This article outlines some of the preliminary trends being seen in the project. It is  reprinted by Permissi on from  Te Ara Whakatika : Newsletter of the Court-Referred Restorative Justice Project. March/April 2003. No,15. pp. 1-2. 

---

The main reason victims choose to take part in restorative justice is to tell offenders what the offence was like, preliminary indications from the court-referred restorative justice pilot suggest.  

“The next most common reason is to find out about the offender,” says Department for Courts project manager Alison Hill.  

Offenders mostly choose to take part to apologise to the victim, with their next most common reason being to make amends to the victim. 

The court-referred pilot in Auckland, Waitakere, Hamilton and Dunedin District Courts has been underway for 18 months and has so far resulted in 780 referrals from judges and magistrates. 

These referrals have resulted in 270 completed conferences. 

“The rate of conferences has increased slightly since the early days of the pilot, but appears to have reached a plateau at about 37 percent of all referrals.”  

Referral rates vary across the courts, reflecting the referral practices of individual judges. Some judges refer all eligible cases, leaving it up to coordinators and facilitators to determine suitability, while others seek evidence of suitability before making a referral.  

Speaking at the National Restorative Justice Conference held in Hawkes Bay in March, Alison said that there was limited data from the pilot to date, and some had been collected anecdotally, but it showed some common trends.  

“During the course of the pilot, the department has been looking at the reasons why conferences do not go ahead, and trying to remove any barriers in our system.

“Restorative justice co-ordinators try not to ‘gatekeep’ -- only halting a referral where the offender is clearly unsuitable.”  

Until recently, cases where offenders initially pleaded not guilty and later changed their plea were excluded from the pilot. This policy has recently been changed. 

“There is no exclusion now on the basis of the timing of the guilty plea.” 

Cases do not proceed to conferences for a variety of reasons. 

Sometimes the victim or offender does not want to meet the other, either party is unable to be contacted or to take time off because of work or family commitments, issues have been resolved, the facts might be in dispute, or either party might not be ready.  

The most common reasons appear to be because the victim does not want to meet the offender or the offender is difficult to contact.  

Alison says that one of the questions for everyone in restorative justice is how to ensure that the parties in appropriate cases have access to restorative justice. 

“We certainly don’t have a magic formula to answer this, but restorative justice coordinators have been regularly meeting legal practitioners, providing sessions in police training programmes, talking with the Probation Service, and stamping eligible files to draw the attention of the judge to the possibility of making a referral. This is hands-on, but still does not ensure that cases will be referred.”  

Preliminary feedback from the pilot suggests that most victims find a restorative justice conference a positive experience.  

Most think the offender gained an understanding of how they felt, and as victims they gained some understanding of why the offender committed the offence and feel they received some kind of repair. Most victims are pleased they took part in a conference and feel fully consulted and satisfied with the conference plan.  

Most offenders are reasonably satisfied with the conference, feeling that (if they apologised) their apology has been accepted, and that they have been able to make up at least partly for what they have done. 

“Almost all offenders talk about the opportunity to meet the victims being one of the really good things about attending a conference, but only about half the victims say the same about meeting the offenders.”  

Information on wh at happens after the conferences is limited at this stage.  

“Anecdotally we know that in some cases conference participants are disappointed that the sentence outcome is not more closely aligned to the restorative justice outcomes. This suggests a lack of understanding among participants about the relationship of the restorative justice agreement to the sentence.  

“We have also noticed that sometimes victims or offenders who have agreed with a particular plan at a restorative justice conference later express disagreement. The first question that arises then is whether or not the conference allowed that victim or offender to have full input and whether they actually agreed with the plan at the time.  

“Restorative justice conferences are, however, an interaction between a particular group of people at a particular time, and all participants are going through a process.” 

Alison says that an understanding between the offender and the victim about whether money offered at the conference will be paid, if reparation is not included in the court’s sentence, may need to be set up at the conference. 

She said that the evaluation of the pilot would be completed towards the end of 2004. 

 

December  2003