Evaluation of the pre-sentence restorative justice pathfinder
An evaluation of the pre-sentence restorative justice crown court pilot projects has been published
by the Institute for Criminal Policy Research. The report found consistently positive feedback from
those who had participated in pre-sentence restorative justice, but the number of conferences that
took place was lower than expected. The evaluation followed the progress of nine crown courts
across England and Wales which had introduced pre-sentence restorative justice schemes
implemented by Restorative Solutions and Victim Support. The Crime and Courts Act 2013 enables
sentencing to be deferred so that a restorative justice activity can take place, and this evaluation
aimed to look at the process of pre-sentence restorative justice in these pilot projects.
In total across the nine projects, 55 conferences and 38 alternative restorative justice activities took
place. This followed a process in which the pre-sentence provider identified suitable cases and
contacted the victim to determine whether they were interested. In total 2,273 suitable cases were
identified. Of these 1,201 victims were successfully contacted, 446 (37%) of whom were interested
in taking part in restorative justice. Of these cases defendants only pleaded guilty in 179 cases which
led to 147 adjournments and the restorative justice activities outlined above. The report highlights
that once both the victim and offender expressed interest in restorative justice, the success rate for
the process was very high but a number of barriers were noted.
Of the cases which did go through to conference, the process was consistently positive for both the
victim and offender. 95% of participants thought that the conference had affected them in a positive
way while none found it had affected them in a negative way and 77% 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.
Overall, there were fewer restorative justice processes than expected. The report notes a number of
reasons for this:



The project’s limited access to data was problematic, as was establishing procedures for
data sharing between criminal justice agencies. This is a common problem for restorative
services.
Fewer cases than expected fell within the scope of the project, as a high number of sexual
offences came before the court.
A relatively large number of not guilty pleas ruled out many possible cases.
The report also raises concerns about the process of contacting victims before offenders, which
could waste time and, more seriously, raise hopes of victims who would not ultimately be given the
chance to participate. Another concern was raised about inconsistent understanding among
participants about whether the process would affect offenders’ sentences. A final concern was due
to court delays caused by the process at a time of policy emphasis on swift justice.
Looking to the future, the report notes that pre-sentence restorative justice can provide quick and
timely relief for victims who want to access it at an early stage in the criminal justice process, while
addressing offenders’ behaviour at the earliest opportunity. On the other hand, as it may be too
early for some cases, the report recommends that it be one of several restorative options
throughout criminal justice processes and beyond.