Statistics and Research Branch
Evaluation of the
Northern Ireland
Youth Conference
Service
Catriona Campbell, Roisin Devlin,
David O’Mahony, Jonathan Doak
John Jackson, Tanya Corrigan and
Kieran McEvoy
Evaluation of the
Northern Ireland
Youth Conference
Service
NIO Research and Statistical Series: Report No. 12
by Catriona Campbell, Roisin Devlin, David O’Mahony,
Jonathan Doak, John Jackson, Tanya Corrigan and Kieran
McEvoy
Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice,
School of Law,
Queen’s University, Belfast
October 2005
Produced by the Statistics and Research Branch of the Northern Ireland
Office.
For additional copies, please contact:
Statistics and Research Branch
Criminal Justice Policy Division
Massey House
Stoney Road
Belfast BT4 3SX
Telephone: 028 9052 7534
Fax: 028 9052 7532
E-mail: crime.nio@nics.gov.uk
This publication and others on related criminal justice areas are also
available on the Internet at:
www.nio.gov.uk
The views in this report are those of the authors are not to be
attributed to
the Northern Ireland Office
First published 2006
Application for reproduction should be made to
Statistics and Research
Branch, Massey House, Stoney Road, Belfast, BT4 3SX.
© Crown Copyright 2006 ISBN 1 90 3686 19 9
Executive
summary
i
Restorative justice is now very firmly on the criminal justice agenda in
many countries, with the rapidly increasing
number of hits when searching the web testifying to the interest
worldwide. However, despite the large number of
such schemes in different countries, there is a relative lack of sound
and searching evaluation of many of these
schemes (with notable exceptions in New Zealand, Australia and England).
This is why I so much welcome the
decision of the Northern Ireland Office to support a full evaluation of
the large pilot of youth conferencing in
Northern Ireland, the introduction of which stems from the
recommendations of the Criminal Justice Review and the
subsequent Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. I also applaud the very
successful efforts of the team based at
Queen’s University Belfast to carry out that evaluation, the results of
which are reported here. It is particularly
important because this is a statutory scheme, its closest equivalent
being the long-running youth conferencing in New
Zealand, and these pilot results can inform the future running of
conferencing in Northern Ireland, as well as
providing feedback to everyone involved.
Restorative justice, when linked with the criminal justice system, as is
the case with youth conferencing, involves a
lot of different parties, amongst them: victims and their families and
supporters; offenders and their families and
supporters; the courts and judiciary; conference facilitators; criminal
justice system agencies (such as the police) who
are involved with the conferences themselves; people running programmes
and supervising offenders undertaking
those conference agreements made sentences of the court; local
communities and victim support agencies. It has the
potential to bring these parties together to address the consequences of
offending and find imaginative possibilities to
help in the future. If badly managed, it also has the potential to
disturb and upset people. It is clear from the results
reported here that, as implemented in the pilot, youth conferencing has
a positive potential and that many of those
involved have been very positive about it. There remain some issues,
particularly about the interaction between
restorative justice and criminal justice – but that is the point of
evaluations: to draw out such issues so that they can
be addressed.
Because conferencing does involve so many parties and is a complex
process, the evaluation itself is a difficult task.
I know, from directing the ongoing evaluation of three restorative
justice schemes within criminal justice involving
both adult and young offenders in England, funded by the Home Office,
that it requires serious hard work and many
hours to make sure that data on the cases involved are consistently
gathered, conferences are observed, victims and
offenders are able to give their views, criminal justice implications
are considered and the views of criminal justice
personnel sought. So I know how much effort has gone into the research
reported here. The evaluation of youth
conferencing in Northern Ireland is, in my view, a major achievement and
a very good piece of work. It will be
extremely useful, not only within Northern Ireland and for both
practitioners and policy makers, but in many other
countries as well.
Professor Joanna Shapland
University of Sheffield
Foreword
ii
This report is based on a major research evaluation into youth
conferencing in Northern Ireland. Many people helped
in the process of conducting the research. We are especially grateful to
all of the participants – victims, offenders,
parents and supporters, conference coordinators, police officers and
other professionals - at the conferences we
attended. They gave us their views and opinions in a frank and genuine
manner and much of the report is about what
they told us.
The research was facilitated by the good will of many in the criminal
justice system. We are especially thankful to
Mrs Valerie Brennan in the Courts Service for arranging access to the
necessary courts and files. We were aided by a
steering group which provided advice and direction throughout the
research and in particular we would like to thank
Jane Woods, Tony Kavanagh, Laura Hague, Tony O’Brien and Mathieu Decodts
from the Northern Ireland Office;
Alice Chapman and Yvonne Adair from the Youth Conferencing Service;
Mandy Kilpatrick and Orla Bateson from the
Courts Service; and Ken Preston from the Public Prosecution Service. Ken
Preston also kindly helped access to prosecution
materials and criminal record information.
A number of stakeholders gave us their insights and we are grateful to
the representatives from the Police, Youth
Conferencing Service, Community Restorative Groups, Public Prosecution
Service, Northern Ireland Office, Probation
Board and Youth Court Magistrates. We were also helped by the kind
comments and suggestions form Dr Kevin
Haines from the University of Wales, Professor Joanna Shapland from the
University of Sheffield and Professor Kieran
McEvoy from Queen’s University Belfast.
The research was conducted by a team including Helen Beckett who worked
on the project in the earlier stages, as
well as Andrea Burke. Catriona Campbell took on much of management of
the research and she worked tirelessly
with Roisin Devlin and Tanya Corrigan, thank you all.
Lastly we would like to thank the Northern Ireland Office for funding
the research. We hope it will help in the rollout
of youth conferencing across Northern Ireland and more generally for
those seeking to improve the delivery of
restorative justice.
David O’Mahony
Queen’s University, Belfast
Acknowledgements
Executive summary
Youth conferencing
The Northern Ireland youth conferencing service was launched in the
Greater Belfast area in December 2003, and
was subsequently expanded to Fermanagh and Tyrone in April 2004.
Introduced as part of the Justice (Northern
Ireland) Act 2002, this innovative response to young offending is based
on the recommendation in the Criminal
Justice Review that: “restorative justice should be integrated into the
juvenile justice system and its philosophy in
Northern Ireland, using a conference model […] based in statute,
available for all juveniles […] subject to the full
range of human rights safeguards” (Criminal Justice Review Group, 2000:
205). In contrast with more traditional
models of justice, youth conferencing seeks not only to encourage young
people to recognise the effects of their
crime and take responsibility for their actions, but also to devolve
power by actively engaging victim, offender and
community in the restorative process.
The evaluation
This report seeks to examine the translation of the youth conferencing
service into practice, identifying both strengths
and weaknesses of the current system and determining to what extent it
is proving effective in meeting its stated
objectives and anticipated outcomes. In order to do so, the report
presents a holistic overview of the process,
examining all key stages from the initial conference referral through to
the return of conference plans.
Following a review of the relevant literature, the primary research
methods employed within the evaluation were
those of observation, structured and semi-structured interviews.
Observations took place with respect to both youth
conferences and relevant court proceedings. In total, 185 conferences
were observed. Structured interviews were
completed with victim and offender conference participants, while
semi-structured interviews were employed with
both victim and offender non-participants and other key stakeholders
such as Magistrates, police and representatives
of the Public Prosecution Service (PPS).
The referral process
The research examined referrals to the Youth Conference Service from the
court and Public Prosecution Service.
Researchers observed proceedings in the youth court in both Belfast and
Fermanagh and Tyrone regions. This
permitted an evaluation of the issues surrounding court referrals and
the extent to which legislative requirements were
met.
◆ 362 referrals were
received by the Youth Conference Service within the period of research. 31%
emanated from the PPS and 69% from court.
◆ A range of offences
were referred. The majority or 53% related to intermediate offences against
person or property. Serious offences accounted for 23%, minor matters
for 21% and very serious
offences for 3% of referrals.
◆ The majority or 89%
of young people referred for a diversionary conference had no previous
offences for which they were sentenced. The remainder had one (7%) or
two (5%) previous
sentences. 44% of those referred by court had no previous sentences, 20%
had one and 15% had
two. The remainder had three (10%) and four or more (11%) previous
offences for which they
were sentenced.
◆ There was a high rate
of acceptance by young people of diversionary referrals with 68% of PPS
referrals accepted over the Greater Belfast and Fermanagh and Tyrone
regions.
◆ Similarly, the
majority of young people offered a conference at the youth courts (56%)
accepted
and were referred to the Youth Conference Service.
◆ On the whole,
Magistrates offered referral to a conference in those cases deemed suitable by
the
legislation.
◆ The formality and
established practice of the youth court suggested that, by the end of the
research,
some concerns remained about the manner in which courts requested
consent to attend a
conference.
Executive
summary
iii
Preliminary stages of the conference
The initial stages of the conference were considered including the
convening of a conference, including practicalities
and location, the pre-conference preparation process and participant
composition. The research also examined the
position of those victims and young people who declined to participate
in a conference.
◆ The majority of
referrals (75%) received by the Youth Conference Service successfully resulted
in a
conference. On average, diversionary and court-ordered conferences were
completed within the
required timescales.
◆ Most young people
referred to a conference were male (86%) and aged 14-16 (77%). A significant
proportion of young people referred to a conference were in the care
system (29%), the majority of
whom were referred by the court (88%).
◆ When compared to
similar schemes internationally, victim participation in conferences was high
at
69%. Of these, 47% were victim representatives, 40% personal victims and
13% were
representatives attending where there was no identifiable victim. Most
victims did not attend a
conference with a supporter.
◆ Both victims and
young people rated their preparation prior to the conference highly. Most felt
well
informed about the process and knew what to expect at a conference.
◆ Young people attended
conferences to ‘make up for what I had done’ (85%), to be forgiven by the
victim (79%) and to both help the victim (70%) and hear what they had to
say (70%).
◆ For victims, the
notion of punishment was secondary to meeting the young person and receiving an
explanation for their actions. A significant number of victims (79%)
attended because they wanted
to help the young person.
◆ Findings indicate
that not all victims wish to come face to face with the young person at a youth
conference. A small sample of non-participating victims were interviewed
and of these, the
majority indicated personal reasons for non-attendance.
The conference
The evaluation of the conference process measured participant
involvement and satisfaction at various stages of the
proceedings. This included the extent to which co-ordinators introduced
participants and explained the process and the
involvement of participants when discussing the impact of the crime.
Observations also recorded the presence or
absence of an apology, shame and remorse and how the expression of this
was received by the victim if present and
other participants. Researchers then considered the involvement of
participants in devising and agreeing the conference
plan.
◆ Most victims appeared
calm and relaxed at the start of the conference, and did not report feeling
nervous. By contrast, 71% of young people displayed some degree of
nervousness and avoidance
or discomfort.
◆ Overall,
co-ordinators were observed to introduce participants and the process very
well. On some
occasions, however, the confidential and voluntary nature of the process
was not explained in
adequate detail.
◆ Young people
generally engaged well when discussing the offence, and were given the
opportunity
to explain it from their perspective (93%). Almost all young people
(98%) felt that they were
listened to when they did so.
◆ The vast majority
(97%) of young people accepted responsibility for their actions either ‘a lot
(61%)
or ‘a bit’ (36%).
◆ Victims were
generally very engaged in the conference process. All victims felt that
conference
gave them the opportunity to explain to the young person how the crime
affected them.
◆ Both victim and young
people’s supporters were generally observed to feed positively into the
restorative atmosphere of the conference. The vast majority of young
people (93%) and all victims
said that they found their presence ‘helpful’.
◆ The majority of
conferences considered contributory factors when discussing the crime. The most
common were substance misuse, peer pressure and family difficulties.
◆ In the majority (87%)
of conferences the young person apologised or agreed to apologise. The
majority of conferences without an apology involved a victim
representative and not a personal
victim. Young people were observed to display some level of shame (77%)
and remorse (92%) in
most conferences.
Executive
summary
iv
◆ Both young people and
victims were involved in devising the conference plan. In total, 89% of
young people and 96% of victims were either ‘a lot’ or ‘a bit’ engaged
when deciding the plan.
◆ During the period of
the research, 95% of conferences reached agreement on a plan. The majority
of young people (74%) and victims (87%) were ‘happy to agree’ to the
plan.
◆ Both young people
(93%) and victims (79%) believed the plan to be either ‘very fair’ or ‘fair’
Similarly, 71% of young people and 79% of victims were ‘very satisfied’
or ‘satisfied’ with the plan.
◆ In terms of
proportionality, young people (72%) and victims (69%) believed the plan to be
‘neither
too hard nor too soft’.
Overall evaluation of conferences
The overall levels of participation within conferences and the
facilitation provided by co-ordinators were measured.
The research considered overall input when discussing the crime and
agreeing the conference plan, participant’s
evaluation of their conference experience and observations in relation
to the skills of conference co-ordinators.
◆ In the majority of
conferences, participants were involved when discussing the crime. 62% of
young people and 80% of victims were involved ‘a lot’ at this point.
◆ The majority of young
people, (91%), and victims, (81%), preferred the conference over court.
◆ 81% of young people
and 48% of victims felt better following the conference. Of the 52% of
remaining victims, the majority felt no different.
◆ 92% of young people
and 78% of victims believed the conference had helped the young person
realise the harm caused by the offence.
◆ The vast majority of
young people, (86%) and victims, (88%), would recommend a conference to a
person in a similar situation.
◆ Of the family members
who provided their views on the conference process, the majority
welcomed the opportunity to attend and believed the conference to have a
positive impact on the
young person.
◆ In 77% of conferences
the co-ordinator was either ‘very good’ or ‘good’ at involving others and in
84% of cases, ‘very good’ or ‘good’ at progressing the conference toward
agreement. Overall, coordinators
displayed particular skill in their ability to be inclusive and to treat
everyone in a
respectful manner.
The return of conference plans and orders
Having examined both the referral and convening of youth conferences,
the return of conference plans to the court or
the Public Prosecution Service was then evaluated. The numbers of plans
returned, and their varying outcomes, were
examined as was the legislation governing the process and key issues
arising with respect to it.
◆ Two-thirds of plans
(67%) returned to the court or PPS were passed in their original form.
◆ All conference plans
(100%) returned to the Public Prosecution service were passed, whilst just
under two thirds of plans were accepted by the court (63%).
◆ Difference in
decision making between Magistrates was evident between the Fermanagh and
Tyrone and Greater Belfast regions, with plans much more likely to be
passed in Fermanagh and
Tyrone.
◆ When making youth
conference orders, observations found that legislative requirements are
generally being met within the courts.
◆ In most cases,
reasons given by the court for the rejection of plans related to the nature of
the
offence. Whilst on some occasions the offence was believed to be too
serious for the imposition of
an Order, in others the offence was deemed not serious enough.
◆ Of those referred to
a youth conference by the court, but did not receive a youth conference order,
the most common alternative disposals were a conditional discharge or a
period of custody.
◆ Just under half (47%)
of plans passed were completed within the period of the research. On
average, plans were completed within 67 working days, well within the
year afforded by the
legislation.
◆ Only a small minority
(6%) of plans were subsequently revoked due to non-compliance.
Executive
summary
v
Executive
summary
vi
Recommendations
The results presented within this report show that overall the
implementation of youth conferencing in Northern
Ireland progressed well. In addition, it is anticipated that the
practice of youth conferencing and the knowledge of the
service by others, will improve with experience and time. Nevertheless,
there are certain matters that may be useful
to consider in the further development of the youth conferencing
service. The following are recommendations for
future practice and research:
The
referral process
1) Prosecution referrals: 31% of referrals for Youth Conferences emanated from the Public
Prosecution Service
and 69% from the youth court. The majority or 53% related to
intermediate offences against person or property.
Serious offences accounted for 23%, minor matters for 21% and very
serious offences for 3% of referrals.
The majority of ‘minor property related and other minor offences’ were
referred to the Youth Conference Service by
the court (71.4%) and not the Public Prosecution Service (28.6%) as
might be expected. This suggests that the PPS is
referring a substantial number of intermediate and some minor offences
to the court. This conclusion is reinforced by
the fact that courts made a conditional discharge in 15.9% of cases
rather than accept the Youth Conference plan.
The courts’ resources might be best reserved for the most serious and
complex cases, those raising issues of public
interest and protection. In light of the very promising results reported
in this evaluation particularly in the area of
victim satisfaction it is recommended that the PPS increase the
proportion of referrals for diversionary conference
primarily on the basis of seriousness of the offence, though previous
convictions should also remain a consideration.
2) Upper age limit: Where a young person becomes an adult in the course of youth court
proceedings, article 30
of the Criminal Justice (Children) (NI) Order 1998 permits the youth
court to make any order which it would have
made had they not reached that age. In a number of court observations, a
youth conference plan was rejected
because the young person had reached 17 years of age before the plan
returned to court. Although this was not the
intention of the legislation, it is permissible, and consequently it may
be useful to explain to the young person, at the
stage of initial referral, that refusal due to age is a possible result.
In this way, the young person can make a more
informed choice about whether or not to attend the conference (3.5
Court-Ordered Referrals).
3) Mandatory penalties: At present, the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 prohibits a youth
conference order in
combination with a further court order1.
As a result, the court was unable to accept a youth
conference plan in a
number of motoring cases because the offence attracted a mandatory
penalty. Furthermore, figures showing a high
proportion of motoring offences amongst 17 year olds, means that the
introduction of this age group to the youth
court will have a significant impact in this regard. Attendance at a
conference by the young person should not
necessarily be prohibited, as exposure to the potential consequences of
road traffic offences to victims may influence
future behaviour. It is recommended that a legislative amendment be
considered that would permit a youth
conference order in combination with a mandatory penalty in appropriate
cases and provided the young person
consents. In either scenario, it is crucial that the young person is
provided with the necessary details to enable an
informed choice as to whether or not to attend the conference (3.5
Court-Ordered Referrals; 7.5 Return of Court-
Ordered Plans: Court-Ordered Conference Plans).
4) Court-ordered conferences and consent: the established practice and formality of the youth court meant that
there were varying levels of input from Magistrates when requesting
consent to attend a conference. Although staff
from the Youth Conference Service attend court and meet with the young
person after each referral is made, it would
seem more suitable for the court, either through the Magistrate or a
legal representative, to ensure that in each case
the young person has a full understanding of the process before
accepting consent (3.5 Court-Ordered Referrals). It is
recommended that this could be facilitated by young people, their
parents or carers and their legal representatives
being fully informed about the youth conference process in a
standardised way by representatives of the Youth
Conference Service outside the court room prior to being asked if they
give their consent to participating in a
conference.
5) Referrals from care system: A significant proportion of young people referred to a conference were
in the care
system, the majority of who were referred by the court. It is
recommended that unless serious offences have been
committed, steps should be taken to avoid court prosecutions of looked
after young people.
1 Section 60, 36J (9) of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002.
Executive
summary
vii
Preliminary
stages of the conference process
6) Time from the offence to the conference: in all cases involving children and young people, it is important to
avoid unnecessary delay. However, distance in time can also impact on
the conference process by affecting the level
of recall by the young person and / or the victim about the actual
offence. The average length of time from the
offence to the day of the conference was 120 working days. In interview,
some victims expressed a concern at the
lapse in time since the original offence. Although it is difficult to
make a specific recommendation in this respect, it
may be useful to bear in mind and to monitor the impact of this
particular time distance in the further development
of the youth conferencing service (4.3 The Convening of Conferences; 6.4
Overall Evaluation of Conferences: Best
and Worst Aspects of the Conference Experience).
7) Conference length: the majority of conferences permitted a sufficient amount of time to
deal with the relevant
issues and to engage all participants. However, the average conference
lasted for one hour and a number of
conferences lasted for more than 90 minutes. A number of participants
felt that this was too long. In observations,
young people also appeared restless toward the end of proceedings and
when agreeing the plan. Therefore, it is
recommended to make more provision for a break or time out during the
conference proceedings (4.3 The Convening
of Conferences; 5.5 Discussing the Crime: Young Person: Engagement; 5.10
The Actual Plan: Proportionality; 6.4
Overall Evaluation of Conferences: Best and worst Aspects of the
Conference Experience).
8) Conference venues: the majority of conferences took place in the purpose built Youth Conference
headquarters
in Belfast. Occasionally, community venues were used where this proved
more convenient for participants. However,
one young person supporter was concerned that the location was too local
and an issue of privacy did arise. While
achieving accessibility, it is recommended that it may be helpful to
confirm with all participants that they are
comfortable with the location of a community venue (4.3 The Convening of
Conferences).
9) Observation room: in a few cases, the one-way observation room appeared to cause problems
due to the
presence of a mirror. To avoid this occurring, it is recommended to
install a curtain or blind, which could be drawn
over the mirror when the observation room is not in use (4.3 The
Convening of Conferences).
10) Information on persons attending the conference: in most cases, young people and victims were well
informed about the conference before attending. However, a very small
number of victims felt they were not
informed about who would attend and one victim felt particularly
uncomfortable due to the presence of a person
whom they did not know was attending. It is therefore recommended that
participants are informed and provided
with up to date information on the persons who are or even might be
present at the conference (4.5 Preparation for
the Conference: Victim).
11) Informational material: the majority of victims and young people were satisfied with information
provided to
prepare them for the conference. It is recommended that victim
representatives have access to preparation materials,
which include a business or community perspective and contain guidance
on why victim representatives might attend
(4.5 Preparation for the Conference: Informational Material; 4.6
Non-Participation: Victims).
12) Victim non-participation: Although the sample was small, the views from victims who chose not to
participate
in the conference process suggest two points to ensure good practice in
these cases. It is recommended firstly, where
the victim requests it, information should be provided to them on the
progress of the case. Secondly, where the
victim makes an alternative contribution such as a letter or a
statement, it is important to offer information on how
this input was received at the conference. Every effort should be made
to facilitate alternatives when appropriate (4.6
Non-Participation: Victims; 4.7 Conclusion).
13) Delays: Where the conference was delayed, most victims (83%) and young people
(80%) were kept informed,
however 17% of victims and 20% of young people were not told why there
was a delay. It is recommended that
when delays occur, all parties are kept well informed of the causes and
likely starting time.
14) Legal representation: When asked if they were informed of their right to legal advice, the
majority (76%) of
young people stated that they were. However 21% indicated that they were
not and 4% could not remember. It is
recommended that the Youth Conference Service ensure that all young
people are informed of their right to legal
advice.
Executive
summary
viii
The
conference
15) Explaining the conference process: At the opening stages of the conference, it is important for the
coordinator
to establish the purpose and practicalities of the process. Results showed
that in the majority of cases this
was done well. Furthermore, the use of a flip chart acted as a useful
tool to assist in explaining this process. It is
recommended for continued training to ensure that visual aids are used
appropriately and that they do not encourage
the development of an overly standardised or prescribed format to
conference proceedings (5.4 Opening Stages of
the Conference: The Co-ordinator).
16) Confidentiality and voluntariness: continued training is required to build upon the positive aspects of the
conference, in particular, to ensure a clear explanation at the start of
the conference of the voluntariness of
participation and the confidentiality of conference proceedings. When
explaining the concept of confidentiality, it is
important to state the circumstances in which information revealed
within the conference might be disclosed to third
parties, for instance, concerns regarding child protection or
information regarding further offences (5.4 Opening
Stages of the Conference: The Co-ordinator).
17) The facts of the offence: a statement of facts regarding the offence is provided in each
conference by the
police officer. In a number of cases the young person disagreed with the
facts as read. However, participants should
be helped to understand that there can be a difference between disputing
the facts, a process and dialogue which the
conference process might legitimately facilitate, and disputing the
legal elements which make up the offence, a more
serious matter suggesting that the young person has not accepted
responsibility for the offence (5.5 Discussing the
Crime: Statement of Facts).
18) Involvement when devising the plan: observations showed a minority of only 57 conferences where one or
more participants should have had more say when devising the conference
plan. However, in two thirds of these
cases or 37 conferences this was identified as the young person. In some
instances therefore it is recommended to
facilitate the young person to have a more substantial part in
determining the actual plan (5.9 Devising Conference
Plans: Involvement).
19) Professional input when devising the plan: observations showed only 24 conferences where it appeared that
one or more participants should have had less say when devising the
plan. In a very small number of these cases the
police officer or co-ordinator was observed to address the young person
in a scolding tone. It is recommended that
this practice issue could be addressed through ongoing development and
training (5.9 Devising Conference Plans:
Involvement).
20) Agreeing the conference plan: conference participants should be aware that the court might assess a
conference plan according to how far it is proportionate to the offence.
However, in a number of observations, there
appeared to be a level of undue pressure due to a knowledge that the
court would require significant content before
it would approve the plan. Further training is recommended for
co-ordinators to assist in ensuring that external
demands do not overly influence participants when devising the plan.
