This is a blog by our CEO, Sara Dowling
This week (9th July), the Rt Hon. Sir Brian Leveson published the first of two reports on the ‘Independent review of the Criminal Courts’. The review aims to address the criminal justice crisis that has resulted in 75,000 outstanding cases in the Crown Court and trial dates being set as far ahead as 2029. In the words of William Gladstone and as pointed out in the introduction ‘justice delayed is justice denied’:
‘Delayed justice results in a host of problems: devastating impacts on the lives of victims and witnesses, a number of whom may withdraw from proceedings; defendants left in limbo for years; and knock-on effects on the rest of the justice system, such as a rising remand population taking up scarce prison places.’
Why me? was pleased to contribute to this review, attending a roundtable looking at victims’ concerns. We called for greater use of Restorative Justice to help alleviate the court backlog, especially in Out of Court Disposals where Restorative Justice is an effective but underutilised option within this process. We also highlighted the need to ensure that more victims are aware of their rights under the Victims Code of Practice (which under the new Victims & Prisoners Act 2024 is codified in law), and able to access support (and Restorative Justice), leading to more positive engagement with the criminal justice process for victims. Victims who feel supported are less likely to drop out of the process, in turn reducing attrition rates and easing the burden on the courts.
The review aims “to produce options and recommendations for a) how the criminal courts could be reformed to ensure cases are dealt with proportionately, in light of the current pressures on the Crown Court; and b) how they could operate as efficiently as possible.”
Why me? welcomes the aim of the report to reduce the backlog and aggravated suffering of victims, as well as the inclusion of Restorative Justice as one of Leveson’s 45 recommendations:
Recommendation 8: I recommend implementing Out of Court Resolutions alongside restorative justice for low-tier offences such as some thefts, public order offences and drug misuse.
I understand that many police forces are already focused on implementing restorative justice measures. Restorative justice focuses on repairing harm through facilitated dialogue (mediation) between the victim and offender, in comparison to OOCRs that provide alternatives to court proceedings for low-level offences. However, as the restorative justice process is not mandated in legislation, a uniform approach to their application is more challenging to achieve. I have heard anecdotally that restorative justice can be challenging to enforce as a condition, as it requires the full consent of both parties and may fail should the victim withdraw their consent. Nevertheless, I endorse the work that police forces are undertaking to implement restorative justice measures where appropriate.
We look forward to seeing the detail in part two of the report, which will be released later this year, and to further opportunities to contribute and engage with this process. We will also work hard to ensure that decision makers understand how Restorative Justice can work (for example, by reminding them that imposing a condition to explore Restorative Justice as an option with a perpetrator is still in line with the principles of voluntarism of Restorative Justice).
