Mitigating risk in Restorative Justice
This is a blog by our Communications and Campaigns Manager, Keeva Baxter.
Last week, we held our first forum of 2025, examining the topic of Mitigating risk. We were delighted to have Emeritus Professor Joanna Shapland share her research on this topic with our attendees. Professor Tim Chapman, another leading academic in the restorative field chaired the meeting and also shared his insights.
Two years ago, Joanna conducted a research project for the Scottish Government, with colleagues Jamie Buchan, Steve Kirkwood and Estelle Zinsstag from Scotland. This initiative began as the Scottish Government were seeking to develop policy and practice in order to roll out Restorative Justice across Scotland.
In their initial exploration, the academics found that although there should be individualised risk assessments for restorative encounters, there was no validated risk assessment instrument to do this. Most conversations around risk centred on the risk of reoffending, rather than the risk during the process. They therefore wanted to find out, not only how Restorative Justice practitioners identify risks but also how they mitigate them or reduce any potential harm. To do so, they interviewed 28 experienced facilitators from different providers, covering 11 different jurisdictions.
What did they find?
Key finding 1: Risks and mitigations are about individual people, cases and circumstances. There are not consistent differences based on crime type. You cannot just have a simple risk assessment questionnaire where you give scores for each element for a quantitative assessment, as is often the case in other criminal justice settings. However, what can be useful is a long checklist to remind people of the things to consider when assessing risk.
Key finding 2: It is impossible to predict risks before engaging with the individuals involved. Practitioners should avoid declaring something too risky before they talk to the participants. This is because the goals that the participants may be looking for might be quite different and not involve the risks of the ‘typical Restorative Justice model’ that you have in mind. For example, if they have specific questions that they want answered, this could be realised in many different ways (video, emails, letters etc) and so wouldn’t encounter the risks that a face-to-face meeting would.
“You must engage with the potential participants before you really calculate your risk and mitigation.” – Emeritus Professor Joanna Shapland
In addition, individuals view risk differently, so you need to know what they think the risks are. Although we all have common ideas of what may be considered risky/serious, how they see harm to themselves is not necessarily the same at all. For example, if you as a practitioner say that the perpetrator is minimising the seriousness of what happened, and this is a risk, you may then speak to a victim for whom that is not important, and what they really need is something different.
Key finding 3: There are cases that are too potentially risky to proceed. But, it is important to focus on the mitigation possibilities. There are risks to proceeding to the next steps but equally there are risks to not proceeding.
Key finding 4: England and Wales are the only country where serious and complex cases are considered a separate category. Complex and sensitive cases are not qualitatively different to non-complex and sensitive cases. To some people, a non-serious case will be extremely serious/risky.
Joanna also shared some factors that the research presented as common major risks in a restorative process. A common theme across these risks is their link to the restorative principles. They include:
- Inability to communicate
- Denial of responsibility
- One participant threatening or intending to threaten another
- No intention to undertake constructive dialogue
- Intention to coerce other participant
What can be done to minimise risks?
Joanna emphasised the importance of pre-meetings and following up after a Restorative Justice intervention. She also listed some example risks with some ideas of how they could be mitigated:
Communication difficulties
- Interpreters, support people, warning others involved about the difficulties (with consent)
The room/venue
- Calm spaces, consider both the entrance and exit, breakout rooms, lone worker protocol
Voice and safety
- Ground rules, timeouts, think about the role of supporters and how much they contribute
Large meetings
- Meet each participant beforehand, have another helper present for practical tasks (refreshments, bathroom breaks etc), think about power structures.
Ultimately, the session was a fascinating insight into the mitigation of risks in the restorative process, and we urge people to read the report to find out more.
Make sure you’re signed up to our newsletter to be the first to hear about upcoming events like this.