Indeed, the value of the process may be
undermined if it appears that the court is directing the plan. (5.10 The
Actual Plan: Agreement).
21) Plan content: though there were features common to many plans, such as an apology to
the victim and / or
an activity to address the causes of offending, each outcome varied in
substance and length. Results showed that
certain programmes or schemes were used regularly within plans whilst
others appeared more peripheral. As such,
mentoring and offence focused schemes appeared common whereas anger
management, education or training
featured for a minority of all plans. It is recommended to evaluate
further the level of diversity within plans, given that
schemes such as ‘mentoring’ and ‘offence focused work’ can involve young
people in a wide range of opportunities,
including the establishment of links to education and / or training
(5.10 The Actual Plan: Plan Content).
22) Regional variation within conference plans: it is important to examine the development and content of plans
to ensure against a substantial difference in plans by region. This is
particularly important in relation to the inclusion
of restrictions, with results showing 55% of plans from Fermanagh and
Tyrone compared to only 20% of plans from
the Greater Belfast region including one or more restriction. As such,
it recommended to monitor regional
inconsistencies to ensure against any perception or practice of ‘justice
by geography’ in relation to the content of
conference plans (5.10 The Actual Plan: Plan Content).
Overall
evaluation of conferences
23) Co-ordinator skills: results showed that in the vast majority of conferences, co-ordinators
displayed particular
skills in their ability to be inclusive and to treat every participant
in a fair and respectful manner. It is recommended
that training continue to build upon and reinforce this positive aspect
of the conference process (6.5 Overall
Evaluation of Co-ordinator’s Role).
The
making of conference plans and orders
24) Return of court-ordered plans: the results showed a geographical inconsistency in relation to the
acceptance
and refusal of court-ordered conference plans. While all conference
plans resulted in a youth conference order
following referral from the youth courts in Fermanagh and Tyrone, over
half of all referrals made by Belfast youth
court did not result in an order. This presents a considerable variation
in outcome by region and is perhaps an issue
for further monitoring. The practical result is that court-ordered
conferences in Belfast are far less likely to result in
acceptance of the youth conference plan, (7.5 Return of Court-Ordered
Plans: Court-Ordered Conference Plans).
25) Issuing a conditional discharge in place of a
youth conference plan: the most frequent
order made by the
court following refusal of a youth conference plan was a conditional
discharge. The Justice (Northern Ireland) Act
2002 provides that the court should not offer referral to a youth
conference where it is minded to impose an absolute
or conditional discharge2. It seems that this is a legislative safeguard to ensure that less
serious cases do not proceed
by way of youth conference. It is recommended that if the court
anticipates a conditional discharge, it would seem
more within the spirit of the legislation not to offer referral to a
youth conference. If following this practice, there
might be a reduction in the number of plans refused on the grounds that
the offence is not serious enough to warrant
a youth conference order (7.5 Return of Court-Ordered Plans:
Court-Ordered Conference Plans).
26) Amending court-ordered plans: given the high rate of rejection of youth conference plans at the
Belfast youth
court, it might be helpful to provide further training on the
possibilities for amending a youth conference plan. This
can facilitate the identification of suitable cases where it might be
more positive to amend rather than to refuse the
youth conference plan (7.5 Return of Court-Ordered Plans: Amendment of
Youth Conference Plans).
27) The value of youth conference plans: it appeared from court observations that the value of a youth conference
outcome was at times assessed according to the quantity or level of
content within the plan. Therefore, a conference
plan might be rejected on the grounds that ‘two points’ are insufficient
to address a ‘serious’ offence. However, the
worth of any conference plan is a complex measurement and may rest in
the nature of the agreement rather than the
number of elements appearing within the plan. As such, it may be useful
to develop further training and educational
materials in this regard (7.5 Return of Court-Ordered Plans: Amendment
of Youth Conference Plans).
Further
research
In order to appreciate the impact of youth conferencing on participants
and relevant stakeholders and to assess how it
is received by the youth justice system in Northern Ireland, it is
crucial that its development is carefully monitored.
Although it is not possible at this early stage of implementation to be
aware of all aspects of the service that might
benefit from research, there are certain areas that would be important
for further examination:
28) Post conference perspectives: further research can assist in the development of the youth conferencing
service
by exploring the perspectives of young people, victims, families and
other participants in the period following the
actual conference proceedings. For instance, it may be important to
learn about the perceptions of and impact upon
participants following acceptance or refusal of the youth conference
outcome and issues arising from fulfilment or
breach of the final conference plan (7.5 Return of Court-Ordered Plans:
Amendment of Youth Conference Plans).
29) Completion and revocation: the results showed a high rate of completion of youth conference plans
and
orders. However, given that youth conferencing is in an early stage of
implementation, this research was unable to
investigate this aspect of the service in detail. It would be useful to
explore further the completion of youth
conference outcomes and the consequences of breach. Indeed, where youth
conference orders are revoked, it will be
important to monitor and establish any trends in relation to final
sentencing outcomes (7.7 Completion and
Revocation of Youth Conference Plans and Orders).
30) Recidivism: although recidivism should not constitute the sole indicator when
evaluating youth conferencing
schemes, it would be of value for additional and longitudinal research
to assess the level of reoffending following
engagement by young people with the youth conferencing service and
assess what elements of the process appear to
have the most beneficial results (10.4 Conclusion).
Executive
summary
ix
2 Section 59, 33 C (5) Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002.
x
Page
FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .iii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .1
Chapter 1 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .3
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
1.2 Restorative justice in theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
1.3 Restorative justice in practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
1.4 Critical issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
1.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
Chapter 2 METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
2.1 Aim of the research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
2.2 Data collection techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
2.3 Comparative analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
2.4 Data analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
Chapter 3 THE REFERRAL PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
3.2 Summary of findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
3.3 Referal to the Youth Conferencing Service . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .35
3.4 Diversionary referrals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
3.5 Court-ordered referrals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
3.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Chapter 4 PRELIMINARY STAGES OF THE CONFERENCE PROCESS . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .43
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
4.2 Summary of findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
4.3 The convening of conferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .45
4.4 Conference participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
4.5 Preparation for the conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .49
4.6 Non-participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53
4.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
Chapter 5 THE CONFERENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59
5.2 Summary of findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59
5.3 The structure of conferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
5.4 Opening stages of the conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .60
5.5 Discussing the crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
5.6 Conferences without victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .68
5.7 Contributory factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73
5.8 Apology and remorse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75
5.9 Devising conference plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .78
5.10 The actual plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82
5.11 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
Contents
xi
Page
Chapter 6 OVERALL EVALUATION OF CONFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .93
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95
6.2 Summary of findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95
6.3 Overall participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95
6.4 Overall evaluation of conferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .97
6.5 Overall evaluation of the co-ordinator’s role . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .104
6.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106
Chapter 7 THE MAKING OF CONFERENCE PLANS AND ORDERS . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .107
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109
7.2 Summary of findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109
7.3 Over view of plans returned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .109
7.4 Return of diversionary plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .110
7.5 Return of court-ordered plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .110
7.6 Final court disposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
7.7 Completion and revocation of youth conference plans
and orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116
7.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116
Chapter 8 INTERVIEWS WITH STAKEHOLDERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .117
8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119
8.2 Interviews with police officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .119
8.3 Interviews with youth conference co-ordinators . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .122
8.4 Interviews with Public Prosecution Service (PPS) . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .127
8.5 Interview with Northern Ireland Office, Youth Justice Policy
representative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130
8.6 Interviews with probation manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .131
8.7 Interviews with youth conferencing service manager . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .133
8.8 Interviews with magistrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .135
8.9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136
Chapter 9 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139
9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141
9.2 Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141
9.3 Young people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143
9.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .144
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .145
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .153
APPENDICES Appendix 1 Young person interview
schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163
Appendix 2 Young person abridged interview schedule . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .173
Appendix 3 Victim interview schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .178
Appendix 4 Non-participating young person interview schedule . . . . . .
. . . .188
Appendix 5 Non-participating victim interview schedule . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .190
Appendix 6 Offence research scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .192
Contents
xii
Page
CHAPTER 3
Table 3.1 Referral to a youth conference by
region and referral source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
Table 3.2 Number of previous sentences for
young people by source of referral . . . . . . . .37
Table 3.3 Acceptance of diversionary
referrals by region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
CHAPTER 4
Table 4.1 Age and gender of young people
referred to a conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Table 4.2 Victim attendees by victim type .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
Table 4.3 Young person: What were your
reasons for attending the conference? . . . . . . . .52
Table 4.4 Victim: What were your reasons
for attending the conference? . . . . . . . . . . . . .53
CHAPTER 5
Table 5.1 Effects referred to by victims at
a conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68
Table 5.2 Alternative forms of victim
participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68
Table 5.3 Did the young person agree to
apologise to the victim? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76
Table 5.4 Victim: If there was an apology
from the young person, were
You happy with it? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77
Table 5.5 Young person and victim: Would
you have liked more say in
devising the plan? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78
Table 5.6 How engaged was the young person
in deciding the plan? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80
Table 5.7 How engaged was the victim in
deciding the plan? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
Table 5.8 How satisfied was the young
person / victim with the process of
determining the plan? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82
Table 5.9 How much consensus was there
amongst participants about
the plan agreed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82
Table 5.10 Young person / victim: Were you
happy to agree or did you
feel you had to? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83
Table 5.11 Was there any reluctance to the
plan from young person / victim? . . . . . . . . . .83
Table 5.12 Type of scheme / programme in
conference plan as a percentage
of all schemes recorded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86
Table 5.13 Young person / victim: Do you
think the plan is fair to you? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88
Table 5.14 Young person / victim: Overall,
how satisfied were you with
the outcome of the conference? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88
Table 5.15 Young person / victim: Do you
think the plan is too hard or
too soft given the crime? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89
Table 5.16 Young person / victim: Do you
think the young person will
be able to complete the plan? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90
Table 5.17 How well did the co-ordinator
explain the plan to participants? . . . . . . . . . . . .91
Tables
Tables
& figures
xiii
Page
CHAPTER 6
Table 6.1 How involved were participants in
discussing the crime? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95
Table 6.2 How involved were participants in
making suggestions
for the plan? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96
Table 6.3 How involved were participants in
deciding the plan? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97
Table 6.4 Young person / victim: Would you
rather the case had
gone to court? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98
Table 6.5 Young person: If you prefer the
conference to court, why? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98
Table 6.6 Young person / victim: Having
finished the conference,
do you feel better or worse? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99
Table 6.7 Young person: Did the conference
make you realise the
harm you caused? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100
Table 6.8 Having done the conference, would
you advise another
person to attend one? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101
Table 6.9 Co-ordinator’s overall skills of
facilitating participant
Involvement and progressing the conference towards
agreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104
CHAPTER 5
Table 7.1 Decisions by PPS and court on
returning plans
(By Referral Source) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110
Table 7.2 Return of court-ordered
conference plans (by region) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111
Table 7.3 Return of court-ordered
conference plans by region
and offence seriousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112
Table 7.4 Final disposal of all those
referred to a court-ordered
youth conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
FIGURES
Figure 3.1 Referral to a youth conference by
referral source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
Figure 3.2 Referral to a youth conference by
offence category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
Figure 4.1 Referrals proceeding to a
conference or returned
to referral source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
Figure 5.1 Plan elements as a percentage of
all plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86
Figure 7.1 Decisions by PPS and court on
returning plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109
Case
studies
xiv
Page
List of Case Studies
Case Study A Start of the conference . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62
Case Study B Disputed facts . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
Case Study C Disputed facts (conference
terminated) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
Case Study D The sympathetic victim . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67
Case Study E No victim present . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
Case Study F Victim supporter . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72
Case Study G Contributory factors (alcohol,
family difficulties and anger) . . . . . . . . . . . . .73
Case Study H Spontaneity and sincerity . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75
Case Study I Uncertain victims . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77
Case Study J Reluctance from the young person
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80
Case Study K Devising the plan . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83
Case Study L Voluntariness . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84
Case Study M Facilitating agreement . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105
Case Study N Making a youth conference order .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111
Case Study O Seriousness of the offence . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113
Case Study P Amended plan . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114
Case Study Q Amended plan (2) . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114
Introduction
A mainstreamed restorative approach to youth offending has recently
emerged as part of a package of wider criminal
justice reforms in Northern Ireland. Following the Agreement, which was
signed on Good Friday of 1998 in Belfast, a
holistic evaluation of the criminal justice system was undertaken with
the objective of making the system more
accountable and responsive to the community as a whole (Criminal Justice
Review Group, 1998). Amongst other
themes, it examined rights issues, prosecution, the courts and
judiciary, community safety, sentences and probation,
victims and witnesses, youth justice and restorative justice. After an
initial consultation period and the publication of
an implementation plan, many of the recommended changes were passed into
law in the form of the Justice
(Northern Ireland) Act 2002. One of the most significant reforms to
emerge was that “restorative justice should be
integrated into the juvenile justice system and its philosophy in
Northern Ireland, using a conference model […]
based in statute, available for all juveniles […] subject to the full
range of human rights safeguards” (Criminal Justice
Review Group, 2000: 205).
The Northern Ireland ‘youth conferencing’ model of restorative justice
has much in common with the New Zealand
family group conferencing system, although it places greater emphasis on
the victim than the family. The New
Zealand model has served as a benchmark for many restorative justice
schemes worldwide and in a report
commissioned as part of the Criminal Justice Review (Dignan and Lowey,
2000), was highlighted as a potential
restorative model for Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, it is apparent
that differing local contexts can make the
transposition of models of justice into discrete environments
problematic. In Northern Ireland, there exists a
background of 30 years of inter-community conflict which has created an
institutional legitimacy deficit. This is
characterised by mistrust and hostility towards the police in some areas
and has resulted in the growth of a crime
prevention vacuum and the emergence of informal community justice
measures (Dignan and Lowey, 2000).
Implementing a model of restorative justice without examining contextual
factors could perhaps be viewed as
misguided, particularly as much of the success of the New Zealand model
has been attributed to its contextual and
cultural sensitivity to New Zealand’s Maori population. In Northern
Ireland, the new youth conferencing service has
emerged within a growing climate of restorative justice, reflected in
the burgeoning number of community-based
restorative schemes which emerged in the late 1990s (McEvoy and Mika,
2002). It was however determined that for
reasons of accountability, certainty and legitimacy the model of
restorative justice implemented should be based in
statute and fully integrated into the formal justice system.
The Northern Ireland Youth Conferencing Service
The Northern Ireland youth conferencing service has statutory footing in
Part 4 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act
2002. In addition, The Youth Conference Rules (Northern Ireland) 2003
establish the procedures to be followed when
convening and facilitating a conference. The newly created Youth
Conference Service of Northern Ireland has the
distinct role of managing the implementation of youth conferencing in
Northern Ireland. The Youth Conference
Service is part of the wider Youth Justice Agency established by the
Northern Ireland Office (NIO). Among the staff
employed by the Youth Conference Service are Youth Conference
Co-ordinators who are responsible for the
preparation and facilitation of actual conference processes. The Youth
Conference Co-ordinators also have postconference
responsibilities including preparation of conference reports for the
Public Prosecution Service (PPS) or
youth court and to act as a support for the young person in completing
the final conference plan. Also within the
Youth Conference Service are ‘Case Managers’ whose role is to facilitate
the day-to-day running of the youth
conference service, including the receipt of referrals and the return of
conference outcomes to the Public Prosecution
Service or to the youth court.
The youth conferencing service was introduced in December 2003 and was
initially available for all 10-16 year olds
living in the Greater Belfast area who admit to, or are found guilty of,
offences committed after 1st December 20033.
In April 2004 the service was expanded to cover young people living in
the Fermanagh and Tyrone regions. Section
63 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 provides for the extension
of the current youth justice system to 17 year
olds. When this provision comes into force this age group will also be
eligible for referral to youth conferencing.
Introduction
3 The Magistrate is required to refer a young person to youth
conferencing except in the cases of offences with a penalty of life
imprisonment, offences which are triable,
in the case of an adult, on indictment only and scheduled offences which
fall under the Terrorism Act 2000.
1
2
As in New Zealand, two types of conferences are provided for in the
legislation: diversionary conferences and courtordered
conferences. Both types of conference take place with a view to a youth
conference co-ordinator providing
a recommendation to the Prosecutor or court on how the young person
should be dealt with for their offence. Two
preconditions must be met for a diversionary conference to occur:
firstly, the young person must admit that they have
committed the offence and secondly, they must consent to the process.
Similarly, the admission or establishment of
guilt and the consent of the young person are prerequisites for a
court-ordered conference to take place.
Typically, a youth conference will involve a meeting in which a young
person is provided with the opportunity to
reflect upon their actions and offer some form of reparation to the
victim. The victim, who is offered the choice
whether or not to attend, can explain to the young person how the
offence has affected him or her as an individual.
In theory, this means that a conference gives the young person the
chance to understand their crime in terms of its
impact, particularly on the victim, and the victim the chance to
separate the young person from the offence.
Following group dialogue on the harm caused by the young person’s
actions, an ‘action plan’ will be devised. This
plan will take the form of a negotiated ‘contract’, with implications if
the young person does not follow through what
is required of him or her. Agreement is a key factor in devising the
‘contract’, and the young person must consent to
its terms. Ideally, the ‘contract’ will ultimately have some form of
restorative outcome, addressing the needs of the
victim, the young person and wider community.
The youth conferencing service marks a radical departure from previous
approaches to young offending in Northern
Ireland. It is hoped that youth conferencing will significantly alter
how victims and young people experience the
criminal justice system as, in theory, it offers both parties increased
involvement in the process and the opportunity to
‘reclaim’ their case from a professionalised, often alienating system
(Christie, 1977; Shapland et al, 1985).
Structure of the report
Chapter 1 presents an overview of the current body of restorative
justice literature, examining both the philosophy
and claims of restorative justice and the various forms in which it has
been implemented thus far. Chapter 2
proceeds with an explanation of the methodology employed in the
research, while Chapters 3 to 7 (inclusive) present
the findings of the research in terms of initial referrals to the
service, the convening of conferences and the return of
referrals to either court or the Public Prosecution Service. Chapter 8
presents a summary of findings arising from key
stakeholder interviews with Magistrates, the police and the Public
Prosecution Service. Finally, Chapter 9 concludes
this report by offering comments on the findings of the research and
ends with a number of recommendations, which
may assist in the further development of youth conferencing in Northern
Ireland.
Introduction
Chapter 1
Review of the
literature and
research
Review
of the literature and research
5
1.1 Introduction
This section reviews the literature and research carried out on
restorative justice, setting its development in Northern
Ireland within an international context. In providing such an overview,
it seeks to inform the research of potential
issues that may be encountered by the Northern Ireland model. It begins
with a brief introduction to the philosophy
and claims of restorative justice, outlining the purported benefits to
the victim, the young person, the community and
the state. Informed by restorative justice in theory, it then proceeds
to examine how these programs operate in
practice, with a particular focus on restorative ‘conferencing’ schemes.
By examining how effectively restorative
justice is implemented and operated elsewhere, examples of best practice
and effective delivery are identified. In the
concluding section, issues critical to the present evaluation - such as
the rights of participants, satisfaction with the
process and outcome and preventing re-offending - are addressed.
1.2 Restorative justice in theory
Defining restorative justice
In the past decade, support for restorative justice has gathered great
momentum, given testimony by the large number
of schemes in operation internationally (Miers, 2001). It has been
argued that restorative justice emerged as a critique
of traditional forms of justice (Crawford and Newburn, 2003) and many of
its proponents depict it as an oppositional
paradigm to retributive justice (Zehr, 1990)4. In spite of its growth, arriving at an agreed definition of
‘restorative
justice’ has proved problematical (Roche, 2001). An examination of
restorative justice programs worldwide presents
us with a diverse range of processes, which incorporate different levels
of ‘restorativeness’. In effect, it could even be
said that ‘restorative justice has come to mean all things to all
people’ (McCold, 2000). It is perhaps more useful to
describe restorative justice as an ‘umbrella’ concept as its diverse
implementations in practice are theoretically
derived from a number of key principles. Van Ness and Strong (1997) have
identified these principles as encounter,
reparation, reintegration and participation. Daly (2002: 58) further
suggests that common features of restorative
justice include:
◆ An emphasis on the
role and experience of victims
◆ The involvement of
relevant parties to discuss the offence, its impact, and what should be done to
‘repair the harm’
◆ Decision making which
is carried out by both lay and legal actors.
That there is no rigid definition has been described by Braithwaite
(2002: 15) as necessary; “standards must be broad
if we are to avert legalistic regulation of restorative justice, which
is at odds with the philosophy of restorative
justice.”
Restorative justice takes a number of forms. Ideally, it will involve a
meeting between victim and offender resulting in
an agreed outcome requiring the offender to undertake some form of reparation
in order to repair the harm that they
have caused. In practice, the way in which this is facilitated and the
extent to which ‘restoration’ is achieved will
differ. Models of restorative justice include family group conferencing
(Maxwell and Morris, 1993; Dignan, 2005:),
police led restorative justice programs (O’Mahony et al, 2002; Hoyle et
al, 2002) victim-offender mediation,
sentencing circles, panels (Crawford et al, 2003; Karp et al, 2001) and
community facilitated schemes (McEvoy and
Mika, 2002). As will be illustrated later, although these schemes all
operate within the broad framework of ‘restorative
justice’ they often differ significantly.
The claims of restorative justice
The benefits of restorative justice are typically set out with reference
to the failings of the traditional criminal justice
system. Advocates of restorative justice argue that it resolves many of
these criticisms by addressing the needs of the
victim, offender and wider community. The claims of restorative justice
will now be analysed with reference to each
of these.
4 Daly (2002:59), however, has questioned
this depiction and argues that such a “contrast is a highly misleading
simplification which is used to
sell the superiority of restorative justice and its set of justice
products.”
(i)
The victim
Zigenhagen (1977) defines a ‘crime victim’ as “one who has experienced
harm as a result of an offence” (cited in
Strang, 2002:2). It is widely acknowledged that victims of crime often
feel dissatisfied and marginalised by their
experience of the traditional criminal justice process (Shapland et al,
1985). In recent times, a number of reforms
have been implemented in an attempt to address this. In the UK these
reforms include the introduction of a Victim’s
Charter (HMSO, 2002) which establishes basic standards outlining the
treatment a victim should expect to receive,
and ‘victim impact statements’ which endeavour to provide victims with a
greater voice in the court process (Sanders
et al, 2001). In addition, the issue of victims was of central focus to
the Criminal Justice Review in Northern Ireland.
Such victim-aware practices have developed in a context in which the
victim is increasingly viewed as a ‘consumer’
of criminal justice, demanding high standards of quality when their case
is dealt with (Zauberman, 2000). However,
whilst many advances have been made since the formative stages of the
victim movement, critics argue that they
have been minor in nature and involve a ‘tinkering’ with the existing
system rather than any substantive reform
(Roche, 2003: 8). In a review of international research Strang (2002:
2-3) outlines six prevailing needs of victims:
1. Victims want a less formal process where their views count;
2. Victims want more information about the processing and outcome of
their cases;
3. Victims want to participate in their cases;
4. Victims want to be treated respectfully and fairly;
5. Victims want material restoration;
6. Victims want emotional restoration, especially an apology.
These concerns highlight the importance attached to involvement, information, fairness and restoration by the victim
(Doak, 2005).
Proponents contend that restorative justice addresses many of these
concerns. It claims to offer the victim direct
involvement in their case where the traditional justice system would
otherwise marginalise them. A professionalized
court-based criminal justice system has resulted in what Christie (1977)
famously terms as conflicts being ‘stolen’
from the involved parties whereby the state takes over ‘conflicts’
between citizens. This leads to a form of ‘double
victimisation’ where, in addition to the crime, the victim also loses
participation in their case (Christie, 1977: 25). In
theory, the restorative process can overcome the victim’s marginalised
position. It is said to give the victim a ‘voice’
by offering them direct involvement whilst avoiding direct responsibility
for outcomes. Research with victims in
restorative justice shows that victims wish their views to be taken into
account by decision-makers but do not
necessarily want decision-making power (Wemmers et al 2004: 268).
Restorative processes also offer victims the
opportunity to meet ‘their’ offender. In its policy on restorative
justice in criminal justice Victim Support submit that
for some victims there can exist a psychological need for information,
which can be provided only by the perpetrator
(Victim Support, 2003). Within restorative justice victims are provided
with the opportunity to ask basic questions
such as ‘why did the crime happen?’ or ‘why was I victimised?’
