A pilot scheme of court-referred restorative justice conferences began operation in September 2001 in the District Courts in Auckland, Waitakere, Hamilton and Dunedin. Judges in the pilot courts are able to refer a range of cases for investigation of whether or not a restorative justice conference is possible. The referral by the judge takes place after a guilty plea, and the restorative justice coordinator in each of the courts then meets the offender to confirm that the offender is willing and appears able to participate in the restorative justice process. In some cases, the coordinator may also have contact with the victim. Cases where the offender is willing and appears able to participate safely in a conference and where the victim does not, at this stage, express an unwillingness to participate in a conference are referred to facilitators from provider groups contracted by the Ministry of Justice.
Either one or two facilitators then meet with the victim and offender separately and will convene a conference if the offender still appears able to participate safely, and both victim and offender are willing. The restorative justice conference is a relatively informal meeting run by the facilitators. Support people for the victim and the offender are also usually present. Although the police, a probation officer and the offender's lawyer are usually invited to attend the conference, they may decide not to. The intention is that the conference provides an opportunity for victims to have a say and for offenders to take responsibility for putting things right. Conference agreements, if there are agreements, may include specific steps that the offender can take to put things right. These can involve, for example, payment of money to victims, attendance by offenders at courses, or offenders carrying out specific work.
A report of the interactions at the conference, and any agreements reached, is provided to the judge prior to sentencing. The judge must take the report of the restorative justice conference into account along with any other reports (for example, pre-sentence reports) in deciding on the appropriate sentence. Judges choose whether or not to incorporate into the sentence all or part of any agreement reached. However, instead of imposing a sentence at this stage, the judge may choose to adjourn the case further for the agreements reached at the restorative justice conference to be carried out by the offender. In these cases, a report is provided to the judge on completion of the agreements and the offender is subsequently discharged or sentenced.
Methodology
The evaluation covered the 539 cases (577 offenders) referred for restorative justice conferences between 4 February 2002 and 3 February 2003 and the 192 conferences held. It drew data from a wide variety of sources.
- Survey forms were sent to all participants and facilitators.
- Offenders and victims referred to conferences were interviewed after the conference (181 victims and 160 offenders), after the offender's sentence (167 victims and 143 offenders) and 12 months after the conference (154 victims and 102 offenders).
- For 18 conferences, all participants were interviewed and case studies prepared.
- Ninety conferences were observed.
- Questionnaires were sent to around 100 key informants during the first year of the evaluation and a follow-up questionnaire was sent out 12 months later.
- Various documentation and other data was examined (for example, the conference reports, judges' sentencing notes, and costs).
- Ninety offenders and 90 victims whose cases were dealt with in Wellington, Lower Hutt or Porirua District Courts (and who did not take part in a restorative justice process) were interviewed after their court hearing and were re-interviewed 12 months later (referred to in this document as court comparison victims and offenders).
- An initial analysis of reconviction by conferenced offenders and matched control samples was also conducted, as was an analysis of the sentencing of conferenced offenders and matched control groups.
Key Results
The findings of this evaluation have shown that court-referred restorative justice conferences have the potential to increase victims' involvement in dealing with offending, though not all victims are willing or able to participate in such processes. Victims were mainly satisfied with conference agreements, and they had an improved understanding of why the offence occurred and its likelihood of recurrence. It has also shown that court-referred restorative justice conferences had the potential to increase offenders involvement in dealing with their offending. They had the opportunity to say what they wanted to; they understood and agreed with the decisions made about how best to deal with the offending; they saw agreements as fair; and they were satisfied with both conference processes and the agreements reached there. Fewer conferenced offenders were sentenced to imprisonment. This consequently results in cost savings. In addition, it seems that there was an impact on reoffending when compared with matched offenders dealt with solely in the criminal courts. Thus, there are many reasons to feel encouraged. Overall, the pilot indicates that for some victims court-referred restorative justice conferences can more than adequately respond to the human and emotional costs of offending.