives the defendant time to
seriously reflect on their actions which can lead them to take
full responsibility for their life.
The other benefit is that society improves as a whole.
If you could change one thing, what would it be?
For the court system and society in general to raise the
profile of restorative practice so that it is more expected that
restorative justice is part of the process.
27
Issue 56: Winter 2016
2015 – a good year for the RJC
As we enter a new year,
it is a good opportunity
to reflect back on the old
one and consider some
of the highlights.
criminal justice system in England and
Wales. This provided the first national
picture of the scale of restorative justice
use since it has become a mainstream
part of the criminal justice system.
It seems we never get tired of saying
this, but 2015 was another exciting
year for the RJC. Significant progress
continued to be made in embedding
restorative justice into the criminal
justice system, while there was a growing
interest in the use of restorative practice
in a broad range of other sectors and
settings. For the RJC and its members
this presented both opportunities and
challenges, and a considerable amount
of interesting work.
As ever, the RJC played a leading role
in championing the use of restorative
practice in England and Wales.
This included contributing to the
development of government policy as
well as promoting restorative practice
to key stakeholders, including publishing
information packs for magistrates,
youth offending teams and staff working
within the new probation landscape.
Additionally we worked with PCCs
as they developed new services with
the funding provided to them by the
Ministry of Justice.
A series of successful RJC events
included a conference for staff from
youth offending teams, a roundtable
with representatives of the National
Probation Service and Community
Rehabilitation Companies, and a seminar
on the use of restorative justice with
ethnic minority communities. We
also completed a mapping exercise of
restorative services throughout the
2,793 people looked at
four new information
packs on our website
More than 50 restorative justice
champions were recruited to help the
RJC raise awareness of the benefits of
restorative practice by promoting its
use in their local areas and among their
colleagues and stakeholders. The event
to launch this initiative was a huge
success, as was the RJC’s 2015 AGM and
annual conference. Members and guests
contributed to a day that highlighted the
potential benefits of restorative practice
in a wide variety of settings and looked
ahead to what we want to collectively
achieve by 2020.
The RJC’s work to promote restorative
justice to victims of crime and to the
general public continued to develop
in 2015. Three new films to promote
and explain restorative justice were
produced, and information for victims
on restorative justice was developed and
distributed to every court in England
and Wales. We continued to promote
restorative practice in the media,
achieving national coverage on BBC
Woman’s Hour, Radio 5 Live, The Jeremy
Vine Show and Victoria Derbyshire and in
the Independent, Mirror and Daily Mail,
in addition to numerous regional media
outlets. We are, as ever, very grateful to
everyone who so generously shared their
stories of participating in restorative
justice with us.
The RJC also continued to build its
online presence. A new RJC website
was developed and launched, and we
increased our social media following,
establishing profiles on Facebook,
Google+ and LinkedIn as well as
developing the RJC’s presence on Twitter.
Meanwhile the RJC’s work to ensure
quality in the delivery of restorative
justice continued to go from strength
to strength. This included working with
a wide range of organisations on the
RSQM, which had its first anniversary
in January 2015. We also re-launched
our accreditation process for restorative
practitioners, enabling more people to
demonstrate that they are delivering
restorative practice to a high standard.
Additionally, we produced the RJC
Practitioner Competency Framework,
which provides an overview of the
behaviours and skills required of those
working in the restorative practice field
in order to raise standards and support
practitioners in their professional
development. We also developed
and piloted a new Training Approval
Scheme, to enable training providers to
demonstrate that their training courses
meet the RJC’s standards. The RJC’s
successful programme of continuing
professional development events
ran throughout the year, supporting
practitioners to improve their skills.
This work has made a significant
contribution to the restorative practice
field. Building on this, in 2016 the
RJC will continue to work with our
members to promote awareness and
understanding of restorative practice,
support its widespread use, and ensure
quality in its delivery.
Jon Collins
Chief Executive Officer, RJC
54.99%
increase in social media reach
137,507
377
average per day
visits to the RJC website
26,000 copies of our
Information for victims
booklet in courts across
England and Wales
Twitter followers in April 2015:
6,729
4,500
up from
in April 2014
Resolution
28
Moving on – a
short film about
restorative justice
Moving on shows Lucy, the victim of a mugging,
replaying events endlessly in her mind. Only
when she meets the mugger in a restorative
justice conference is she able to put the incident
behind her – it gives her a chance to explain the
impact of the crime, and humanises him in the
process.
You can watch Moving on at
www.restorativejustice.org.uk
Restorative justice works.
Share this film and help us
spread the word.
www.myRJ.co.uk
myRJ offers a dedicated secure case management system,
which can be accessed by all agencies involved in the
delivery of restorative justice.
Everyone, from police and crime commissioners,
restorative hubs, victim services centres, councils to
prisons, can report and track progress in the easy to use
system, allowing information to be shared seamlessly, free
from risk of interception during transit, or loss.
Notices
Supports multi-partnership working.
Provides a low risk, secure storage system.
Full secure case allocation to facilitators.
Free upgrades to comply with new standards.
In-depth reporting and results tracking.
Fully DPA, ICO, MoJ compliant.
Show your
support for
restorative
justice
Anyone can become a supporter of
the RJC for as little as £3 a month.
Supporters help make our vision
for universal access to restorative
justice a reality. As a thank you,
we will send you our thrice yearly
magazine, Resolution, which is packed
with interesting stories and case
studies from every field of restorative
practice. You will also receive our
monthly bulletins with the latest
restorative justice news and discounts
to events. There are additional
membership categories for restorative
practitioners and organisations.
“ The RJC worked with the MoJ and myRJ to
help develop the system as an effective tool to
support restorative justice service delivery.
We would recommend it as an easy to use,
secure case management system.
Being able to gather national data about restorative justice
will help us to support the growth of capacity and quality
in the restorative field. “
FOR A FREE CONSULTATION, CALL US
0845 868 49 32
For more information email
[email protected],
visit www.restorativejustice.org.uk or
call us on 020 7831 5700.