National Commission
on Restorative Justice
Presentation to ACJRD on
Commission Report
April 2010
Terms of Reference


To consider the application of the concept of
restorative justice with regard to persons
brought before the courts on criminal charges
and
To make recommendations as to its wider
application in this jurisdiction ( including in the
context of community courts )
Terms of Reference details

Review:
existing Irish models of RJ
 contemporary RJ developments abroad
 research based evidence and evaluation of different
RJ models vs other court disposals re:
- impact on Victims and Offenders
- as an alternative to imprisonment
- cost and public interest and
- range of offences for which suitable

More Details of Terms



Seek views of relevant bodies, interests etc
Consider recommendations of Joint Oireachtas Report
on RJ
Consider whether RJ models should be developed on
national scale and if so:
- which models appropriate/ cost effective?
- is legislation needed?
- what are roles of courts, probation service etc?
- estimate case throughput, cost and diversion from
custodial sentences
Understanding terms




concept of restorative justice?
before the courts on criminal charges?
wider application?
community courts context?
Review Irish RJ Models
RJ – Youth Justice - Children Act, 2001
Garda Juvenile Diversion Programme 2007:
RJ events 378, formal cautions 4,500
Court referred Probation Service Conference:
40 cases p.a. 66% cases completed
Irish RJ – Adult Justice
Two Pilots plus national caution scheme
 Nenagh Community Reparation Panel
up to 20 cases p.a. 85% completed

Restorative Justice Services Tallaght
reparation panel up to 100 cases p.a. 90% completed
victim offender mediation up to 12 cases p.a. 45% completed

Garda Adult Cautioning Scheme
diversionary
6,000 cautions in 2008
Contemporary Developments Abroad
Common Law Systems
Northern Ireland - Youth Conferencing
 UK – Adult conferencing and mediation pilots
 New Zealand – Youth/FGC,
Adult/pilots
 Australia NSW – Youth diversion, Adult/pilots
 North America – mostly VOM, (+Prison VOM)

Contemporary Developments Abroad
Civil Law Systems
 Austria – VOM
 Belgium – VOM
 Finland – VOM
 Norway – VOM
 France – VOM
 Germany – VOM
probation diversion
prison scheme
pre-sentence/mitigation
mediation diversion
pre-sentence option
option at all stages
Research Based Evidence

Evaluations of RJ schemes:
participation
satisfaction
successful
outcome
 Meta analysis studies
 Shapland, Sherman, Strang, Umbreit, Campbell,
O’Dwyer, O’Mahony, Pelikan, Trenczek, Bonta
etc.
Research Based Evidence - Victims
69% participation
81% offer forgiveness
 UK 2004 - 2008
very positive re experience,
felt offenders had addressed harm
done
 NZ 2005
87% victims felt better after FGC
 NSW 1999
80% participate, 89% agreed plan
 Austria 2002
RJ experience reduced harm felt
 Norway 2005 high satisfaction with process

NIYC 2006
Research Based Evidence - Offenders
Northern Ireland Youth Conferences 2006

92% felt RJ helped them realise harm done

97% accepted responsibilty for offence

71% nervous at start of conference

98% able to engage fully in discussion

98% believed they were listened to

93% felt conference plan fair
Research Based Evidence - issues

Victim concerns:
- RJ soft option?
- revictimisation?
- participation?

Offender issues:
- protection of rights
- voluntary participation – informed
consent
- time during process to reflect
Research Based Evidence – Recidivism

NIYC 2008
38% reconvicted 1 yr post RJ
73% reconvicted 1 yr post
prison
47% reconvicted 1 yr post





other
UK 2008
statistically significant fewer re-offend
Meta study 2007 36 studies re-offending lower post RJ
Meta study 2008
39 studies re-offending lower post RJ
Nenagh 1999 – 2007
26% re-offended post RJ
Tallaght 2005 – 2006
14% re-offended post RJ
O’Donnell et al 2008
39% prisoners re-imprisoned 2yrs post release
Research Based Evidence –
Alternative to Prison