(Johnstone, 2001). Restorative programs may also
allow the victim to obtain reparation directly from the offender,
something which is unlikely to occur in court. Where
full compensation is not possible, the offender may provide symbolic
reparation, which is said to be often more
important to victims (Retzinger and Scheff, 1996; Braithwaite, 2002).
Importantly, the restorative process claims to
empower the victim and enable them to regain control; “their sense of
personal autonomy has been stolen from them
by the offender, and they need to have this sense of personal power
returned to them” (Zehr, 1990: 27; see also
Barton, 2000).
(ii)
The offender
Restorative justice is also said to offer numerous benefits to
offenders. Many restorative programs draw inspiration
from John Braithwaite’s (1988) theory of ‘reintegrative shaming’.
‘Reintegrative shaming’ proposes that the offence,
and not the offender, should be the focus of disapproval. Braithwaite
contends that when an offender is negatively
stigmatized by being labelled as a criminal and punished they will often
find it difficult to reintegrate back into the
community. The restorative process, which is based on mutual respect, is
said to facilitate the ‘positive shaming’ of an
offender by bringing him or her face to face with those affected by the
offence. This is in marked contrast to the
conventional criminal justice process to which the offender is typically
a bystander: “pre-trial and trial procedures do
not engage them; they rarely participate directly; they are generally
expected to communicate with the court through
their lawyer [...] they remain fundamentally untouched by both processes
and outcomes” (Morris and Young, 2000:
17). The direct involvement of the affected parties enables the offender
to see the human consequences of their
actions and the process “builds on the insight that crime comes easily
if the victim is denied” (Hudson, 2002:180).
Consequently, the offender is held to account by those most affected by
their actions. If a restorative practice is
Review
of the literature and research
6
Review
of the literature and research
7
diversionary, it can hold the offender accountable for their wrongdoing
whilst avoiding a potentially stigmatizing
criminal record. Restorative programs may also provide a supportive
forum in which the causes of offending
behaviour can be addressed. Outcomes may be tailored in respect of this
– for example counselling or re-education
for drug or alcohol abuse may be undertaken. Finally, restorative
justice claims to increase procedural justice. When
offenders feel that they have been treated fairly by the criminal
justice system, it is argued that they are more likely to
respect and obey the law in future (Tyler, 1990).
(iii)
The community
Many advocates of restorative justice emphasize the central role of
‘community’ to restorative practices. There exists
some dispute as to what constitutes a ‘community’ and if traditional
conceptions of ‘community’ in fact exist
(Johnstone, 2001: 29; Walgrave, 2000). McCold and Watchel (1998a: 71)
suggest that ‘community’ is not necessarily
a ‘place’ but better understood in abstract terms; a “personal
connectedness both to other individual human beings
and to a group.” Indeed, McCold submits that restorative justice differs
from other forms of informal justice because
of its view of ‘community’. In this sense, restorative justice seeks
closed networks or communities of care known to
the victim and offender. Unlike community justice, restorative justice
rejects other communities, which embodies
many of the power imbalances associated with wider social injustice,
(McCold, 2004). On another view, however, a
more inclusionary view of community enhances the potential for
restorative processes to work with and connect to a
wider range of individuals and agencies, (Umbreit et al, 2004; Karp,
2004).
In practice, the degree of direct community involvement in restorative
programs varies. Some programs are entirely
community-led as evident in some areas of Northern Ireland, (McEvoy and
Mika, 2002) whilst others are state-based
and may make use of representatives or facilitators drawn from the
community. The rationale behind community
involvement is twofold. Firstly, the community is said to be a “key
resource for achieving restorative goals”
(Johnstone, 2001: 152). It accomplishes this by acting as a positive
force encouraging the offender to repair the harm
that has resulted from their actions whilst providing them with support
in ceasing their offending behaviour5.
Secondly, the restorative process is said to empower and strengthen
communities by enabling them to become
involved in problem-solving and conflict resolution (McCold, 1996).
(iv)
The state
Walgrave (2000: 264) identifies the involvement of a ‘collective third
party’ as crucial to restorative justice. This third
party is often identified as ‘community’, yet to many commentators the
state is also an important actor in the
development of a “fully fledged restorative justice system”6. If restorative justice is to become a
mainstream
approach to offending, it is clear that it must demonstrate tangible
benefits to the state and community. Advocates
assert that restorative practices can generate such benefits - including
increased public confidence and satisfaction
with the criminal justice system (Crawford and Newburn, 2003: 219).
Justice, in its new participatory format, will
literally be ‘seen to be done’. The decentralised nature of restorative
justice is further said to yield cost benefits,
particularly when compared to the expenses involved in formally
processing, detaining or imprisoning offenders.
Reduced re-offending is commonly cited as a core advantage of
restorative justice (Maxwell and Morris, 2002). Those
who attend a restorative program are said to be “much less likely to
commit further crimes than similar offenders who
go through a conventional punitive process” (Johnstone, 2001: 21),
although evidence to support such claims is far
from solid. On a much broader scale, Roche (2002: 24) suggests that the
establishment of restorative justice can
revitalize the general ‘health’ of the state by “offering the potential
to reinvigorate democratic governments and their
laws”.
Nevertheless, there are those who may question the role of the State in
implementing restorative justice. In a recent
critique of restorative justice, Pavlich identifies what he terms an
‘imitor paradox’ within restorative governmentalities
(Pavlich, 2005). This ‘imitor paradox’ arises from a simultaneous
defiance and imitation: restorative justice defines
itself in defiance of basic concepts within adversarial justice
processes but relies for its survival upon conventional
criminal justice beliefs such as notions of, ‘crime’, ‘offender’ and
‘victim’ (2005: 14). One implication is that
restorative justice beholds wide political appeal; by situating itself
both inside and out of the traditional justice system
it offers elements favourable to an array of groups (2005: 107)
including traditional State actors. However, Pavlich
warns that this sympathetic process may come to serve the very system,
which it sought to replace (2005: 108). As
such, situating restorative justice within the apparatus of State risks
absorption by the conventional justice system.
5 Notably, Crawford and Newborn (2003:52)
point out that ‘community reintegration’ rests upon the assumption that this is
a desirable aim, with
little questions as to the legitimacy of the community which may have
abused or marginalised the offender.
6 Community restorative justice schemes can
often have an uneasy relationship with state led practices. See McEvoy and Mika
(2002) and Roche
(2002) for further discussion.
Nevertheless, those who perceive a supportive role for the State in
restorative justice behold a more pragmatic
approach: the role of State as gatekeeper or as final arbiter ensures a
crucial guard against the common criticism that
informal justice processes lack the procedural mechanisms necessary to
safeguard due process and participant’s rights
(Vanfraechem et al, 2004: 73; Vanfraechem, 2005: 281).
Process and outcome
At this juncture, it is important that a distinction is made between
restorative process and restorative outcomes
(Braithwaite, 2002; Roche, 2001). Procedural definitions view process as
inherently ‘restorative’. Daly (2002: 57)
states this is typified by Marshall’s (1999:4) description of
restorative justice as “[a] process whereby all the parties
with a stake in a particular offence come together to resolve
collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the
offence and its implications for the future”. In this sense, once the
victim and the offender meet and an agreed
outcome is achieved, restorative justice is said to have taken place. On
the other hand, outcome definitions consider
“every action that is primarily orientated towards doing justice by
repairing the harm that has been caused by crime.”
(Bazemore and Walgrave, 1999: 48). The ‘restorativeness’ of the outcome
is therefore more important than the way in
which it is achieved. Morris (2002: 600) favours a flexible model which
balances both process and outcome. She
suggests that: “the essence of restorative justice is not the adoption
of one form rather than another; it is the adoption
of any form which reflects restorative values and which aims to achieve
restorative processes, outcomes and
objectives”.
Measuring ‘restorativeness’
Roche (2001:351) suggests that it is no longer useful to simply assert
whether or not a practice is restorative, but
instead it is important to be able to determine how restorative it is by
assessing both its process and values (see also
Braithwaite, 2002). Depending on how it operates in practice, the
‘restorativeness’ of a program may be measured on
a sliding scale. The overall restorativeness of a program can be
determined by the level of victim reparation, offender
responsibility and reconciliation with ‘communities of care’ achieved
(McCold, 2000). Where all these criterions are
met, the model can be described as ‘fully’ restorative. Where only one
or two of the criteria are achieved the model
is either ‘mostly’ or ‘partly’ restorative; for example, a restorative
program which has no victim in attendance is, in
theory, only ‘partly’ restorative. Likewise, outcomes that involve
reparation to the wider community rather than to an
individual victim are only ‘partly’ restorative.
The subsequent section will examine restorative justice’s potential for
application - whether the theory surrounding it
is capable of transferring into practice. Following a selection of
case-studies illustrating restorative justice in
operation, the schemes will then be critically examined to ascertain
whether these values and claims are in fact being
achieved.
1.3 Restorative justice in practice
As already mentioned, the difficulty in establishing an accepted
definition of restorative justice is reflected in the
diversity of how it operates in practice. A closer examination of the
many programs defined as ‘restorative’ presents
us with a wide range of schemes which renders it problematic to pinpoint
a single ‘definitive’ model of restorative
justice. Practices differ depending on, amongst other things, the level
of formality, the stage of intervention, the
facilitating body, the parties involved and the type of offences dealt
with. For example, some programs are based in
statute, whilst others are more informal. The offender may be referred
to a scheme at different stages - some programs
operate as a diversionary intervention, others as a means of sentencing
by the court. Programs can be organised by
different bodies. Some are police-led, such as the restorative
cautioning scheme in Northern Ireland (O’Mahony et al,
2002), whilst others are local community initiatives (McEvoy and Mika,
2002). Many programs involve the offender
meeting the victim face-to-face, others facilitate indirect mediation,
and some involve no victim. A model may
provide for the inclusion of the wider community whilst others can take
the form of private sessions involving only
those directly affected by the offence. In many jurisdictions, the
seriousness of offences dealt with will vary, ranging
from very serious crimes to minor offending, such as shoplifting. These
brief illustrations highlight enormous potential
for divergence amongst restorative models in practice.
Review
of the literature and research
8
Review
of the literature and research
9
The Northern Ireland youth conferencing service has its roots in the
‘family group conferencing’ model as established
in New Zealand (Maxwell and Morris, 1993). Consequently, models, which have
developed under this framework
warrant particular attention7. Family group conferencing typically involves a meeting of the
offender, their family and
the victim(s). The process aims to facilitate inclusive dialogue and
offer a solution or way forward, which addresses
both the impact of the offence and the offending behaviour (Dignan,
2005: 115). The following section will consider
how ‘conferencing’ models operate examining their development,
characteristics, and implementation with reference
to evaluative research. It is often difficult to make direct comparisons
between programs, owing to variance in both
research methodology and the delivery and philosophy of different
schemes. Indeed, Miers warns that when
evaluating programs it “is necessary to be alert to the differing types
of restorative justice being offered” (Miers, 2004:
35). However, most evaluations carried out to date have focused upon
common themes of participant satisfaction,
procedural justice, rights issues, ‘restorativeness’ and recidivism
(Kurki, 2003). This section will firstly examine
legislated conferencing models operating in New Zealand, New South Wales
and England and Wales and then will
proceed to assess the non-legislated, police-led ‘Reintegrative Shaming
Experiment’ (RISE) conferencing scheme in
Canberra, Australia.
New Zealand - Family group conferencing
(i)
Background
Introduced in 1989 as part of the Children, Young Persons and their
Families Act, the family group conferencing
process is fully incorporated into the formal criminal justice system
and deals with a majority of young offenders. The
New Zealand model is perhaps the most widely known restorative scheme
and has served as a benchmark for many
other programs. The family group conferencing model emerged during a
shifting political climate characterised by a
questioning of the existing welfare-driven youth justice system and
increased Maori activism and debate over the
cultural appropriateness of a western colonial model of justice. The New
Zealand model has often been described as
a revived “indigenous” justice practice with direct roots in Maori
tradition. This has been rejected by some
commentators who instead depict it as a mixed model of informal justice
which offers a potentially “culturally
sensitive” and “culturally appropriate” way of dealing with young
offenders (Daly, 2002). Nevertheless, intrinsic to
both the family group conferencing model and Maori culture is the idea
of whanau (extended family) as a key
channel of change and support. The New Zealand model emphasises
inclusive participation and collective decision
making and the achievement of “social balance […] by reintegrating young
people in their family and community
and by determining appropriate means of redress for victims.” (Maxwell
and Morris, 1998)
(ii)
What are its characteristics?
The underlying philosophy of the New Zealand youth justice system is
that criminal proceedings should only be
instigated against a young person where there are no alternative means
of dealing with the offence. Young offenders
can only be arrested in strict circumstances and in 1996 only 11% of
young offenders were arrested (Morris and
Maxwell, 1998), a significant reduction from previous practice8. Instead, the principle of diversion
underpins both
family group conferencing and the New Zealand youth justice system as a
whole. The key aims of the New Zealand
model are:
◆ to divert the young
person away from the formal justice system;
◆ to facilitate family
participation and empowerment ;
◆ to accommodate and
involve the victim;
◆ to operate in a
culturally appropriate manner;
◆ to arrive at
decisions through consensus.
Any young person aged between 14 and 17 years old who admits to an
offence is eligible for family group
conferencing. Conferences can be convened for any offence with the
exception of murder and manslaughter.
Consequently, very serious offences such as rape and robbery can be
dealt with through conferencing. Formal court
proceedings are often alienating to both victim and offender and, in
acknowledgement of this, a conference usually
takes place in an agreed informal setting, such as the offenders
family’s home or a Maori meeting house (Marae). The
most common venue for a conference, however, is Department of Social
Welfare premises, which, it is argued, may
7 Due to constraints of space alternative
models such as victim-offender mediation and sentencing circles will not be
examined. Dignan and
Lowey (2000) and Miers (2001) provide good overviews of further models
of restorative justice in operation.
8 A young person will only be arrested to
ensure their appearance before court, to prevent them from re-offending or to
prevent the loss or
destruction of evidence
Review
of the literature and research
10
be less intimidating for the victim (Maxwell and Morris, 1993). Those
entitled to attend include the offender and their
(extended) family, the victim and their supporters, a police officer, a
lawyer and anyone else the family feels should
be present. The number of participants will vary - conferences involving
Maori young people are often attended by
their extended family, some conferences having taken place with up to
twenty-seven participants (Maxwell and
Morris, 1993: 77).
(iii)
How is it implemented?
The Department of Social Welfare is responsible for the administration
of family group conferences. Cases may be
referred in two ways; (i) by the police following an admission of guilt
as a pre-charge mechanism to determine
whether prosecution can be avoided or (ii) by the youth court as a post
charge mechanism to determine how to deal
with young people who admit guilt or are found guilty9. A conference is convened and
facilitated by a youth justice
co-ordinator who is expected to assume a low-key role and enable the
participants to regulate a conference how they
‘think fit’10. The New Zealand Ministry of Justice illustrate a typical conference
process as involving:
◆ Introductions / mihi,
and karakia (prayer);
◆ An explanation of the
procedure by the Youth Justice Coordinator;
◆ The presentation of
the summary of facts of the offence by the police;
◆ An opportunity for
the offender to comment on the accuracy of the police statement;
◆ A formal admission by
the young person;
◆ An opportunity for
the victim (or representative) to present their view if the offender admits the
offence;
◆ A general discussion
of possible outcomes;
◆ A discussion of
options among the offender's family;
◆ General negotiation
and the formulation of a plan, response or outcome by the FGC participants;
◆ Agreement from
participants;
◆ Recording of the
agreed plan and closure of the meeting11.
In practice, many conferencing schemes have followed the same basic
outline as the New Zealand model. The main
objective of a conference is the agreement of a plan – however, in some
cases, a number of conferences may be
required before an agreed outcome is reached. In order for a plan to
come into effect it must be ratified by the court
which has the power to impose additional sanctions if recommended by the
family group conference. A plan is
monitored by a youth justice co-ordinator for compliance and, if
successfully completed, proceedings against the
young person are normally withdrawn. If the young person fails to carry
out the requirements of a plan, a second
conference may be convened to address this. If this proves unsuccessful
the court can then proceed to act as a
‘quality control’ mechanism by exercising its own sentencing for the
offence (Dignan and Lowey, 2000: 27).
(iv)
How is it working in practice?
The most comprehensive study of the family group conferencing system has
been undertaken by Maxwell and Morris
(1993). They concluded that the Children, Young Persons and Their
Families Act (1989) was generally successful in
meeting many of its named objectives. Satisfaction levels for offenders
and their parents who participated were high,
with 84% conveying approval towards family group conferencing. With
regards to reconviction, findings from a six
year follow up study have suggested that “restorative processes and
practices can have a positive impact on helping
people to avoid reoffending” (Maxwell and Morris, 2002: 133). On the
other hand, victim participation levels in
family group conferences were somewhat low at 41%. Of the victims who
participated, only 51% expressed
satisfaction and a third of victims who attended reported feeling worse
afterwards. This suggests that overall benefits
to the victim are somewhat inconclusive, although it appears that
conferencing can clearly be a positive experience
for many victims.
However, a more recent study shows that the overall results from FGC
remain largely positive (Maxwell et al, 2004).
The results show an improvement in victim attendance with a victim
present for half of the conferences studied. In
addition, 87% of victims reported feeling better following the
conference with only 5% stating that they felt worse,
(2004: 158). Nevertheless, the authors contend that there remains room
for improvement including ensuring that
victims feel involved in making decisions, that there exists sufficient
victim support and that follow-up information is
provided for both attending and non-attending victims, (2004: 181).
Young people reported positively on their
9 Family Group Conferences: Practical
Implementation - http://www.justice.govt.nz/youth/fgc.html
10 Section 256, Children Young Persons and
their Families Act (1989)
11 Family Group Conferences: Procedure: The Conference and the Plan - http://www.justice.govt.nz/youth/fgc.html
Review
of the literature and research
11
experiences of conference processes and indicated high levels of
satisfaction. On the other hand, it is important to
note that one-third felt stigmatised with half agreeing that the, “way I
was dealt with made me feel like a bad person”
(2004: 124)12. Even with this result the vast majority felt that they were treated
fairly and with respect (2004: 127).
Re-offending and positive life outcomes were related to earlier life
experiences and events subsequent to the FGC.
However, certain conference features such as good preparation, enabling
feelings of remorse and being able to repair
harm were identified as important if re-offending is to be less likely
(Maxwell 2005: 63). In addition, it was noted that
re-offending might be reduced where the young person acquires a sense of
forgiveness and an intention not to reoffend,
(Maxwell et al, 2004: 248). In a further presentation of this research
Maxwell notes that few of the young
people were given the opportunity to engage in meaningful or effective
programmes, (Maxwell, 2005: 64). Therefore,
it is possible that a development in the quality of programmes could
impact further on the positive results from
conference processes, (2005: 64).
New South Wales - Youth justice conferencing
(i)
Background
Established in 1991 in New South Wales, the Wagga Wagga conferencing
pilot scheme was one of the first restorative
programs to be introduced in Australia. The scheme’s theoretical roots
can be located in John Braithwaite’s concept of
‘reintegrative shaming’ (Braithwaite, 1988). The Wagga scheme emerged
around the same time as the New Zealand
model, but differed significantly in two ways: it was not based in
legislation and the program was entirely
administered by the police. Each week, a police “adjudication panel”
examined juvenile cases and, where the young
person admitted guilt, they could choose to divert them from the formal
court system by referring them to a
conference (Moore and Forsythe, 1995). Conferences were facilitated by
police officers who initially used a general
set of protocols to guide the process. These were eventually formalised
into a script devised by Sergeant Terry
O’Connell to ensure that procedural restorative justice took place13. In 1994, a new pilot scheme of
community
youth conferencing was introduced in New South Wales, replacing the
Wagga Wagga pilot14. This was later passed
into legislation in the form of the Young Offenders Act (1997).
(ii)
What are its characteristics?
In New South Wales, young offending is dealt with using a legislated
‘hierarchy of interventions’ (Trimboli, 2000)
administered depending on the offence and any previous contact the young
person may have had with the justice
system. The first and least restrictive of these interventions is a
police warning, followed by a formal police caution
and finally a youth justice conference will be convened where previous
interventions have proved unsuccessful.
Youth justice conferences are therefore not intended for first time
offenders. Young people aged between 10 and 17
who commit summary or indictable offences are eligible for youth justice
conferencing (Section 8, Young Offenders
Act). These offences include “assault, robbery, break, enter and steal,
motor vehicle theft, theft, receiving, property
damage and disorderly conduct” (Strang, 2001: 7). The guiding principles
of youth justice conferencing are:
◆ to ensure that the
child accepts responsibility for what they have done
◆ to empower the family
◆ to prevent further
offending by providing support for the child
◆ to enhance victims
rights and have regard to the victim’s interests
◆ be culturally
appropriate
One of the main criticisms directed at the previous Wagga Wagga scheme
was that, as it was led by the police,
conferences were held at police stations. It was argued that this choice
of venue made it difficult for participants to
view the process as neutral and independent from the day to day
functions of the police (Blagg, 1997). The new
youth justice conferencing scheme addressed these concerns by using a
non-police body to facilitate the conferences
and by adding the requirement that they be held in a neutral venue.
12 The research incorporated two samples, a restorative sample of 520
young people who had participated in a conference with an interview sample of
105 young
people, (2004: 23 and 36).
13 An overview of it’s development is provided at: http://iirp.org/library/nacc/nacc_oco.html
14 Although succeeded in New South Wales by a legislated model of youth
justice conferencing , the influence of the Wagga Wagga police-led model has
been farreaching
inspiring practices in Thames Valley, England and Canberra, Austrailia.
(iii)
How is it implemented?
The New South Wales scheme is facilitated by a Youth Justice
Conferencing Directorate, a branch of the Department
of Juvenile Justice. It was decided that the conferencing system should
not be administered by the police as in
Wagga Wagga but by an agency “not only neutral and independent of
specific interest groups, but [with] an
established infrastructure across NSW” (Trimboli, 2000: 3). A referral
to a conference can be made by a specialist
youth police officer as a diversionary intervention or by a court. The
young person and their supporters, the young
person’s legal representative, the victim and their supporters, a
specialist youth officer, investigating official and
anyone else who the convenor deems useful are entitled to attend the
conference. The conference is facilitated by
convenors recruited from the community on a contractual ‘pool’ basis who
are allocated individual conferences
depending on their appropriateness to the individual case (Trimboli,
2000)15. If a conference is successful, an
outcome plan will be drawn up by the participants. A plan may contain:
◆ the making of an oral
or written apology, or both, to any victim,
◆ the making of
reparation to any victim or the community,
◆ participation by the
child in an appropriate program,
◆ the taking of actions
directed towards the reintegration of the child into the community.
(Section 52(5), Young Offenders Act)
However, this is not a prescribed list and it is up to the participants
to decide upon an appropriate outcome16.
Importantly, the legislation requires that plans are proportionate -
they should contain “realistic and appropriate
sanctions that are not more severe than those that might have been
imposed in court proceedings for the offence” (S
52(6)). Adherence to a plan is compulsory and the young person will be
monitored by a conference administrator for
compliance.
(iv)
How is it working in practice?
The New South Wales youth justice conferencing scheme was subject to a
major evaluation in 1999 by the New
South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (Trimboli, 2000).
The evaluation focused on participant
satisfaction and whether statutory objectives and the general principles
of the conferencing scheme were being
achieved. 969 participants took part in the study and, overall, there
were high levels of satisfaction: 79.1% of victims
and 90.2% of offenders were satisfied with the way in which their case
had been dealt with by the justice system.
Attendance by victims at conferences was high at 72.5% and they
indicated that they were provided with the
opportunity to explain the impact of the offence (98.1%). Indeed, both
victims and offenders reported that they felt
involved in the process: 91% of offenders and 98% of victims agreed or
strongly agreed that they were given the
opportunity to express their views. In terms of what was agreed,
participant satisfaction was also high: 89% of victims
and 91% of offenders agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “you
are satisfied with the conference outcome
plan”. Research comparing reoffending levels between conferencing and
court in New South Wales found that
“conferencing produces a moderate reduction of up to 15 to 20 per cent
in reoffending across different offence types
[…] regardless of the gender, criminal history, age and Aboriginality of
the offender” (Luke and Lind, 2002). Overall,
these findings indicate high levels of satisfaction reflecting positively
on the conferencing process in New South
Wales for both victims and offenders.
