1. health and fitness
2. dental care

Issue 53: Spring 2015
Ed and
Rumbie’s
story
Restorative
justice: how
can it help with
online trolling?
Page 8
Photo by Ben Gold
“What if we could mobilise the 75,000 people in Leeds
who touch the lives of the 180,000 children and young
people to be working together restoratively? High support,
high challenge. What difference would we make to the life
chances of the next generation?”
Nigel Richardson, Director of Leeds children’s services
RAPT – empowering
young people
with restorative
approaches
Alyson’s story
Using restorative
practice with adult
survivors of child
sexual abuse
Patron: HRH The Princess Royal
Company No. 4199237
Charity No. 1097969
Resolution
2
Contents
News in brief
4RAPT: empowering young people
with restorative approaches
International Restorative Justice Week success
During International Restorative Justice Week 2014 the RJC
partnered with the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), Why Me? and
the Chris Donovan Trust on What would you do?, a campaign
to raise awareness of restorative justice. Figures published
by the MoJ indicate that the campaign was an overwhelming
success, reaching 6.5 million people on Twitter and 4.2 million
people on Facebook. Remedi – the biggest UK
employer of restorative professionals – received
a significant increase in enquiries from the public
as a result of the campaign.
6Using restorative approaches
with adult survivors of child
sexual abuse
8Restorative justice: how can it
help with online trolling?
9My life as…
10Ed and Rumbie’s story
12The RSQM is one year old!
14Alyson’s story
18The RJC Competency Framework
19Restorative practice in housing
20 The Jamaican experience
22 The Safe Durham Partnership
Restorative
justice in the
magistrates’
court
Information pack
December 2014
24Opening the restorative path for
domestic violence
26 Ruth’s story
Restorative justice in the magistrates’ court information pack 1
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.
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.
The articles in this newsletter express the
personal views of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the RJC.
©2015 RJC. Not to be reproduced without
permission.
Editor: Safi Schlicht
Graphic designer: James Alexander at
JADE Design
Restorative Justice Council
Beacon House, 113 Kingsway
London WC2B 6PP
T: 020 7831 5700
E: [email protected]
www.rjc.org.uk
Success for magistrates’
information pack
The RJC has had excellent feedback
on the recently launched Restorative
justice in the magistrates’ court
information pack. The pack has
generated high levels of interest both
on the RJC website and on social
media which has led to a number of
awareness sessions for magistrates
being arranged. The pack is available
at www.rjc.org.uk/magsinfopack.
Follow the RJC on our new social media pages
The RJC has recently launched new social media pages on
Facebook, Google+ and LinkedIn. All of the links are available
at www.rjc.org.uk/socialmedia. You can
also follow @RJCouncil on Twitter for the
latest updates from the RJC.
MoJ announces restorative justice action plan to 2018
The Ministry of Justice has published its third restorative
justice action plan with information and objectives up to 2018.
The document outlines the MOJ’s commitment to victimfocused restorative justice and its vision of what restorative
justice provision will look like in the coming years.
This version of the action plan covers three key areas:
• equal access – that restorative justice is available to
victims at all stages of the criminal justice system
regardless of where they live or where an
offender is located
• a wareness and understanding – that
people are aware of restorative justice
and its potential benefits and what is
involved so that they can make informed
choices
• good quality – that restorative justice is safe,
carried out by competent practitioners trained to
national standards and focused on the needs of
the victim
3
Issue 53: Spring 2015
Introduction
H
appy New Year and welcome to
the first Resolution of 2015. 2014
was a significant year for the RJC and for
the field of restorative practice. There
is much to look forward to this year as
the RJC continues to work to ensure
that high quality restorative practice is
available wherever it is needed.
Last November International Restorative
Justice Week provided an opportunity
to celebrate the remarkable progress
that had been made in the last year
and to collaborate with others in the
field to further raise awareness of
restorative justice. We also marked
the week by holding our AGM and
annual conference, which was a huge
success. Members attended from around
the country to contribute to a lively
discussion on the future of restorative
practice, demonstrating the wide range
of experience and expertise contained
within our membership and the breadth
of work that they are involved in.
Among the issues discussed was the
range of activities that can, in different
ways, be considered restorative and
the extent to which restorative justice
can and should be used with different
offences and in different circumstances.
This poses important questions about
whether and how restorative justice can
best be deployed in some of the most
challenging cases that come before the
criminal justice system. In this edition of
Resolution we explore two such areas –
the use of restorative justice in cases of
sexual abuse and the role of restorative
justice in domestic violence cases.
The two articles that we have included
on the former topic – one by Maeve
Lewis of the organisation One in Four
and the other telling the story of Alyson,
whose daughters were abused by her
father – do not make easy reading and
readers are warned that they are in
places extremely upsetting. But we do
not make any apology for including
them. This is a contentious area and
is worthy of ongoing discussion. I am
particularly grateful to Alyson for her
contribution. Her story is both important
and powerful.
Elsewhere in the issue we celebrate
the first birthday of the Restorative
Service Quality Mark (RSQM), our
national quality mark for restorative
services. The RSQM allows organisations
to demonstrate through independent
review that they are providing good
quality, safe restorative practice. It
has already been achieved by 14
organisations, including voluntary sector
providers, schools, a secure children’s
home, youth offending teams (YOTs), a
probation service and a prison, and we
hope that many more organisations will
achieve it in the near future.
One of our RSQM assessors, Janet
Clark, also discusses her experience of
working with the RJC to ensure that
organisations applying for the RSQM
meet the required standards. The
process is extensive and rigorous, as it
should be, but it means that we can be
confident that organisations that achieve
the RSQM are delivering restorative
practice to a high standard. In another
area of our work to ensure quality in the
field, we are going to be launching a new
Competency Framework in 2015, which
you can also read about in this issue.
Other contributions demonstrate the
range of ways in which restorative
approaches can be applied. Jeannette
Brown discusses the use of restorative
practice in housing, while Dr Bex Lewis
discusses how restorative approaches
might be used in cases of online ‘trolling’.
This latter topic highlights how, as the
nature of crime and conflict changes,
restorative practice also needs to
develop and adapt. Articles also discuss
the development of restorative justice in
Jamaica and a project in Kent that trains
young people in restorative approaches.
Although in very different contexts, both
describe welcome work to broaden the
availability of restorative practice.
Meanwhile the stories of Ruth, Ed and
Rumbie again demonstrate the impact
that supposedly ‘routine’ crimes like
burglary can have on people and the
role that restorative justice can play in
helping them to move on with their lives.
We are very grateful to them for telling
us their stories. As always, we want to
hear from more people who have been
through a restorative process. If you
know of anybody who might be willing
to talk to us about their experiences,
or are aware of an innovative project
or piece of work that you would like
to see featured in a future edition of
Resolution, please do get in touch.
At the time of writing, I have been chief
executive officer of the RJC for a little
over six months. Much has changed even
in that time. And with a general election
looming, new PCC-commissioned
restorative justice services finding their
feet, and the new probation landscape
now emerging, there is certainly a lot
going on and a great deal for us to
do. I look forward to working with all
of the RJC’s members to ensure that
2015 is another significant year in the
development of restorative practice.
Jon Collins
Chief Executive Officer, RJC
Resolution
4
RAPT
Empowering young
people with restorative
approaches
Project Salus is a Community Interest Company that has evolved from Kent Safe
Schools to offer a range of innovative services in the county. Having spent many
years providing restorative training for the children’s workforce and offering direct
intervention, they have recently turned their attention to training the young people
themselves.
I
n 2012, Project Salus developed the
Restorative Approaches Practitioner
Training (RAPT) programme designed
specifically to enable young people
to become restorative practitioners
within their schools and communities.
This was led by Heather Skelton,
Project Salus’ restorative approaches
co-ordinator. Initially piloted in
Thameside, Manchester and Calderdale
in Yorkshire, RAPT was such a success
that Project Salus developed and
adapted it for delivery in other parts
of the country. Rebecca Rubanik is a
restorative approaches project officer at
Project Salus. She explains the thinking
behind their work: “We know that times
are tough for young people. There
are so many social issues they have to
negotiate while also trying to establish
their own self-worth and purpose within
their family structures, friendship groups
and communities. It’s difficult, and we
believe that restorative approaches can
help.”
Taking what they learnt from the RAPT
pilots, and with a small amount of
funding from the Cabinet Office, Project
Salus moved the programme to Thanet
in Kent, offering it to schools, community
groups, colleges, and clubs and youth
centres. Aimed at 14–20 year olds,
the training includes an introduction
to restorative approaches followed by
modules on the dynamics of conflict,
how restorative approaches can repair
harm in communities, understanding
unique perspectives and needs and
conflict resolution, listening and
language skills. Additionally, participants
are introduced to the restorative script
and are given opportunities to practise
the range of restorative tools from
conversations to full meetings.
Key to the success and impact is
engaging the right group of young
people to take part. Rebecca says:
“Once the programme has been pitched
in a particular setting we work with the
staff to form an appropriate group of
12–15 young people from those who
have volunteered. Our work in Thanet
is funded by the Youth Social Action
Fund, and part of the aim is to target
young people who are at risk of social
exclusion. There are multiple layers of
deprivation and social need in Thanet,
and many young people who would
benefit from participating.”
She continues: “We’re not just looking
for the most obvious candidates who
already display the skills needed to
become good facilitators. We aim
to recruit young people who may
themselves have experienced conflict
or difficulties in maintaining healthy
relationships either at school, at home
or in their community. Often, these
young people turn out to be the best
at facilitating conversations with others
who need help repairing harm.”
The programme is delivered wherever
the young people have been recruited
from or at an alternative accessible
venue, and takes place over three days.
Initial concerns regarding the ability of
the young people to engage for such
a concentrated period were quickly
dismissed once the programme started.
Rebecca says: “We discovered a genuine
interest and desire from the young
people we were working with to develop
the skills we were offering them. For
us, it’s an amazing opportunity to build
relationships with them.
“I think I have
achieved more
than I had
hoped for. I have
developed many
skills such as
communication,
developed further
knowledge into
something I knew
very little about
and found ways
to deal with little
conflicts in my
life.”
(Trained young
person, 17)
5
Issue 53: Spring 2015
“As part of the training, we emphasise
the fact that we believe in those
young people, and we encourage their
interaction with staff who work with
them while instilling a sense of wanting
them to lead the way. We always come
back to the restorative principle of
working with and not doing to – this
thread runs throughout our training,
and really helps participants to gain
confidence.”
