National Commission on Restorative Justice

1. National Commission on Restorative Justice Presentation to ACJRD on Commission Report April 2010

2. 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 )

3. 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

4. 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

5. Understanding terms • concept of restorative justice? • before the courts on criminal charges? • wider application? • community courts context?

6. Review Irish RJ Models RJ – YouthJustice - 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

7. 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

8. 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)

9. Contemporary Developments Abroad Civil Law Systems • Austria – VOM probation diversion • Belgium – VOM prison scheme • Finland – VOM pre-sentence/mitigation • Norway – VOM mediation diversion • France – VOM pre-sentence option • Germany – VOM option at all stages

10. 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.

11. Research Based Evidence - Victims • NIYC 2006 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. Research Based Evidence - Costs

17. Research Based Conference - Costs 2007 Costs of Other Sanctions in Ireland Prison Space €97,700 Probation Order €8,200 Probation Supervision €5,535 Community Service Order €2,025

18. 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 ) Restorative Justice: The Evidence

19. 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

20. 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 +

21. Seek Views • Submissions invited • Meetings and visits • Conferences, seminars etc. • Regional Workshops • Advisory Fora

22. 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

23. Which RJ Models? • Cost effectiveness - Noted costs per case abroad €625 to £1,500 - Noted pilot costs here €3,250 to €6,400 per case - Noted high costs here of other sanctions - Noted under use of pilot capacity - Noted participant satisfaction and benefit levels - Noted lower re-offending following RJ • Appropriate - Noted consistency with Common Law processes - Noted potential as alternative to prison

24. 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

25. Roles of Courts Criminal Justice Agencies etc. • Courts referral and approval • ProbationService 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

26. Estimate offender throughput and costs • Throughput target - 5,000 – 10,000 court referrals (75%ORP25%VOM/RC) • 3,600 – 7,200 RJ outcomes (80%ORP50%VOM/RC) • Costs • Additional 6 pilots recommended to help optimise capacity to broaden experience in delivery and standards to enhance costing of national provision

27. Scale of Diversion from Custodial Sentences ProjectedScenario (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

28. National Commission on Restorative Justice Presentation to ACJRD April2010