Written evidence from the Thames Valley
Restorative Justice Service (PB 20)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. This submission represents the views
of the Thames Valley Restorative Justice Service (TVRJS) Steering
Group; a multi agency group that has been in existence for some
10 years, originally convened to oversee the development of the
Home Office Funded Justice Research Consortium's Thames Valley
trial site. TVRJS is not a body corporate but a collaborative
partnership involving the voluntary and statutory sector.
2. It confines itself to the question "could
probation trusts make more use of restorative justice?"
3. Since 2001 TVRJS has been delivering RJ conferencing
with serious adult violent offenders post sentence, in both a
community and custodial setting; since 2005 the target criteria
was extended to include domestic burglary, For community based
cases the activity has taken place in the context of a community
order with a specified activity requirement.
4. The TVRJS was awarded the prestigious 2010
Howard League for Penal Reform award in the Community Sentence
category.
5. We think that Probation trusts could make
more use of restorative justice.
6. This submission is based on 10 years
experience of delivering restorative justice and identifies the
main cultural, structural and organisational issues, that need
to underpin any such expansion of Trust activity.
7. The main points of this submission
are:
— Probation
trusts could make more use of restorative justice.
— Restorative
values need to permeate the whole thinking and culture of Probation
trusts.
— There
is "value added" benefit to a service delivery that
is underpinned by a collaborative partnership commitment across
a range of statutory and voluntary agencies involved in the criminal
justice system.
— No
restorative justice intervention should occur in a vacuum.
— Restorative
justice has a role to play at all stages of the criminal justice
system.
— Probation
trusts should ensure restorative justice providers have equal
responsibility for enabling the restoration of both victim and
offender together with the restoration of anyone else affected
by the incident.
— The
needs and wishes of victims should inform the point of intervention.
— Probation
trusts need to ensure that the restorative justice facilitator
role is separated out from the role of the offender manager.
— It
is safe to introduce a "presumption in favour of participation"
in respect of post sentence offenders.
— Resettlement
of prisoners is an area where our experiences indicate that such
an approach is likely to be beneficial.
— Restorative
justice has potential to displace many lower level cases that
are silting up the system thus freeing up Probation trusts to
concentrate on medium and high-risk offenders.
— Probation
trusts should ensure that Probation Victim Liaison Services are
funded to enable victims to meet with their offender in those
cases where the victim wishes to do so.
— Restorative
justice enables the local community to "connect" to
the work of a Probation trust in a way that is often denied to
other forms of intervention.
DETAILS OF
SUBMITTER
8. Ray Fishbourne is a former Chief Officer in
the Probation Service and has worked in the criminal justice system
for some 43 years. He has been the Chair of the Thames Valley
Restorative Justice Steering Group since its inception in 2000.
9. He was the senior lead manager of the Home
Office funded Justice Research Consortium's Restorative Justice
Research Trial in the Thames Valley; a trial that was focused
on adult serious violent offenders and their victims, post sentence.
He has acted as an advisor to the Fels Center of Government and
the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology at the University of Pennsylvania
where he was involved in Restorative Justice and Resettlement
developments, both in the USA and UK. He has also undertaken sessional
inspection roles with HMI Probation and acted in a consultancy
capacity to both the Prison and Probation Service.
EVIDENCE AND
OBSERVATIONS BASED
ON EXPERIENCE
OF TVRJS
10. In our view restorative justice needs to
permeate the whole thinking and culture of probation trusts so
that all service delivery, organisational structures and processes
are underpinned by restorative values based approach.
11. A collaborative partnership approach underpinned
by voluntary and statutory agencies involved in the criminal justice
system offers considerable "value added" advantages
to the delivery of restorative justice. It secures a broadly based
support for the concept, creates a whole system favourable environment
and facilitates solutions to any cross agency process issues that
may arise.
12. We think that restorative justice has a role
to play at all stages of the CJ System, from diversion through
to post sentence and there should be opportunity for victims to
meet with their offender at any one of the stages.