The course content has been designed
to be engaging and uses interactive
activities, discussions, real life
testimonies, DVDs, exercises and
role-play. After the course has been
delivered, Project Salus works with
the school, college or youth setting to
help them support the young people
in using restorative approaches in
everyday situations. The form this takes
varies depending on the setting but can
range from the young people assisting
in formal conferences to delivering on
the spot ‘corridor conversations’ when
appropriate. A tool has been developed
to enable young people to log any
voluntary work they do as facilitators in
their schools and communities, which
brings recognition and can help to
empower individuals.
RAPT is vigorously evaluated using
a framework developed as part of a
knowledge transfer partnership with
Canterbury Christ Church University, and
is proving highly successful. Rebecca
says: “Not only do the young people we
work with gain practical knowledge of
restorative approaches, but there are
many other benefits. We have been
excited to see their confidence and
self esteem increase over time as we
support them in delivery of restorative
approaches after they’ve completed
the course. They also gain a greater
sense of belonging within their local
community – something that so many
young people currently lack. Developing
life skills around communication,
managing conflict and empathy directly
benefit the individual, but also their
peers, supporters, families and the local
communities.”
Once trained, the young people become
mentors to the next group of trainees,
which gives the project sustainability.
Additionally, it provides peer to peer
engagement which helps to build and
maintain healthy relationships within
“I know how to
deal with my own
situations and can
now help those
around me with
their problems.
The course taught
me understanding
of other people’s
emotions.”
(Trained young
person, 15)
the learning environment or community
setting. Rebecca says: “Our vision is
to see some of the power imbalances
restored within our communities – we
long to see young people lead the way in
problem solving in this area, as opposed
to the adults being the only ones
brought in to deal with a problem. We
want to instill a healthy sense of trust
between young people and the adults in
their lives, and see this as an excellent
opportunity for this area to develop.”
Rebecca continues: “I recently went to
visit a group of trained young people in
one of the local secondary schools. I was
really encouraged to see how they were
helping a worker from the local YOT in
delivering a group session with some
younger pupils who struggled with their
behaviour. The restorative practitioners
clearly had a sense of self worth in
being able to help with this group, and
the other young people evidently felt
comfortable working with them and
sharing about their feelings and choices.
“On leaving the school, one of the
pupils shouted out to me: ‘What’s
this restorative thing they’re going on
about, Miss? I want to do it!’ Young
people spreading the word to other
young people seems to be a successful
strategy.”
RAPT has now been delivered in a
number of local community settings
and schools. Rebecca has started a
Young Person’s Restorative Practitioner
Forum in Thanet, with the aim of getting
the trained young people to meet
regularly and discuss how restorative
approaches can be further embedded
locally. She concludes: “There’s a quote
from Helen Flanagan which we use
as part of the training we deliver to
adults in the community who work with
young people: ‘If we’re not modelling
what we’re teaching, we’re teaching
something else.’ The RAPT programme
is a perfect opportunity to model
restoratively the value and impact of
maintaining healthy relationships. Our
hope is that the skills the young people
learn from this programme will not
only benefit them in the here and now,
but will have a positive impact on their
choices in future life.”
To find out more about RAPT or Project
Salus visit www.projectsalus.co.uk or
email Rebecca.Rubanik@projectsalus.
co.uk
Resolution
6
Using restorative practice with adult
survivors of child sexual abuse
Maeve Lewis, the executive director of One in Four, is a psychotherapist with over
20 years’ experience of leadership in the area of sexual abuse. In this article, she talks
about the work of One in Four to help victims of sexual abuse.
O
ne in Four is a Dublin based charity
providing professional services to
men and women who have experienced
sexual abuse in childhood. We
understand that child sexual abuse is not
an isolated act but occurs in a context.
If the individual survivor is to recover,
then all elements of that context need
to be addressed. We therefore provide
individual and group psychotherapy,
family support and a sex offender
treatment programme. But our clients
also have to engage with statutory
systems in relation to child protection
and some may also choose to report
the crime to the police. Helping clients
to negotiate the challenging terrain
between private experiences of sexual
trauma and the statutory authorities is
an essential aspect of our work, and our
team of advocacy officers facilitate over
600 clients in this way each year.
Fewer than 5% of our clients’ cases
surmount the formidable obstacles
facing retrospective allegations of
sexual abuse in the criminal justice
process and make it to a criminal trial.
Those few who have the opportunity
to become complainant witnesses
routinely report that the adversarial
nature of the trial leaves them feeling
demeaned, frightened, humiliated and
re-traumatised. Other clients, especially
those who have been sexually abused by
a close family member, do not want to
make a complaint to the authorities but
want their families to acknowledge their
abuse. We began to ask ourselves what
other route we might offer clients either
as an alternative or complementary
option to the criminal justice process.
Restorative practice seemed to provide
a model that placed survivors’ concerns
at the heart of the process but might
also allow some offenders to understand
the harm done and to make genuine
reparation. In 2012 we arranged a
week-long training course for all our
psychotherapists and advocacy officers
in restorative practice given by the
International Institute for Restorative
Practices (IIRP), focusing on working with
serious crime and complex cases. When
facilitating a case we always work in
pairs, ideally with a psychotherapist and
an advocacy officer working together.
From the beginning we anticipated that
we could use restorative practice to
facilitate engagement between clients
and the person who had abused them,
or between clients and non-offending
family members. While both scenarios
have indeed emerged, the majority of
the cases have excluded the offender.
This is usually determined by the
survivor who does not wish to meet
his or her abuser, and sometimes
because the offender is not willing or
able to sincerely accept the terrible
consequences of what they have
done. This underlines how crucial it
is that restorative practice facilitators
working with sexual violence have wide
experience of working in the field and
a deep understanding of the intricate
dynamics that exist between abuser
and abused. Sexual abuse is all about
abuse of power, distortion of reality,
secrecy and shaming and there is a high
propensity for sex offenders to subtly
manipulate any meeting with their
victims to recreate the original relational
undercurrents, with consequent
re-traumatisation of the survivor.
Restorative practice facilitators also
need to comprehend the complex
relationships that exist in families where
children have been sexually abused.
Our adult clients often yearn for their
experience to be acknowledged by their
families of origin, but sadly it is more
likely that when they disclose, they will
be disbelieved and ostracised than that
they will be believed and supported.
A recent case highlights some of the
complexities:
• J oan has five brothers and sisters. She
was sexually abused by her brother Jim
from ages 11–16. When she left school
she became deeply depressed, was
drinking heavily and was hospitalised
for a time. She had stopped visiting her
parents because Jim lived nearby and
would hang about and intimidate her.
7
Issue 53: Spring 2015
Jim. The conference ended with Joan
stating that she would have to break
all contact with her parents.
• She came to One in Four aged 21
and disclosed the abuse for the first
time. We made a child protection
notification regarding Jim so Joan
felt she had to tell her parents. We
facilitated a family meeting to support
her in this. At first her parents were
supportive though very shocked. They
promised that they would not allow
Jim in the house when Joan visited.
Very quickly this broke down and Joan
stopped visiting again. She asked that
we organise a restorative process for
her and her parents.
• We had a long series of preparatory
meetings with her parents and with
Joan separately. Joan continued in
psychotherapy during this time. It
became clear that her parents thought
Joan was exaggerating the harm done
and was manipulating the family. Her
mother in particular was very angry,
and was very torn in her allegiance
between Jim and Joan. However, they
wanted Joan to become part of the
family again. Joan wanted her parents
to accept how badly she had been
hurt and an assurance that they would
protect her from Jim.
• After nine months we felt all parties
were ready to meet and arranged a
conference. Joan described the nature
of her abuse, what she felt about
it and what she wanted to happen
now. Despite all the preparation, her
parents’ response was unexpected.
They minimised the nature of the
abuse and informed Joan that they
would not choose between her and
• Joan was devastated by the outcome,
but gradually in therapy came to see
that her parents’ behaviour simply
confirmed what she had always known
but could not face: that her parents
had never protected her and that she
would have to deny her own truth
and play a family game if she wanted
contact. This happened almost a year
ago. In recent weeks another brother
and sister have been in contact wishing
to engage in a similar process and
indicating that they want to support
Joan. The process continues.
Since 2012 we have facilitated 12 cases
involving sexual abuse and we have
learned a lot in the process:
• Restorative practice facilitators need
very regular supervision of their work.
They are dealing with dark, painful and
confusing dynamics and need support
in recognising and containing them.
• Participants need to be carefully
selected. Not all survivors are suitable
for restorative practice processes and
their expectations of what is possible
need to be carefully explored. Likewise,
family members and sex offenders
need to be able to recognise the harm
caused and their part in it.
• Ideally survivors should have
completed psychotherapy and be
managing in the world before engaging
in a restorative process.
• Thorough preparatory work is
undertaken and that sufficient time is
allowed for this. We realise now that
with some cases this can take up to
two years.
A restorative organisation
At One in Four we recognise that our
staff are working with very traumatised,
challenging and difficult clients and in
the course of each day are confronted
with the shadowy side of human
nature. This can lead to vicarious
traumatisation and this toxicity can
permeate the organisation, manifesting
in unacceptable behaviour between
staff members. Earlier this year the
management team and I attended an
IIRP course in London on restorative
leadership. With the support of our
board of directors, we then facilitated
a two-day workshop for all staff on
incorporating restorative approaches
into our way of engaging with each
other. The staff jointly developed a
restorative code of conduct focusing
on taking responsibility for their own
actions and for raising concerns with
colleagues. We agreed to use circles
and restorative facilitation to deal
with conflict and disputes. While it is
still early days, the emerging signs are
hopeful. Staff regularly ‘circle up’ to
address issues, and managers have been
able to use restorative approaches in
tackling what might previously have
been disciplinary matters. This is a work
in progress.
Restorative practice facilitation with
sexual violence is challenging and skilful
work. While the outcomes are not
always happy, our clients generally are
very satisfied with the result. We are
currently reviewing the programme and
our way of working will undoubtedly
evolve in the coming years.
Maeve Lewis,
Executive Director
One in Four
www.oneinfour.ie
Resolution
8
Restorative justice:
How can it help with
online trolling?
Dr Bex Lewis is a research
fellow in social media and
online learning for the
CODEC Research Centre
for Digital Theology, and
author of Raising Children
in a Digital Age (Lion
Hudson, 2014). Here, she
considers the topical issue
of cyber bullying and how
restorative justice might
provide a solution.
O
n 5 October 2014, 63-year
old Brenda Leyland from
Leicestershire, accused of directing a
stream of Internet abuse at the McCann
family, was found dead in a hotel room.
She had recently been exposed in a Sky
News report as the person behind the
Twitter account @sweepyface, which
had been posting ‘trolling’ messages
about the McCanns, accusing them of
being responsible for their daughter
Madeleine’s death. Her response when
questioned by the Sky News reporter as
to whether she should have posted such
messages was: “I’m entitled to do that.”
