Calling on the Government: Our 3 priorities for change
This is a blog by our Communications and Campaigns Manager, Keeva Baxter.
In October last year, the Government made a commitment in the House of Commons to strengthen access to Restorative Justice, stating that they are “looking closely at this as a department and will continue to work closely with him (Paul Kohler MP) to see how best we can bring out Restorative Justice programmes across the Ministry of Justice.” In February, in the House of Lords, they also said that “The Government recognise the positive impact that restorative justice can have in appropriate cases and are very grateful to the restorative justice providers who continue to offer this important service” and that they “will explore changes to the delivery of victims’ funding, including restorative justice, to ensure that this is delivered in the best way in the future.” We welcome these commitments and want to support the Government to fulfil their promises, in turn transforming access to Restorative Justice for people affected by crime. In this blog, we share our three priorities for change that would enable the Government to achieve their goal. These suggestions are based on our consultation with the restorative sector and our Ambassadors who have been through the restorative process themselves. We are working with the Common Ground Justice Project on this campaign, to amplify the need for change. They met with the Victims’ Minister, Alex Davies-Jones, last week and put these asks to her directly.
So, what do we want to see?
1) A dedicated Right to Explore Restorative Justice in the Victims’ Code
Victims of crime are entitled to the right to be given information about Restorative Justice under the Victims’ Code of Practice. However, the vast majority of victims of crime never find out that it is an option available to them. We are calling for the rights around Restorative Justice in the Victims’ Code (primarily rights 3.4 and 4.5) to be strengthened beyond the welcome amendments suggested in the current government consultation. This should be done by having a separate, distinct section in the new Victims’ Code on Restorative Justice. This section would describe what the process is and give people harmed by crime the right to information about Restorative Justice and a referral to a service to explore the option. This would not be a right to take part in RJ – which can only ever be voluntary on all sides and subject to professional risk assessment and facilitation – but a right to explore their options (which includes indirect forms of resolution such as letters or a shuttle process as well as face-to-face meetings).
At the moment, victims’ rights to this transformative tool is getting lost amongst entitlements to other victim support services. It is crucial that information on Restorative Justice is clear, because unlike conventional victim support services, which focus on helping people cope and recover after harm, Restorative Justice offers a distinct, voluntary process that empowers victims to seek answers, express the impact of the offence, and actively participate in repairing the harm done, often in dialogue with the harmer.
As well as the change to the content of the Code, it is imperative that new enforcement mechanisms are put in place to ensure criminal justice agencies comply with the Code, and can be held to account when they don’t. It must be clear who is responsible for sharing the information with victims of crime and making referrals, and that they have the adequate training to carry this out safely. A clear pathway must be available to victims of crime whose rights have not been met.
2) Work with the restorative sector to reassess the future of Re:Hub
Re:Hub, HMPPS’ restorative practice hub, which was set up to help manage complex Restorative Justice cases, has experienced significant mission creep and become a blockage in the system, causing further harm to people affected by crime. This has resulted in a precipitous drop in the number of cases approved for Restorative Justice, and introduced delays of months or even years for victims to receive a decision. This is:
- Causing aggravated harm and retraumatisation to survivors, reinforcing patterns of disempowerment and exclusion, denying them a voice.
- Missing opportunities for rehabilitation and behaviour change, risking further traumatisation for survivors and a higher likelihood of creating future victims.
- Incentivising survivors to seek contact with the perpetrator outside of the safety of an RJ process, creating new unforeseen risks in the system.
We urge the Government to pause their decision-making on the future of Re:Hub in order to consult professionals and those with lived experience of Restorative Justice to find a new solution that puts victims of crime at the centre. This decision must be based on the core principle that people affected by crime have the right to explore Restorative Justice, ‘whatever the crime’ – as laid out in the Victims’ Code. International evidence consistently shows that suitability for RJ cannot be determined by crime type, and should instead be assessed case-by-case by trained practitioners, taking into account victims’ needs, safety considerations and professional risk assessment. While not every case will be suitable (and RJ providers routinely deny access on the grounds of safety), there is no evidence for presumptions against entire offence categories. This includes serious and complex cases such as murder, manslaughter, domestic violence and sexual offences, where there is substantial evidence of RJ achieving transformative results when carried out with rigorous safeguarding, risk assessment and careful mediation by highly skilled RJ professionals.
3) Reinstate a Restorative Justice National Action Plan
We are urging the government to relaunch annual national Restorative Justice Action Plans, the last of which expired in 2018. Having spent over seven years with no national leadership on this issue, people affected by crime face a postcode lottery when accessing RJ, which differs greatly across the country. This can lead to retraumatisation of people affected by crime who are unable to access the services they’re entitled to.
When consulting with the restorative sector, the overwhelming response was that one of the most notable barriers to access was inconsistency. This inconsistency across areas covered data collection, funding, referral numbers, blanket bans and support from decision makers. A cross-departmental National Action Plan would change this, meaning that regardless of the area they live in, people affected by crime could have equal access to the resources they need. A new National Action Plan should be developed, through active co-production with victims and the restorative sector, to ensure national standardisation of the services available to victims of crime, joined-up thinking to support the people who need it most, and multi-agency working.
It is crucial that the updated Action Plan is accompanied by clarity on who holds ministerial responsibility for Restorative Justice. The current fragmentation of RJ decision-making is causing a lack of coordination and risking contradictions in policy and delivery. Lead ministerial responsibility for policy and delivery of RJ across England and Wales RJ should be clarified and made public. This is essential to ensure leadership from the centre, join-up of RJ policy and practice across government, clear accountability, and a key point of contact for the RJ sector. This minister could lead the relaunch of a new national RJ Action Plan, and oversee a cohesive policy framework for widening access across the MoJ.
We look forward to working with the Government to implement these changes and ensure that people affected by crime can access the support they are entitled to. Let us know what you think about these priorities via info@why-me.org! We will keep you posted on our progress via our newsletter.