England and Wales – Referral orders
(i)
Background
In 1997, the Labour government produced a White Paper entitled No More
Excuses calling for action to be taken to
“maximise the impact of the youth court on young offenders, making it as
effective as possible at tackling offending
behaviour, especially for young people appearing before the court for
the first time” (Home Office, 1997). These reforms
were brought about in the form of referral orders, introduced in England
and Wales in Part 1 of the Youth Justice and
Criminal Evidence Act (1999). In April 2002, following an 18 month pilot
scheme and evaluation (Newburn et al, 2001),
referral orders became available as the primary court disposal for first
time offenders between the ages of 10 and 17
throughout England and Wales. Referral orders divert a young person away
from court to a Youth Offender Panel designed
to provide them with the opportunity to “make restoration to the victim,
take responsibility for the consequences of their
offending behaviour, and achieve reintegration into the law-abiding
community” (HMSO, 1999). Youth Offender Panels
are said to draw inspiration from a diverse range of restorative
programs and theories including the Scottish Children’s
Hearing system, New Zealand’s family group conferencing model, John
Braithwaite’s theory of “reintegrative shaming”
and ‘restorative cautioning’ as practiced by the Thames Valley Police
(Crawford and Newburn, 2002: 479).
Review
of the literature and research
12
15 For example, it may be culturally appropriate to allocate an
Aboriginal convenor where the young person is Aboriginal
16 Section 52(1) states that “the participants at a conference may agree
to make such recommendations decisions as they think fit”.
Review
of the literature and research
13
(ii)
What are its characteristics?
Referral orders are available as a mandatory disposal for first time
offenders aged between 10 and 17 who are found
guilty and convicted by a court. They are designed to “provide a forum
away from the formality of the court where
the young offender, his or her family and, where appropriate, the victim
can consider circumstances surrounding the
offence(s) and the effect on the victim” (Crawford and Newburn, 2003:
59). They are therefore intended as a
diversionary measure to curb offending at an early stage. A young person
is referred by the court to a Youth Offender
Panel whose function is to address the young person’s offending
behaviour and decide what form of action should be
taken. If the victim wishes, they may attend the panel meeting and
convey to the young person how the crime has
affected them. In many jurisdictions, a young person must consent to
taking part in a restorative program; however,
this is not the case with referral orders which are ordered by the
court. Equally, the parents (or parent) of a young
person under the age of 16 are compelled to attend the panel, a power
which the court may extend to apply to older
offenders. A significant characteristic of the referral order process is
the direct involvement of community: panel
meetings are chaired by two Community Panel Members and practice
guidelines suggest that they should be
convened in community venues. As such, referral orders mark a step
towards decentralisation and a considerable
departure in the delivery of youth justice in England and Wales.
(iii)
How is it implemented?
Youth Offender Panels are facilitated by a Youth Offending Team member
and two trained volunteers from the local
community17. Panel meetings are usually held in the evening at informal community
venues. The young person, their
parents (or appropriate adult), Youth Offending Team members and
Community Panel Members must attend a
meeting. A victim (or their representative), a supporter of the victim
and anyone “capable of having a good influence
on the offender” may also attend18. Notably, government guidelines state the young person should not have
legal
representation at the panel meeting as it may prevent them from becoming
fully involved in the process (Home
Office, 2002: 32). If a solicitor does attend a meeting, it should
instead be in the role of a supporter.
The intended outcome of a panel meeting is the agreement of a
“challenging but achievable” (Crawford and
Newburn, 2003: 134) contract which will provide reparation to the victim
or community and include interventions
which address the young person’s offending behaviour. Possible
interventions can include family counselling,
mentoring, victim awareness sessions and drugs or alcohol programs. In
order to maintain the restorative nature of
the meeting a contract must be negotiated and not imposed on a young
person. The amount of reparation in the plan
should be directly proportionate to the offence and length of the order
imposed. If the meeting fails to reach an
agreed outcome the Youth Offending Panel will report back to the court,
who will then reconsider how the young
person should be dealt with. A contract is enforceable and subject to
monitoring and review by the Youth Offending
Team. If the young person fails to comply with the terms of the
contract, the Youth Offending Team will refer the
young person back to the court to consider re-sentencing.
(iv)
How is it working in practice?
An 18 month evaluation of referral orders was undertaken for the Home
Office throughout the eleven pilot areas
across England and Wales in 2000 and 2001 (Newburn et al, 2001).
Referral Orders were subsequently introduced
in April 2002 as a court disposal nationwide. The research focused on
the recruitment and training of youth offender
panel members and the implementation and overall impact of referral
orders. Certain of the results related to the
actual scheme of the legislation, namely the mandatory nature of
Referral Orders and the fact that they apply to first
time offenders. Therefore, in interview, Magistrates indicated
dissatisfaction that Referral Orders were issued for minor
offences and that their preferred disposal would often have been a
conditional discharge or fine (Newburn et al,
2002: 21-22).
As for the observational findings these suggest that young people
participated actively in the panel meetings and that
they and their parents were generally happy and well informed about the
purpose of the meeting. In 74% of cases,
contracts were successfully completed. Almost a quarter (23%) of young
people who completed contracts went on to
re-offend but, given the narrow timeframe of the research, this may not
be indicative of overall recidivism rates.
Victim participation rates proved to be very low at 13%, particularly
when compared to other restorative schemes in
operation worldwide. As such, the majority of reparation in contracts
was community-based rather than directed
towards individual victims. In terms of panel composition, government
guidelines require that panel members are
‘properly representative’ of the community (Home Office, 2000). In
practice, this balance proved difficult to attain,
17 The selection and recruitment of Community Panel Members is not based
on qualifications but personal qualities such as good character, communication
skills,
understanding and judgement (Home Office,2000).
18 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act Part 1 s7(4)b.
Review
of the literature and research
14
and it was found that the majority of panel members were white, female,
professional, and over 40 years old
(Crawford and Newburn, 2002: 483). Overall, the study reflected rather
positively on referral orders, concluding that
“within a relatively short period of time the panels have established
themselves as constructive, deliberative and
participatory forums in which to address young people’s offending
behaviour” (Newburn et al, 2001: 62).
Canberra – Reintegrative shaming experiment (RISE)
(i)
Background
In Australia, two divergent approaches to restorative conferencing have
been taken. As illustrated previously, New
South Wales adopted a legislated model of conferencing administered by
the Department of Juvenile Justice.
Canberra took a different approach, and developed a model similar to the
non-legislated police conferencing scheme
established in Wagga Wagga. Consequently, the Canberra program differs
from the legislated conferencing models
illustrated previously, however due to fact that research into its
operation explicitly compares experiences of
conferencing to court it nevertheless warrants attention. The
Reintegrative Shaming Experiment or ‘RISE’ experiment
was established in 1995 and ran until 2000. It aimed to test the
validity of three hypotheses:
◆ Both offenders and
victims find conferences to be fairer than court;
◆ There will be less
repeat offending after a conference than after court;
◆ The public costs of
providing a conference are no greater than the cost of processing offenders in
court.
It further aimed to examine the use of ‘shaming’ in conferences,
theorising that conferences would produce more
positive ‘reintegrative’ shaming (Braithwaite, 1988) than court.
(ii)
What are its characteristics and how is it implemented?
To facilitate a comparison between participant’s experiences a
randomised controlled trial was implemented which
saw offenders randomly allocated to either court or conferencing
(Strang, 2002: 70-72). The RISE project was not
confined to juvenile offenders but instead focused on four distinct
offence groups:
◆ Drink driving
offences of any age;
◆ Shoplifting by under
18 year olds;
◆ Property crime with
victims and offenders under 18 years of age19;
◆ Violent crime by
offenders under 30 years of age20.
To be eligible for conferencing the offender must admit to the offence
and be resident in the area covered by the
project. They must be informed that their case was diverted to
conferencing randomly and they have the choice to be
dealt with by a court if preferred (Strang, 2002:73). The format of the
RISE conferences is very similar to the New
South Wales and New Zealand models; however it follows a more scripted
pattern, as first established in the Wagga
Wagga scheme.
(iii)
How is it working in practice?
The RISE project was the subject of a major research project carried out
by the Centre for Restorative Justice at the
Australian National University. This evaluation has provided a valuable
comparative insight into how victims and
offenders experience court and conferencing. Overall, the research
looked more favourably on the conferencing
experience and came to the ‘inescapable’ conclusion that “both victims
and offenders can name many ways in which
they prefer conferences to court” (Sherman et al, 1998: 165).
Perceptions of fairness amongst victims and offenders
were higher and observations reported greater participation, emotional
intensity, procedural justice, apologies,
forgiveness and time and effort given to justice in conferences than in
court (Sherman et al, 1998). Conferences were
also said to increase offenders respect for the law and the police. In
terms of testing Braithwaite’s theory of
reintegrative shaming the research interestingly reported more stigmatic
shaming in conferences than in court. This,
however, was attributed to the fact shaming rarely occurs in court in
any form. Data analysing repeat offending has
been less conclusive. Recidivism patterns were assessed over a one year
period and it was found that there was no
19 Specifically, the offences eligible for the property experiment are
burglary, theft, criminal damage, shoplifting, fraud, car theft,vehicle
break-ins, possession of stolen
property or attempts at any of these.
20 Offences eligible for the violence experiment are assault occasioning
actual bodily harm, common assault, act endangering life, fighting , possession
of an offensive
weapon, arson or attemps at any of these.
Review
of the literature and research
15
difference for property offenders and shoplifters, and a very slight
increase in reoffending (4%) amongst drink driving
offenders. Conferences did however lead to a 38% drop in offending
amongst violent offenders suggesting that the
impact of conferencing varies depending on the type of offence.
Victim analyses were carried out only on juvenile property crime and
youth violence. High levels of victim
participation were reported with 82% of property victims and 91% of
violence victims in attendance. By contrast,
victims whose cases were assigned to court attended very infrequently,
primarily when giving evidence or appearing
as a witness21. Conferencing enabled many victims to receive an apology, whereas
apologies were never made in
court. In terms of satisfaction, victims found conferencing fairer than
court. Interestingly, there was some difference in
satisfaction amongst property and violence victims but there was
nevertheless “moderately high level of satisfaction
regarding procedural justice” (Sherman et al, 1998: 151) amongst both.
This discrepancy in satisfaction levels may be
explained by the nature of the crime – victims of violence were said to
have suffered substantial harm, illustrated by
the fact that 62% of these victims required medical treatment. By in
large, the research reflects positively on the RISE
experiment and concludes that “as long as there is at least no
difference in both costs and recidivism, the advantages
of increased respect for police and greater victim involvement” (Sherman
et al, 1998: 160) suggests that conferencing
is a desirable addition to the criminal justice system.
This section has set out how a number of key conferencing models are
implemented and operate in practice. These
schemes are founded upon the same basic framework as the Northern
Ireland model and, as such, how they work in
practice raises a number of pertinent issues relevant to the new youth
conferencing scheme. These issues include the
effectiveness of restorative programmes vis-à-vis the traditional
justice system and whether they are successful in
safeguarding participant’s rights. The subsequent section will now
establish what critical issues are arising from
restorative justice in practice and proceed to examine them in greater
depth.
21 Only 5% of property victims attended court and 13.3% oof violence
victims attended court.
16
Is a plan supervised
for compliance?
A plan is supervised
by a Youth
Conference Coordinator.
Noncompliance
will be
referred back to
court or Public
Prosecution Service
Co-ordinator is
responsible for
reviewing a plan.
Non-compliance
may lead to 2nd
conference
Supervised by Youth
Offending Team.
Referred back to
court in the event of
non-compliance.
Will often contain
voluntary elements
Conference
Administrator
monitors plan for
compliance
Information not
available
Who ratifies
outcome?
Diversionary
Public
Prosecution
Service
Court-ordered
Court
Youth court
Youth Offending
Panel. Panel will
report to court if
no outcome is
agreed
Conference coordinator
will
report to court if
no outcome
agreed
Information not
available
Who can attend a
conference?
Must attend:
offender,
coordinator, police officer,
appropriate adult
May attend:
offender
supporter(s) and solicitor,
victim (or rep.) and
supporter(s), other person of
value
May attend:
Youth justice coordinator,
offender, offender
family, police officer, lawyer,
victim and supporters
Must attend:
offender, parents
or appropriate adult, YOT
member, two Community
Panel Members.
May attend:
victim (or rep.),
victim supporter, offender
supporter and other person
who may be a ‘good
influence’ towards offender.
May attend:
Offender, offender family,
victim (or rep.) and
supporter(s), police, lawyer,
conference co-ordinator
May Attend:
Offender, offender family,
victim, victim supporter(s),
police officer
Who convenes a
conference?
Youth Conference
Coordinator (employee
of Youth Justice Agency)
Department of Social
Welfare
One Youth Offending
Team member and two
trained Community
Panel Members
Department of Juvenile
Justice Facilitators who
are recruited from
community on
contractual ‘pool’ basis
Facilitated by police
officers
How is a referral
made?
Diversionary
referred by Public
Prosecution Service
Court-ordered
on admission or
finding of guilt
Diversionary
referred by the police
pre-charge
Court-ordered
referred by a court
post-charge
Court-ordered
on pleading guilty
and on conviction
by court
Diversionary
Pre-court by specialist
youth police officer
Court-ordered
As sentencing option
Allocated randomly to
either court or
conferencing
Who is referred?
Young people aged
10-17 who are
resident in the pilot
area. Must consent
and admit to/ be
found guilty of
offence
Young people aged
14-17 who admit to/
are found guilty of an
offence
Young people aged
10-17. First time
offenders only
Young people aged
10-17 who commit
summary or indictable
offences
-Drink driving
offences of any age
-Shoplifting by under
18 year olds
- Property crime with
victims and offenders
under 18 years of age
- Violent crime by
offenders under 30
years of age
Aims
Consider how child
should be dealt with
for offence; make
reparation for the
offence; balance needs
of victim and offender
Diversion;
accountability;
strengthen and involve
families; due process;
victim involvement;
consensus decision
making; cultural
appropriateness
Confront consequences
of crime and prevent
re-offending
Discuss crime; support
young person; restore
harm done by way of
agreed plan
To analyse the
difference between
offender and victim’s
experience of court
and conferencing
Legislation
Justice (NI) Act
2002
Children, Young
Persons and their
Families Act (1989)
Youth Justice and
Criminal Evidence
Act (1999)
Young Offenders
Act (1997)
Not based in
legislation
Model
Northern Ireland
youth conferencing
New Zealand
family group
conferencing
England and Wales
youth offender
panels
Australia
New South Wales
youth justice
conferencing
scheme
Australia
Canberra
reintegrative
shamming
experiment (RISE)
Comparative
overview of conferencing models
1.4 Critical issues
The claims put forward by both theorists and practitioners of
restorative justice demand careful consideration.
Informed by conferencing schemes in practice, this section examines
critical issues arising from restorative justice
practices highlighting contentious areas and potential discrepancies
between discourse and practice. These issues are
set out with reference to the experiences of the key actors in the
restorative process: the victim and offender.
The victim
(i)
Victim participation
Victims take part in restorative programs for a number of reasons.
Maxwell and Morris (1993: 81) found that many
victims attend for their own interests whilst others may attend to
support the young person. Reasons why victims take
part in restorative programs include:
◆ To regain a sense of
empowerment;
◆ To ask basic
questions of the offender; for example ‘why me?’;
◆ To confront the
offender and explain the impact of the crime;
◆ To obtain some form
of reparation;
◆ To help the offender;
◆ Curiosity.
Additionally, Strang (2002: 123) found that some victims "felt a
responsibility to attend" whilst others believed
"offenders need to be confronted with what they’ve done" and
wanted to "make sure he never does it again".
Victim participation is reported as high in a number of programs. In the
South Australia Juvenile Justice (SAJJ)
conferencing scheme, 74% of conferences had victims present (Daly,
2003), and in New South Wales, 73% of
victims attended (Trimboli, 2000). However, victim participation rates
are not consistently high. In Northern Ireland,
an ‘actual’ victim was only present in a minority of police-led
restorative cautions, more often victim representatives
or ‘surrogate’ victims were used (O’Mahony et al, 2002)22. Similarly, only 13% of victims took
part in Youth
Offender Panel meetings in England and Wales (Crawford and Newburn,
2003: 186). Researchers carrying out an
evaluation of victim’s experiences of the criminal justice system in
Northern Ireland explained the concept of youth
conferencing to a selection of victims and asked, hypothetically, if
they would be willing to take part in the process.
Overall, only 27% of respondents said that they would be willing to
participate (Northern Ireland Office, 2004: 66)23.
When a victim does not participate, either directly or indirectly,
questions clearly arise as to how ‘restorative’ the
process really is (McCold, 2000). Resolving the issue of how to increase
the number of victims attending restorative
meetings whilst being mindful of their right not to participate is an
important one for practitioners. Crawford and
Newburn (2003: 54) suggest that a concern raised by restorative justice
is that it "imposes new pressures, obligations
and responsibilities upon victims" who may feel obligated to
participate. Victim attendance should always be
voluntary, and it is essential that they do not feel coerced into taking
part (Brown, 1994: 1266; Reeves and Mulley,
2000). In practice it is difficult to gain effective and high levels of
participation, but without this questions have to be
raised as to how restorative such programs actually are. Nevertheless,
Victim Support urge that rather than having as a
target ‘increased victim participation’ a more victim-sensitive measure
would focus on the proportion of victims given
the opportunity to make an informed choice as to their involvement in a
restorative justice process (Victim Support,
2003a: 10).
The literature identifies a number of reasons highlighting why victims
choose not to attend restorative programs.
Victims may wish to move on, be anxious about meeting the offender, be
worried about retaliation or feel the offence
was too trivial. If the victim is a business they may not possess the
time or staff resources to attend. Other reasons
highlight problems of implementation, such as failing to inform victims,
unsuitable timing, lack of notice and the
victim not being invited (Maxwell and Morris, 1993: 80). Such
difficulties can be overcome by good practice. For
example, it may be unfeasible for a victim to attend during working
hours, in which case an evening conference
should be facilitated. Research in New Zealand supports greater
flexibility, finding that a victim was more likely to
participate if a conference was held after 6pm (ibid).
Review
of the literature and research
17
22 One of the schemes (Ballymena) dealt solely with retail theft.
Surrogate victims, who were comprised of a panel of volunteer shop
owners,attended to represent the
views and describe the impact of the theft on the business.
23 It must however be noted that the number of respondents was small.
Review
of the literature and research
18
Overall, practice indicates that willingness to participate is not
universal amongst victims, and that restorative
programs will not always be suitable in addressing a victim’s needs.
When a victim chooses not to participate, a
number of pertinent issues arise. Hoyle (2002: 98) and Dignan, (2005:
4), warn that there is potential for a division of
treatment and experience between victims who participate and those who
choose not to. Hoyle suggests that those
who decide not to take part:
“[…] will not only be less satisfied with the process
than those who do, but will also remain afraid,
confused, and ignorant about the offender, the
decision making of criminal justice agents and the
likely recurrence of the offending behaviour.”
It is therefore vital that, if they wish to receive it, information
regarding the outcome of the conference is fed back to
non-participating victims. Hoyle further highlights the experiences of
victims who do not attend in person but use
some other means of participation, such as a letter or tape recording
describing the impact of the offence. She states
that it is important that such statements are conveyed accurately to the
offender, and their impact reported back to
the victim, therefore ‘closing the loop’. This means that victims who do
not participate may still receive some of the
benefits of restorative justice by being kept informed of both the
process and outcome. The receipt of such
information is highlighted as being "particularly important where
there is a chance that the offenders and victims will
have further contact" (Hoyle, 2002: 108).
(ii)
Victim satisfaction
When victims do take part in restorative programs, many find it to be a
positive experience and reported feeling
better after the conference. In New Zealand, 49% of victims expressed
some satisfaction with the outcome (Maxwell
and Morris, 1993) and in later research 87 per cent of victims agreed
with conference outcomes, (Maxwell et al
2004: 158). In addition, these recent findings suggest differing levels
of satisfaction in relation to conference
outcomes depending on whether or not the victim attends. Therefore,
those attending report higher levels of
satisfaction with conference decisions than non-attending victims,
(Maxwell et a, 2004: 158-160). In the Canberra
‘RISE’ project, 70% of victims who participated in the program expressed
satisfaction. Factors which may help in
achieving a positive experience are identified as:
◆ Being involved in the
process;
◆ Being given the
chance to explain impact of crime;
◆ Understanding why the
crime happened;
◆ Receiving an apology
from the offender;
◆ Receiving reparation;
◆ Obtaining an insight
into the offender and their background.
Differences in satisfaction amongst victims become apparent when the
nature of the offence is taken into account.
When broken down into offence type, victims of property offences are
more likely to be satisfied with outcomes than
victims of violent offences. In the RISE project, Strang (2002)
discovered that 80% of property victims were satisfied
whilst only 53% of violence victims reported satisfaction. This may be
explained by the nature of violent offences;
according to Strang they "were usually intensely personal, and it
was more difficult to reach an outcome agreement
that was truly satisfactory to the victim" (Strang, 2002: 136).
This suggests that the type of offence may impact on
victim’s experience of the conferencing process. However, it could also
be argued that such victims may be equally
or even more dissatisfied with how they are treated in the conventional
criminal justice process; i.e. court. Indeed, in
a study comparing the experiences of victims at conference with the
experience of sexual assault victims in court,
Daly concludes that conferences might offer more potential and provide
procedures that are less cumbersome, (Daly
2005). The same study further suggests that variation in outcome for
victims may be linked to more intricate details.
Therefore, the level of victim distress in the “aftermath of
victimisation” may be an important indicator of victim
satisfaction. In a reanalysis of the SAJJ data, she found that most
distressed victims experienced greatest difficulty in
acting restoratively in the conference, (2005: 160). Furthermore,
through her focus on distress Daly indicates that it
may be useful to consider within as well as between offence differences,
that is, the effect of a crime rather than type.
Therefore, while we might compare the experiences of victims of violence
to those of property offences it may be
insightful to consider a within offence perspective. Daly notes that
certain property victims, namely personal, may be
more distressed than others, for example, those who become victims as a
result of an offence against a business
property, (2005: 161).
Review
of the literature and research
19
Although restorative programs benefit many victims, a number of victims
emerge from the conferencing experience
feeling worse. In New Zealand, for example, 25% of victims reported
feeling worse following a conference (Maxwell
and Morris, 1993) although this figure did fall to only 5 per cent in
later research, (Maxwell et al 2004: 158). Reasons
for negative experiences identified by victims in New Zealand,
consistent with other evaluations, included:
◆ Lack of support;
◆ Intimidated by large
numbers of the offender’s family;
◆ Having to relive the
crime;
◆ Felt the outcome was
inadequate;
◆ The offenders lack of
remorse/ defiance.
In practice, as each case is individual, it is difficult to foresee if a
conference will be a positive or negative experience
for a victim. Predictors may include the type of offence and level of
remorse displayed by the offender at early
meetings with the co-ordinator. Best practice suggests that a
facilitator should prepare the victim for possible
outcomes and provide them with realistic expectations. It is also
important to distinguish between a victim’s
satisfaction with the process and their satisfaction with the overall
outcome. Indeed, a victim may leave a conference
dissatisfied but in the long term, the experience could in fact aid the
healing process (Morris, Maxwell and
Robertson, 1993: 314). This indicates that longer-term evaluations may
be more accurate in determining a victim’s
overall satisfaction.
(iii)
Information
Victims have routinely identified poor levels of information as their case
progresses as a source of dissatisfaction.
Restorative approaches claim to remedy this by offering victims direct
participation in their case. In the RISE program
in Canberra this appears to have been achieved. It was found that
victims were provided with more information in
conferencing than in court: 77% of property victims were given notice
for the conference in good time, while only
15% of court cases were. However, the availability of follow-up
information has not always been consistent in
restorative programs (Maxwell and Morris, 1993; Hoyle, 2002).
Evaluations suggest that the degree of information
received by a victim has a significant impact on their overall
satisfaction. It is therefore imperative that victims are
kept informed at all stages. This includes preparing the victim for
their role, making them aware of what they should
expect from the process and informing them of potential outcomes.
Indeed, thorough pre-conference preparation is
essential in securing a positive experience for victims. In New Zealand,
nearly a third of victims who took part
expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome of the conference. This led
Maxwell and Morris to question "the extent to
which they were fully informed that, when they were present at a FGC,
their agreement was necessary for the
outcome to be accepted" (Maxwell and Morris, 1993: 121). Their
observations confirmed that there was often failure
to ascertain whether victims were in agreement with the proposed plan
(ibid). It is therefore paramount that a victim
has realistic expectations as to what they can expect to achieve from a
conference.
Finally, information regarding the completion of agreements has not
always been facilitated well. In New Zealand,
Maxwell and Morris (1993: 124; see also Maxwell et al, 2004: 182)
identified poor follow up information as a factor
impacting on victim’s overall level of satisfaction:
“…few [victims] had been informed of the eventual
success or otherwise of the outcome. This was
a source of considerable anger for them and absence of
this type of information made victims who
did attend re-evaluate the experience.”
