The Canadian effort began with release of two draft documents for discussion: Draft Values and Principles of Restorative Justice in Criminal Matters and Restorative Justice Program Guidelines. The stated purpose of the discussion was to further dialogue on restorative justice and to create a framework for programme implementation and funding. The draft documents offered a description of restorative justice, definitions of terms, principles and procedural safeguards. Both documents were made available for public comment through an electronic dialogue hosted by the Conflict Resolution Network Canada. The final report on the dialogue was issued in March 2003. 

Overall, reaction to the documents was positive. Many of the respondents saw the creation of basic principles as an indication of Canada's commitment to further development of restorative justice. Many of the respondents saw the draft Canadian principles as more specific to the national context than the UN Basic Principles, which had been the subject of a previous national dialogue. Appreciation was expressed for:

• The values articulated and implicit in the principles and guidelines

• The document’s balance between setting out best practices and respecting the need for differences among programmes

• The non-prescriptive approach behind the documents 

Concerns were also raised. One unresolved area of concern dealt with the relationship between restorative justice programmes and the criminal justice system. Some respondents argued that there is a basic incompatibility between restorative justice and criminal justice, while others stressed the need to work within the criminal justice system to maintain stability and credibility. 

Another area of concern for respondents dealt with the scope of restorative justice. Although the draft documents focused on the use of restorative practices in all stages of the criminal justice system, a number of dialogue participants responded that restorative justice is a method for dealing with all types of harms and not those that involve criminal behavior alone. 

Funding was a third major issue. Many participants responded that more resources need to be allocated if restorative justice programmes are to continue to grow. Furthermore, inclusion of community participation in the definition of restorative justice processes raised concerns that long-standing programmes that have been considered to be restorative might not be eligible for funding because they do not include community participation.

The New Zealand consultation on the Draft Principles of Best Practice for Restorative Justice Processes in the Criminal Court began in May of 2003, with the deadline for comment submission on June 9. The paper states its aim as ‘identifying overall levels of support for draft principles of best practice for restorative justice processes in the criminal court.” After providing several definitions for restorative justice and a rationale behind the creation of the Principles of Best Practice, the document outlines practical concerns including the referral of cases, participants, preparation, providers and facilitators, and cultural issues. 

The paper invites discussion on several critical issues. These include types of offences, proportionality, family violence, sexual violence, and children and young people. A questionnaire accompanying the discussion paper invites comment on each point addressed. 

For further information on both nations' consultations, visit the websites below.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resources used: 

Conflict Resolution Network. National Consultation on Basic Principles for Restorative Justice in Canada. http://www.restorativejustice.ca/NationalConsultation/Consultation.htm 

 

Lynette Parker

August 2003