For many, a ‘troll’ is a Nordic creature,
while for others, it means ‘to trail a
baited line’ for a fish. In recent years, the
word has come to be more commonly
associated with baiting others on the
internet, usually with negative, insulting,
harassing or provocative comments
designed to draw out a response. Shortly
after Brenda Leyland’s suicide, the justice
secretary Chris Grayling announced
that he would be extending possible
jail terms from six months to two years
for the “baying cyber-mob”, after rape
threats were directed at Chloe Madeley
via social media when she defended her
mother Judy Finnigan’s comments on
a rape committed by footballer Ched
Evans. Former Conservative MP Edwina
Currie, Labour MP Stella Creasy, and
activist Caroline Criado-Perez are others
who have suffered high-profile trolling in
recent years.
Brenda Leyland said that she had not
“broken any laws”, but the Malicious
Communications Act 1988, which covers
Twitter, notes that it is an offence to
send messages to another person which
are “indecent or grossly offensive”,
threatening or false. If the message is
intended to cause distress or anxiety to
the recipient, as most trolling messages
could be construed, then they breach
the law. Leyland’s messages were not
sent directly to the McCanns, who didn’t
have a Twitter account, but could have
been identified as libel (a civil offence,
rather than a criminal one). Chloe
Madeley has said that social networking
“has become the most influential and
powerful voice of the people”, and is
among a number of people who think
the Malicious Communications Act is out
of date, and needs further regulation.
What happens on the internet tends
to be human nature amplified, often
exaggerating offline characteristics.
Many who use the internet forget that
there is a human being at the other end
of the computer, not just a feeling-less
screen, and that they are not operating
in the wild west. We need to be careful
that we are not saying that people are
not entitled to share adverse views
online, but freedom of speech comes
with both rights and responsibilities. If
we view both the offline and the online
environments as part of the same
continuum, then we would expect the
limits as to what is acceptable to say
(and not say) is the same as elsewhere –
including face to face conversations, and
other published spaces.
As with most issues attributed to digital
technology, and as Caroline Criado-Perez
herself said: “If we don’t like what social
media is presenting us [with], we should
look at society instead, not just the tool
they communicate with.” Restorative
justice, with its focus on the needs of
victims, offenders and the community
that surrounds them rather than on
punishment, could help in situations of
trolling. As I wrote in my book Raising
Children in a Digital Age, dis-inhibition
occurs online, and bullies don’t see
the distress that they cause. They feel
safe from capture and protected by the
technology, and feel able to say things
that they would never say offline. If
those who are trolling or bullying online
meet their victims face to face, they
may get a chance to understand the real
impact of what they have done, and to
take responsibility. An opportunity is
opened to make amends, either face to
face, or online, which has the additional
benefit of educating others online as
to the unacceptable nature of such
comments.
In September 2013, The Huffington Post
banned anonymous commenting, citing
trolling as the problem, and indicating
that anyone who posted comments to
the blog should be prepared to stand up
behind their comments in a ‘grown-up’
fashion. Anonymity is not a phenomenon
new to the internet, although we
have to find new ways of dealing with
it, including policies, etiquette and
education. Those who have clearly
breached the law need to face the
charges, ensuring that education, and
potentially restorative justice, are
part of a fitting
‘punishment’.
Dr Bex Lewis
9
Issue 53: Spring 2015
My life as... an RSQM assessor
I
have a background in education,
and I first became involved with
restorative practice as one of the first
school co-ordinators of the Restorative
Justice in Schools Project in 2001. It
was something I had not heard very
much about, but the notion of getting
people together to talk about what
had happened seemed like the sort of
thing that just made sense. It was truly
inspirational, and I have not looked
back. My initial training, as part of the
Schools Project, was with Barbara Tudor
of Mediation UK then Nottingham
Education’s restorative approaches
training. Then I went on to do the
Thames Valley Police Safer Schools
Partnership training. In 2007, I joined
the Restorative Approaches in Schools
project in Bristol and trained with
Restorative Solutions.
Currently, one of my roles is as an
assessor for the RJC’s Restorative Service
Quality Mark (RSQM). It is an exciting
time to have joined the RSQM consultant
and assessor team, as the RSQM was
only launched a year ago following a
successful pilot scheme. The team is
a dedicated and supportive group of
individuals with a broad range of skills,
all of whom are experienced in the
restorative practice field – as a group,
we gel perfectly. Our role in the RSQM
process begins when we are assigned
to an organisation that has passed its
self-assessment. After a first site visit,
we go on to support the organisation as
they work on providing evidence that
they meet the six Restorative Service
Standards. When the organisation has
completed the process of uploading
documents on to the online portfolio
and the assessor has reviewed the
evidence, a final site visit takes place.
We then put together a report with
our recommendations for the RJC to
approve. It’s a highly collaborative
process and it’s fascinating to see some
of the really good practice that’s taking
place in the field.
I have been really impressed by the
organisations I have worked with so
far, and to see their professionalism,
dedication and hard work has been
very rewarding. They have approached
the RSQM not just as a way of gaining
national recognition, but also to
celebrate all the hard work their teams
are doing.
In addition to my work as an RSQM
assessor, I assess applications for
the RJC’s practitioner accreditation
process and I also work independently
as a restorative trainer and consultant
and A1 assessor for the Restorative
Practice Diploma. Alongside this I work
as a volunteer RJ facilitator with CALM
Mediation’s restorative justice project,
which means I get to work on a wide
variety of cases. In 2012, my first book
was published – Restorative Schools,
Restorative Communities. It is a practical
resource book full of useful guides, and
for me it was a great accomplishment.
My work is very diverse, and I’d be hard
pushed to say what I enjoy most about
it – it’s all challenging and rewarding.
A number of years ago I remember
saying to a colleague: “Wouldn’t it be
great to be just devoting all of our time
to restorative justice and promoting its
benefits?”. Now, I feel very privileged
to be doing just that – I’m part of
something I really want to be involved
in. I can honestly say that I find my work
inspirational, from the people I meet, to
the moments in a restorative conference
where shoulders become relaxed and
something happens in the room that
changes the atmosphere.
There is still not enough known about
what restorative justice is and how it
works, and – more importantly – how to
access it. I hope that as media interest
continues to grow, and the police and
victim services become more and more
involved, we will move forward to
restorative justice becoming something
that is available to all. Certainly as more
people are able to access and experience
good quality restorative services it will
lead to a proper understanding of what
restorative justice can achieve.
Janet Clark
RSQM Assessor
Resolution
10
Ed and
When Ed and Rumbie were
burgled two weeks after
moving into their flat, their
optimism about their new
life together was ruined.
As part of a pre-sentence
restorative justice trial
taking place at Wood
Green crown court, they
were given the opportunity
to meet their offender at
Pentonville prison.
Rumbie: “Ed and I had just moved into
our first flat together. We were in the
middle of unpacking and settling in. Ed
had just been promoted and I’d just got a
new job, so it was a really exciting time.
Ed came home one day and found a brick
on the kitchen floor. He rang me and
said: ‘I think we’ve been burgled.’”
Ed: “I had a quick look around the flat,
and at first it didn’t look too bad. Then I
noticed that our iPads were gone, and so
was my hard drive. All of the drawers in
our bedroom had been tipped out and
everything had been rifled through.
Photo by Ben Gold
“I called Rumbie at work and she came
straight home. I felt very upset. I knew
Rumbie already had doubts about our
new neighbourhood, and moving there
had been my idea. I felt really guilty and I
expected her to be very distraught.”
Rumbie: “Because the flat was still new
to us it hadn’t started to feel like home
yet and I felt completely invaded by the
burglary. We’d had great plans when we
moved in and it was really frustrating to
hit such a bump in the road. I already felt
a bit unsafe, because our area isn’t the
safest in London, and the burglary made
me really angry.
“For me, the worst thing I lost was my
backpack, which I took to work every
day. Everything else was replaceable, but
that one thing was so personal to me
that I felt furious that the burglar had
taken it.”
11
Issue 53: Spring 2015
Rumbie’s story
Ed: “The burglar hadn’t taken anything
which was dear to me, like my guitars,
but I didn’t feel like the flat was home
anymore. As it was our first proper place
together, it was the first time we’d been
able to leave things lying around where
we wanted them. After the burglary we
started to put everything away before
going out – I stopped feeling like our
house was our personal space.
“In those first few weeks afterwards my
sleep was disrupted – the slightest noise
would wake me up instantly. I was very
nervous. I no longer felt as if I could take
our privacy for granted.”
Rumbie: “What followed was weeks of
visits from the police to keep us informed
of what was happening. They caught the
burglar through traces of his DNA which
were on the brick. He was already known
to the police as a prolific offender.
“One day, we had a visit from PC Mark
Davies and Kate Renshaw from Only
Connect, a local charity. They explained
that the burglar – Fabian – had been
caught, and was willing to meet us in a
restorative justice conference. After they
left we started to look on the internet to
find out more about restorative justice
– we were really curious to know more
about it and what it involved, and we
found some films about the process.
“After watching the films, we felt like it
was our duty to take part in restorative
justice. We were never pressured into it,
but it seemed like the right thing to do.”
Ed: “Once we decided to go ahead with
the conference, we were told exactly
where it would take place and what
would happen. I felt fine until a few days
before the conference, but on the day, it
was definitely nerve-racking.”
Rumbie: “I was really nervous on the day
of the meeting, too. But the police had
reassured us that if Fabian was violent
or we were at risk, they wouldn’t allow
the meeting to go ahead. We trusted
the people who were organising the
meeting.”
Ed: “It was the first time either of us had
seen the inside of a prison, which was
interesting. We went into the chapel,
where the conference was taking place,
and took a while deciding exactly how
we wanted the seating arranged. Then
we chatted awkwardly until Fabian, the
burglar, was brought in.”
Rumbie: “We were initially quite taken
aback because we’d expected someone
very different. Fabian was well dressed
and well spoken – he seemed like a really
normal guy and we couldn’t get our
heads around what was going on with
him to make him do what he did.”
Ed: “I didn’t know in advance what I
wanted to ask him – I figured it would
come to me on the day. We’d been
encouraged not to plan too much. Fabian
had brought a letter he’d prepared for
us and he started by reading that out. It
talked about how he understood it must
be strange for us to meet him and that
we probably hated him. He then went on
to talk about the burglary. He’d been in
the park next to our house using drugs,
and when he’d run out he’d seen our
road, which is quiet and secluded.”
Rumbie: “For me, the personal impact
of the burglary was lessened by meeting
him. I realised that it had been a spur
of the moment decision – he was off
his face – whereas before I had thought
it was premeditated. I learned that he
wasn’t watching us, he wasn’t following
us, which are things you think when
someone’s been in your house.”