To illustrate this, Strang (2002: 140) describes a case in Australia’s
‘RISE’ project in which ‘a missing letter of apology’
and police failure to follow up on this led to the victim questioning
their decision to take part in the conference. As
such, to many victims, the quality of follow-up information appears to
be equally important as the process itself.
Review
of the literature and research
20
(iv)
Reparation and outcomes
It is submitted that there exists relatively little evidence to suggest
that restorative justice can consistently restore
victims in terms of the consequences of victimisation, (Dignan, 2005:
164). A key aspect of restorative justice,
however, is that it enables the offender to provide the victim with some
form of symbolic or material reparation.
Indeed, victims often identify the possibility of obtaining reparation
as an important reason behind their decision to
take part. In England and Wales, it was found that 82% of contracts
agreed at Youth Offender Panel meetings
involved some form of reparation. However, this should be understood in
a context of victim participation levels of
only 13%. In reality, only 7% of contracts involved direct reparation to
the victim or payment of compensation
(Crawford and Newburn, 2003: 136). As such, much of the
‘restorativeness’ was general and directed towards the
community as opposed to an individual who has suffered harm. In New
Zealand, 30% of outcomes involved
reparation. This figure increased slightly to 42% where victims
attended, which suggests that victim presence, may
have an impact on the chance of reparation (Maxwell and Morris, 1993:
93). In New South Wales, the ‘worst feature
of the plan’ was most commonly identified (23.4%) as
"insufficient" or "untimely compensation for damage"
(Trimboli, 2000: 48). Comments made by victims include; "the cost
of stolen goods was not recovered", "the
difference between the loss and the compensation paid" was not met
and "repayment activity was made to appear
enjoyable" (Trimboli, 2000: 49).
When given the opportunity to make suggestions for a plan in a
conference, some victims expressed uncertainty as to
what would be appropriate. A victim interviewed by Maxwell and Morris
(1993: 120) in New Zealand felt that "we
couldn’t say what we felt in front of them. We were fearful of revenge
if I said what I felt about the penalty". In
England and Wales, concerns were raised as to what form of reparation
was suitable to be carried out by 10, 11 and
12 year olds. Crawford and Newburn have highlighted the difficulties
encountered in devising suitable reparative
activities appropriate to the offence (Crawford and Newburn, 2003: 136).
Financial reparation is a significant issue
when dealing with young offenders who often have no income to make
monetary amends for their actions. In such a
situation, the responsibility may then fall upon their parent or
guardian to recompense for the wrongdoing.
Finally, some have voiced concern should outcomes of restorative justice
processes become ‘routinized’ or similar in
substance to sentences issued at court (Dignan 2005: 153). Dignan
submits that even written apologies can become
standardised and that this threat is greater where there exists an
emphasis on community as opposed to direct victim
involvement, (2005: 153). Following evaluation of a restorative project
in England it was found that the writing of a
letter of apology whilst appearing to affect the goal of direct victim
reparation could embody a more hidden agenda,
(Gray, 2005). Certain practices, including reported instances of letters
not forwarded and simply held on file,
prompted the question of whether the apology constituted an exercise in
offender responsibilisation rather than any
resolve to assist victims or achieve restoration, (Gray 2005).
(v)
‘Model’ victims
A further matter and perhaps most compelling as far as victim advocates
are concerned is the fact that restorative
justice programmes are often directed by the circumstances of the
offender and the definition of the offence, (Victim
Support 2003a: 4). Therefore, restorative justice is available only
where the perpetrator has been caught, where he or
she agrees to forgo the court process and where the crime is within a
list of offences eligible for a restorative
measure. This has led Zehr to ask, “are we being as victim-orientated as
we claim?” (Zehr, 2005: 298). Dignan
submits that whilst restorative justice can assist certain victims it is
unlikely to benefit all victims equally, (Dignan,
2005: 167). He questions whether or not there exists sufficient evidence
to advocate restorative measures, (or indeed
traditional measures), for certain categories of victim including:
non-stranger victims, for instance, those victimised as
a result of domestic abuse, (see also Victim Support, 2003),
representative victims such as persons targeted as a result
of hate crime, (see also Pavlich, 2005: 79), ‘culpable’ victims and non-personal
or corporate victims, (Dignan, 2005:
168). Nevertheless, it is feasible that restorative justice in its
rejection of strict formality is more suited to the
complexities in each case. As Zehr submits, restorative justice can
accept that, “…the truths about justice are
contextual”, (Zehr, 2005: 302). Therefore, in considering the ‘culpable’
victim, Dignan acknowledges that restorative
justice can embrace a more nuanced approach. Unlike traditional court
processes the restorative dialogue permits
differing perspectives without allowing a denial by the offender for the
offence. However, he concludes that in
practice this approach is difficult to realise and might be restricted
where restorative measures attach to the
framework of a traditional justice system, (Dignan, 2005: 174).
Review
of the literature and research
21
The offender
(i)
Offender participation and satisfaction
By and large, most evaluations indicate that offenders are satisfied
with their experience of the restorative process. In
New Zealand, for example, 84% of offenders and 80% of parents said that
they were satisfied with the outcome of
the family group conference. By contrast offender perceptions of their
involvement in the process were much lower:
34% of young people felt involved and only 9% felt that they ultimately
decided the outcome (Maxwell and Morris,
1993: 115). Results from more recent research suggest some level of
improvement with around half of the sample of
young people reporting that they felt involved in the conference
process, (Maxwell, 2005: 59). Arguably, the
inclusion and active participation of the offender is vital to the
restorative process and the extent to which it is
achieved may impact upon their perception of fairness and justice.
Offenders are said to be more likely to obey the
law where procedural justice takes place (Tyler, 1990) and achieving
this is therefore an important benchmark in
restorative practice. The RISE experiment suggested that this is
occurring in conferences, indicating that conferencing
is more conducive to perceived procedural justice than court (Sherman et
al, 1998).
The active participation of the offender should not be assumed to be
inherent to the restorative process. Although
many programs require that the offender consents to take part they can
often fail to engage in the process, show a
lack of remorse, or appear defiant. Roche (2003: 33) reminds us that
positive accounts of restorative justice
describing "how people should respond are confused with the reality
of how people do respond." Rather, offender
engagement is something that should be worked towards and "actively
encouraged by those arranging youth justice
processes" (Maxwell and Morris, 1993: 128). Two important steps
towards securing active offender participation are
an admittance of guilt and agreement to take part. If an offender is
coerced into attending, attends a restorative
program against their will, or disputes their guilt, there may be little
prospect for a positive outcome (Strang, 2002:
142-143). Where this occurs, it may also prove to be an extremely
unsatisfactory experience for the victim.
As a final matter, certain forms of restorative justice, notably the New
Zealand FGC, place importance on the role of
the young person’s family or whanau in considering overall satisfaction
within the restorative process. Research by
Maxwell et al, (2004) shows an improvement in the experience of families
or whanau when compared to the results
from 1990/91, (Maxwell and Morris, 1993). At least 80% of families or
whanau interviewed felt satisfied with their
preparation for the conference, (2004: 164), and were overwhelmingly
positive about their experience of the process,
(2004: 166). In relation to outcomes, 85% agreed with the decisions at
the conference, (2004: 167). However, only
half indicated that they were given ideas about how to respond to the
offending and over a quarter indicated feeling
like a bad person, (2004: 167). Comments from the families suggest that
these feelings are often related to feeling,
“like a failure” and feeling responsible for the actions of the young
person, (2004: 167). Observations of Vermont
Reparative Boards found that parents adopted the role of passive
participant and understood their role to be only
secondary within the process, (Karp et al, 2004: 209-210). This research
further suggests that while families may not
understand what restorative justice means they should be assisted to
understand why the young person is agreeing to
perform particular tasks, (2004: 209). This is crucial where families
often share responsibility for enforcing restorative
justice outcomes, (2004: 209; Clairmont, 2005: 263). In considering the
experience of conferencing in Nova Scotia
results from follow-up interviews with families show that the majority
remain in agreement with outcomes, are happy
with progress post conference and feel better able to cope with the
young person, (Clairmont 2005: 255).
(ii)
Rights issues
The United Kingdom criminal justice system operates within a relatively
new ‘rights’ framework underpinned by the
Human Rights Act (1998). Of particular importance is Article 6 ECHR,
establishing the right to a fair trial24. With this
in mind, careful attention must be paid to any potential breaches of
offender’s rights which may occur as a byproduct
of the restorative process. Braithwaite (2002) contends that amongst
restorative proponents the belief that
fundamental human rights should be respected in restorative practices is
"near universal". Disagreement, he states,
lies in exactly what rights these should be. Where these are not clearly
defined he warns that restorative justice may
potentially "trample rights because of impoverished articulation of
procedural safeguards" (1999: 101). Warner (1994)
highlights a number of contentious aspects of the conferencing process
as; breaches of due process, pressures to
plead guilty, power imbalances, disproportionate or inconsistent
penalties, "net widening" and "double jeopardy". In
24 The European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
1950. The majority of provisions within the convention have been translated
into UK
domestic law via the Human Rights Act 1998.
Review
of the literature and research
22
general however, the European Court of Human Rights has recognised that
while the prospect of appearing in court
can create a willingness to compromise, options to forgo court processes
should not breach Article 6 provided that
the pressure is not compelling and that the provisions of Article 7 are
respected, that is, the right of persons not to
receive sanction for conduct not amounting to an offence nor to receive
harsher sanction than that applicable at the
time of the offence25. This must of course be read in light of the judgment in T&V v
United Kingdom where the
court determined that ensuring the Article 6 rights of children and
young people requires particular care including
assisting their participation and understanding of relevant justice
procedures26.
Several International instruments provide rights applicable to children
and young people in general and to the
specific circumstances of those accused or found guilty of a criminal
offence27. While it is noted that the informal
processes of restorative justice sit uneasily with due process and fair
trial rights, (Muncie 2005: 47) certain provisions
of children’s rights instruments advocate the informal resolution of
cases, For instance, Article 40 of the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child provides the following for
children in conflict with the law:
“Whenever appropriate and desirable, measures for
dealing with such children without resorting to
judicial proceedings, providing that human rights and
legal safeguards are fully respected”, (Article
40 (3) (b) UNCRC).
Similarly, Rule 11 of the Beijing Rules recommends that whenever
appropriate consideration should be given to
addressing the offence behaviour of children without resort to formal
trial. However, informal measures must always
ensure respect for legal rights and adhere to Article 3 CRC, which
demands that in all matters concerning the child
his or her best interests are of primary consideration. Maxwell et al
(2004: 254), note that an important factor in
considering whether or not the rights of the young person have been
respected include the extent to which they are
given an opportunity to query the police officer’s summary of facts at
the conference and, in adopting a more holistic
approach, the extent to which rights are respected through the entire
process including treatment on arrest and the
performance of legal representatives appointed to represent the young
person. Finally, it is argued that when assessing
whether or not restorative based outcomes are suitable for children and
young people one essential element is to
question how far they promote restorativeness but also the best
interests of the child, (Haines and O’Mahony,
(forthcoming, 2006).
(iii)
Net-widening and the referral process
Net-widening occurs when very minor offenders who would have previously
fallen outside the justice system are
drawn in. Critics warn that restorative practices may widen the net of
social control and lead to "a juvenile justice
system that is larger, that has expanded its coercive control into new
arenas of youthful behaviour, and that is
drawing in clients who previously would have been ignored" (Polk,
1994: 135; see also Cohen, 1985). When
assessing the likelihood of net-widening, regard must be had to the type
of offenders a restorative program is aimed at
(Morris, 2002). Consequently, schemes dealing with more serious offences
are less likely to result in net-widening,
whilst diversionary schemes directed at low-level offending have
increased potential to draw in minor offenders.
Paradoxically, although diversionary in principle, such schemes could
lead to an increase in the number of young
people being brought into the criminal justice system.
Evaluations have proved inconclusive in determining if net-widening is
occurring in practice. In New Zealand,
Maxwell and Morris (1993) found no evidence that family group
conferencing was resulting in new cases being
drawn in, although recent research has noted a rise in police referrals
to youth court and an increase in youth court
orders, (Maxwell 2005: 61). However, it is suggested that this rise may
be due more to limited resources available to
FGCs and a lack of commitment to diversion on the part of some Police
Officers, (Maxwell 2005: 62). In a police-led
scheme in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, it was concluded that "cases
were successfully diverted without net-widening
effects" (McCold and Watchel, 1998: 108). By contrast, in an
evaluation of the police—led restorative cautioning
scheme in Northern Ireland, net-widening was identified as a key
concern. The authors warned of a potential influx
of "very young juveniles into the criminal justice system for very
petty offences". They found that the restorative
cautioning process used considerable resources and the experience proved
particularly onerous for minor offenders
(O’Mahony et al, 2002: 7). Best practice requires that effective
‘gate-keeping’ is established with careful attention
paid to the referral process. In order to guarantee consistency and to
ensure only appropriate cases are referred this
should entail careful monitoring of who is being referred and for what.
25 The Deweer Case, 5 February 1980 Eur.Ct.HR. at para. 51(b).
26 T v UK; V v UK App. No. 24724/94, 16 December 1999.
27 Notably, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, (CRC),
November 1989; The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration
of
Juvenile Jjustice, (The Beijing Rules), November 1985, The United
Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency, (the Riyadh
Guidelines), 1990.
Review
of the literature and research
23
(iv)
Proportionality
The principle of proportionality requires that the outcome reflects the
seriousness of the offence (Von Hirsch and
Ashworth, 2000). It places emphasis on due process and determinate,
consistent sentencing. Critics warn that
proportionality may be compromised in restorative practices where the
victim, whose level of forgiveness will
inevitably differ from case to case, has a say in what happens to the
offender. This appears to contradict ‘desert
theory’ which has informed much of recent judicial practice (Von Hirsch,
2000). Maxwell and Morris (1993) reported
some evidence of disproportionate outcomes in New Zealand; on a number
of occasions the end result appeared to
"outweigh the gravity of the offence" (Maxwell and Morris,
1993: 96). In addition, research has noted that 60% of
plans incorporate restrictive elements, which are not always necessary
for public safety or in accordance with the
aims of New Zealand legislation, (Maxwell 2005: 58). In relation to
Referral Orders in England and Wales it is
insightful to note that substitution effects in terms of traditional
court orders occurred at the relatively lower levels
displacing disposals such as the conditional discharge and fine,
(Newburn et al, 2002: 51). There is a further risk that
referrals to restorative programs may be made on an arbitrary basis and
allocated with a focus on ‘welfare’ rather than
‘deserts’. Potentially, if a conference is viewed as more ‘beneficial’
to an offender other stages such as cautions or
warnings may be bypassed. In such circumstances this could lead to more
intensive treatment than the offender
would otherwise have received (Roche, 2003); the process itself may be
viewed not as an alternative to punishment
but an ‘alternative punishment’ (Daly, 2000; Young, 2001).
Ashworth suggests that to counter disproportionate sentences, upper
limits should be established and "decided by
reference to publicly debatable and democratically determined policies
that show respect for the human rights of
victims and defendants" (Ashworth, 2001: 359). Braithwaite (2002)
concurs, asserting that outcomes should never be
in excess of punishments enforced by the courts for the same offence.
However, Cavadino and Dignan (1997) reject
the idea of strict proportionality. They warn that, if enforced, it
could potentially limit the scope for the victim and
offender to be actively involved in shaping reparation, as the tariff is
pre-determined. Strang (2002: 14-15) notes that
research rejects the notion of a ‘vengeful victim’ and instead suggests
that victims prioritise involvement in the
process rather than involvement in deciding the outcome (see also Hough
and Mayhew, 1985: 35). This is particularly
important in a restorative context where the victim may be less likely
to demand a punitive outcome after meeting
the offender face to face and learning more about them.
(v)
Consent
The UN guidelines on the administration of restorative justice programs
require that they "should be used only with
the free and voluntary consent of the parties" (United Nations,
2000). Indeed, many restorative schemes require that
the offender fully consents to taking part in the process.
Theoretically, the young person’s decision should be an
informed one, with a full awareness of all the options available to him
or her. In practice, given that the alternative is
often sentencing by a court, whose sanctions may be perceived as
potentially more punitive, a young person may feel
there is no ‘choice’. Cuneen (2003: 189) asserts that ‘consent’ may be
obtained in a context of no "independent legal
advice, pressures to admit an offence to obtain the benefit of a
diversionary alternative to court and the avoidance of
a criminal record".
In New South Wales a small-scale qualitative study of young people’s
experiences of the justice system questioned
whether informed consent was always exercised when referred to a
conference. Two-thirds (66%) of participants were
either not told, or were unsure whether they had been told, that they
had a right to legal advice (Turner, 2002). In
England and Wales, solicitors are explicitly excluded from acting in an
advisory capacity in Youth Offender Panel
meetings. The rationale behind this is that the presence of a solicitor
may prevent the young person from becoming
fully involved in the process; however Crawford and Newburn (2003: 223)
note that this could potentially lead to
challenges under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Warner highlights that, given the
complexity of the justice process, conferencing may not always be an
appropriate forum to deal with questions of
culpability: "issues of guilt and innocence are not always black
and white [...] the availability of legal defences such
as intoxication and self-defence may not be appreciated" (Warner,
1994: 143).
Review
of the literature and research
24
(vi)
Power imbalances
Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that a
child should have the opportunity to be
heard in any proceedings affecting them and be allowed to express their
views freely. Careful attention must be paid
by practitioners to ensure that this occurs in practice. Problems may be
encountered in a conference scenario where
the ‘negotiation’ of a plan has the potential to be undemocratic. The
young person may feel that they have no
leverage and are obligated to agree to suggestions put forward, regardless
of their willingness or suitability. It is
submitted that the, “potential for coercion” must be considered given
that the young person is in, “a room full of
adults”, (Haines and O’Mahony, (forthcoming, 2006). Maxwell and Morris
(1993: 85) report that professionals often
held a substantial amount of leverage when devising plans and what they
suggested was more likely to be the
outcome when parents and young people were given little opportunity to
consider the plan. The recent research by
Maxwell et al (2004) finds that families and young people more often
play a central role but observations continue to
show some co-ordinators, police officers and legal professionals
dominating final decision-making, (Maxwell 2004:
172; Maxwell 2005: 59). Although New Zealand Legislation requires that
family or whanau and young person be
offered the opportunity to consider matters in private this occurred in
less than two-thirds of the cases examined,
(Maxwell 2004: 250). Unlike in earlier research, (Maxwell and Morris
1993), there was no evidence that failure to
avail of private time resulted from undue pressure to continue with the
conference discussion, (Maxwell 2004: 250).
Nevertheless, parity in decision-making might be assisted where there
exists space for private time and reflection. In
restorative pilots in Belgium, private time is a vital component for the
identification of underlying issues by the young
person with the help of his or her family and friends, (Vanfraechem
2005: 279.). Indeed, it is believed that an
important ‘pathway to agreement’ is time and space in whatever its form,
(Bazemore and Schiff, 2005: 173). In
considering the process of repairing harm in various conference
environments, Bazemore and Schiff, (2005), found
that practitioners valued the process of agreement rather than the
actual result but faced a practical challenge when
training facilitators to resist input when agreeing outcomes, (2005: 174
and 175). However, observations did show
that facilitator domination was not always down to power but emerged in
response to participants’ requests for help.
In this event, a suitable response challenged the participants with
exploratory or probing questions. A less effective
reaction occurred when facilitators encouraged the group to devise a
routine list of outcomes, (2005: 175).
Power imbalances may arise from compulsion, however, Roche (2003: 86)
argues that the possibility that a case
referred to a conference may be re-routed to court can act both as an
incentive to participate and an ‘escape route’
where there is too much pressure or domination directed towards the
offender. In this scenario, however, there is the
added danger that an offender is doubly penalised where a conference
fails to reach an agreed outcome. The offender
may be "punished by the court for the failure of the conference as
well as the offence" (Warner, 1994: 180). To
prevent this from happening courts must probe into why a conference
failed to reach agreement and "be able to
discern a justifiable refusal to reach agreement from one without
foundation" (Roche, 2003: 86).
(vii)
Recidivism
It is suggested that preventing offending is not a primary claim of
restorative justice, but instead it aims to hold
offenders accountable and make amends to victims (Daly, 2002). However,
in order for it to gain centrality to the
criminal justice system and to be taken seriously by policy makers
proving more effective than established practices
in preventing reoffending is paramount. The ability of restorative
justice to address repeat offending has been
described by some as "modest, if not inconsequential"
(Levrant, Cullen et. al, 2003: 420). A number of studies have
examined the impact of conferencing on future offending. An evaluation
of recidivism in a police-led conferencing
scheme in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania could not confirm that recidivism was
reduced as a direct result of conferencing.
Instead, it was suggested that "lower recidivism was more a
function of offender’s choice to participate than the
effects of the conferencing" (McCold and Watchel, 1998: 4). In the
Canberra ‘RISE’ project recidivism patterns were
assessed over a one year period and it was found that, when compared to
court, conferences resulted in a 38% drop
in offending rates amongst violent offenders. At the same time, there
was found to be no difference for property
offenders and shoplifters, and a very slight increase in reoffending
(4%) amongst drink driving offenders. In New
Zealand, Maxwell and Morris examined reconviction rates amongst 195
offenders who participated in a family group
conference from 1990-1991. Six years later, between 1996 and 1997, 67%
of the sample was re-interviewed to
assess levels of reconviction. Results indicated that "more than
two fifths of a sample of young people were not
reconvicted or convicted once only and not much more than one-quarter
were classified as being persistently
reconvicted" (Maxwell and Morris, 2002: 143). Based on this
evidence, the authors suggested that "restorative
processes and practices can impact on reconviction" (Maxwell and
Morris, 2002: 144). Further evaluation on
restorative cautioning within the Thames Valley project in England finds
no evidence to support the contention that
Review
of the literature and research
25
restorative justice is more effective than traditional measures in
reducing recidivism, (Wilcox, et al, 2004). However, a
recent meta-analysis of restorative justice literature shows restorative
justice processes to be significantly more
effective than traditional court measures, however, the authors note
that the results are due mostly to a self-selection
bias, that is, restorative justice participants have consented to
participate in a conference suggesting a resolve to
accept responsibility for their actions, (Latimer et al, 2005). Research
in New Zealand found life events, both pre and
post conference, to be highly predictive of reoffending but so to was
the level of involvement in the criminal justice
system, (Maxwell et al 2004; Maxwell, 2005). While certain conference
features impacted positively on recidivism
adolescent and adult life circumstances remained highly determinative.
Significantly, research indicates that where certain restorative aspects
are achieved a conference may have a greater
impact on preventing re-offending. These were identified as a successful
family group conference, a completed plan,
and the feeling of ‘remorse’ from the young person. The attendance of a
victim, the young person apologising,
feeling involved in the process, not feeling shamed and agreeing to the
outcome further contributed to the young
person not being reconvicted (Maxwell and Morris, 1999). Hayes and Daly
analysed levels of recidivism in the SAJJ
scheme and produced similar findings: the offender was less likely to
re-offend where they took responsibility for the
offence, were actively involved in the process and were not defiant
(Hayes and Daly, 2003). This would appear to
validate Braithwaite’s (1988) theory of reintegrative shaming which
suggests that positive shaming is more likely to
prevent reoffending. However, analysis by the same authors of data from
a conferencing pilot in Queensland shows
that individual conference features are not significantly related to reoffending
and that a more likely determinant is
the characteristics of the young person. Therefore, Hayes and Daly found
age and offence history to be significant.
There was evidence that younger offenders aged 10 to 12 years are less
likely to reoffend where their first offence is
dealt with by conference rather through traditional caution or court
appearance, (Hayes and Daly, 2004: 181). A
reanalysis by Hayes of the data from the Bethlehem, (Pennsylvania)
Restorative Policing Experiment shows variation
in outcome if restorative processes are compared to court, (Hayes,
2005). Therefore, while no differences were
recorded for property offenders following either form of intervention,
violent offenders assigned to conference had a
lower reoffending rate compared to violent offenders at court, (2005:
91). An examination of offender characteristics
on reoffending between conference and court indicated that females
attending conference are less likely to reoffend
than males attending conference but no significant difference in gender
for those attending court, (2005: 94).
Ultimately, it is difficult to determine the overall effectiveness of
restorative programs in preventing re-offending due
to differences in practice and research. Arguably, curbing recidivism
should not be the only measure of success and
the benefits gained in other areas may be just as important, (see for
instance Lawson et al, 2004: 186). McEvoy et al.
