This is a blog by our CEO, Sara Dowling.
Over the past year, Why me? along with numerous Restorative Justice practitioners, RJ services, PCCs, and others have voiced growing concerns about the performance and transparency of the HMPPS Restorative Practice Hub (ReHub) and it’s blocking of access to RJ.
As a result of campaigns by Why me? and others, in August 2025, the HMPPS Public Protection Group commissioned a focused internal review of ReHub. The internal review, examined ReHub’s processes, staffing, data systems, and policy positions. It was not a full review of the Restorative Practice Policy Framework, but a targeted look at where improvements were urgently needed. The purpose was to identify areas for improvement and develop clear, actionable recommendations.
The Ministry of Justice has now shared its findings and outlined a series of changes designed to improve timeliness, communication, and victim experience. This blog summarises the key messages from the review and explains why your involvement in the next phase is so important.
At Why me?, we welcome the clarity this review brings, and we are committed to ensuring that the voices of victims, practitioners, and community organisations continue to shape what happens next. We are pleased to hear that the Government remains committed to, and supportive of, access to Restorative Justice and welcome the operational and practical improvements that have been outlined. However, there are some segments that we believe to be problematic, and look forward to working with the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the new policy does not prevent people from accessing Restorative Justice.
What did the review conclude?
The review confirms what many of us have been raising for some time: demand for Restorative Justice in sensitive and complex cases has grown far beyond what ReHub was originally resourced to manage. Since its creation in 2019, referrals have increased significantly, particularly in cases involving high harm, high risk, or complex safeguarding considerations.
Stakeholders highlighted two persistent challenges:
- Capacity pressures leading to delays in progressing cases
- Inconsistent communication, especially around referrals, decision-making, and appeals
Victims are left waiting without clarity. Practitioners struggle to plan and support participants. Services lose confidence in the process.
They also outlined operational improvements to increase transparency and efficiency, including:
- developing clear guidance on the complaints and appeals process
- updating the referral form to gather more relevant information upfront
- introducing a new data system to support efficient and transparent central decision-making
- establishing improved data reporting processes between regions and the centre
- providing clearer written rationales for decisions
- holding regular stakeholder engagement sessions to gather feedback and share good practice
- developing comprehensive operational guidance to support consistent practice
- exploring appropriate AI tools to support administrative tasks (e.g., meeting summaries and case management)
ReHub acknowledged the “the need to manage victims’ expectations accurately and ensure that cases progress more efficiently and transparently.” They have announced a new policy following ministerial agreement. “The revised policy will:
- establish a presumption of unsuitability for certain types of offending, such as domestic abuse and coercive control, sexual abuse against children, rape, the murder of young children,
- allow for exceptional circumstances for such types of offending where restorative justice may still be appropriate, and
- ensure clarity from the outset so victims are not left with false expectations.”
Why this matters
We recognise the need for a more robust, consistent and trusted framework for managing complex cases, but one that is informed by experienced practitioners and does not unintentionally narrow opportunities before cases have been properly explored.
It is our view that the current wording around a “presumption of unsuitability” based on offence types is deeply problematic, represents a backwards step for the sector and will create more barriers for people trying to access Restorative Justice. Despite reassurance that this is not a blanket ban, it amounts to a functional ban by suggesting that entire crime types can be deemed unsuitable. Many criminal justice professionals will see the headline of unsuitability, but not the nuance of the exemptions, meaning people harmed by these types of crimes may never be told about Restorative Justice. It sends the wrong signal not only to criminal justice agencies, but to victims too, and the symbolism of this language matters. This will worsen already low levels of awareness amongst people affected by crime and will effectively punish victims of serious harm because of a lack of resources.
At Why me?, we believe the next phase must be shaped collaboratively. Practitioners, victims’ organisations, community groups, and people with lived experience all have vital insight into how restorative justice can be delivered safely and effectively.
We are holding a forum on the 21st May to:
- Reflect on the review’s findings
- Explore what the proposed changes mean in practice
- Share concerns, hopes, and priorities
- Identify what support practitioners need
- Ensure victims’ voices remain central to the reform process
We see this as an opportunity to bring together practitioner insight that could directly inform engagement with HMPPS. Your insight will help shape the next stage of improvements and ensure that Restorative Justice remains a transformative, safe, and accessible option for those who want it.
