Government respond to call for legal right to Restorative Justice
This is a blog by our Communications and Campaigns Manager, Keeva Baxter.
On Monday 9th of February, the Victims and Courts Bill went through the Committee Stage of the House of Lords. Our amendment, which would give victims of crime the legal right to a Restorative Justice referral, was raised by Baroness Brinton and supported by Baronesses Jones and Hamwee. The Government responded, stating that they “are very grateful to the restorative justice providers who continue to offer this important service” and recognise the benefits it can provide, but nonetheless decided not to include the amendment in the Bill. It is disappointing that the current barriers faced by restorative providers are not being addressed, but we look forward to working alongside the Government to implement change as we transition to an updated Victims Code and away from the current Police and Crime Commissioner funding model. In this blog, we outline what happened in the House of Lords, share the full response from the Government and explore what the next steps look like.
The amendment we put forward formed part of our Right to be heard campaign with the Common Ground Justice Project, which strives to give the right to access Restorative Justice a stronger legal footing. We know that its current placement in the Victims Code of Practice is not enough – over 94% of victims of crime don’t recall being told about Restorative Justice. Our amendment therefore proposed putting a legal right for victims to access a referral to a Restorative Justice service in the Victim and Courts Bill that is currently going through Parliament.
What happened in the House of Lords?
Baroness Brinton, Liberal Democrat member of the House of Lords and supporter of Restorative Justice spoke about the importance of Restorative Justice;
“Amendment 43, also in my name, seeks to strengthen victims’ rights to access to restorative justice services. I thank the Common Ground Justice Project and the Why Me? group for their briefing. Today, we have heard so many different speeches mentioning the ongoing trauma faced by victims of serious crime. Many find that moving on is very difficult and they feel unheard. Restorative justice provides an opportunity for them to have a dialogue with the person who harmed them. They have the chance to explain the impact of the crime, then and now, to ask questions to understand why it happened, and to then have a way to move forward, which is often positive not just for them but for the offender.
At a time when only one in 10 victims trusts the criminal justice system, restorative justice achieves 85% victim satisfaction, reduces reoffending by up to 27% and saves £14 for every £1 invested in it. Despite these incredible impacts, access to restorative justice is poor and, shockingly, 95% of victims are not even told about it. We know that restorative justice providers have the capacity to do more, but poor awareness and low numbers of referrals are depriving victims of the opportunity to have their say.
The MoJ mechanism for improving RJ, re:hub, needs radical improvement and putting on a proper footing. The amendment seeks a legal right for all victims of crime to be told about restorative justice at all stages of the criminal justice process and to be offered a referral if that is the right thing. My honourable friend Paul Kohler MP laid this amendment in the Commons, and we were pleased with the Commons Minister’s positive response. We have laid it here because we think that this is the perfect time and the perfect Bill for the Government to make this commitment and make the UK a world leader in restorative justice. Paul is passionate about restorative justice because he was seriously attacked in his home. He and his wife and daughter met one of the attackers and it transformed Paul and his family. It was not about forgiveness, though that can be a byproduct. What it can really do is give victims an understanding and the ability to move on. What is more, it can help the offender as well.
In these tough financial times, using RJ consistently throughout the system would create substantial savings on spending across all the different bodies involved, because of its ability to substantially reduce offending—by up to 27%, as research has shown. I beg to move.”
Conservative Peer Lord Sandhurst also spoke on Restorative Justice, saying “Amendments 43 and 44 would introduce new clauses concerning restorative justice. These build on the provisions in the Bill, better to enable victims to explain the impact of a crime to the offender and to participate meaningfully in the justice process. Some victims engage with restorative justice services, but such engagement must be voluntary. Victims should not be placed under any pressure to engage further with the offender. None the less, there are findings showing that these services reduce the likelihood of offenders reoffending and can result in other social benefits, including delivering value for money. We on this side are interested to hear from the Minister how the Government will ensure that services such as these are used where it is thought they are likely to be beneficial.”
What was the Government’s response?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Levitt, spoke on behalf of the Government. Her comment was as follows:
“I turn now to Amendments 43 and 44 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton, Lady Jones and Lady Hamwee. This 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. We agree that when delivered in the right circumstances restorative justice can improve victim satisfaction, reduce reoffending and bring benefits to victims, offenders and their communities. Under the current victims’ code, victims must be told about restorative justice services when reporting a crime, but we have been told that this may be too early—we are listening— and that is why under the new code consultation launched last week we are retaining this but have proposed an additional entitlement for the victim to be told about restorative justice again after an offender has been convicted. We look forward to engaging stakeholders during the code consultation.
Where services are available and victims and offenders are willing, referrals are already made, and that is supported through PCC-funded local services alongside our facilitation of restorative justice across prisons and probation. However, placing referral to restorative justice for all victims on a statutory footing, in our view, is neither necessary nor appropriate. Restorative justice self-evidently requires the consent and participation of both parties and the safety and welfare of those involved is paramount. Automatic referral is therefore not always suitable. For example, a victim of stalking who has fought tooth and nail to end all contact might understandably see the offer of restorative justice as, at best, insensitive and, at worst, a way in which the perpetrator in their case could continue their campaign.
The Government already monitor delivery. PCCs submit biannual reports as part of the MoJ grant management process, providing insight into victim support services, including restorative justice. Many PCC police and crime plans also set out clear commitments to supporting restorative justice. In our view, introducing a further national assessment would simply duplicate these existing measures. As we prepare for upcoming changes to the PCC commissioning model, we 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 while avoiding unnecessary statutory requirements. For these reasons, I invite the noble Baroness to not to press her amendments.”
This response is in line with previous comments from the Government, stating that a legal right to Restorative Justice is not “necessary” due to its current existence in the Victims Code of Practice. However, those of us working in the sector know that relying on the current Victims’ Code alone is not sufficient to ensure that victims of crime are informed about their rights. It is disappointing that the Government did not take this opportunity to take a big step forward for victims of crime, and to strengthen the existing right in the code.
The Government’s concern around the voluntariness of the referral was rightly rebutted by Baroness Brinton, who shared the following; “I am glad the Government agree that restorative justice can work. I am sorry to be a bit of a pain, but we were clear in our Amendment 43, in subsection (3) of its proposed new clause, that “a victim must at all times give informed consent, and participation in any restorative justice process shall be voluntary”. That is the core, because it would not work if not.” The voluntariness of the restorative process is core to its function, and we have always made clear that the referral would not be made against the wishes of the victim of crime. It is important that victims of crime are given the information they need to make an informed choice, rather than that choice being taken away from them by professionals or decision makers.
What next?
We will be pursuing the Government’s commitment to engage stakeholders in the Victims’ Code consultation – keep an eye out on our newsletter where we will share how you can get involved.
Also, as plans progress for the transition away from the PCC model, we will campaign to ensure that funding for Restorative Justice does not fall through the net.
Thank you to all those who have supported this campaign so far. If you haven’t already, please sign our petition to show the Government that there is demand for a legal right to access Restorative Justice. Ultimately, getting Restorative Justice debated on such a prominent platform is key to raising awareness, building the support of decision makers and ultimately leading to lasting change for victims of crime.
