Download Court Referred Restorative Justice Pilot

Restorative Justice
the New Zealand picture
Restorative Justice
the New Zealand picture
Julia Hennessy
Senior Policy Advisor
Restorative Justice Unit
Ministry of Justice, New Zealand
The restorative justice landscape
RJ in the adult criminal justice system
– 30 community-based providers – Crime Prevention Unit
and Courts contracts
– Community panels
– Victim-offender conferences
– and variations
Community-based RJ providers
– not staff of justice agencies
– Mostly small Charitable Trusts
– Maori organisations – Iwi (tribe) organisations – may
provide a range of services, including health and health
promotion, education etc
Legislative framework
– Sentencing Act 2002 allows, and requires, Judges to
take RJ outcomes into account
– Parole Act 2002, RJ to be taken into account in
decisions about parole of prisoners
– Victims Rights Act 2002, agencies to hold meetings
between victims and offenders - where parties wish to
meet and resources are available
– Corrections Act 2004, Parole Board to take RJ process
into account when making decisions on release of
offenders
Principles of Best Practice for Restorative
Justice in Criminal Cases
Consultation
Published along with statement of values 2003
1. Voluntary
2. Full participation of the victim & offender
3. Participants are well-informed
4. Offender held accountable
5. Flexibility and responsiveness
6. Emotional and physical safety
7. Effective process
8. Should only be undertaken in appropriate cases
Court-referred restorative justice pilot
RJ for serious offences by adults
Began September 2001
Moderately serious offences
–
Max penalty 2 yrs imprisonment – or more
–
Nothing that can be diverted
–
Excluded Family Violence, Sexual Offences
4 District Courts
–
Chosen for volume, judicial attitude, cultural mix
Court-referred restorative justice pilot process
Offender pleads guilty
Offender sentenced
Judge refers for restorative
justice (& other reports)
Court Coordinator assesses
offender – willingness, capability
2 facilitators meet victim
& offender
Judge adjourns for
completion of plan
Report to Court on
completion
Restorative justice
conference held
Offender sentenced
Judge adjourns for reports
(probation/ psych)
Restorative justice
not possible
Returned to Court
Victim / offender
unwilling or
unsuitable
Evaluation
Objectives
Increased victim involvement
Increased victim satisfaction
Reduced re-offending
Results for victims
• Positive experience
• Would recommend to others
• Would participate again
• Satisfied with agreements, conferences and
sentences
• Low uptake by victims
< 40% referrals went to conference
Victim satisfaction declined over time
Results for offenders
•
reduced reconviction
32% compared with 36%
•
more involved in addressing offending
behaviour
•
satisfied with process & agreements
• reduced imprisonment
14% compared with 19%
• reduced length of imprisonment
444 days compared with 533 days
Effective interventions
Prison population - the defined problem
 inmate population significantly exceeds forecasts
 March 2006 - New Zealand >7,000 in prison
 by 2010 will be 9,000
 New Zealand will have 2nd highest rate of imprisonment
in western world
Exceeding capacity & forecasts
Recorded crime has shown a steady decrease over two
decades
Māori
• 17% of population
• 51% of prison population
• 3 times more likely than non-Māori to be arrested for
criminal offence
• more likely to be prosecuted, convicted and receive
prison sentences
• 1/3 more likely to be victim of crime
• twice as likely to be victims of violence
• higher rate of domestic violence
Pacific Island peoples
• 8 % of population
• 11% of prison population
• over-represented in violent offending statistics
• higher risk of being victims of violence than any
other ethnic group
Effective interventions project
• Justice sector agencies – Police, Justice, Corrections (ie,
probation and prisons), Social Development, Treasury:
 strategies to manage the inmate population
 options to reduce the pressure on prisons
 initiatives to address causes of crime and offending
behaviour
The evidence base
Evidence from court-referred restorative justice pilot
 Fewer and shorter sentences compared with matched
offenders
 Offenders more likely to be granted leave to apply for
home detention
 Small reduction in re-offending - measured over 2 years
 Shorter prison sentences – 444 days compared with 533
days.
The next step – national
expansion of restorative justice
The next step
Aims:
1. restorative justice available nationally at 3 key points
2. replicate results of court-referred restorative justice –
less use of imprisonment, reduction in re-offending
3. ensure quality of restorative justice provision
Developments:
Budget bid 2007/08
• National quality assurance framework – initial work
underway
• Diversion
• Pre-sentence
• Prisoner reintegration
Performance framework
• Quality of RJ provision – outcome focused
• Regional support structures and staff
• Build providers’ capacity and capability - to meet
identified need
• Provide resources to enable providers to meet quality
standards – includes national training and assessment
programme
• Standards - contracts
To ensure consistent high-quality outcomes from
restorative justice processes
Extension of RJ in diversion
Restorative justice as option in Police Adult Diversion
• new provision in 20+ areas – over 3 yrs
• 1st focus – high Maori & PI offender areas
• Evaluation
• re-offending
• outcomes for Maori and PI
Extension of RJ pre-sentence – serious offences
Restorative justice pre-sentence service in serious offending
• New provision in up to 9 new areas – over 3 yrs
• Guilty plea, victim involvement required
• Evaluation – can we repeat results of pilot?
• re-offending
• outcomes for Maori and PI
RJ in reintegration
• 100+ RJ conferences annually from 2 prison regions
• RJ Coordinators based in prison reintegration team
• RJ process spot-purchased from community-based
providers – quality standards
• 3 years initially – staged rollout if successful re victim
satisfaction & reduced re-offending
Cost benefits
• Prison beds:
– 25 beds annually at $70,000 pa – total saving of
$175,000 annually
• Increased number of offenders given leave to apply for
home detention
– Suggests increased use of home detention as a
sentence
• Other $$ savings small
Other benefits
• Increased capacity and capability of local RJ providers
• Benefits for Maori and Pacific Island people
• Victims and offenders have increased access to
restorative justice at all stages in the criminal justice
system
While the new developments have been driven by
financial and other pressure on the prison system, the
benefits will be felt by victims, the families of offenders,
and all those affected by offending.
The new landscape
• 60+ community-based RJ providers – 3 years
• Local interagency advisory groups to ensure provision
continues to meet needs
• National training and assessment of practitioners
• Monitoring and support of quality standards by Ministry of
Justice
• RJ Unit – Ministry of Justice – national and field roles
• RJ Centre – Auckland University of Technology – multidisciplinary, tertiary centre for training, education and
research into RJ theory and practice
• Restorative Justice Aotearoa – new national body for RJ
practitioners
Challenges
how to be victim-centred in an offenderfocused system
how to create quality standards that allow for
flexibility and growth of process
how to recognise and build on traditional Maori
and PI processes – and allow flexibility
www.justice.govt.nz