(2002: 469) suggest that as evaluations have indicated greater
participant satisfaction in restorative programs than in
the conventional justice process, success should primarily be measured
by participant satisfaction. An important
factor when analysing recidivism is the proposition that much young
offending is transitory, and that many young
people cease offending as they mature (Rutherford, 1992). Finally, it is
important to appreciate that "great faith is
placed on the conference process to change offenders, when the
conditions of their day to day lives which may be
conducive to getting into trouble, may not change at all" (Daly,
2003:230; see also Maxwell et al, 2004 and Maxwell,
2005).
Review
of the literature and research
26
1.5 Conclusion
This review has examined both the philosophies underpinning restorative
justice and the operation of restorative
programs in practice. In doing so, it has sought to alert the reader to
the overarching issues facing practitioners. By
examining how restorative justice operates elsewhere, it has placed the
Northern Ireland model within an
international context that has witnessed significant growth in the use
of restorative practices as a response to
offending.
Overall, the research and literature on restorative justice suggests
that it often proves to be a more satisfying
experience than the conventional criminal justice process for both
victim and offender. This is a clear advantage given
the sustained criticism directed towards the conventional criminal
justice system in recent years. However, it is
important to appreciate that participant satisfaction is not universal
and the restorative ‘ideal’ will not always be met
in practice. Evaluations have found that restorative programs are not
intrinsically suitable for all types of victims – for
example, victims of violent, interpersonal crimes often have lower
levels of satisfaction than victims of property
crimes28.
Victim participation is often said to be instrumental in determining how
‘restorative’ a program is (McCold, 2000).
Research shows that some jurisdictions have experienced particularly low
levels of victim participation. Increased
participation can often be facilitated through better practice, such as
ensuring that the victim is notified and arranging
a conference at a time suitable to them. However, it is clear that a
balance must be struck between safeguarding a
victim’s right not to participate whilst ensuring that the
‘restorativeness’ of the intervention is maintained.
Furthermore, it is important that victims who decline to participate are
not marginalised and, if requested, they are
kept informed as to the outcome of their case. This, it is suggested,
will prevent a ‘two-tier’ system in which victims
who choose to participate in restorative programs have a more positive
experience than those who do not (Hoyle,
2002).
Proponents of restorative justice often state that a key advantage of
restorative interventions is that it reduces
reoffending. Evaluations have proved inconclusive in this respect,
however it is suggested that restorative
interventions can impact on recidivism where a number of factors are
achieved (Maxwell and Morris, 2002). These
include where the conference is a positive experience for the offender,
they are not negatively shamed and they
believe procedural justice to have taken place.
International research underscores a number of key rights issues that
practitioners must be alert to when
implementing restorative interventions. These include net-widening,
consent and proportionality of outcomes. The
literature suggests that to ensure that participant rights are protected
restorative interventions should operate within a
culture of accountability in which effective gate-keeping procedures are
implemented. This is particularly important
in Northern Ireland as the youth conferencing model operates within a
‘rights’ framework underpinned by the Human
Rights Act (1998).
With an awareness of how restorative justice - and in particular
conferencing models - have been implemented in
other jurisdictions this report will proceed to examine how the youth
conferencing service is operating in Northern
Ireland.
28 This may be equally true of victims of violent and interpersonal
crimes where the case is dealt with through the court process.
Chapter 2
Methodology
Methodology
29
2.1 Aim of the research
The overall aim of the research is that of evaluating the youth
conferencing service operating in both the Greater
Belfast and Fermanagh / Tyrone regions of Northern Ireland29. Funded by the Northern Ireland Office,
the research
seeks to examine the translation of the service into practice,
identifying both strengths and weaknesses of the current
system and determining to what extent it is proving effective in meeting
its stated objectives and anticipated
outcomes. Recommendation 147 of the Criminal Justice Review
Implementation Plan (2003) sets out some of these
objectives and anticipated outcomes:
We recommend that a Northern Ireland system should focus on:
◆ reparative justice
and meeting the needs of victims, so giving them a real place in the youth
conference, rather than just regarding it as a means to reform the
offender;
◆ rehabilitative
justice, where what is important is the prevention of re-offending by the young
person, so that the youth conference focuses on offending behaviour
◆ proportionality,
rather than pure retributive justice
◆ reintegrative
shaming, where the offender acknowledges the harm done, but where the youth
conference clearly separates the offender from the offence and focuses
on the potential for
reintegrating the offender into the community in the plan and on the
prevention of re-offending
◆ repairing
relationships which have been damaged or broken by crime
◆ devolving power to
youth conference participants to create the youth conference and the plan, but
requiring subsequent approval for the plan from the court for cases
which have gone to court
◆ encouraging victims
to bring one or more supporters (who might be, but need not necessarily be, a
member of Victim Support)
◆ encouraging offenders
to bring significant others (especially their families, but also particular
members of the community important to them) to the youth conference, but
not placing strong
emphasis on the responsibility of the family to deal with offending as
is done in New Zealand
2.2 Data collection techniques
The primary research methods used within the evaluation, in the context
of data-triangulation, are those of
observation, structured and semi-structured interviewing and statistical
analysis of relevant data.
Observations took place with respect to both youth conferences and
relevant court proceedings in Belfast and
Fermanagh and Tyrone youth courts, with every attempt made to be as unobtrusive
as possible. Structured interviews
were completed with participating victims and young people, whilst
semi-structured interviews were employed with
victim and offender non-participants and other key stakeholders. In
addition, short interviews were conducted with a
small number of family members who had participated in a youth
conference in support of the young person. Finally,
researchers interviewed several young people who have had contact with
the youth justice system but who reside
outside the area eligible for youth conferencing. Researchers made
written notes in interviews, and no recording
equipment was used. A statistical analysis was undertaken between all
cases appearing before the youth court in the
year prior to the introduction of the youth conferencing and those
appearing post-introduction of youth conferencing.
This was used as a comparative sample in order to understand more fully
the impact of youth conferencing upon
cases appearing before the court.
Observations
Conference
observations
Detailed observations of youth conference proceedings formed a central
element of the research. Attending
conferences in a non-participative role, researchers positioned
themselves outside the circle of participants, taking
care to physically distance themselves whilst ensuring a clear view of
the young person and, if possible, the victim.
Researchers focused on, amongst other things, the conference process,
levels of participant engagement, group
29 The Youth Conferencing Service began in
Greater Belfast in December 2003 and Fermanagh and Tyrone in April 2004. At the
time of writing
(October 2005) it is also operating in Banbridge, Newry and Armagh.
Methodology
30
dynamics, adherence to practice guidelines and conference outcomes.
Detailed notes were made throughout the
conference in a discrete and sensitive manner and these were
subsequently transferred into a standardised
observation schedule.
Researchers observed a total of 185 conferences, 167 of which were in
the Greater Belfast area and 18 in the
Fermanagh and Tyrone region. Consent was always sought from the victim
and the young person via the co-ordinator
with respect to researcher presence at the conference. In the vast
majority of cases consent was obtained via coordinators
in pre-conference meetings with the victim and young person. In a few
cases consent was not obtained
until the day of the conference however no observation proceeded without
the consent of victim and young person.
Court
observations
Having obtained consent from the relevant Magistrate(s), court
observations took place in Belfast, Enniskillen,
Dungannon, Strabane and Omagh youth courts throughout the period of the
research. Researchers positioned
themselves at the back of the courtroom in order to observe and take
notes on the relevant proceedings. These
observations were qualitative in nature, focusing both on initial
court-ordered referrals to the Youth Conference
Service and the making or refusal of youth conference orders by the
court. Particular attention was paid to the role of
Magistrate, Public Prosecution Service, Youth Conference Service, young
people and their appropriate adult and legal
representatives. Researchers also noted the degree to which legislative
requirements were fulfilled30. Observations
served not only as an insight into the decision making processes of the
court, but also as a useful contextualisation of
court-ordered conferences.
Interviews
Participant
interviews
Following each conference observed, researchers completed individual
interviews with the young person and / or the
victim(s) (see Appendices 1 and 3). In most cases, consent was obtained
via the co-ordinator prior to the conference,
however, before commencing the interview consent was reaffirmed with
each participant. This was done in a clear
and straightforward manner covering issues such as the voluntary nature
and purpose of the interview, confidentiality,
anonymity and anticipated use of data. In addition, participants were
given the opportunity to ask questions or seek
clarification from the researcher.
In total, interviews were completed with 171 young people (92%) and 125
victims (86%) following the conference.
Out of the 171 young people interviewed, 137 completed a full interview.
The remainder completed an abridged
interview schedule (see Appendix 2). In these instances a shorter
interview was administered due to time constraints,
the young person’s preference, or where the researcher felt that a
shorter interview would be more appropriate.
Participant interviews lasted an average of 10-15 minutes, with abridged
interviews lasting approximately 5 minutes.
For reasons of confidentiality and freedom of expression, all interviews
took place in a private room with only the
researcher and interviewee present, unless the presence of another
individual was requested and consented to. This
was typically the young person’s or victim’s supporter. Finally, a small
number of telephone interviews (5) were
conducted with family members who had attended a conference in the role
of the young person’s supporter. These
focused on family member’s views of the process and the progress of the
young person following the conference.
Non-participant
interviews
Interviews were also completed with a number of young people and victims
who chose not to participate in a
conference. These took the form of a semi-structured telephone
interview, exploring individuals' reasons for not
attending and their thoughts on both the conferencing process and how
their case was dealt with in the criminal
justice system (see Appendices 4 and 5). Interviews were carried out
with eleven non-participating victims and eight
non-participating young people.
Stakeholder
interviews
Stakeholders were identified as both individuals with a direct interest
in the administration of Youth Conferencing -
for instance youth conference staff, Public Prosecution Service,
Magistrates, police (Youth Diversion Officers) and the
Northern Ireland Office - and those with a more general interest in the
development of restorative justice in Northern
Ireland - for example service providers31
and members of the legal profession. These interviews
were exploratory in
30 As set out in the Justice (Northern
Ireland) Act 2002 and the Youth Conference Rules (Northern Ireland) 2003.
31 Organisations providing services for
elements of a youth conference plan, for example mentoring schemes.
Methodology
31
nature and focused on pertinent themes which were either identified or
emerged throughout the period of the
research. The majority of stakeholder interviews took place in two
phases, the first in September – November 2004,
the second in the same period of the subsequent year. This enabled
developing perspectives to be identified as the
implementation of the conferencing process progressed.
2.3 Comparative analysis
It was intended to complete a comparative analysis in order to shed
light on the impact of the conferencing process
on the business of the youth court. This involved gathering quantitative
information, including offence type, criminal
record history and disposal type. This element of the research was
intended to compare the criminal record histories
of young people appearing before the youth court in the year preceding
the introduction of the youth conference
system (1st June 2002 – 31st May 2003) to those receiving diversionary
and court-ordered conferences in the
subsequent year (1st March 2004 – 30th June 2005). However, due to data
problems and issues relating to criminal
record data, the information was not used in this analysis.
Finally, a small qualitative element of comparative analysis was
completed. This involved undertaking semi-structured
interviews with young people residing outside areas eligible for youth
conferencing who had recently come into
contact with the youth justice system. Interviews sought to gain insight
into young people’s perceptions of the
traditional criminal justice system. An equivalent qualitative study was
not undertaken with victims due to difficulties
in access32, however in order to provide a comparative victim perspective this
report draws upon current research on
victim’s experiences of the traditional criminal justice system.
2.4 Data analysis
Prior to commencing fieldwork, researchers created substantial SPSS and
Access databases in which to record
gathered information for subsequent analysis. All quantitative data was
entered into SPSS and analysed in terms of
frequencies and cross-tabulations. Qualitative data from observations
and participant interviews were referenced and
organised according to case, participant and theme and then entered into
Access. Data from court observations, nonparticipant
interviews and interviews with other key stakeholders were qualitative
and was therefore analysed in this
way. Information from the Youth Conference Service and the Northern
Ireland Court Service databases was used to
cross-reference and verify primary data.
32 The research team did not have access to
contact information for victims of youth crime in non-pilot areas due to data
protection issues.
Chapter 3
The referral
process
35
The
referral process
3.1 Introduction
Young people can be referred to the Youth Conference Service in one of
two ways, a ‘diversionary’ referral through
the Public Prosecution Service or a court-ordered referral by a
Magistrate at the youth court. In each case, there exist
certain legislative requirements which must be fulfilled before a
referral can be made. This chapter will consider the
referral process in light of the legislative provisions and from
information gathered over the period of the research.
3.2 Summary of findings
◆ 362 referrals were
received by the Youth Conference Service within the period of research. 31%
emanated from the PPS and 69% from court.
◆ A range of offences
were referred. The majority or 53% related to intermediate offences against
person or property. Serious offences accounted for 23% and minor matters
for 21% of referrals.
◆ The majority or 89%
of young people referred for a diversionary conference had no previous
offences for which they were sentenced. The remainder had one (7%) or
two (5%) previous
sentences. 44% of those referred by court had no previous sentences, 20%
had one and 15% had
two. The remainder had three (10%) and four or more (11%) previous
offences for which they were
sentenced.
◆ There was a high rate
of acceptance by young people of diversionary referrals, with 68% of young
people offered diversionary referrals accepting them.
◆ Similarly, the
majority of young people offered a conference at the youth courts (56%)
accepted
and were referred to the Youth Conference Service.
◆ On the whole,
Magistrates offered referral to a conference in those cases deemed suitable by
the
legislation.
◆ The formality and
established practice of the youth court suggested that, by the end of the
research,
some concerns remained about the manner in which courts requested
consent to attend a
conference.
3.3 Referral to the Youth Conferencing Service
A total of 362 referrals were received by the Youth Conference Service
in the period covered by this report (1st
December 2003 – 30th June 2005). Just under one third (31%) of these
referrals emanated from the Public
Prosecution Service, whilst the remaining 69% were referred by the youth
courts.
Figure
3.1: Referral to a youth conference by referral source
The
referral process
36
When broken down into region, there is virtually no difference in the
proportion of referrals made by the Public
Prosecution Service and court. In Greater Belfast 30% of referrals were
diversionary and 70% court-ordered; in
Fermanagh and Tyrone the split was 31% and 69% respectively (see Table
3.1).
Table
3.1: Referral to a youth conference by region and referral source
Referrals to the Youth Conferencing Service were made for the offences
of theft (26%), assault (21.1%), criminal
damage (17.5%) and disorderly behaviour (10.8%).
Figure
3.2: Referral to a youth conference by offence category
An offence seriousness scale was devised to examine the seriousness of
offences referred to youth conferencing33.
When these referrals are analysed according to the offence seriousness
scale included in Appendix 6, the majority of
offences (53.2%) referred related to ‘intermediate offences against
person and property’. ‘Serious offences against
person and property’ accounted for 23.4% of referrals whilst ‘minor
property related and other minor offences’
accounted for only 20.5% of referrals. Interestingly, the majority of
‘minor property related and other minor offences’
were referred to the Youth Conference Service by the court (71.4%) and
not the Public Prosecution Service (28.6%) as
might be expected. Only ten offences were classified as ‘very serious
violent offences and serious harm to the person’
were referred to youth conferencing, six of which were referred by the
PPS and four by the court. Given that quite
serious offences are sometimes referred to a conference by the PPS, it
would appear that the category of the offence
is not the only factor that is taken into account when prosecuting, for
example, whether it is the young person’s first
offence.
Indeed, an analysis of the criminal records of young people referred for
a diversionary conference shows that the
majority or 89% had no previous offences for which they were sentenced
(see Table 3.2). The smaller proportion (5%)
of cases showing two previous sentences were most probably referred for
a diversionary conference because of the
facts of the offence or that there had been a significant lapse in time
since the last previous conviction.
Diversionary Court-ordered Total
Number % Number % Number %
Greater Belfast 78 30 186 70 264 100
Fermanagh and Tyrone 27 31 61 69 88 100
33 See Appendix 6 for a detailed explanation
of how this was devised, and the categorisation of offences.
The
referral process
37
Table
3.2: Number of previous sentences for young people by source of referral
As expected, the figures for court-ordered conferences differed from
those appearing for diversionary conferences.
Therefore, while the majority (64%) had between none and one previous
sentence and 15% had two, a significant
proportion (21%) had a record of three or more sentences. These figures
show that diversionary and court-ordered
referrals appeared to be targeted correctly, as diversionary conferences
are intended for young people with little
previous contact with the criminal justice system. Indeed, the higher
level of previous sentences for young people
attending conference from court explains why some less serious matters
were referred to the Youth Conference
Service via court.
3.4 Diversionary referrals
Youth conferencing introduces a new and additional role for the recently
established Public Prosecution Service (PPS)
in Northern Ireland. Whereas the function of the previous Department of
Public Prosecutions (DPP) had been to
make decisions on whether or not to prosecute, Section 58, 10A (1) of
the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002
requires the PPS to determine prosecution decisions and to decide if
referral to a youth conference is appropriate.
Although the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 does not include
guidance on the types of cases that might be
suitable for a diversionary conference it was anticipated that
conferencing will constitute an option for many young
people recommended for prosecution.
In all instances, the PPS must establish that the case is suitable for
prosecution. This requires sufficient evidence to
give a reasonable prospect of conviction in court and a determination
that it is in the public interest to prosecute.
Once this has been confirmed, the PPS have a number of options including
referral back to the Police Service of
Northern Ireland (PSNI) for a less formal restorative caution or an
informed warning; or to offer to the young person a
diversionary youth conference or to proceed to court. Publicly available
guidelines are not yet available for this
decision-making process but decisions are based on a combination of
factors including the nature of the offence and
any history of offending by the young person.
There is a two-staged legislative obligation that exists prior to
referring a young person to a youth conference.
Therefore, the PPS must be satisfied that the young person accepts
responsibility for the offence and that he/she
consents to attend the conference34. Consent and responsibility are vital given that the practical
implication is an
agreement to forego the court process and the right to trial. If it is
agreed to offer referral to a diversionary conference
a letter is forwarded to the young person and a copy to his or her legal
guardian. This letter outlines the nature of the
conference and what is required in order for the young person to attend.
In order to proceed, the PPS must receive
within a specified time period two signed consent forms, one from the
young person and the other from the parent or
guardian. Statistics available over the period of the evaluation
indicate a high level of acceptance by young people
with 68% of diversionary referrals accepted in the Greater Belfast area
and 67% in Fermanagh and Tyrone35.
34 Section 58, 10A (3)(a) Justice (Northern
Ireland) Act 2002.
35 These statistics were made available to
the research team by the Public Prosecution Service.
Number of Previous Sentences
%
0 1 2 3 4 5
Diversionary Referrals 89 7 5 0 0 0
Court Referrals 44 20 15 10 5 6
The
referral process
38
Table
3.3 Acceptance of diversionary referrals by region
Once a diversionary referral is accepted the case is forwarded to the
Youth Conference Service who is obliged to
report the outcome of the conference to the PPS within a time period of
30 days36. It is at this point that the PPS must
decide to accept or reject the diversionary youth conference plan, a
process which is explored in detail in Chapter 5.
3.5 Court-ordered referrals
Prior to examining the way in which the court refers young people to the
Youth Conference Service, it is useful to
consider some of the legislative requirements that must be adhered to
when making a referral. The two overriding
prerequisites are that of guilt and consent. With regard to the former,
Section 59, 33A (1) of the Justice (Northern
Ireland) Act 2002 states that:
“A court must refer the case of a child who has been
found guilty of an offence by or before the
court to a youth conference co-ordinator for him to
convene a court-ordered youth conference
with respect to the child and the offence”.
Referral to a youth conference is therefore mandatory where guilt has
been admitted or established. There are,
however, certain caveats: the court is not required to refer a young
person to youth conferencing on the following
three occasions:
1. Where a diversionary youth conference has been completed for the
offence and the youth
conference co-ordinator recommended that they be subjected to a youth
conference plan;
2. If the court proposes to deal with the young person for the offence
by making an order discharging
him absolutely or conditionally;
3. If the offence carries a penalty of life imprisonment; if it is
triable, in the case of an adult, on
indictment only; or is a scheduled offence falling under the Terrorism
Act 2000.
With regard to the latter, the court may, where it considers it
appropriate, refer a young person to a youth conference
for offences triable, in the case of an adult, on indictment only or
scheduled offences falling under the Terrorism Act
2000. It may not, however, do so for offences with a penalty of life
imprisonment. Furthermore, the court cannot at
present refer a young person to youth conferencing unless they reside in
the pilot area and the offence occurred post
1st December 200337.
Where offence eligibility has been established, Section 59, 33A (6) of
the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002
highlights the importance of consent and requires that a conference must
not proceed “unless the child agrees that he
will participate in a court-ordered youth conference with respect to the
offence”. The court is required to exercise
transparency in its decisions and if it fails to refer a young person to
a youth conference it is required by Section 59,
33C (4)(b) to:
◆ Give its reasons in
open court; and
◆ If it is a
Magistrates' court, it must cause the reason to be entered in to the Order
Book.
The introduction of youth conferencing marks many new changes within
court, not least of which is a new presence
in the form of the Youth Conference Service. Typically, there are at
least two representatives from the Youth
Conference Service in attendance at each sitting whose primary role is
to receive referrals from the court. When a
referral has been made, a representative from the Youth Conference
Service speaks to the young person outside the
36 Rule 7(1) The YouthConference Rules
(Northern Ireland) 2003.
37 For the purposes of the research the pilot
area covered Greater Belfast and, from April 2004, the Fermanagh and Tyrone
regions. However, at the
time of writing the area has been extended to include other regions
within Northern Ireland.
Number of
Acceptances
Acceptance Rate
%
Greater Belfast 86 68
Fermanagh and Tyrone 33 67
Overall 119 68
The
referral process
39
courtroom, ensuring they understand what they have agreed to and
providing any further information and advice
required. They also explain what will happen next and ensure receipt of
the young person's details from the court so
they can pass them on to the designated youth conference co-ordinator.
Observations of youth court sittings in both Greater Belfast and
Fermanagh and Tyrone showed that the introduction
of conferencing was received and progressed well. On the whole,
Magistrates offered referral to a youth conference
in those cases deemed suitable by the legislation. Overall, the majority
of young people offered a conference at court
(56%) accepted and were referred to the Youth Conference Service. When
broken down into region, 49% of young
people offered a conference in Belfast accepted, whilst 95% of young
people offered a conference in Fermanagh and
Tyrone accepted. In most cases, young people were not referred to a
youth conference by the court because they
refused consent (49%) or consent was refused by their legal
representative (7%). Other reasons for non-referral
include that the Magistrate adjourned the young person’s case for a
pre-sentence report (6%) and that the young
person was given an absolute or conditional discharge (6%).
While results were positive overall a number of issues did arise and
observations suggest that these fall into one of
three categories. The first relates to initial or ‘teething’ problems
that have been mostly resolved, the second to certain
technical matters not referred to in the legislation and the third to a
concern about the nature of referrals, which was
evident throughout the research.
In terms of early concerns, difficulties arose due to a number of
administrative and technical issues including:
◆ Uncertainty regarding
the boundaries of the pilot area covered by youth conferencing and
eligibility in terms of time limits, the offence needing to have taken
place on or after December
2003;
◆ Inaccurate referrals
including referral of a number of cases where the court later imposed a
conditional discharge (as noted above, the legislation advises against
referral where the court is
minded to impose an absolute or conditional discharge);
◆ A lack of familiarity
with the Youth Conference Service and the new professional role in the youth
court.
For the most part these issues were remedied and improvement was
observed over the duration of the research. The
language used within the court was observed to develop over time.
Therefore, though the Youth Conference Service
was referred to as the ‘Youth Justice Agency’ and conference staff as
‘social workers’ such matters were resolved with
terms such as ‘co-ordinator’ becoming part of the routine terminology of
the court room. Misunderstanding over
eligibility for referral was also related to experience and residence
requirements did become more established as
implementation of the youth conference rollout progressed. Legal
representatives and other staff were also observed
to experience a progressive learning process. In an early observation,
the Youth Conference Service indicated to the
court that referral was inappropriate because the young person resided
outside the pilot area. The legal representative
stated that he thought the young person was eligible because the offence
took place in Belfast. The Youth Conference
Service pointed out that the young person had to “reside or appear to
reside in the pilot area”. On the whole
therefore, initial problems were of limited concern and related to
practical implementation and improvement of the
process over time.
While the courts responded positively to initial concerns, certain
technical issues remained. This included a small
number of instances where the conference plan was not accepted because
the young person had turned 17 years of
age between the conference taking place and the return of the plan to
court. In general, where a young person
reaches the age of 17 years before the conclusion of youth court
proceedings, section 30 of The Criminal Justice
(Children) (NI) Order 1998 permits the court to make any order which it
would have made had they remained under
1738,
Where any proceedings in respect of a child are
commenced before a youth court and he attains
the age of 17 before the conclusion of the
proceedings, the court may continue to deal with the
case and make any order which it would have made if he
had not attained that age.