No suitable research evidence
More research focus on re-offending records
RJ not dependent on being a prison alternative
RJ considerable value to victim and offender
Research warranted on use as a prison
alternative
Significant growth in use of imprisonment
Research Based Evidence - Costs
Estimated
Cost per case
UK 2008
RJ Pilots
NIYCS 2008
Conferences
Nenagh 2007
Referred
Begun
£248 - £1,458 £887 - £2,333
£1,000 - £1,500
€3,500 - €6,400
Tallaght 2007 €3,250
Completed
£3,261- £4,666
Research Based Conference - Costs
2007 Costs of Other Sanctions in Ireland
Prison Space
Probation Order
Probation Supervision
Community Service Order
€97,700
€8,200
€5,535
€2,025
Researched Based Evidence - Costs
Potential Savings from use of RJ:
court process costs – court time and legal costs
 reduced custodial costs – prison space needs
 reduced re-offending costs – victim ( health,
absence ) garda, court, legal, and sanctions
 reduced victim costs – reparation, health and
work-absence etc.

Sherman and Strang ( 2007 )
Evidence
Restorative Justice: The
Research Based Evidence – Public Interest
Public Interest State (Stanbridge) v Mahon 1979
1st consideration in determining a sentence
is served not just by punishing offender or
providing a deterrent to future offending but
also by offering an inducement/opportunity
to reform.
 RJ also in public interest where it is more
effective and efficient than other sanctions

Research Based Evidence –
Suitability of Offences
Diversionary and Court based RJ excludes:
- The most serious crimes ( murder rape etc. )
 NSW excludes serious violent offences
 NZ excludes offences involving 2yrs prison
 Austria excludes offences involving 5yrs prison
+

Seek Views





Submissions invited
Meetings and visits
Conferences, seminars etc.
Regional Workshops
Advisory Fora
Recommendations of JOC Report on RJ
Commission / JOC recommendations consistent
 Wider use of and funding for RJ
 More support for existing Youth and Adult RJ
 Legislate for Adult RJ
 Cross sectoral group to oversee strategy and
expansion
 Raise judicial awareness of RJ
 RJ services should link with victim interests
Which RJ Models?

Cost effectiveness
case
- Noted costs per case abroad €625 to £1,500
- Noted pilot costs here €3,250 to €6,400 per
levels
- Noted high costs here of other sanctions
- Noted under use of pilot capacity
- Noted participant satisfaction and benefit
- Noted lower re-offending following RJ

Appropriate
processes
- Noted consistency with Common Law
- Noted potential as alternative to prison
Need for Statutory Basis for RJ




Review pilot experience without legislation
Review RJ application under Children Act, 2001
Review RJ application abroad
Needs met by legislation
- Provides certainty and legitimacy
- Provides legal incentive
- Provides protection of legal rights
- Offers guidance and structure
- Provides for standards, resources and
oversight
Roles of Courts Criminal Justice Agencies etc.





Courts
referral and approval
Probation Service
provision of RJ services
Garda
support / participate as appropriate
Community
participate and follow up support
National Committee
- advisory to Minister
- review standards
- oversee co-ordinated
strategy
- propose wider application
steps
Estimate offender throughput and costs

Throughput target
- 5,000 – 10,000 court referrals (75%ORP 25%VOM/RC)
- 3,600 – 7,200 RJ outcomes (80%ORP 50%VOM/RC)

Costs
-
Additional 6 pilots recommended
to help optimise capacity
to broaden experience in delivery and standards
to enhance costing of national provision
Scale of Diversion from Custodial Sentences
Projected Scenario (draws on 2007 data)
5,800 committals sentenced to <3yrs
- assume 5% to 10% referred to RJ = 290 – 580
- assume 72.5% referrals succeed = 210 – 420
- assume sentence duration per 2007 patterns
- 210 – 420 committals equivalent to 42 – 85
prison spaces p.a.
- associated savings potential = €4.1m to €8.3m
National Commission on Restorative Justice
Presentation to ACJRD
April 2010