13. The point at which victims may wish to meet
with offenders will vary and the emotional impact of victimisation
will affect different people at different stages of their journey
through the criminal justice process. The role of probation trusts
is to enable such need to be responded to at the appropriate stage.
14. No restorative intervention should occur
in a vacuum and it should be considered, timed and sequenced as
an integral part of supervision planning or sentence management
processes. Such a process starts with the production of OASys
prior to the completion of the Pre Sentence Report (PSR). The
PSR should then address issues of restoration where relevant in
the introduction, offence analysis, offender analysis, assessment
of risk of harm and likelihood of re-offending conclusion and
proposal.
15. Post sentence focus should be to work towards
the most restorative approach and such activity needs to be seen
in the context of the wider delivery of episodes of intervention
e.g. accredited programmes and other specified activity requirements.
An assessment of the timing of restorative approaches needs to
be made in each case and needs to be informed by an offender victim
empathy assessment and an assessment of the victim's needs and
wishes; both these assessments should inform decisions regarding
whether, in what way and at what stage, to intervene.
16. Post sentence interventions need to strike
a balance that enables judgements to be made as to the most optimum
point to intervene and it may not be helpful to be governed by
rigid timetabling. There should be a general expectation that
restorative approaches will be considered in each case but not
that it will happen in each case (certainly not face to face contact
with victims) for it is not a panacea and will never be suitable
for everyone. There needs to be a range of options, as one size
will not fit all, and these need to be based upon latest research
as to what is most effective, for whom and in what circumstances.
17. The TVRJS has grappled with how best to integrate
restorative justice post sentence. In the early days we found
that some offenders invited to take part in RJ Conferences as
part of Community Sentences may express great willingness to meet
with and apologise to their victims at the Pre-Sentence Report
stage. For this positive attitude of remorse and desire to make
amends they may gain credit in the probation officer's Pre-Sentence
Report. It has been our experience that many tend to be reluctant
or withdraw their co-operation once a Community Sentence has been
imposed. By this shift in attitude they fail to live up to their
implied commitment to the court and deny the victim the chance
of meeting them. This means that the Court is effectively misled;
the offender declines the opportunity to take responsibility for
the harm they have caused and the victim is unable to exercise
their choice to meet the offender and attempt to resolve the matters
of hurt and loss which may remain as a result of the crime they
have suffered.
18. In order to address this difficulty in making
Restorative Justice part of community sentences we have adopted
an approach involving a "presumption in favour of participation"
on the part of the offender. By doing so we maintain that our
service delivery is more victim focused.
19. Offenders are assessed for suitability
in the Thames valley at the PSR stage against agreed criteria.
20. Our aim has been to "shift the
culture" to one that makes participation in RJ as part of
a community sentence the norm. Before sentence the strong message
is conveyed to the offender that there is a duty to face the person
harmed and an expectation of making amends unless there is good
reason not to, or the victim does not wish to take part.
21. A "presumption in favour of participation"
approach ensures that the maximum number of victims and offenders
experience a quality process that has the potential to deliver
increased victim satisfaction rates and reduced re-offending rates.
22. The other point to emphasise with regards
to integrating restorative approaches into offender management
is that in relation to certain restorative approaches (particularly
those involving face to face meetings) probation trusts need to
ensure that the restorative justice facilitator role is separated
out from the role of the offender manager.
23. A restorative justice facilitator should
not have any direct service delivery or management responsibility
for the offender. The role of the restorative justice facilitator
is to act impartially and to have equal responsibility for enabling
the restoration of both victim and offender together with the
restoration of anyone else affected by the incident. The role
of the offender manager is to provide the structured framework
for the offender, pre and post RJ intervention; this is key to
setting expectations and enabling positive outcomes.