Ed: “I told Fabian how the crime had
affected us, and how I felt about my
home after he’d been in it. I didn’t think
it was worth asking him to go into a
programme for his drug addiction – I felt
that was something he was only ever
going to be able to do for himself, and
not because I told him to. What I did
suggest was that he didn’t go back to his
flat – which he’d managed to keep for a
decade while going in and out of prison –
as that was associated with his old life.
“I think I got through to him a little bit,
but Rumbie was more effective. She said
to him: ‘If someone asks me what this
guy is like, what should I tell them?’ That
was the first time he was lost for words
– maybe it was a little ray of light coming
through a crack. He couldn’t answer – it
challenged him.”
Rumbie: “When we left the meeting I felt
really sorry for Fabian, but personally,
I felt a lot safer in our home and our
neighbourhood. We felt empowered, but
we’ll definitely think about Fabian for a
long time and wonder how he’s doing.”
Ed: “The conference definitely helped
me to move on – it was a valuable
experience. It made both of us less
worried that we’d been targeted, but it
also concluded some of the emotional
aspects – it closed a chapter for us. Now,
I’ve got a sense of perspective on what
happened to us, but it’s also given me
some insight into the criminal justice
process – it involved me. We were
assured that restorative justice does
not necessarily lead to a more lenient
sentence, and in fact, we could request
that the judge didn’t take it into account
when considering Fabian’s sentence.
I felt that if the conference was going
to be helpful to the judge in making a
decision, then it should definitely be
considered.
“If someone else was considering
restorative justice, I would tell them to
go for it. It offers you emotional closure
and it puts a perspective on a crime
– it seems less sinister. And it involves
people – citizens – in the justice process.
They come face to face with it and
understand how it works.”
The RJC would like to thank Restorative
Solutions CIC, Victim Support and
Ed and Rumbie for sharing their story
with us.
Resolution
12
The Restorative Service
Quality Mark is one year old!
A
year after its launch, the Restorative
Service Quality Mark (RSQM)
is gaining momentum. At the time of
writing, 14 organisations from a range of
sectors hold the award and applications
to complete the process are growing
steadily. Linda Millington, the RJC’s
head of assessment services, explains
its appeal: “The RSQM shows that
organisations are delivering quality, safe
and sustainable restorative practice. It
celebrates the good work that they’re
doing and is something to be proud of.
What we’re really pleased with, though,
is the diversity of organisations that are
applying – schools, prisons, YOTs, local
authorities and now even large multiagency partnerships.
“The idea behind the RSQM was to
create a robust assessment process
which would ultimately build public
confidence in the quality of services, but
it had to work across the board. What
we’re seeing now is a really positive
indication that it’s working in all the
different areas we intended it to.”
The RSQM is a developmental process
which involves building evidence to
demonstrate that a service is working
to the six Restorative Service Standards.
Support is provided throughout the
process by the RJC’s team of consultants
and assessors.
Linda continues: “As restorative practice
expands into other sectors where it’s
still relatively new, like housing, we’re
confident that the Restorative Service
Standards, which are at the heart of
the RSQM, will be able to support many
different types of organisations.”
Linda concludes: “As more funding
becomes available for restorative
services, it’s important that
commissioners and funders can see
evidence that organisations are doing
really good work, and the RSQM
provides that. The feedback we’re
getting from people who’ve been
through the process is that it’s also
allowed them to reflect on the work
they’re doing and given them a huge
sense of achievement. Organisations are
always asking our assessor team, ‘tell us
what we can do better’, even though we
can see that they are providing a high
quality restorative service.”
The Restorative Justice Unit at London
Probation achieved the RSQM during
its test phase and has now held the
RSQM for over a year. Their restorative
justice facilitators meet with sentenced
offenders as part of a structured,
12-session programme. The sessions
lead towards restorative conferences and
then involve reviews of the offenders’
subsequent progress. Their London-wide
roll out of restorative justice has had
considerable success with high take-up,
positive support from sentencers and
high levels of satisfaction from both
victims and offenders.
Liz Dixon, the restorative justice
co-ordinator at London Probation’s
Restorative Justice Unit, says: “Having
the RSQM is akin to having professional
status that you want to honour and live
up to. It has helped us to get all of our
processes and practices in order, assisted
the unit’s development and encouraged
us to concentrate on the quality of our
overall product.
“We feel we have renewed legitimacy
with our service users and are reassured
that we’re on the right track. An
important factor is that the award
has bolstered the confidence of our
facilitators when approaching ‘harmers’
and ‘the harmed’. It’s empowered us.”
Liz is keen to encourage other
organisations to apply for the RSQM.
She says: “It helps you to develop all of
the necessary processes to carry out
safe and effective restorative justice – it
encourages professionalism and builds
expertise. It also helps focus on service
delivery so that you can attend to the
harm caused by an offence and prevent
further harm. And the help and support
you get from the RJC’s assessors during
the process is a real asset.”
13
Issue 53: Spring 2015
HRH The Princess Royal meeting the first RSQM awardees.
Liz concludes: “When you get the
RSQM you feel empowered and more
professional – it’s a real achievement.”
In July 2014, Monmouth Comprehensive
became the first secondary school in
the UK to hold the RSQM. The school
had already been using restorative
approaches for seven years. This had
been implemented through teaching,
learning, curriculum design and a
consistent model of conflict resolution
based on restorative principles, including
abolishing detentions and getting
students to talk through problems
instead.
As a result, fixed term exclusions have
dropped by 92% since 2009, with just
13 days being lost due to exclusion last
year. Alongside this, the school recorded
a 96% attendance rate during the
same period. This has contributed to a
reduction of 48% in antisocial behaviour
on Monmouth’s streets, so the benefits
are felt by the whole community.
Andy Williams, the deputy headteacher
of Monmouth Comprehensive, says:
“We found the process of going for the
RSQM challenging but it enabled us to
clarify and articulate the good work we
were doing. Also, it was a useful vehicle
in bringing all of the pieces of the jigsaw
together.
“In a large school with nearly 2,000
learners and staff, it’s important to have
Monmouth Comprehensive receiving the RSQM from RJC CEO Jon Collins.
clarity about all practices across the
organisation that support restorative
culture and ethos and to health-check
this against standards.”
Andy continues: “When we were told
that we had achieved the award we were
overjoyed and elated. It was recognition
for all the hard work over the years.
“The RSQM allows you to review,
analyse, evaluate and consolidate your
organisation’s practice and provision.
It’s a rigorous process, and rightly so.
However, as a national quality mark, it’s
very well worth achieving.”
Having facilitated restorative practice
across the UK since the late 1990s,
Unite, a not-for-profit mediation
service, achieved the RSQM during
its test phase. Its staff and volunteers
predominantly deal with criminal justice
cases in addition to working with schools
and families and training restorative
practitioners. Alongside their other
work, Unite’s practitioners are currently
completing a project in HMP Holme
House with prisoners and their families
to restore interpersonal relationships.
This follows a series of successful
restorative projects that they have
carried out in prisons.
Unite’s lead officer on restorative
practice, Mike James, feels that achieving
the RSQM has had a significant impact
on the work of the organisation. He says:
“It has demonstrated that restorative
practices are embedded in Unite, and
organisations throughout the UK are now
asking us for advice on best practice. The
RSQM is helping us to make contact with
potential new partners.
“Unite has recently had an increase
in enquiries from across the country
relating to serious and complex case
work and I think we can attribute this at
least partly to the RSQM.
“Additionally, some funding bids and
tenders now specifically ask for the
RSQM so it has given us the edge in
securing funds. I think it’s helped to
give us a bit of a lift at a time when
many organisations are affected by the
economic downturn.”
Mike concludes: “It’s not an easy
process, but that’s part of what makes
it worthwhile, and you get lots of
help along the way. This is about your
whole organisation, and especially your
people, who will really benefit from
the validation of the great work they’re
doing. If anyone asked me, my advice
would be go for it!”
The RJC is offering discounts on RSQM
applications for organisations working
in the criminal justice system until 31
March 2015. You can find out more
about how the RSQM can benefit your
organisation here: www.rsqm.org.uk
Resolution
14
Alyson’s story
I
f you’d asked me about my childhood
five years ago, I would have told you
that it was wonderful. I was brought
up with a younger brother in a working
class home by loving parents who did
their best for us. My father was a railway
man and my mother worked part time
in a local pharmacy. Money was rarely
plentiful but we never did without.
Now, when I reflect back, I realise I can’t
actually remember very much of my
childhood – only parts of it.
I met my first husband, a policeman, at
20 and we had two daughters together,
Rebecca and Alice. After seven years,
following his numerous affairs, I made
the decision to end my marriage. It was
a difficult time. My parents disagreed,
taking the view that I’d made my bed
and should lie in it, but it didn’t change
my mind. After months of no contact
they eventually accepted my situation
and decided to support me. They were
my strength, but I was always there for
them too. My brother served away in
the Royal Navy and I saw it as my duty
to look after them. My parents were
everything to me.
Rebecca and Alice were five and three
when I met my second husband, Steve,
in 1992. He became a father figure to my
girls and we had a daughter together –
Molly. When Molly was five months old
I was diagnosed with severe postnatal
depression and the following months
were hell for all of us. After more than
two years I began to recover, but when
Molly was four and a half, Steve had an
affair and left us. I was alone again, but
this time with three young daughters.
It was the start of a very challenging
time. In 2001, Alice struggled with
serious mental health problems. She
became anorexic, started to self-harm
and plunged into depression. There were
so many things going wrong for her,
but I couldn’t pinpoint a single cause. lf
anything, I attributed her breakdown to
Steve leaving.
My parents continued to be our strength,
especially my dad. One weekend when
Molly was 11 she stayed over with my
parents. The memory is vivid – it was
Sunday afternoon when my dad brought
her home. She was quiet and withdrawn
and wouldn’t speak to me. Rebecca and
Molly were very close and Becca tried to
talk to her. The only thing Molly would
say was: ‘Something happened in the
bathroom and I didn’t like it. Grandpa
was there.’ Becca pushed, but Molly
refused to remember any details – she
didn’t want to go back there. I felt
anxious and made a decision. Everyone
has an advocate in life and I am Molly’s,
so I decided to confront my parents and
get an explanation.
I remember it clearly – we sat at the
kitchen table, Mum on the right, Dad
on the left, and me. I felt sick. I outlined
the situation and the few words that
Molly had said. My mum looked at me,
puzzled, but my dad exclaimed loudly
and flung his hand out in disbelief.
There was an uneasy look about him. I
grabbed his hand making eye contact
and said: ‘Don’t you dare dismiss what I
am saying to you. I’m asking a question
and I need to understand – something
happened while Molly was here.’ It was
the first time I had ever spoken back to
him – what dad said went in our house.
