21. Memorandum submitted by
Ben Lyon
A restorative justice approach, integrated within
the Criminal Justice System (CJS) should meet the following aims:
— To allow the victim to be heard,
to receive an apology and possibly reparation.
— To give the offender the opportunity
to make good some of the harm caused.
— To increases satisfaction with the
criminal justice system for all parties and agencies.
— To provide information that can be
used by the courts, offender managers and tribunals when considering
the sentencing or management of offenders.
— To provide information which is particularly
useful for the assessment of risk, to all parties and especially
for the victim.
— To reduce the cost of crime both
to victims and through more effective sentencing of offenders.
The use of restorative justice is accepted and
integrated throughout the youth justice system but has been largely
ignored in adult sentencing. Where it has been introduced into
legislation no provision has been made for its implementation
by the relevant agencies. This response to consultation is made
on the basis that restorative interventions can be pragmatic,
effective and reduce the cost of sentencing. The following proposals
stem from actual experience in this field and are made on the
basis that they can achieve the above aims. In addition they are
by definition truly restorative, ie that they can repair the damage
caused by the crime, and this can be achieved in concert with
the traditional justice system. The following uses of restorative
interventions should be considered:
Diversion:
The use of mediated resolutions is the norm
in civil law. A similar flexible approach to a significant proportion
of criminal cases prior to the court process could divert them
from the full court process. A sensible and sensitive assessment
of the reparation needs of the victim and the willingness of the
offender to respond could provide a solution, an outcome agreement,
which the District Judge or Magistrates could endorse as an agreed
, and therefore effective sentence. The time taken by the court
would be reduced and some custodial sentences could be rendered
unnecessary or substantially lessened. Criminal mediation would
be shorter than traditional court processes and would address
the underlying causes of conflicts leading to the offence.
Fear of reprisal and the on-going risk can be
reduced when the victim is enabled to make their own assessment.
Prior to sentence:
After conviction and prior to sentencing there
is scope (as proved by all three Home Office research projects,
including my own Connect Project) for restorative processes to
provide settlement, reparation and reduce the fear of offending.
The victim is involved in a way which allows the court to remain
safely independent. The court is provided with the outcome of
the restorative intervention and can use this to inform the sentence.
The need for long custodial sentences can sometimes be significantly
reduced or avoided.
For example:
In a case where money has been stolen by fraud
and where there has been a breach of trust it would be inevitable
that a custodial sentence will follow. A restorative justice approach
would consider the victim's need for recompense and to keep the
offender employed and paying restitution. Equally important the
feeling of betrayal felt in these cases can be addressed. In such
a case the money stolen is recovered and the cost of custody avoided.
An added benefit is that there is no need to rehabilitate the
offender from the offending behaviour learnt during a prison sentence.
Post sentence:
Circles of support and accountability have been
used with sex offenders returning to the community. However they
could be extended to cover a wider range of offenders returning
to the community. For example a large proportion of female prisoners
are released with multiple needs and a high level of vulnerability.
Properly supported, monitored and held to account by a coordinated
group of professionals and volunteers these offenders are far
more likely to be safely reintegrated into their communities.
Reduction of the cost of custody, of social care and the break-up
of family life could be considerable; certainly worth the experiment.
Restorative justice aims to heal the damage done to community
as well as the more focused goals such as re-offending rates.
By involving the community, including faith groups and minority
ethnic communities, we could use these circles of support in a
wider role, meeting the needs of victims and reduce fear of crime
in the community
Post sentence and Pre-release:
Serious and sensitive cases have been mediated
for some years by a few experienced and skillful criminal mediators
in this country. This work is well proven and should be endorsed
and supported by government.
These are cases are mainly initiated by the
victims or their surviving family members. Victim-offender mediation
provides the answers obscured by the court process but which are
essential to the recovery of grieving relatives and traumatised
victims. It can settle vicious disputes which could reignite upon
the eventual release of the offender. At a more pragmatic level
they allow the victims to assess for themselves what the risk
to them will be when the offender is released on licence. This
approach has been successfully used in murder cases, sexual offences,
robbery, serious assaults and gang related cases. However it is
not funded, it is not acknowledged at a senior level and is constantly
at risk of removal.
When serious offenders are released, and the
CJS is finished with them the victims and the wider community
still have to come to terms with them. The risk still needs to
reduced, the fear still needs to be addressed and the conflicts
need to be settled. Restorative justice provides the solution.
Proposals:
— A clear lead from government that
restorative approaches ie mediation in criminal cases and reparative
processes have the backing of law. That they should be encouraged,
facilitated and funded by the relevant CJS agencies.
— The requirement for regional criminal
justice boards to make provision for restorative justice interventions.
This could be a small flexible service available to the Courts
at all stages of the Justice system or possibly as part of Community
Courts provision.
— At any stage the Court should be
able to ask for the possibility of reparation, the needs of the
victim, or the potential of mediation in criminal cases.
— Victim care units should provide
access to restorative processes for victims.
— There should be careful (funded)
extension of experimentation with Circles of Support and Accountability,
perhaps in the area of women facing or serving custodial sentences.
— Recognition of the need to support
restorative practitioners and to ensure good quality work in this
field.
This response to the sentencing consultation
is from the perspective of a restorative justice practitioner
currently working with victims of serious violent and sexual crimes.
I started this work as a seconded police officer providing restorative
justice interventions in one of the pilot Youth Offending Teams.
I subsequently managed the Connect Home Office research project
in adult RJ and have trained probation colleagues in restorative
practice. I have maintained contact with RJ in the youth justice
system as a volunteer. I am a founder member and instigator of
the Register of Restorative Practitioners, and believe myself
to be on the "pragmatic wing" of RJ thought and practice.
I am now employed as a Victim Liaison Officer
with the London Probation Service, but respond as an independent
restorative practitioner. All the above views are based on casework
which can be expanded upon if required.
Ben Lyon
Restorative Practitioner
8 March 2007
| 