24. Restorative Justice approaches have much
to commend them as a means of displacing many of the lower risk
cases that currently are silting up the criminal justice system
and as a consequence diluting the resources and effectiveness
of other probation trust activity aimed at the medium/high risk
cases. This in itself would be a good move but it would also have
the potential effect of increasing the capacity of probation trusts
to cope with a proportion of offenders displaced from short-term
custody. So by freeing up resources at the "shallow"
end of the system via the introduction of restorative justice—alongside
or as an alternative to prosecution, low risk supervision, fines
or curfews, there might be the knock on effect of creating resource
capacity at the "deep" end.
25. There is evidence to show that RJ is more
powerful in achieving change with adults and with more serious
offences. Resettlement of prisoners is also an area where our
experiences to date indicate that such an approach, on behalf
of probation trusts, is likely to be beneficial. Restorative conferencing
has great potential immediately prior to release (with or without
a victim present) in that many prisoners are alienated from their
families, friends and communities and conferencing is one way
in which these important bridges can be rebuilt.
26. The prison environment is perceived as a
safe place by victims. Victims benefit from undertaking RJ prior
to a prisoner's release because it enables them to understand
that the offender does not bear vengeful feelings towards them.
Victims can ask offenders about their plans for release and come
to an understanding about how they would handle chance meetings
in the street.
27. The principal benefit for victims is the
reduction of fear amongst victims of violent offences. RJ delivered
to this group of victims has been shown to reduce their sense
of vengefulness and to reduce symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder. It is believed from feedback provided by victims that
there is potentially a wide range of health benefits which can
reduce time taken off work and promote healthy recovery from the
setback caused by crime.
28. Offenders approached whilst in prison have
a relatively high consent rate and offenders are able to integrate
learning from the RJ process into their plans for release.
29. Probation trusts have responsibility for
the Probation Victim Liaison Service that currently offers information
about the operation of the sentence and the opportunity to request
non-contact conditions and exclusion zones (to victims of offenders
who have received sentences of 12 months imprisonment or more
in cases of violence). The system also provides victims with the
opportunity to provide Victim Personal Statements to bodies considering
the release of the offender. Victims can be given very little
information about the attitudes and progress of the offender who
is in prison for a violent offence. This unbalanced information
can have the unintended consequence of increasing, rather than
reducing fear in those cases where the victim has no personal
knowledge of the offender.
30. Victims who wish to meet the offender have
no opportunity to do so because the funding to facilitate such
meetings does not exist. Victims could be given the opportunity
to request a facilitated meeting with the offender, in suitable
cases, in order to redress the lack of balance in the information
provided. Whilst it may be only a relatively small proportion
of victims who would take up this offer, the fact that the offer
is being made would contribute to a reduction in fear by taking
away the apparently automatic assumption that victims need non-contact
conditions and exclusion zones.
31. Restorative justice gives victims and communities
opportunities to "connect" with the work of a probation
trust and in so doing increases understanding and awareness of
the issues inherent in the criminal justice process. Individuals
and communities will become better informed about crime and punishment
matters.
32. We see opportunities to infuse almost any
new provision in a future Criminal Justice Bill with restorative
justice interventions in appropriate cases.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
ACTION
33. Restorative values should underpin the organisational
structure and service provision of all probation trusts.
34. Probation trusts should ensure restorative justice
providers have equal responsibility for enabling the restoration
of both victim and offender.
35. There is "value added" benefit
to a service delivery that is underpinned by a collaborative partnership
commitment across a range of statutory and voluntary agencies
involved in the criminal justice system.
36. Victim's needs and wishes should inform decisions
regarding whether, in what way and at what stage, to intervene.
37. Restorative justice should be considered,
timed and sequenced as an integral part of the pre conviction
criminal justice process and post conviction supervision planning
or sentence management processes
38. A "presumption in favour of participation"
(subject to an agreed suitability criteria) in respect of post
sentence offenders should be integral to any new future criminal
justice provision involving restorative interventions.
39. Probation trusts should ensure that Probation
Victim Liaison Services are funded to enable victims to meet with
their offender in those cases where the victim wishes to do so.
40. Probation trusts should ensure the development
of restorative interventions as a means of meeting the needs of
victims and offenders, and engaging in a purposeful manner with
the communities they serve.
September 2010
| 