He looked at me and dropped his head.
In an arrogant tone he raised his voice
and said: ‘It was just a misunderstanding.
Molly walked from the bathroom naked,
and she brushed past me – maybe it’s
because I patted her on the bottom.’
It didn’t make sense to me. I tried to
push him further, but I got nowhere. I
explained: ‘It’s important that as she gets
older you are respectful of her personal
space. It’s inappropriate to make such
gestures. She’s upset about it and you
made her feel uncomfortable.’ He said:
‘I’m sorry – I would never do anything
to hurt her.’ Something still didn’t
sit comfortably with me, but he was
convincing. I returned home and talked
with Becca who said she would talk to
Molly and explain that Grandpa was
sorry. Molly accepted the apology and
that was the end of it – on the surface,
everything seemed to go back to normal.
We continued to visit my parents,
although Molly would never agree to
stay the night. I accepted that, but I felt
uncomfortable and I couldn’t tell why.
Eight months later, in April 2009, I got a
call from my brother Michael. He simply
said: ‘It’s about Dad – I need to speak to
you.’ My immediate thought was that
Dad was ill, but what followed was far,
far worse. Mike explained that during
half-term my parents were looking after
his stepdaughter while he and his wife
worked. Shortly after, she told them that
on three separate occasions during that
week my dad had abused her, each time
in the bathroom. That was it – the penny
dropped. Mike’s stepdaughter had told
them: ‘Grandpa said it was OK to do it
because he does it with Molly, and she
likes it.’
The guilt was overwhelming – I felt sick
and didn’t know what to do. I composed
myself and made my first call to my GP.
I relayed the details and she quickly told
me that she was duty bound to report to
social services, and they would contact
me. My brother objected strongly – he
wanted to handle things himself, but
now it was out of my hands.
Within days Molly was interviewed
by a social worker but the evidence
was insufficient. She didn’t remember
enough and the information I could
provide as a third party witness was not
viable. I was distraught and didn’t know
where to turn, so I walked into the local
police station and asked to speak to a
Issue 53: Spring 2015
Photo by Ben Gold
15
child protection officer. The lady I saw
listened intently and assured me she
would contact me within 24 hours with
an update.
I wasn’t even home when the police
officer called me. She told me that she
had spoken to the social worker and
Molly would need to be interviewed
again the following day. I didn’t know
how to tell Steve and the girls. The next
few hours were the worst of my life and
my biggest fear was confirmed when
Alice said to me: ‘He’s been doing it to
me since I was six.’ Everything fell into
place – the anorexia, self-harm, low
self-esteem and depression.
My father’s involvement in the church
and the opportunities he had to engage
with local children concerned me and
I was compelled to tell police and child
protection officers to ensure he couldn’t
hurt anyone else. The police took a long
time in preparing to arrest Dad, and
early one Sunday morning I decided it
was time to confront him. I walked into
the house and as always he was dressed
immaculately and having breakfast. He
greeted me as if nothing unusual was
happening. I looked at him and said
only one word: ‘Why?’ He spoke briefly:
‘I’m so sorry – I couldn’t help myself.
Every time I did it I prayed to God that
I wouldn’t do it again, but every time it
came back stronger and I couldn’t stop.’
I asked him about the girls and the
damage he’d done to them. He looked at
me and said: ‘They’ll be fine – I was.’ He
then revealed that as a child he’d been
repeatedly abused by men known to the
family, but never told his parents. He had
no comprehension at all that he wasn’t –
in any way – ‘fine’. We then talked to my
mum and told her everything.
The next few weeks were distressing
and incredibly emotional. In many ways
it was as if I was living an out of body
Resolution
experience, but I had to hold it together.
Police, social services, child protection,
my mum, the girls’ schools – the list
was endless, and so it continued. On
a positive note – if such a thing was
possible – my children were now being
listened to and I had some answers.
In September 2009 my dad admitted
to 23 separate sexual offences – with
my two girls, my niece and my cousins.
He denied three counts of rape and
two of attempted rape, saying he
didn’t remember. He was facing a trial
unless he accepted a deal from the
Crown Prosecution Service. He agreed
to plead guilty to additional sexual
offences to avoid trial and a date was
set for sentencing. His arrogance was
unbelievable – he genuinely believed he
would be spared prison. He would say:
‘God’s good… I’m not there yet.’
On the day of sentencing, I sat in the
courtroom and listened to all the
offences being outlined in detail. I was
heartbroken. The judge concluded his
summing up by saying: ‘I can firmly
16
say you have shown no remorse. You
have ruined people’s lives and for that
you deserve no consideration. I am
sentencing you to nine years in prison.’
Dad turned to me and smiled – I was
speechless. I returned home and
explained to my mum what would now
happen. She was in disbelief and never
accepted his sentence. I continued to
care for her as best I could, but our
relationship broke down on several
occasions and it was an impossible
situation. In March 2012 we received a
letter from Victim Liaison asking if they
could meet with my mum to discuss my
dad’s release. She was initially delighted,
until the conditions of his licence were
outlined to her.
Faced with the idea that she wouldn’t
be able to live with Dad unless she left
her home, my mum’s health began to
fail. We managed to persuade her that
moving to sheltered accommodation –
without Dad – might be her best option.
Then she asked me a difficult question: if
she went to live with Dad, wherever he
ended up, would I still come to visit her?
Sadly, but without doubt, I said: ‘No, I
couldn’t possibly.’ I couldn’t betray my
own children the way I felt that my mum
had betrayed me.
Mum couldn’t cope. She threatened
suicide many times and ended up in
hospital where she died seven weeks
later from pneumonia. Until the very
end my dad was still controlling her.
He had her waiting by a telephone, even
in her hospital bed, for his calls. To this
day, I still find it unbelievable that she
didn’t know what had been going on all
those years.
On 5 July 2012 my dad was released
from HMP Acklington into a local
bail hostel. My contact with him was
restricted under the terms of his licence,
but I decided that I needed to speak
with him.
I contacted Gillian Riley, a victim liaison
officer, who visited me at my home
with Louise Houghton from probation.
Together, they explained restorative
justice. They told me that it is rarely
17
Issue 53: Spring 2015
used in circumstances of sexual offences
but they were willing to work with me to
see if we could find a way forward that
would benefit me. They warned me that
Dad still had to agree to the meeting but
I knew he would – he’d been praying that
one day I would want to see him. Louise
and Gillian spent four months preparing
me for the first meeting and every step
of the way they made it clear that it was
all about me.
The day of the conference was planned
to precision. I arrived first and went into
the room. I was given the opportunity
to make changes to the seating plan
and turned my dad’s chair just slightly
so that he wasn’t looking directly at me.
We agreed who would facilitate and
who would take notes, and decided on
a signal that meant I needed to leave.
Finally, we were all ready. My heart
was racing.
One of the reasons for meeting Dad was
to establish how he would react if he
ever bumped into my children in a public
place. I wasn’t afraid that he would hurt
them, but the emotional effect on them
of coming face to face with him would
be devastating. I also wanted answers
to questions. I knew there was a limit
to what he would tell me but I was
determined to make him understand
the impact he’d had. Not just the effect
on our family – the ripples had spread
far, far wider than that. The church, the
community, the fact that people had
crossed the road to avoid my mum when
she left the house – I needed to put all
of those things to him. I wanted to gauge
his reaction.
Dad walked into the room and we made
eye contact. Louise laid out ground
rules – everyone was to respect each
other, not talk over each other, and
anything I didn’t want to talk about was
strictly off limits. Dad’s body language
was extraordinary – he wasn’t in charge
of the situation and it was clearly making
him very uncomfortable. When he
started to talk he was visibly nervous
and initially went off on a tangent. I said:
‘Stop! We are here so that you can listen
to me.’ He was shocked – he was used to
always being in control, and for the first
time, I took that control away from him.
I explained my reasons to Gillian and
Louise and we discussed some of the
things I wanted to say. They asked if
I wanted him to ask me questions or
for him to not say anything at all. The
meeting was going to be whatever I
wanted it to be – Gillian and Louise
would outline the conditions to him
and he could decide if he wanted to go
ahead. Every fine detail was discussed –
where it would take place, how I would
get there, who would arrive first, who
would sit where, who was my support
and what would happen afterwards.
I was even given a separate door to use
in case I wanted to leave at any time
without sharing an exit with my dad.
Phil, my partner, was going to be there
as my support. He chose to not take
part, but he was close by in an adjoining
room. My dad would also be supported
by his probation officer, and I accepted
that he needed support too. I wanted
him to benefit from the meeting, but
part of my motivation was for him to
acknowledge that there would never
be a reconciliation of our family, which I
knew he was still hoping would happen.
The strength I found in that room came
from the feeling that I owed it to my
children – and my mum – to let him
know that he’d destroyed so many lives.
The probation service had given me the
opportunity to be empowered and I
took it. Without the constant support of
Louise and Gillian, and the preparation
and structure of the conference, I never
would have been able to face up to my
father in that way.
invaluable feeling. He went into that
meeting thinking, ‘I am still the head of
this household’, and he left visibly moved
by what he’d heard. For the very first
time, he had no escape – he had to listen
to me.
Alyson and her partner, Phil. Photo: Ben Gold.
The feedback from Gillian and Louise
following the conference was that my
dad had also found it beneficial and it
had made him re-think the effects of
what he’d done. Five months later, I
met with him again, this time to ask him
myself how he’d felt afterwards. Again
I was in control of the meeting, but this
time I didn’t need to be. One of the first
things he talked about was how I’d taken
charge the last time he’d seen me and
how that had never happened before –
he acknowledged that he was no longer
in control. I can’t say if I will want to
meet him again, but that door has been
left open for me and I can contact Gillian
or Louise at any time.
The conference lasted for five hours,
with several breaks, and it went exactly
to plan. From the minute I walked into
that room, I was in control – it was on
my terms. For my whole life, my dad
preached: ‘Do as I say, not as I do.’ Now,
for the first time, it was my turn to take
charge. At one point, I started to tell Dad
about the ripple effect of his actions.
He held his hand up to stop me and
said: ‘I need to tell you I know it wasn’t
a ripple – it was a tidal wave. I see that
now.’ At last, he finally realised that we
would never go back to being a ‘normal’
family again. During the meeting his
demeanour completely changed, and I
knew he had listened.
In my view, if victims of sexual harm can
find the courage to face the perpetrator
and be willing to embrace help and
guidance from the probation service
then they should, without doubt,
take part in restorative justice. It is a
springboard to greater things – a positive
step in regaining control of your life.