38 At present , for the purposes of youth
court proceedings, a ‘child’ is defined as a person who is under 17. However,
this will change to 18 years,
once 17 year olds are brought within the remit of the youth court (see
section 63 and Schedule 11 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, which
makes provision for the introduction of 17 year olds into the jurisdiction
of the youth court).
39 See recommendation 1.
40 Section 60, 361(9) of the Justice
(Northern Ireland) Act 2002 states that the court may impose a custodial order
with the youth conference order
but only if this is recommended by the Youth Conference Co-ordinator
following the conference and if the young person consents.
41 See recommendation 1.
42 Section 63 and Schedule 11 of the Justice
(Northern Ireland) Act 2002 makes provision for the extension of the Youth
Justice System to 17 year
olds.
43 See Lyness, D, Campbell, P and Jamison C
(2005) A Commentary on Northern Ireland Crime Statistics 2004, Northern Ireland
Statistics and
Research Agency, p.41, Table 4.10 ‘Persons found guilty (all courts) by
age and gender 2003 aand rates per 10,000 population’.
44 See recommendation 1.
The
referral process
40
Therefore, it is permissible for the court to reject a youth conference
order for those aged 17 but it is not a required
response. Given that refusal is possible in these circumstances it may
be a factor for the court and all interested
parties to consider at the time of initial referral39. A further issue emerged in relation to
offences attracting a
mandatory sentence. The legislation prohibits a second court order in
combination with a youth conference order.
Section 60, 36J (8) of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 provides40:
Where the court makes a youth conference order, it may
not exercise any other power it has to deal
with the offender for the offence.
Thus, in certain instances (mostly driving offence cases) mandatory
penalties meant that the young person had
completed a conference but the court could not accept the plan. This is
illustrated by one case where the Magistrate
clearly stated, “We are not making a youth conference order because we
are not at liberty to combine this order with
another order”. The Magistrate was obliged to issue a mandatory
Disqualification Order in place of the agreed plan.
In this scenario, attendance at a conference by the young person should
not necessarily be prohibited, as in two
cases the young person indicated a wish to continue with the conference
process even though there would be no
conference plan. However, it may be useful for guidance to be issued
that would assist the court where a mandatory
outcome is anticipated41. Certainly, guidance may prove useful in future months when 17 year
olds are brought
within the remit of the youth court42. A high proportion of offences recorded for 17 year olds are motoring
related
offences. The most recent Northern Ireland Crime Statistics (2005) show
that for seventeen year olds, motoring
offences accounted for 234 or 31% out of a total of 754 offences for
which they were found guilty in 2003. In
comparison, motoring offences accounted for only 94 or 11% of offences
for those age ten to sixteen years found
guilty in all courts43. As such, the business of the youth court should experience a
significant rise in the number of
motoring matters and hence offences attracting mandatory sentence.
Finally, a concern was observed in the context of Magistrates offering
to young people the option of attending a
conference. On the one hand, observations were positive and showed that
the process of offering a conference had
become assimilated into the standard dialogue of the court. On the other
hand, this meant that there was little time to
explain to the young person the purpose and implications of a referral.
Over the course of court observations it was
evident that Magistrates would seek consent but often delegate the
process of explaining the conference to the
solicitor. One Magistrate was observed to have addressed the young
person in the following terms:
“These are offences that fall under a new scheme
called youth conferencing – your legal
representative will explain it all but basically it’s
a way of trying to take you away from the normal
court process…won’t work unless you participate but
I’m obliged to give you the option …if it was
successful it would be to your benefit. Are you
willing to go down that route” Young person, “Aye”.
Magistrate, “Fair enough. I can’t expect you to give
an informed decision without knowing all about
it”.
In other instances, consent was sought through the legal representative
who was sometimes observed to explain the
consequences of attending a conference to the young person. There were
however a few cases in which the
Magistrate did not seek consent. In these instances, the conference
appeared to be compulsory. As an example, one
Magistrate stated, “youth conference then” in response to the summary of
facts. Neither the Magistrate nor solicitor
explained to the young person the nature of the conference or the fact
that referral was voluntary. This observation
should be considered in light of the fact that issues of consent are
explored with the young person by a member of
the Youth Conference Service outside the court room. Therefore, there is
an opportunity for the young person to
appreciate the implications of a conference and to clarify matters of
consent. However, it seems important for
agreement to be established at the time of referral44. This is necessary for ethical and for
practical reasons because if
the young person withdraws consent a significant time delay ensues
before they can return to the youth court for
sentencing. Furthermore, it might be more challenging to withdraw
consent than to refuse to offer it in the first place.
The
referral process
41
3.6 Conclusion
The administration of PPS and court business as it related to the new
youth conference provisions progressed
relatively smoothly throughout the period of evaluation. Overall, the
profile of cases referred for diversionary and
court-ordered conferencing was as expected. While a number of serious
matters proceeded by way of diversion and
less serious cases from the court, this can be attributed to additional
factors including criminal record history, which
could mitigate or aggravate the response to the offence. By the end of
the research, many of the start-up or ‘teething’
problems in the referral process had been largely addressed. There
remained ongoing issues in relation to the level of
information provided to young people on referral to conferencing by the
court. However, this may relate more to the
formal environment and an apparent lack of time available to the
Magistrate due to the large number of cases
appearing in the youth courts.
Chapter 4
Preliminary
stages of the
conference
process
4.1 Introduction
This chapter provides an overview and analysis of the preliminary stages
of the conference process following a
referral by the Public Prosecution Service or court. It focuses on the
logistics involved in convening a conference,
including practicalities and location, the pre-conference preparation
process and participant composition. It
concludes by considering the position of those victims and young people
who decline to participate in a conference.
4.2 Summary of findings
◆ The majority of
referrals (75%) received by the Youth Conference Service successfully resulted
in a
conference. Most diversionary and court-ordered conferences were
completed within the required
timescale(s).
◆ Most young people
referred to a conference were male (86%) and aged 14-16 (77%). A significant
proportion of young people referred to a conference were in the care
system, the majority of who
were referred by the court (88%).
◆ When compared to
similar schemes internationally, victim participation in conferences was high
at
69%. Of these, 47% were victim representatives, 40% personal victims and
13% were
representatives attending where there was no identifiable victim. Most
victims did not choose to
attend a conference with a supporter.
◆ Both victims and
young people rated their preparation prior to the conference highly. Most felt
well
informed about the process and knew what to expect at a conference.
◆ Young people said
they attended conferences to ‘make up for what I had done’ (85%), to be
forgiven by the victim (79%) and to both help the victim (70%) and hear
what they had to say
(70%).
◆ For victims, the
notion of punishment was secondary to meeting the young person and receiving an
explanation for their actions. A significant number of victims (79%)
attended because they wanted
to help the young person.
◆ Findings indicate
that not all victims wish to come face to face with the young person at a youth
conference. A sample of non-participating victims were interviewed and
of these, the majority
indicated personal reasons for non-attendance.
4.3 The convening of conferences
Of the referrals made, three quarters (75%) successfully resulted in a
youth conference. Those referrals that did not
proceed to a youth conference (25%) were returned to the court or the
PPS at either the request of the young person
or by the Youth Conference Service.
Figure
4.1: Referrals proceeding to a conference or returned to referral source
Preliminary
stages of the conference process
45
Preliminary
stages of the conference process
46
When broken down into referral type, diversionary referrals were more
likely to result in a conference. A total of 90% of
diversionary referrals resulted in a conference, whilst 69% of court
referrals did the same. This discrepancy may be
related to the young person’s understanding of what the conference
process entails. As explained in Chapter 3, the
nature of referral to a diversionary conference allows the young person
time to consider and make an informed decision
about whether or not to participate in a youth conference45. Observations found that the nature of
court process does
not particularly lend itself well to such decision making. For example,
after agreeing to a conference at court, several
young people subsequently withdrew their consent when informed of the
nature of the conference process.
Out of all referrals that did not result in a conference, the majority
(47 or 57%) were as a result of the young person
withdrawing their consent following their initial agreement to
participate. Reasons given by young people for
withdrawing consent include not wanting to discuss the offence in a
group environment, not wanting to meet the
victim, they subsequently denied committing the offence, that the
offence was ‘victimless’ or that they were advised
against taking part by their solicitor. In all but five cases, in which
the young person withdrew consent midconference,
consent was withdrawn prior to the conference taking place.
Most cases returned to the court or PPS by the Youth Conference Service
were a result of the young person failing to
engage with the co-ordinator in the pre-conference preparation stage or
being deemed ‘unsuitable’ to participate in
the conference. Other reasons for return include that the young person
failed to turn up to conferences, the young
person did not accept responsibility for their actions and the young
person was ineligible for conferencing by virtue
of the date of the offence or residing outside the pilot area.
The average length of time from the offence to referral was 120 working
days46 (115 days for diversionary referrals
and 122 days for court referrals)47. Following the referral, an average of 21 days passed before the
conference took
place (24 days for diversionary referrals and 19 days for court
referrals). Article 7 of the Youth Conference Rules
(Northern Ireland) 2003 requires that all diversionary conferences are
completed within 30 days of referral. Courtordered
conferences are expected to be returned to the court within 4 weeks of
referral. As such, most conferences
were therefore successfully completed within the required timescales.
The majority of conferences convened (82%) took place during working
hours (9am -5pm). Only 18% of conferences
took place in the evening. Conferences lasted an average of one hour,
however the duration of conferences often
varied. The shortest conference - in which the young person withdrew
consent during the conference - lasted a mere
6 minutes whilst the longest continued for 115 minutes. Only 8% of
conferences lasted more than 90 minutes. Most
conferences appeared to last long enough to fully deal with the relevant
issues and engage all participants, however
several participants commented that they felt the conference was “far
too long”48. One victim representative stated
that they felt a break would have been appropriate in these
circumstances;
“It would have been useful if a break took place. The
conference was 1 hour and 15 minutes and
requires concentration. Having a break so the young
person had the chance to think about what has
been said rather than running conference 1hr 15
minutes - an opportunity for talk and support.”
Conference facilities were rated in terms of heat, light, spaciousness,
refreshments, audibility and visibility and in most
cases the overall facilities were good. Two thirds of conferences (66%)
took place within the purpose-built Youth
Conference Service headquarters in Belfast. These facilities are very
well equipped with private waiting areas, two
conference rooms, several ‘time out rooms’ for reflection, video-link
facilities and an observation screen for victims
who are unwilling to meet the young person face to face. In the
Fermanagh and Tyrone areas community venues or
Youth Justice Agency community premises were used to hold all observed
conferences, as purpose-built premises in
which to hold conferences were not yet available. Occasionally,
community venues were used in the Greater Belfast
region when it was more convenient for participants. Although often well
equipped, the standard of these venues
varied with the most frequent problems including that the room was too
small to facilitate all participants and / or there
were distracting noise levels. The issue of privacy and community venues
was particularly apparent in one conference,
in which other young people at the venue recognised the young person and
called out to him49. The young person’s
supporter was concerned that the location was too local, and that the
young person would be subject to “20 questions
in school tomorrow.”
45 Conversely, it could be argued that faced
with the prospect of a court appearance and possible criminal conviction young
people referred to a
diversionary conference are more reluctant to withdraw consent.
46 All time periods are measured in working
days throughout this report.
47 See Recommendation 4.
48 See Recommendation 5.
49 See Recommendation 6.
Preliminary
stages of the conference process
47
Six conferences took place in the Juvenile Justice Centre50, two of which the victim attended
remotely via video-link.
Only one victim chose to use the one-way observation mirror in the YCS
headquarters. The victim knew the young
person, but indicated that they felt more comfortable not meeting them
face to face. Another co-ordinator sat with the
victim in the observation room as support, and an empty seat was left in
front of observation screen to allow a full
view of all participants. Despite the inherent difficulties in
encouraging dialogue in this manner, this victim’s
participation was facilitated well. The presence of a mirror did however
pose problems in a few other conferences, as a
number of young people expressed concerns and / or agitation regarding
it; “Is there someone in there watching us?”;
“There is someone in there. I know there is. Yous are recording this!”
Prior to the conference, several co-ordinators
were observed to reassure the young person by bringing them into the
room to confirm that they were not being
observed. Given such concerns, it might be prudent to install a blind or
curtain over the large observation screen51.
Though conferences generally did not start on time (63%), the average
delay of 17 minutes was quite short. Only a
minority of conferences (18%) were delayed for more than 30 minutes.
Delays were typically caused by one or more
of the participants failing to arrive on time. Where the conference was
delayed, most victims (83%) and young people
(80%) were kept informed, however 17% of victims and 20% of young people
were not told why there was a delay.
4.4 Conference participants
Section 57, 3A (2) of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 requires
that a co-ordinator, young person, appropriate
adult and police officer must be in attendance for a conference to
proceed. As such, these participants were present
at all conferences. The victim is entitled, but not obliged, to attend
the conference. Where appropriate, the victim and
young person may bring along a supporter or supporters. The legislation
permits the young person to attend with a
legal representative however their role is limited to participating in
an advisory capacity. If the co-ordinator considers
it would be of benefit, other relevant parties may also be invited to
attend. Such persons may include, for example,
an Education Welfare Officer if the young person is experiencing
difficulties at school.
Table
4.1: Age and gender of young people referred to a conference
As illustrated in Table 4.1 above, the vast majority of young people
referred to a conference were male (86%) and
aged between fourteen and sixteen (77%). Only two young people were aged
ten – the lower limit of age eligibility –
and both these conferences were diversionary. Most young people (58%)
were living in their parental home or with a
step parent at the time of the conference; however a surprisingly high
proportion (29%) of young people who
participated in a conference were residing in a children’s home or a
care environment. When broken down into
referral type, the majority (88%) of young people in care were referred
by the court whilst only 12% were referred
through the diversionary route. This is perhaps because many may have
had previous convictions. These figures differ
noticeably from young people living with parent(s) or step parent(s),
50% of whom were referred by the court and
50% by the PPS.
Number of
Males
Number of
Females
Ten 2 0
Eleven 7 3
Twelve 14 2
Thirteen 50 2
Fourteen 73 12
Fifteen 87 21
Sixteen 73 11
Seventeen 1 0
Total 307 51
Total percentage 86 14
50 The Juvenile Justice Centre (JJC) provides
secure accommodation for 10-16 year olds remanded or sentenced to custody0.
51 See Recommendation 7.
Preliminary
stages of the conference process
48
On most occasions, the young person’s appropriate adult was female
(77%). The young person’s mother fulfilled this
role in most conferences (57%), followed by their social worker, key
worker, or staff from care home (21%), their
father (9%), extended family member (4%) or sibling (3%). Other
appropriate adults included a mentor, probation
worker or friend. In 113 (61%) conferences the young person attended
with a second supporter, a third supporter in
31 conferences (17%), a fourth in six conferences (3%) and a fifth
supporter in one conference. Additional supporters
included the young person’s social worker (20%), father (18%) and mother
(9%). Other extended family, the young
person’s teacher, probation worker and youth justice worker were all
present in 7% of conferences with an additional
supporter. Most young people did not avail of the opportunity to attend
with a legal representative, who was only
present in twenty eight (15%) conferences.
A victim was present in just over two-thirds (69%) of conferences
observed. When compared to similar schemes in
operation internationally, this high level of victim participation is a
positive result52. Victim attendance in the Greater
Belfast region was generally higher (71%) than in Fermanagh and Tyrone
(47%). Two thirds (66%) of participating
victims were male, and one third female (34%) Although most victims
(62%) were aged 30-50, a significant
proportion were under the age of 18 (17%)53. As illustrated in Table 4.2 below, the majority of participating
victims
were victim representatives (60%), rather than personal victims (40%).
Table
4.2: Victim attendees by victim type
Personal victims’ are defined as those individually affected by the
offence who have experienced either direct or
indirect contact with the young person. Victim representatives were not
directly affected by the offence, but instead
attended to explain the general impact of the young person’s actions.
Victim representatives included employees of
the business affected by the offence. For example, in the case of
shoplifting, the manager of the store may attend to
explain the financial impact or impact on staff morale.
When broken down into offence type, the majority of participating
personal victims (47%) were victims of assault,
whilst most victim representatives attended conferences relating to
offences of theft (39%) or criminal damage (30%).
A further distinct category of victim representatives were those who
attended conferences with no identifiable victim
(13%). Such offences include disorderly behaviour, driving offences and
drug-related offences. In these cases
community representatives, police officers or relatives attended to
explain the general impact of the offence.
Most victims did not attend a conference with a supporter. A total of
seventeen victims (14%) brought one or more
supporters with them to the conference, and all but one were personal
victims. Six of these victims attended with a
second supporter. All but one of these supporters was a family member,
with the remaining supporter a member of
staff from the victim's care home. Of the victim supporters, 61% were
female and 39% male. Interestingly, the
overwhelming majority of victim supporters were a member of the victim’s
family and attending conferences
involving a personal victim less than eighteen years of age. Given the
age, potential vulnerability and inter-personal
nature of the offences involved, these can perhaps be seen as cases in
which the presence of a victim supporter is
most vital. No victims attended a conference with a legal representative.
52 Though direct comparisons are difficult
due to the differing nature and operation of programmes, only 13% of victims
took part in Youth Offender
Panel meetings in England and Wales (Crawford and Newburn, 2003), while
between 41% and 50% of family group conferences in New Zealand
were attended by a victim (Maxwell and Morris, 2002; Maxwell et al,
2004).
53 The presence of young victims may pose
additional challenges for the co-ordinator with regards to, for example, rights
issues, understanding and
consent, interaction, and participant domination.
Victim Type Percentage
Personal Victim 40
Victim Representative 47
‘Victimless crime’ (representative attends) 13
Preliminary
stages of the conference process
49
4.5 Preparation for the conference
Prior to the conference itself, the co-ordinator will meet with the
young person and victim in order to prepare them
for the conference. On first meeting the young person, the co-ordinator
will listen to their perspective, establish their
readiness to engage and, after confirming that they still consent to
participate, will begin preparing them for the
conference. Informational material, in the form of leaflets, a DVD and
work-sheets should be provided and explained
to the young person to ensure they fully understand the process. The
co-ordinator will typically meet with the young
person several times to prepare them for the conference.
The victim is not contacted about the option of attending a youth
conference until after the young person has been
visited by the co-ordinator and confirmed that they are willing to
participate. This is to avoid any potential revictimisation
by offering the victim the opportunity of a conference before the young
person agrees to take part.
When the co-ordinator visits the victim for the first time the voluntary
nature of the process should be emphasised
and the co-ordinator should explain the various means by which they can
participate. Again, informational material
should be supplied and explained so the victim is fully aware of the
nature of process and any potential outcomes.
Young person
On average, young people were first informed about the option of a youth
conference 30 days before the conference
itself. When asked who first informed them about the option of a
conference, the most frequent responses were the
court (43%), followed by the Youth Conference Service (26%) and PPS
(15%). All young people received preconference
visit(s) by a co-ordinator before attending a conference. Overall, young
people were positive about the
co-ordinator’s visit(s), with the majority rating it as either ‘good’
(40%) or very good (37%): “It’s the first time I’ve ever
been doing this – I didn’t know what to expect […] the co-ordinator
explained everything nice and clearly.” Most
young people (90%) were also told of potential outcomes of the
conference.
An overwhelming majority of young people stated that they were told ‘a
lot’ about what the conference would be like
(96%) and what was expected of them during the conference (98%).
Although the majority (74%) of young people
were told what would happen to their case if they did not attend the
conference, just over a quarter did not. The
majority (74%) of young people, however, did not have any questions
about what would happen at the conference,
and of those that did all responded that, when asked, these questions
were answered to their satisfaction.
When asked if they were informed of their right to legal advice, the
majority (76%) of young people stated that they
were, however 21% indicated that they were not and 4% could not
remember. Most young people (66%) did not
receive legal advice before attending a conference, with only a third
(34%) availing of this right. When broken down
into referral type, it is apparent that those referred to the Youth
Conference Service by the court were much more
likely (80%) to have received legal advice than those referred by the
diversionary route (21%). The increased
propensity for young people referred by the court to have received legal
advice has interesting implications. The very
nature of the court process means that most young people will already
have legal representation. Those referred via
the Public Prosecution Service, whilst participating in the same
process, may be seen to be at a disadvantage, as in
order to get legal advice they must actively seek it out.
Victim
The majority of victims (74%) were first informed about the option of a
youth conference by the Youth Conference
Service. Some victims were already aware that the conference process was
occurring because they knew the young
person whilst others, particularly victim representatives, stated that
they knew of youth conferencing because they
worked ‘in the field’54. Victims were informed of the option of a conference an average of 31
days before it took
place. The majority of victims were first contacted in person (47%),
followed by telephone (29%) or by letter (22%).
Victims received a follow-up contact in most (93%) cases55, and this took place predominantly via
telephone (81%).
Those victims that received follow-up contact rated it as ‘very good’
(61%) or ‘good’ (34%). No victims rated this
contact as ‘bad’.
54 Just under half of victims (47%)
interviewed knew the young person before the offence. In the majority of these
cases, the victim was a member
of staff from the young person’s care home (42%). Others knew the young
person in their role as a police officer (17%), were a member of the young
person’s family (15%) or were related to the young person (11%).
55 It is important to note that the cases in
which no second contact was made (7%) typically involved victim representatives
who had previously
attended a conference and had therefore already undergone preparation.
Preliminary
stages of the conference process
50
Interviews show that victims felt well informed about the conference
process before attending. The vast majority
believed that they were told either ‘a lot’ (90%) or ‘a bit’ (8%) about
the conference: “The co-ordinator explained it
all so well. Left no stone unturned”. Victims were also well informed as
to who would attend the conference; 88%
were told either ‘a lot’ or ‘a bit’ about who would be at the
conference. A very small number (4%), however, said that
they were not fully informed as to who would be attending. In interview,
one victim admitted feeling uncomfortable
when the young person brought a supporter whom they did not know was
attending; “I didn’t know their friend
would be there”. Obviously, it is important that such information is
made clear to the victim prior to the conference
in order to avoid any potential re-victimisation or negative experiences56.
Almost all victims said they had a full (89%) or partial (8%)
understanding of their role in the conference. For
example, when asked ‘were you told what was expected of you’ victims
commented: “I was briefed about what part I
would play…explained well, so straightforward” and “I was told a lot,
asked to explain what happened from my
point of view.” Only four victims (4%) – all attending in a
representative role - stated that they were not told what
was expected of them at the conference. In terms of expectations, the
majority of victims reported being told either ‘a
lot’ (82%) or ‘a bit’ (12%) about what the outcome of the conference
could be. Of the seven victims (6%) that were
not told, two were personal victims and five victim representatives.
Almost half (48%) of all victims indicated that they had questions
before coming to the conference; “I wanted to
know who the co-ordinator was representing and who was running this. I
had heard rumours that it was community
restorative justice” but the vast majority (94%) of victims stated that
these were answered ‘very well’ or ‘well’; “I had
a lot of questions – [answered] very clearly and precisely” and that
they were given opportunity by the co-ordinator
to consider any questions they might have: “the co-ordinator called at
tea-time and asked me to think about
questions. Gave me time to think about it.” Victims were asked if any
other information would have been helpful in
preparing them for the conference. Most victims felt that no other
information was necessary, however 17%
responded ‘yes’. When asked what would have been helpful, victims
identified information on the young person’s
background, more information on what the conference would be like, more
information on possible outcomes, and a
more realistic depiction of the young person’s attitude.
Victim Representative: “Guidance on
proportionality for plan suggestions”
Personal victim: “What the
young person’s attitude was to the conference? I didn’t feel I received
this sufficiently. I felt this was a very important
factor. [The co-ordinator] said they couldn’t
disclose information on the offender’s attitude in
other conferences – leaves you not knowing
whether you’re going to get more of the same”
Although for reasons of confidentiality some of this information (for
example on the young person’s background)
cannot be disclosed, it is important that victims have as full an
understanding as possible.
Informational material
Almost all young people (98%) were provided with informational material
as part of the preparation process. This
included a leaflet explaining the youth conferencing process, a
worksheet preparing them for what might happen in a
conference scenario and / or a DVD portraying a ‘mock’ conference. In
several conferences observed, the young
person brought with them a completed worksheet to refer to at times when
they were having difficulty articulating
answers.
When asked if they watched or read this informational material, nearly
all (92%) responded ‘yes’57. Young people
were asked to rate the preparation material they had been given, and
again feedback was mostly positive, with most
rating it as ‘ok’ (42%) or ‘good’ (31%); “definitely showed what it
would be like. It definitely helps to do the leaflets.”
A minority of young people, however, felt that it was ‘bad’ or ‘very
bad’ (16%).
“The acting is terrible - but it did show what would
happen.”
