This week, Why me?, in collaboration with Belong: Making Justice Happen and The Common Ground Justice Project, wrote to the new Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending Catherine McKinnell to highlight the sectors’ ongoing concerns about the new ReHub policy which has introduced a presumption of unsuitability for Restorative Justice in certain categories of crime.
Our letter builds on correspondence previously sent to Lord Timpson before his resignation and reiterates our call for the policy wording to be changed. Now backed by more than 65 signatories, we are urging the Government to replace the presumption of unsuitability with a higher threshold of risk assessment in these cases. In addition we have raised new concerns about the fact that several of the offence types covered by the new ‘presumption of unsuitability’ are likely to have a disproportionate impact on victims of crime who belong to groups protected under the Equality Act 2010.
As a reminder the policy establishes a presumption of unsuitability for Restorative Justice in the following categories:
- sexual violence or abuse (MAPPA eligible offences)
- domestic abuse or intimate partner violence
- victim is a child and where the offender is an adult
- hate or extremism (TACT)
- a homicide offence
- organised crime group
- where the prisoner is categorised as Category A
Our letter clarified our position in response to points raised at ReHub’s recent stakeholder engagement session where there was misrepresentation around the sectors’ understanding of the presumption of unsuitability:
- The restorative sector and practitioners recognise that the new policy does not pose a literal blanket ban. We also understand that it is intended to reduce inappropriate enquiries whilst still allowing cases with exceptional circumstances to go ahead. As we previously stated, despite these intentions, it will act as a functional ban preventing people affected by crime from accessing Restorative Justice.
- ReHub has suggested mitigating the impact of the new policy by adjusting the language used in public communications and issuing further guidance to the sector. While these measures are helpful in the short term because they would aim to offer clarity and may reduce the risk of misinterpretation, they are ultimately insufficient. We therefore continue to strongly urge the Government to amend the policy wording itself, as this is the only way to prevent avoidable harm and the wider unintended consequences that will arise if the current phrasing remains in place.
- A targeted and proportionate amendment would address these concerns. Rather than applying a “presumption of unsuitability”, the policy could require an enhanced risk-assessment threshold for specified types of offending, without creating a presumption against participation. A consistent framework for applying this threshold could then be developed in collaboration with the Restorative Justice sector.
- This approach would uphold the original intention of reducing unsuitable referrals, protecting victims of crime and standardising national practice to manage safety, without compromising the rights of participants.
We also drew attention to the fact that several of the offence types covered by the new ‘presumption of unsuitability’ are likely to have a disproportionate impact on victims of crime who belong to groups protected under the Equality Act 2010 and we asked ReHub to publicly share a written consideration and mitigation of the potential detrimental impact of the policy on these groups. For example:
- ‘sexual violence or abuse (MAPPA eligible offences)’ – these offences particularly affect women and girls.
- ‘domestic abuse or intimate partner violence’ – offences in this category also primarily affect women.
- ‘victim is a child and where the offender is an adult’ – age is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 also gives children and young people the right to express their views and participate in decisions affecting them. This could suggest a proactive duty to include children in decisions about Restorative Justice and certainly would not align with a ‘presumption of unsuitability’ without any consideration of the child’s view. Article 14 also gives protection to children against discrimination related to age. If the exclusion for child victims is not evidence-based, this could be deemed discriminatory. RJ is a significant and growing part of the youth justice system when it comes to children and young people who have harmed. There are robust safeguarding and risk management processes that could be well utilised and applied to children and young people who are victims of crime. This could help mitigate against the well-evidenced links between childhood victimisation and later contact with the youth justice system as a harmer, contributing towards a reduction in overall youth crime.
- ‘hate or extremism (TACT)’ – racially aggravated offences account for 70% of all hate crime, meaning that ethnic minorities face hate crime victimization at rates 8-14 times higher than the White population. Both racially and religiously motivated crimes are increasing.
- ‘a homicide offence’ – Both Black adults and children are disproportionately likely to be victims of homicide.
If you would like to add your support to our calls, you can sign our joint letter here. We look forward to receiving a response from the Prisons Minister and will keep you posted via our newsletter as we learn more.