The victim is firmly in control and at
no point can the perpetrator take back
that control. I have no doubt that if my
dad had tried, then Gillian and Louise
would have intervened immediately. I
can honestly say that restorative justice
was the most empowering and fulfilling
experience of my life.
Following the meeting I felt absolutely
empowered – it was more than I could
ever have hoped for and to witness his
genuine remorse was an immense and
The RJC would like to thank National
Probation Service (North East)
Northumbria and Alyson for sharing
her story with us.
Resolution
18
The RJC competency
framework – helping to define
effective restorative practice
As the RJC prepares to launch its new
Competency Framework, its project manager,
Fiona Turner, considers the benefits for the
restorative practice field.
A
s part of the RJC’s ongoing
commitment to enabling quality
practice in the restorative field, we have
been working on an exciting new project
to support practitioners and managers.
The Competency Framework aims to set
out the core knowledge and skills that
are required to undertake restorative
practice at all levels and has been
developed to set a baseline knowledge
and skill set for restorative practitioners
in England and Wales.
The RJC is the leading professional body
for the field and is the only body which
sets standards to ensure safe, effective
restorative interventions. Additionally,
our role is to support the development
of the restorative field, and as such,
we want to aid the progression of
practitioners and establish restorative
practice as a profession in its own right.
The Competency Framework, which has
been created with support from the MoJ
and in consultation with the field, will
do just that. It will be an entirely free
resource, available on our website in
April 2015.
The Framework covers all areas of
restorative practice from informal
approaches to formal conferencing of
complex and sensitive cases. It consists
of competency components – for
example ‘effective communication’ or
‘knowledge of restorative practice’ –
which form the baseline knowledge
that, combined with technical skills,
enables effective practice. The effective
behaviour examples set out in the
Framework define expected levels of
performance for each competency,
showing which areas are valued and can
lead to enhanced practice. For example,
under ‘effective communication’,
indicators might include ‘ability to create
accurate written records and outcome
agreements’. The Framework will be
useful for all restorative practitioners,
mediators, volunteers, case supervisors
and managers, regardless of what
type of restorative practice they are
involved with.
The Competency Framework can
be used in a range of different ways
depending on who is using it. For
practitioners, it is a self-development
tool to support continuous professional
development by helping people to
identify gaps in their skills and determine
where their future development
needs might lie. For managers and
commissioners, the Framework can
be used to help develop criteria for
recruitment of restorative professionals
with the right knowledge, skills and
behaviours for the role. Trainers will be
able to direct newly trained practitioners
to the Framework as a helpful resource
to support safe practice and continued
personal development.
The Competency Framework is being
developed in consultation with a diverse
“I am both pleased
and excited about the
Competency Framework.
I believe it will enable
practitioners to have
more confidence in their
own abilities, will help
managers to understand
the principles of RJ
and the standards that
practitioners need,
leading to better
supervision provision.”
Dianne Gibson, Victim Liaison Officer,
Leeds Youth Offending Service
range of organisations and events
are being run throughout January in
Manchester, Birmingham, London
and Cardiff to ensure that it meets
everyone’s needs. We are grateful to
everyone who is contributing as their
input will help build a practical resource
for the restorative field.
Fiona Turner
Project Manager, RJC
The Competency Framework works
in conjunction with the Best Practice
Guidance to inform practitioners about
enhanced and quality practice. If you
would like more information, please
contact [email protected]
or call 020 7831 5700.
19
Issue 53: Spring 2015
association can drive a bigger wedge
between neighbours.
The traditional method can stop the
conflict but it doesn’t repair the harm
– the next time there is a problem, the
same people come back to the housing
association. Restorative practice,
however, empowers people to deal with
conflict themselves in the future – it is a
sustainable resolution to conflict.
Restorative practice
in housing
Restorative approaches
are increasingly being
used to deal with conflict
and antisocial behaviour in
the community. Jeannette
Brown works at Restorative
Approaches in Housing
(RAIH), an organisation
which provides services
and training for housing
providers who want to
implement restorative
practice to deal with
antisocial behaviour.
Here, Jeannette talks
about how she became
involved with introducing
restorative justice into the
housing sector.
I
have worked in antisocial behaviour
in housing in some form or another
since 1997. In 2005, I was working for
a large national housing association,
dealing with antisocial behaviour and
conflict between tenants. I went to a
housing conference and saw Sir Charles
Pollard giving a talk on restorative
justice. It struck me immediately that we
should be getting neighbours together
to resolve their problems. I rang my
manager, John Stevenson, and said:
“John, we’ve got to start using this thing
called restorative justice.” John and I met
with Sir Charles Pollard a few weeks later
and we went back and had all of our staff
trained in restorative approaches and
later in mediation.
Put simply, the traditional way in which
housing associations deal with antisocial
behaviour is that when an allegation
is made, the housing association will
decide who is at fault. They then write
to the tenant to tell them that they are
in breach of their tenancy agreement
and warn them that they could be
putting their tenancy at risk. Using their
investigation skills and professional
judgement, housing workers decide who
is right and who is wrong. Often cases
are not straightforward and sometimes
they become involved in the conflict
themselves and can make things worse.
Tenants who have had allegations
made against them will often say that
they wished their neighbour had just
come to them directly to discuss what
had happened. Involving the housing
John and I became really passionate
about restorative approaches and
in 2012 we decided to work solely
on restorative practice for housing
associations. We set up RAIH, and since
then have done whatever we can to
promote restorative practice in housing.
Five or six years ago, it was virtually
unheard of, but now, housing officers
know they need to start looking at using
restorative practice.
There are undoubtedly cases in which
restorative approaches won’t work,
but we think it should be the default
approach taken. We have had cases
where harmful situations persist not for
months, but for years. In an hour and
a half, restorative practice can repair
relationships after years of conflict.
We recently had a situation where
neighbours had not spoken in seven
years and didn’t want to converse with
each other as they knew they would only
argue if they did. Restorative practice
took them away from their properties, to
a neutral space. They both wanted things
to get better, and their restorative justice
meeting was the first time they had
spoken to each other in a civil manner.
Times are changing. Across the
country housing associations are
starting to use restorative approaches.
Housing associations are now focusing
on community responsibility and
community empowerment. To achieve
this, neighbours have to start taking
control of their own conflict, and
restorative approaches provide a safe
and secure way for this to happen. Some
housing associations we work with say
introducing restorative justice is the best
thing they’ve ever done.
Jeannette Brown
Director, Restorative Approaches
in Housing
www.raih.co.uk
Resolution
20
The Jamaican experience –
implementing restorative
justice in a retributive
criminal justice system
Ruth Carey is a justice of the peace and the managing
director of The Center for Social Transformation, an
international consulting and training organisation with
offices in Fort Lauderdale, Florida and Kingston, Jamaica.
She has significant experience in crime and violence
prevention using social interventions in vulnerable
communities in Jamaica, with emphasis on restorative
justice and practices. In this article, she talks about her
work to implement restorative justice in Jamaica.
developing the policy was a collaborative
effort with key stakeholders including
government ministries, agencies and
departments and non-governmental
agencies and community organisations.
D
•C
reate a culture of peace through
effective processes that emphasise the
values of mutual respect, dignity and
concern between one another in an
environment of healing, reconciliation,
and restoration.
uring the period September
2011–2014, I was the director
of restorative and child justice reform
implementation in Jamaica. As the
director it was my responsibility to
develop the national restorative justice
policy and manage the implementation
of the restorative justice programme
from funds received through the Citizen
Security and Justice Programme II
(CSJP II).
Crime and violence was (and still is) a
critical issue affecting social order and
public safety in Jamaica, and the need
for a national restorative justice policy
was based on five fundamental factors.
First, the country suffers from high levels
of crime and has a high rate of homicidal
violence and an affinity with guns (the
weapon of choice in approximately
70% of recorded homicides in 2007).
Second, the World Bank Country Study
estimated that the direct cost of crime
and violence in Jamaica was at least
3.7 % of the country’s GDP, counting
lost production, health expenses, and
public and private spending on security.
It has been estimated that violence costs
Jamaica approximately J$12 billion a
year. Third, there was an increase in case
backlog in the courts of Jamaica due to
the upsurge in crime and conflict. Fourth,
the recidivism rate had increased when
compared with historic figures. Finally,
it was observed that the communities in
Jamaica, particularly the deprived inner
city areas, were under severe social and
economic stresses and were engaging in
profoundly negative cultural practices.
The national restorative justice policy
sought to focus efforts on integrating
and implementing restorative justice
practices in communities throughout
Jamaica with the aim of significantly
contributing to a fundamental positive
social transformation. My work in
In pursuit of the vision of a secure, just,
cohesive and peaceful society, and an
improvement in the quality of life for
Jamaicans, the broad goals as outlined in
the policy were to:
• E mpower individuals, groups and
communities to respond in a positive
manner to crime and wrongdoing and
the harm offenders cause, creating
satisfactory outcomes which enable
productive relationships.
•R
educe the criminal case backlog by
diverting cases from the formal justice
system and also resolving conflicts at
the community level.
• Increase public confidence and trust
in the justice system by fostering
greater participation in and ownership
of restorative justice processes by
communities and victims.
21
• Reduce recidivism by addressing
the underlying causes of criminal
behaviour and supporting the
constructive reintegration of the
offender into the community.
• Move away from the reprisal culture by
enabling individuals to have access to a
dispute resolution process at the early
stage of conflict and avoid escalation to
spiralling violent reactions.
The policy was approved by the Jamaica
Cabinet in 2012, and allows cases to
be referred to the restorative justice
programme through five entry points
from community dispute level to postsentence. It is with some delight that I
highlight the successes during my tenure
as the director.
Between September 2011 and
September 2013, restorative justice
An example of community
empowerment, ownership
and engagement
An incident occurred in a community
which was experiencing high levels
of violence where an individual was
shot by a gunman who found cover
in a field located by a main road.
In response some members of the
community took it upon themselves
to cut down the entire field to find
the gunman. This had significant and
devastating consequences on the
farmers – they lost their crop in one
day which created significant tensions
in the community.
Restorative justice facilitators and
volunteers in the community, on
their own initiative, brought the
parties involved together for an initial
dialogue and determined that it was
an appropriate case for a restorative
process, which was carried out. As a
result, tensions surrounding the issue
have decreased and understandings
have been reached – community
members, for example, have
committed to help with the replanting.
More importantly, ideas and solutions
were discussed that would meet both
the farmers’ need to grow crops,
and community members’ need for
safety. It was decided that instead of
growing tall crops which could provide
cover for criminals the farmers would
instead grow low-lying crops.
Issue 53: Spring 2015
was implemented in 11 volatile and
vulnerable communities and we opened
eight restorative justice centres across
the island. We did not want to put
volunteers who lacked the necessary
skills or capacity in a position that they
were not comfortable to handle, nor
did we want to engage volunteers who
did not possess the characteristics of
integrity, honesty and confidentiality that
are essential to the role of facilitator.
