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 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 ) To make recommendations as to its wider application in this jurisdiction ( including in the context of community courts )

Terms of Reference details Review: Review: existing Irish models of RJ existing Irish models of RJ contemporary RJ developments abroad contemporary RJ developments abroad research based evidence and evaluation of different RJ models vs other court disposals re: research based evidence and evaluation of different RJ models vs other court disposals re: - impact on Victims and Offenders - impact on Victims and Offenders - as an alternative to imprisonment - as an alternative to imprisonment - cost and public interest and - cost and public interest and - range of offences for which suitable - range of offences for which suitable

More Details of Terms Seek views of relevant bodies, interests etc Seek views of relevant bodies, interests etc Consider recommendations of Joint Oireachtas Report on RJ Consider recommendations of Joint Oireachtas Report on RJ Consider whether RJ models should be developed on national scale and if so: 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 - estimate case throughput, cost and diversion from custodial sentences

Understanding terms concept of restorative justice? concept of restorative justice? before the courts on criminal charges? before the courts on criminal charges? wider application? wider application? community courts context? 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 diversionary6,000 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 – VOMprobation diversion  Belgium – VOMprison scheme  Finland – VOMpre-sentence/mitigation  Norway – VOMmediation diversion  France – VOMpre-sentence option  Germany – VOMoption at all stages

Research Based Evidence Evaluations of RJ schemes: Evaluations of RJ schemes:participationsatisfaction successful outcome  Meta analysis studies  Shapland, Sherman, Strang, Umbreit, Campbell, O’Dwyer, O’Mahony, Pelikan, Trenczek, Bonta etc.

Research Based Evidence - Victims NIYC % participation NIYC % participation 81% offer forgiveness  UK very positive re experience, felt offenders had addressed harm done  NZ % victims felt better after FGC  NSW % participate, 89% agreed plan  Austria 2002 RJ experience reduced harm felt  Norway 2005 high satisfaction with process

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: 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 % reconvicted 1 yr post RJ NIYC % reconvicted 1 yr post RJ 73% reconvicted 1 yr post prison 47% reconvicted 1 yr post other  UK 2008statistically significant fewer re-offend  Meta study studies re-offending lower post RJ  Meta study studies re-offending lower post RJ  Nenagh 1999 – % re-offended post RJ  Tallaght 2005 – % re-offended post RJ O’Donnell et al % prisoners re-imprisoned 2yrs post release

Research Based Evidence – Alternative to Prison No suitable research evidence No suitable research evidence More research focus on re-offending records More research focus on re-offending records RJ not dependent on being a prison alternative RJ not dependent on being a prison alternative RJ considerable value to victim and offender RJ considerable value to victim and offender Research warranted on use as a prison alternative Research warranted on use as a prison alternative Significant growth in use of imprisonment Significant growth in use of imprisonment

Research Based Evidence - Costs Estimated Cost per case ReferredBegunCompleted UK 2008 RJ Pilots £ £ 1,458 £ £2,333 £ 3,261- £4,666 NIYCS 2008 Conferences £1,000 - £1,500 Nenagh 2007 €3,500 - €6,400 Tallaght 2007 € 3,250

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

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

Research Based Evidence – Public Interest Public Interest State (Stanbridge) v Mahon 1979 Public Interest State (Stanbridge) v Mahon st 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. 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: 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 Submissions invited Meetings and visits Meetings and visits Conferences, seminars etc. Conferences, seminars etc. Regional Workshops Regional Workshops Advisory Fora Advisory Fora

Recommendations of JOC Report on RJ Commission / JOC recommendations consistent Wider use of and funding for RJ Wider use of and funding for RJ More support for existing Youth and Adult RJ More support for existing Youth and Adult RJ Legislate for Adult RJ Legislate for Adult RJ Cross sectoral group to oversee strategy and expansion Cross sectoral group to oversee strategy and expansion Raise judicial awareness of RJ Raise judicial awareness of RJ RJ services should link with victim interests RJ services should link with victim interests

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

Need for Statutory Basis for RJ Review pilot experience without legislation Review pilot experience without legislation Review RJ application under Children Act, 2001 Review RJ application under Children Act, 2001 Review RJ application abroad Review RJ application abroad Needs met by legislation 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. Courtsreferral and approval Courtsreferral and approval Probation Serviceprovision of RJ services Probation Serviceprovision of RJ services Garda support / participate as appropriate Garda support / participate as appropriate Community participate and follow up support Community participate and follow up support National Committee - advisory to Minister National Committee - advisory to Minister - review standards - review standards - oversee co-ordinated strategy - oversee co-ordinated strategy - propose wider application steps - propose wider application steps

Estimate offender throughput and costs Throughput target 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 – assume 72.5% referrals succeed = 210 – assume sentence duration per 2007 patterns – 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