We developed screening protocols to
ensure the appropriate individuals were
selected to participate in training to
become certified facilitators, which took
considerable time and effort. Individuals
who were not selected as facilitators
were invited to serve as volunteers in
the programme while building their
capacity. A 10-module restorative
justice certification programme was
developed and delivered in 2012 and
2013 across the island. Training through
this programme created a core of
an estimated 150 restorative justice
facilitators.
We also developed a case management
system to interface with the traditional
justice system and the designated
referral agents. Consequently, all
referral agents to the restorative justice
programme, including the judiciary,
resident magistrates, prosecutors and
probation officers, were trained in
restorative justice protocol and case
management.
For the restorative justice programme
to function with any meaning, a
fundamental paradigm shift had to occur
among the Jamaican people. For reasons
that have long existed in the history of
the country, Jamaica is a vengeful society
and restorative justice can provide
a means for effecting change in the
thinking of individuals who use revenge
as a means of redress. As such, one of
the activities that the restorative justice
programme emphasised was public
education and sensitisation to processes
and principles of restorative practice.
The programme successfully held over
350 community sensitisation sessions
with approximately 14,000 people
across communities and an estimated
35 national workshops for magistrates,
probation officers, police, attorneys and
education professionals.
A national media campaign was started
in February 2013, increasing public
knowledge of our work. Although our
mandate was to implement restorative
justice, it was recognised that for a
culture shift to occur in Jamaica its
principles must be introduced into
schools across the island. Consequently,
an estimated 100 education
professionals were trained in restorative
practices by the International Institute of
Restorative Practices (IIRP USA).
The University of the West Indies in
Jamaica approached the Ministry of
Justice (MoJ) to partner with them
regarding an advanced course in
restorative justice. They requested
that the restorative justice programme
should place students in local
communities to gain practical experience
in restorative justice. This institutional
partnership was beneficial to the
overall MoJ programme, both because
of the sharing of knowledge, expertise
and experience, but also because the
relationship made a contribution to the
sustainability of the programme. As
restorative justice becomes entrenched
in the country’s higher educational
institutions, the knowledge, engagement
and commitment to the process will be
carried forward, and give rise to more
and sustained action and support for the
programme in the future.
All of the achievements mentioned
above created the necessary
foundation for the successful launch
of the programme, and we were able
to start taking cases in April 2013. I
am very proud and pleased with the
achievements and advancement of
the restorative justice programme in
only three years. Jamaica has made
significant strides in a short period
and that should be celebrated. Much
work is still required, but with a solid
foundation, clear direction provided
by the national restorative justice
policy, strong leadership and dedicated
staff, facilitators and volunteers, the
programme has a very promising future.
Ruth Carey, Managing Director
The Center for Social Transformation
Email: ruthcarey@
cstconsulting.org
Ruth Carey will be
publishing a book
on this subject in
2015.
Resolution
Working
together
towards
restorative
outcomes
C
ounty Durham has a long history
of delivering restorative
interventions, but until early 2013
there was a fragmented approach across
services and the lack of a coherent
strategy led to patchy provision.
The Safe Durham Partnership (the
Community Safety Partnership for
County Durham) recognised an ambition
to widen the use of restorative practice
and introduce it into the everyday work
of all partner agencies.
“This approach is a long-term vision”
explains Gill Eshelby, strategic manager
of County Durham Youth Offending
Service and partnership strategic lead
for restorative practice. “We want
to embed restorative practice into
mainstream work so that it becomes a
way of thinking and delivering work. So
it becomes part of the ‘day job’, rather
than being seen as something to do on
top of the day job. It is a whole systems
culture change.”
22
In 2012 the Partnership proposed a
framework for integrating restorative
practice to create a culture of restorative
approaches throughout County Durham.
By April 2013 this had developed into
the Partnership’s Integrated Restorative
Practice Strategy. The Strategy brings
together key agencies across a broad
range of workstreams, including the
criminal justice sector, neighbourhood
policing, children and families, schools
and training and development.
As strategic lead, Gill’s role is to
ensure that everyone is working in a
coordinated way towards the same goal
– to achieve an integrated approach to
restorative practice. Gill continues:
“Our strategy encompasses wider
intervention than that of restorative
justice. It also covers preventative
elements such as looked after children,
schools and community resolution.
These play a major role in preventing
behaviour from escalating and diverting
people from the criminal justice system.
We are achieving positive outcomes
and reducing reoffending, all delivered
within existing resources.”
One of the challenges faced by the
Partnership has been to develop and
deliver restorative practice within
mainstream work without relying on
external funding. As Gill explains: “It’s
important to remember that all this work
over the last two years has been done
without external short-term funding.
Funds are coming from existing budgets
and re-shaping services as they adopt
and implement restorative approaches.
Our goal is sustainability.”
The scale of the work being done in
Durham is impressive and results speak
for themselves. Integrated restorative
practice has contributed to a range of
positive outcomes, including:
• Working with over 3,200 people to
achieve a restorative outcome over the
last year.
• Reducing first time entrants to the
youth justice system by 81.4% (1,129
young people to just 210 in 2013–14).
• Reducing reoffending by young people.
• Achieving a 47.7% reduction in the
number of offences committed by
young people (from 2,464 in 2010–11
to 1,289 in 2013–14).
• Achieving a 50.5% reduction in the
number of young people offending
(from 1,270 in 2010–11 to 629 in
2013–14).
• Reducing the number of police call
outs to residential children’s homes
and looked after children’s services
by 50% (this has reduced the need
for police investigations and the
take up of court time, reducing the
number of looked after children being
criminalised).
• Carrying out 35 restorative justice
conferences with adult offenders
within Integrated Offender
Management, 16 of these held in a
prison setting (only one person has
reoffended to date).
23
Issue 53: Spring 2015
• Getting every member of staff at
Durham Police trained to level one in
restorative justice.
• Further integrating the work of
restorative practice involving stronger
families (troubled families).
The Partnership has ambitious plans for
the future which include:
• Working closely with the Office of the
Police and Crime Commissioner so
that new restorative justice projects
build on existing and emerging work in
County Durham.
• Focusing on the speech, language
and communication needs of young
victims of youth crime to enable them
to better understand and participate
more fully in the restorative justice
process.
• Implementing the YOT Speech
Language and Communication Needs
Strategy to improve communication
with young people who offend to
further reduce re-offending and
expanding this to include young
adult offenders.
• Building on the restorative approaches
training of all officers and staff in
Durham Constabulary to implement
a robust performance management
framework.
• Expanding the restorative practice
work within schools and increasing
take-up to reach more secondary
schools.
Gill says: “Our Strategy has provided
the framework to focus the work of
all partners. We have maximised the
enthusiasm and willingness of staff at all
levels to introduce, or further develop,
restorative approaches into their
services.
“We didn’t need to ‘sell’ the concept
of restorative practice. All partners and
staff could see the benefit of the work
and in many cases were doing it very
successfully. Our job was to bring it all
together into a coherent whole and
work together to develop a consistent
approach, a common language and
understanding.
“We are on a journey. We are delighted
with the progress made, but there is
still more to do. We continue to look for
opportunities, working together on joint
training and delivery, to develop and
maximise expertise.”
The work of the Safe Durham Partnership
was recognised at the 2014 Howard
League Community Awards where
they were runners up in the restorative
justice category. Gill concludes: “The
Safe Durham Partnership will continue to
embed and integrate restorative practice
to bring about better outcomes for our
communities in County Durham. Our aim
is to become a truly restorative county.”
David and Jenny’s story
David, a prolific offender,
was sentenced to 16 months’
imprisonment for a dwelling burglary
and was being held in HMP Durham.
While working with staff from the
Integrated Offender Management
(IOM) unit David was introduced
to restorative justice. Jenny, one
of David’s victims, wanted the
opportunity to meet him. Her family
had suffered a bereavement around
the time of the burglary and it had
compounded the grief the family
was feeling. She wanted David to
know the impact the burglary had
had upon her family.
The IOM and prison staff worked
together to support David and Jenny
and a full restorative conference was
facilitated within the prison. Since
his release David has faced some
challenging times, but meeting Jenny
had, in his words: ‘a massive impact.
Meeting the victim really made me
think’. David is now drug free, has
re-engaged with his family and has not
reoffended.
Resolution
24
Opening the
restorative justice path
for domestic violence
Dr Theo Gavrielides is
the founder and director
of Independent Academic
Research Studies (IARS),
founder and co-director
of the Restorative Justice
for All Institute, adjunct
professor at the Centre
for Restorative Justice of
Simon Fraser University
and visiting professor at
Buckinghamshire New
University.
I
n October 2014, the Home Office
closed its consultation on
strengthening the law on domestic
violence. This consultation is not about
establishing assault, stalking or GBH
as crimes – they are already offences –
but explores creating a specific offence
that captures patterns of coercive
and controlling behaviour in intimate
relationships. Yet I continue to doubt
whether penalisation of social justice
failures, such as domestic violence, will
provide us with answers.
The underlying causes of domestic
violence and abuse in intimate
relationships are too complex to be
‘managed’ through sterile interventions
such as incapacitation. This type of
violence constitutes phenomena that
are often motivated by our biases and
cultural and societal tendencies to
interpret the world in a certain way.
They are also expressions of our need
to exercise power and control others,
especially those closest to us. I therefore
ask whether the criminalisation of
domestic violence is society’s way
of shaking off its responsibilities by
throwing people in prison? More
importantly, can restorative justice help?
Restorative justice has finally made it
onto the policy and legislative agendas.
For the first time, restorative justice
is regulated at an EU wide legislative
level so that victims who choose to
be involved are safeguarded. This is
achieved through the Victims’ Directive,
which will be implemented in
November 2015.
The European Commission has invested
considerable resources in preparing
member states for the implementation
of the Victims’ Directive. This has
included funding a European project on
restorative justice in cases of domestic
violence, which in the UK is run by IARS.
The wider programme is conducted
in partnership with several other
member states. This article is based
on its interim findings.
The project began in February 2014
and aims to generate and pilot new
knowledge on restorative justice and
domestic violence and to identify
25
criteria for offering restorative justice in
such cases. In addition to creating new
knowledge, the project will produce a
practical guide with a set of evidencebased recommendations that will aim to
improve the knowledge of practitioners
working in the field.
The appropriateness of using restorative
justice in cases of violence against
women remains largely unexplored.
There is a general consensus among
feminists and victim advocates that
restorative justice is not appropriate
in these cases, particularly when it
comes to intimate partner violence.
Consequently, this area of practice
remains under-researched. Yet this has
not hindered passionate practitioners
from piloting conferences, mediation and
other restorative justice programmes.
These practices, however, are not many.
As Daly and Nancarrow (2010) argued,
there are so few restorative justice
pilots with cases of violence against
women that it is practically impossible
to conduct research on what is actually
happening. Additionally, as Gitana and
Daly (2011) stressed: “Research on
actual practices or outcomes, victims’
experiences of informal processes, or
comparisons of informal and formal
processes and outcomes … is difficult
[in this area]. It is hard to gain access
to victims and contact them; and
once contacted, they may not wish to
participate in research.”
Without running pilot schemes and
evaluating existing ad hoc practices,
a robust body of evidence will never
be developed. We hope that by
joining other initiatives in promoting
this debate, decision makers will take
proactive steps to allow research and
learning to develop.
Our interim findings suggest that despite
the concerns of politicians and women’s
groups, there are projects in the UK
where restorative justice and mediation
occur in domestic violence cases. This
was highlighted in recent studies such as
the 2010 mapping exercise by Liebmann
and Wootton as well as IARS’ 2014
book Restorative Justice and Domestic
Violence: A Critical Review. Examples
are Plymouth Mediation, Warwickshire
Domestic Violence Support Service
(Rugby), the Daybreak Dove Project,
several Victim Liaison Units as well many
Issue 53: Spring 2015
undiscovered, locally based practices. It
was also highlighted at the IARS Annual
Restorative Justice Expert Seminar in
October 2014 focusing on domestic
violence, where the majority of the
practitioners who attended said that
they are dealing with domestic violence
cases through restorative justice.
Our fieldwork demonstrated that a clear
potential benefit of using restorative
justice is the ability to address the
victim’s needs and wishes, with this
acting as a tool for empowerment. It
was also made clear that the choice of
which restorative justice process was
appropriate to these needs should
be decided by the victim rather than
putting the emphasis on a direct
conference. This flexibility would allow
the practitioner to carefully evaluate and
discuss with the victim suitable options.
This, again, empowers victims.
Thinking of restorative justice as a
process, it can minimise secondary
victimisation and, most importantly,
address the needs and wishes of the
victim. Our study also found that in
cases of gender-specific violence
it was often good practice for the
family to be present because it was
acknowledged that family members
could be affected by the violence or
unwilling to condone it.
The discussion of restorative justice in
the context of domestic violence and
the consequent implications of the
issue of power cannot be separated
from questions around gender and
race inequality, women’s position
within traditional judicial systems, and
whether restorative justice procedures
can practically change the stereotypical
judicial treatment of victims.
Let me give an example. Jodie is 26
years old, a migrant and has two young
children. She comes from a minority
background and lives with her partner,
Colin, a 35-year-old black British man.
They are faced with a number of
challenges such as a low income, alcohol
addiction and mental health problems.
Colin has never cheated on Jodie and he
loves their children. But Colin often hits
Jodie. Her family and friends are aware,
but do not intervene. They know she
loves him. One night, Colin is extremely
angry and drunk and starts hitting Jodie
with his belt. Jodie gets scared and calls
the police but does not want Colin to be
prosecuted.
Jodie knows the deficiencies of the
criminal justice system when it comes
to race equality. She also loves Colin
and wants him back home. What
about her migrant status? What about
her children? Now, turning to Colin,
will imprisonment make him a better
man? Will prison help him deal with his
drinking addiction and mental health
problems? When he comes out, where
will he go? Back to Jodie? How will they
get on, if she is the one who put him
in prison? This is not a one-off case. It
provides the basic ingredients of many
domestic violence cases.
Domestic violence typifies our
relationship with the criminal justice
system. Traditional justice seeks to
punish the offender on behalf of the
state, but often disregards the needs of
the victim. By treating those affected
by domestic violence as individuals and
not as numbers, and by looking at the
specific complexities of each case, we
might stand a chance of reducing the
ever increasing number of incidents
of abuse and addressing the declining
numbers of reported and prosecuted
incidents. Dialogue based approaches
that are provided according to the
Victims’ Directive may help us address
some of the deficiencies of current
practice. This is not to deem the state
and its corresponding justice system
as irrelevant, but rather to promote
dialogue of its inadequacies to directly
address harm in a process of reparation
and restoration. Consequently, the
restorative justice movement has fought
long battles to move the position of
the victim to the centre of the criminal
justice system. This is now showing initial
signs of success but more evidence and
awareness raising are needed.
Theo Gavrielides
Director, IARS
[email protected]
www.theogavrielides.com
@TGavrielides
For further
information on
the IARS domestic
violence project
visit http://iars.
org.uk/content/
RJandDV
Resolution
26
“It was 2am and I heard
a noise. Thinking I was
imagining it, I went out to
the bathroom but on the way
back I heard the kitchen doors
banging and that’s when I
knew for certain someone
was in the house.
“I’m not sure why my first thought was
to call my brother but he lives nearby
and I knew he’d come straight to me. He
said he’d be there in a couple of minutes
and then I called 999. The operator did
his best to calm me down and keep me
on the line, because I was so afraid for
my granddaughter. He reassured me that
the police were on their way.
“My first thought was for my
granddaughter. She was seven
years old at the time and I
went straight to her room to
check that she was asleep,
which thankfully she was. I can’t
imagine how scared she would
have been if she had woken up.
“After my husband had passed away and
my baby grandson died, I had begun
to worry about getting telephone calls
late at night and I’d got into the habit of
unplugging the phone before going to
bed. I hadn’t brought my mobile phone
upstairs with me, and I realised that I
would have to go downstairs to get a
telephone in order to call for help.
“It was the middle of the night, and
I was so frightened that I did things
without thinking. I accidentally rattled
the dog’s stair gate as I was trying to get
downstairs and I even turned on the light
before realising that this could alert the
person downstairs that I was awake.
“I crept downstairs, trying not to wake
my granddaughter or make any more
noise that the burglar might hear. I could
see that he’d smashed the patio door
and broken the locks and I could hear
him going through the drawers and
cupboards in the kitchen.
“I got my phone and crept back upstairs,
relieved not to have to confront him
on my own. I went to the room where
my granddaughter was still sleeping
and closed the door, then locked
myself in the en-suite bathroom and
called my brother. I hated to leave my
granddaughter in the room asleep on
her own but I didn’t want to wake her
in case she made a noise and alerted
whoever was downstairs.
“The next thing I heard was an almighty
scream, which even the 999 operator
was shocked by. I was petrified but I was
quickly told that the police had tasered
the burglar – the source of the scream
– before arresting him on the spot. He
had apparently got in through the tiny
downstairs bathroom window and he’d
damaged the shed as well as the patio
doors and the kitchen. He had done
nearly £5,000 worth of damage using a
huge crowbar.
“Once I realised that the police had
control of the situation, I asked them if I
could see him. I was very angry and told
him to his face what I thought of him.
He made excuses and said that he didn’t
know what he was doing, that he’d taken
drugs and that he hadn’t meant to break
into my house. I found out later that he
had recently returned home one night to
find his mother had committed suicide
in the garage. He had then started to
take drugs on a regular basis and was on
drugs the night he broke in.
27
“I next saw the burglar – Joseph* – in
court around four months later. I didn’t
really know what to think – despite my
late husband having been a policeman
for around 33 years, I’d never been to
court before. The judge said that in 99
cases in 100 he would recommend a
custodial sentence but that he would
give him this one chance, and to be
honest, I did feel sorry for him. The
burglar pleaded to see me but I couldn’t
face it so my daughter and sister-in-law
went to see him. He was full of remorse
and I felt better that they’d spoken to
him. They could tell that he was very
sorry but I just couldn’t see him.
“Apparently, Joseph wrote to me but
I didn’t receive it until several months
later. He still wanted to meet me and
he explained his very sad circumstances
and background. I wrote back around
Christmas time to let him know that I
had forgiven him and that I knew that it
was his first Christmas without his mum
– it was my first Christmas without my
husband so I could understand his pain.
Issue 53: Spring 2015
“Out of the blue, Joseph’s probation
officer got in touch to say that he’d still
really like to meet me in a restorative
justice conference and I agreed. The
probation officer facilitated the meeting
and prepared me for it and talked
to me about what would happen. I
felt supported and reassured by the
time I went into the meeting. My
sister-in-law came with me. Joseph
looked very nervous. I told the story
of what had happened from my point
of view. He kept apologising over and
over and repeating in disbelief that my
granddaughter was asleep in bed – he
seemed shocked by his actions. Joseph
said he remembered going out but he
was so out of it that he didn’t remember
breaking in or where I live. It was very
emotional and we even hugged at the
end. I know my husband would have
wanted me to give him a second chance.
He believed that everyone deserves a
chance and so I was determined to give
him that.
“After meeting Joseph I felt such relief
– it meant I could finally get to sleep
at night. Before, I used to take down
anything hanging on the wall in case
it fell and made a noise that would
scare me. I even peered in through the
windows from the outside to see what
someone outside could see. It really
damaged my sense of safety in my own
house and I considered moving. Since
the meeting, I feel a lot better – not
100% safe, but perhaps that will come
with time.
“Joseph has said that he will keep in
touch and I hope that he will keep me
updated. I really hope it helps him to get
on with his life. He has a lot of support
and as he has a child of his own to look
after now, he has every reason not to
break the law again.”
The RJC would like to thank Graham
Gardner at Gloucestershire Police and
Ruth Lambert for sharing her story.
* Joseph’s name has been changed.
Resolution
28
Could you be a national
voice for restorative practice?
The RJC is looking for leaders in the field from a
wide range of sectors to act as champions and
spokespeople for restorative practice. Their role
will involve contributing to local and national
media coverage and events on restorative practice,
providing expert input based on their sector-specific
experience. We are looking for champions working
within criminal justice, early intervention, education,
international restorative practice, multi-agency
partnerships, neighbourhood justice panels and
residential care.
If you are interested in becoming a champion
and would like to find out more please email
[email protected]
or call the RJC office on 020 7831 5700
Magistrates’ Court
information pack
The RJC has recently published an information pack to
raise awareness of restorative justice among magistrates.
The pack will increase understanding of the benefits of
restorative justice and how it can currently be used within
sentencing.
Notices
You can access it at www.rjc.org.uk/magsinfopack
Restorative Service
Quality Mark
Take your free self-assessment at:
www.rsqm.org.uk
Show your
support for
restorative
justice
Anyone can join the RJC as a
supporter 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 members’ bulletins with
the latest restorative justice news
and discounts to events. There are
additional membership categories
for restorative practitioners and
organisations.
For more information email
[email protected],
visit www.restorativejustice.org.uk or
call us on 020 7831 5700