“[The DVD] was just talking about a victim and there
was no victim in my case…it was a bit long.”
“The booklet was helpful, but the DVD didn’t relate to
me.”
56 See Recommendation 8.
57 The majority of those that did not state that they had already done
so for a previous conference.
Preliminary
stages of the conference process
51
Negative responses however generally related to the young person’s
perception of the characters and acting in the
DVD and / or its lack of relevance to their own situation, as opposed to
a failure to provide information. To illustrate,
young people were asked if any other information would have been
helpful, the vast majority (93%) responded ‘no’.
Victims received preparation material similar to that of the young
person – leaflets, worksheets and a DVD portraying
a conference – which was specifically tailored to a victim perspective.
Most victims (91%) read or watched this
information before attending. Those that did not stated that they were
‘too busy’ to do so. On the whole, feedback
regarding the preparation material was positive: “the leaflets helped me
to understand what it was all about. The DVD
gave an example of how it worked”. One victim representative, however,
felt that the materials did not directly relate
to them: “I didn’t watch the DVD, but I read the leaflets. The leaflets
definitely applied to a victim. I don’t feel like I’m
a victim. It’s my place of work. It’s completely different to breaking
into your home. I read them but put them in the
bin.” Indeed, many of the questions in the preparation sheet focus upon
the personal impact of the offence, which
may be less relevant to a representative not personally affected by the
offence. Although helpful for personal victims,
given that the majority of victim participants are representatives
(60%), this perhaps indicates a shortfall of
information relating to this specific role58.
Willingness to participate
Young
people
Consent is a vital prerequisite for the restorative process, and almost
half of young people (48%) stated that they were
‘keen’ to participate in the conference:
“Definitely keen after the co-ordinator came to see
me. She guided me and told me how I could
make up for it.”
“Keen to come because I wanted to show I was sorry and
all that.”
A significant number (28%), however, indicated that they ‘didn’t want
to’ take part. When broken down into referral
type the majority of young people (70%) who ‘didn’t want to’ take part
were referred by the court. As explored in
Chapter 3, this may, in part, be related to the court environment and
the potential for the young person to feel under
increased pressure to consent to a conference. On the other hand, this may
indicate a level of reluctance to
participate from the young person, rather than a lack of consent.
Although not all young people were keen to attend,
when asked if they felt pressure to attend, the majority said it ‘was’
their decision ‘all me’ or ‘mostly me’ (72%). A
small number of young people however stated that their decision to
attend was ‘all’ (23 or 14%) or ‘mostly’ (12 or
7%) due to pressure. When asked where this pressure came from, most
young people identified their supporter (14 or
41%), usually a parent, or ‘a combination of both their supporter and
the court (14 or 41%)’] the court (13 or 38%):
“The court made me go” and “It was scary … I was worried about what
would happen […] Mum wants to get it over
and done with so I played along with her.” Others did not identify a
specific individual as the source of pressure, but
simply felt they ‘had to’ attend: “I didn’t want to come, but I knew I
had to.”
Victims
The majority of victims interviewed (79%) indicated that they were
‘keen’ to participate in the conference, whilst
only 2% of victims reported feeling ‘neither keen nor unkeen’. In total,
eleven victims stated that they initially ‘did
not want to’ attend the conference. When broken down into victim type,
seven of these were personal victims and
four victim representatives. Regardless of whether or not they were
‘keen’ to attend most victims (91%) did feel that
their decision to attend was their own. Three victims claimed their
decision to attend was entirely the result of
pressure (two personal victims and one victim representative). One
victim representative commented: “I had to be
shoved down here by staff … I was told I had to go by my bosses - to see
what its like.”
Reasons for attending
Young
people
In interview, young people were asked a series of questions in order to
establish their reasons for coming to the
conference:
58 See Recommendation 9.
Preliminary
stages of the conference process
52
Table
4.3: Young person: What were your reasons for attending the conference?
As illustrated in Table 4.3, the most common reason (85%) for attending
a conference was to ‘make up for what I had
done’. Many young people appreciated the opportunity to interact with
the victim, indicating a wish to be forgiven
(79%), to help the victim (70%) and hear what the victim had to say
(70%):
“I wanted to come and apologise to the victim and show
him and his family that I am very sorry
for doing it.”
“To see what the victim felt and to say sorry.”
“I wanted to see the victims and let them know how I
felt.”
This desire to ‘restore’ however is contrasted by a general perception
amongst young people that any ‘punishment’
resulting from the conference would be in some way ‘easier’ than that
dispensed by the court. Only a small minority
(15%) felt that the conference would result in greater punishment.
Indeed, the vast majority (95%) of young people
who participated in a diversionary youth conference indicated that one
of their reasons for attending was to avoid
going to court. Other reasons given by young people for attending a
conference included:
“I thought it would help me.”
“I wasn’t keen to do it, but I was keen ‘cos I didn’t
want it going on my record. Better option than
court […] for myself and my future, it was something I
had to do.”
“I wanted to take responsibility and put it all behind
me.”
“I want to change and I think this will help me.”
For many young people, therefore, the conference provided an opportunity
to both take responsibility for their
actions and look towards the future.
Victims
Victims were also asked a series of questions to determine their reasons
for attending, as displayed in Table 4.4 below.
Interestingly, for many victims the reason was altruistic; 79% attended
‘to help the young person’; “I wanted to help the
young person get straightened out” (personal victim); “I didn’t come for
myself but for the young person … the offence
didn’t really affect me in a big way” (personal victim). Of the personal
victims interviewed, only half (50%) attended a
conference in order to ‘find out why the young person victimised me’. Of
the victims who did not know the young
person before the offence, the majority (60%) attended to find out more
or ‘sort of’ (18%) attended to find out more
about them. The most frequent reason given for attending, however, was
to both hear what the young person had to
say (88%); “I wanted to hear their side of the story”; and to explain
the impact of their actions to the young person
(87%); “I wanted the young person to see how much it hurt me, and not
how much they thought it hurt me.”
Yes
%
Sort of
%
No
%
Wanted to make up for what
I had done 85 8 7
Wanted to hear what the
victim had to say 70 11 19
Wanted to help the victim 70 16 14
Wanted people to
hear what I had to say 75 12 13
Wanted the victim to
forgive me 79 7 14
Thought punishment would
by easier than via court 75 9 15
Preliminary
stages of the conference process
53
Table
4.4: Victim: What were your reasons for attending the conference?
*This question was only asked of personal victims.
Although many victims attended because they wanted (55%) or ‘sort of’
(14%) wanted to hear the young person
apologise, a significant proportion did not (31%). When examined more
closely, for participants not directly affected
by the offence the need for an apology may be either marginal or
irrelevant. This is reflected in the fact that the
majority (72%) of those who did not attend to hear the young person
apologise were victim representatives.
Additional reasons for attending a conference given by victims included
a curiosity about how the process worked;
“it was my first experience of the process, I wanted to know what it was
like”; to find out more about the young
person; “to see what type of person the young person is”; to see the
young person’s attitude; “I wanted to know why
they felt they had to smash the place up”; to make the young person
realise they had done wrong; “young people
should see the error of their ways and that they can’t get away with it”
and to stop the young person from reoffending;
“wanted to see the wee lad and try and convince him not to do it again.”
From these comments, it would
appear that the desire to ‘punish’ the young person is less important
than meeting the young person and receiving
some sort of explanation from them.
4.6 Non-participation
Victims
Overall, victim participation in the conferencing process was high, with
a victim or victim representative present in
over two-thirds of conferences (69%). Although a positive outcome, this
finding confirms that not all victims wished
to engage in the conferencing process. It is important to gain insight
into the views of the 31% of victims who did not
attend a conference and to this end, a number of semi-structured
telephone interviews were carried out. These
interviews explored respondents reasons for non-participation, their
thoughts on the conferencing process and their
subsequent experiences of the criminal justice system (see Appendix 5).
Unfortunately, the process of obtaining
these interviews proved problematic and the number of interviews carried
out was significantly lower than was
anticipated. Consequently, only 11 interviews were completed with
non-participating victims. Although a small
sample, these interviews nonetheless provide valuable insight into the
experience of victims who do not wish to
come face to face with the young person.
For some victims, reasons for non-attendance related to practical
difficulties, such as transport, illness within their
family or problems arising from requiring time off work and loss of
earnings. One respondent was dissuaded from
attending, stating that “I would have went and seen the young person and
reddened his face but I was told not to
attend by my manager.” Although representing a minority of cases, of
concern was the finding that two victims did
not attend a youth conference due to what may only be considered an
administrative error – they were not informed
of the date or venue of the youth conference.
Yes
%
Sort of
%
No
%
Wanted to hear what the young
person had to say 88 4 8
Wanted the young person to know
how their actions affected me 86 5 9
Wanted to help the young person 79 9 12
Thought it would help me move on*
56 9 33
Wanted to hear the young person
apologise 55 14 31
Wanted to hear why they victimised
me* 50 11 39
Preliminary
stages of the conference process
54
A number of victims reported their lack of desire to meet the young
person face to face: “I didn’t want to attend; I’ve
been through enough already.” Indeed, five respondents explicitly
expressed fear at the prospect of a direct meeting
with the young person. Five interviewees reinforced both a desire to
move on and a reluctance to act in a way they
felt may have negative repercussions on them:
“We just didn’t want to highlight ourselves. We live
in a small community, the young person is
known and the family could come back on us.”
Others felt that the offence committed was not serious enough to warrant
their involvement in a conference, “I didn’t
think it was worth it, not a big enough offence.” Finally, one person
indicated that they were never engaged with the
Youth Conferencing Service, stating that “I informed the co-ordinator
that I had nothing to do with the charges being
brought about. The police informed me that this incident was only one of
many and they were prosecuting it.”
When asked “could anything else have been done to persuade you to attend
a conference” most non-participating
victims (8) responded ‘no’. One, however, conceded that “it’s possible
some good will come out of it … we’ll see.”
Victims were asked if they were told of other opportunities (other than
attending) to contribute to the conferencing
process and only four responded that they were. These were identified as
someone attending the conference on their
behalf or the writing of a letter or statement describing the impact of
the offence. No victims availed of these
alternative options due to ‘time constraints’, that they “felt it was
better just to drop it” or an unwillingness to
participate in any form; “I’d made me mind up. That’s that.”
Where victims choose not to participate in a youth conference, it is
important that, where it is requested, they receive
feedback and are made aware of the outcome of the conference. Despite
this, only four were contacted in some way
offering this information59. Victims stated that “the Youth Conference Service wrote and told us
what happened at the
conference” and several described receiving a letter of apology from the
young person. The fact remains, however,
that seven victims “heard nothing from the Youth Conference Service”.
There were mixed reactions to this, with some
victims expressing no particular feelings, while others stated that “I
would have liked to see what the result was”.
Some furthermore felt that their decision not to attend effectively
terminated their “role” or usefulness in the process.
Although every effort should be made to accommodate a victim’s presence
at the youth conference, some problems
are simply unforeseeable or without remedy. Nonetheless, particularly in
the case of businesses in the community, it
is arguable better education with regard to the positive impact their
representative may have on the young person and
the conference is required: “I didn’t feel it would benefit me or the
company to meet the young person”60.
The ideal ‘restorative’ scenario would, of course, be to have a victim
or victim representative in attendance at each
youth conference that takes place. This, however, is problematic to
realise in practice. It is difficult, if not impossible
to overcome the reluctance that a small number of victims have in
participating in this kind of process and it is
important not to subject them to any degree of re-victimisation. On the
other hand, it is vital that every effort is made
to engage victims in the restorative process as it is all too easy for
victims to be marginalised.
Young
people
As with non-participating victims, young people who initially consented
to a youth conference, but subsequently
withdrew their consent were interviewed in order to gain insight into
their experience. Again, the practicalities of
obtaining these interviews proved difficult given that some young people
no longer resided at the given address
(some having moved within the care system or juvenile justice system)
and the fact that some listed telephone
numbers were no longer in use. As such this sample was also small, with
only eight young people interviewed,
however feedback received from young people nevertheless proved
insightful.
Young people were asked why they decided not to take part in a
conference. The types of response varied from “no real
reason, I just wanted to go to court and get it over with”, or “I don’t
want to attend a meeting with a police officer”, to
“I have already completed a youth conference and didn’t want to do
another”, and “cos I’m not sorry for it”. When
asked if fear about meeting the victim or nerves about talking in front
of others were decisive factors, the majority of
young people said “no”. “I just didn’t want to sit in a room and talk
about it” and similar phrases were commonly used.
Some mention was made, however, of the tension that may arise if
offender and victim were confronted with one
another, in particular if they are not known to each other and have had
no contact since the offence.
59 See Recommendation 10.
60 See Recommendation 9.
Preliminary
stages of the conference process
55
When asked whose decision it was to refrain from engaging with youth
conferencing, all young people stated that it
was their own decision. One young person did continue, however, saying
that “my solicitor also advised me against
it. He didn’t think it would be a good idea”. Young people were asked if
anything could have been done to change
their minds, and all responded ‘no’. They reported being satisfied with
how the work of the YCS had been explained
to them and that they had no unanswered questions about it. As for
regrets of opting for the straight court disposal
route, the young people replied with a resounding “no regrets”. One
young person did say that he would like to
have done a youth conference, “but not for that offence but I would do
it for another”.
4.7 Conclusion
Most cases referred to the Youth Conference Service subsequently
resulted in a conference. In line with the
philosophy that “any delay in dealing with children is likely to
prejudice their welfare” conferences were generally
completed within the required timescale61. A victim was present in over two-thirds of conferences. This may be
seen
as a positive achievement when compared to victim attendance rates in
similar schemes in operation elsewhere62.
For the vast majority of victims and young people conference preparation
was seen to equip them with sufficient
knowledge about the process and realistic expectations as to what could
be achieved at a conference. The preconference
process provided an additional opportunity to both re-affirm the young
person’s consent and ensure that it
is informed. Victims did not attend conferences through a desire to see
‘punishment’ dispensed, but instead a
significant number attended to ‘help the young person’. For victims, a
face to face encounter in which they could
both explain their point of view and listen to the young person’s
perspective was most important. Young people
appreciated the opportunity to interact with the victim, indicating a
wish to make amends, be forgiven, help the
victim and hear what the victim had to say.
Though the sample was small, victim non-participation was primarily a
consequence of personal reasons, as opposed
to a failure on the part of the Youth Conference Service. It is
important, however, that information on the progress of
the case is made readily available where non-participating victims have
requested it. It is similarly important that,
where the victim has made an alternative contribution such as a letter
or statement, information is given on how it
was received at the conference63.
61 Section 53(3) Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002.
62 See Chapter 2 for a comparative analysis of restorative models
operating internationally.
63 See Recommendation 10.
Chapter 5
The conference
The
conference
59
5.1 Introduction
This chapter focuses on the conference process itself, following it from
the opening stages to the signing of the action
plan. Key issues examined include engagement and interaction,
participant satisfaction levels, reparation, remorse
and the agreement and content of conference plans.
5.2 Summary of findings
◆ Most victims appeared
calm and relaxed at the start of the conference, and did not report feeling
nervous. By contrast, 71% of young people displayed some degree of
nervousness and avoidance
or discomfort.
◆ Overall,
co-ordinators were observed to introduce participants and the process very
well. On some
occasions, however, the confidential and voluntary nature of the process
was not explained in
adequate detail.
◆ Young people
generally engaged well when discussing the offence, and were given the
opportunity
to explain it from their perspective (93%). Almost all young people
(98%) felt that they were
listened to when they did so.
◆ The vast majority
(97%) of young people accepted responsibility for their actions either ‘a lot’
(61%) or ‘a bit’ (36%).
◆ Victims were
generally very engaged in the conference process. All victims felt that
conference
gave them the opportunity to explain to the young person how the crime
affected them.
◆ Both victim and young
people’s supporters were generally observed to feed positively into the
restorative atmosphere of the conference. The vast majority of young
people (93%) and all victims
said that they found their presence ‘helpful’.
◆ The majority of
conferences considered contributory factors when discussing the crime. The most
common were substance misuse, peer pressure and family difficulties.
◆ In the majority (87%)
of conferences the young person apologised or agreed to apologise. The
majority of conferences without an apology involved a victim
representative and not a personal
victim. Young people were observed to display some level of shame (77%)
and remorse (92%) in
most conferences.
◆ Both young people and
victims were involved in devising the conference plan. In total, 89% of
young people and 96% of victims were either ‘a lot’ or ‘a bit’ engaged
when deciding the plan.
◆ During the period of
the research, 95% of conferences reached agreement on a plan. The majority
of young people (74%) and victims (87%) were ‘happy to agree’ to the
plan.
◆ Both young people
(93%) and victims (79%) believed the plan to be either ‘very fair’ or ‘fair’.
Similarly, 71% of young people and 79% of victims were ‘very satisfied’
or ‘satisfied’ with the plan.
◆ In terms of
proportionality, most young people (72%) and victims (69%) believed the plan to
be
‘neither too hard nor too soft’.
5.3 The structure of conferences
Rule 6 of the Youth Conference Rules (Northern Ireland) 2003 provides
that the co-ordinator may “conduct a youth
conference in such manner as appears to him to be appropriate”. Most
conferences observed followed a semistructured
format, which allowed room for a degree of flexibility and potential
innovation. This structure was as
follows:
◆ Welcome by
co-ordinator and group introductions
◆ Purpose of
conference, confidentiality, voluntary involvement, ground rules, and
practicalities
explained
◆ Police officer
invited to summarise facts of offence
◆ Young person provided
with the opportunity to respond to this and explain the offence from their
perspective
◆ Victim given the
opportunity to respond to the young person’s account and explain the impact of
the offence
◆ Opportunity for young
person to apologise
◆ Other participants
offered chance to explain their perspective on the offence
◆ Co-ordinator
summarises offence and impact of the offence to the group
◆ Discussion of
possible outcomes for action plan amongst participants
◆ Negotiation of action
plan
◆ Agreement of action
plan
◆ Closing remarks
◆ Signing of the action
plan
On the whole, this structure proved logical and worked well in practice.
Although following a basic progression, with
the exception of the reading out of the facts of the case by the police
officer conferences were unscripted and, as
such, no two observed conferences were the same.
5.4 Opening stages of the conference
In almost all conferences (82%), the victim and their supporter(s) were
observed to enter the room in which the
conference was held before the young person and their supporter(s). This
appeared to be a conscious decision on the
part of the co-ordinator, with obvious power / territorial implications
given that the victim’s presence was firmly
established in the room prior to the young person entering. On arrival,
participants generally waited in separate
rooms and did not meet face to face before entering the conference room.
In some cases, the young person and
victim both arrived and entered the conference room together, however
this was generally where participants had a
pre-existing relationship, such as staff from the young person’s care
home or a family member.
The victim
Reaction
to the young person
Most victims (51%) were observed to greet the young person on first
seeing them at the conference. This was
followed by no reaction / no observable reaction (30%) or avoidance
(9%). The majority of victims (77%) appeared
relaxed at the beginning of the conference. This finding, however, must
be viewed in light of the fact that 60% of
participating victims were victim representatives, many who had little
or no personal involvement in the offence
itself. To illustrate, of those described as ‘calm/controlled’ 28% were
personal victims and 72% were victim
representatives. Only ten victims appeared ‘very nervous’ at the start
of the conference, 8 of whom were personal
victims. On seeing the young person, one victim said that they felt
“awful, that is why I rushed out to the toilet. I
panicked. Felt like saying I couldn't face her.” Although representing a
minority of victims, it is important to recognise
that for some victims coming face to face with the young person is a
difficult process.
Regardless of victim type, the overwhelming majority (93%) of both
personal and representative victims displayed no
signs of anger at the start of the conference. In some cases, this may
be related to passage of time, one victim
explained that as the conference began they felt “ok. It was nine months
ago since it happened – the anger wears off
you.” Only one victim – a personal victim – appeared to be ‘very angry’
at the start of the conference.
The
conference
60
The
conference
61
Nervousness
Most victims were not nervous about coming to the conference; almost
three quarters (74%) reported feeling ‘not at
all’ nervous. The majority of victims also indicated that they were not
nervous at the prospect of meeting the young
person (84%), or speaking at the conference (79%). Findings indicate
that personal victims were slightly more likely
to be ‘very nervous’ about attending the conference; of the fifteen
victims (12%) who reported feeling this way,
eleven were personal victims. In the interviews it was found that where
the victim was nervous, it was often at the
prospect of coming face to face with the young person and/or their
supporter(s). One personal victim stated that they
were “nervous cos I hadn’t faced her since it happened”, whilst another
was “nervous about the parent’s reaction and
what would happen”. For one young victim, communicating in a group and
“trying to get my point across to be
understood properly” led to pre-conference anxiety. Interviews with
victims found that the decision to attend a
conference may be an entirely different experience for personal victims
and victim representatives: “If it was my
house I would have been nervous. I would have had to think twice about
the wisdom of coming.” Nevertheless, there
are common uncertainties felt by both personal victims and victim
representatives:
Victim representative: "I was
in two minds as to whether to come" "I was worried about his parents
being here - scared about how they would react"
"the co-ordinator told me that the young person’s
father was very relaxed - that's partly why I came in
the end" The victim refers to staff from their
place of work, "I had to be shoved down here by
staff"
The young person
Reaction
to the victim
At the beginning of the conference, the reaction of the young person was
generally very different to that of victims.
Although many young people (34%) either greeted the victim or responded
to their greeting, the predominant
reaction was one of avoidance (35%) or no reaction/no observable
reaction (17%). Reactions of avoidance and
nervousness suggest that many young people found the start of the
conference an uncomfortable experience. Young
people tended to respond to this apparent discomfort in two ways, by
either ‘closing up’; “I’m here because I was
sent here” or ‘opening up’; “I’m here to apologise and say why I have
done these things.”
Similar to victims, most young people (86%) did not display anger or
aggression at the start of the conference. In
seventeen cases, however, the young person was observed to display ‘a
bit’ of anger whilst in nine conferences ‘a lot’
of anger / aggression was displayed.
Nervousness
Most young people (71%) displayed some degree of nervousness at the
beginning of the conference, with just over a
quarter (28.6%) of young people appearing ‘not at all’ nervous.
Observations reflect what young people reported in
interview; 37% said they were ‘very nervous’ and 21% said they were ‘a
bit nervous’; “on a scale of 1 to 10 I was a
14.” The remaining 41% of young people stated that they did not feel
nervous about the conference. However, on
many occasions nervousness was visibly apparent throughout the
conference and was often an impediment to
interaction. One young person’s supporter commented on their
uncharacteristic withdrawal: “I’ve been watching
[young person]. What is wrong with him today?” One young person
described experiencing nervousness initially, but
as the conference progressed they felt more at ease; “I was nervous when
I first heard, but really not nervous today …
I was nervous for the first five minutes, but then it was easy to talk.”
After the conference the young people interviewed were asked about
nervousness in relation to specific aspects of
the conference. Many young people (59%) stated they were either ‘very’
or ‘a bit’ nervous about speaking at the
conference; “I didn’t want to speak. Every time I spoke I had a red
face”; whilst half (50%) were ‘very’ or ‘a bit’
nervous about meeting the victim; “I was shocked when I saw him – he’s
massive!” The finding that half (50%) of all
young people were ‘not at all’ nervous about meeting the victim, should
be read in light of the fact that over a third
(38%) of young people knew the victim before the offence64, and that many of the attending victims
were
representatives. Indeed, the existence of a previous relationship with
the victim could potentially make such an
encounter less intimidating: “I wasn’t nervous ‘cos I knew everyone
there”, “I wasn’t nervous – I see the victim every
day”.
64 Young people reported knowing the victim in the following ways;
worker in the young person’s care home (22%), relative / guardian (17%), police
officer in local area
(17%), pupil at the same school (15%).
The
conference
62
65 See Recommendation 11.
The Co-ordinator
A crucial time in the facilitation of the conference is the opening
stages, in which the co-ordinator establishes the
purpose of the conference, ground-rules and practicalities and ensures
that participants understand the process. In
observations, co-ordinators were generally observed to perform well in
explaining these matters. In the vast majority
of conferences, participants were observed to be introduced very well
and encouraged to introduce themselves to the
group by the co-ordinator. The role of each participant in the
conference was explained well in all but ten
conferences. The case study below demonstrates a well-facilitated
opening:
Case study A: Start of the conference
Robert has been charged with supplying a class C drug, and has been
referred to a diversionary
youth conference. His parents, Linda and John, have attended to support
him. Katherine, the
manager of the premises where the offence took place, is attending in
the role of a victim
representative.
The co-ordinator begins introducing themselves and thanking all
participants for coming. They direct
the group’s attention to a flipchart on which the progressive stages of
the conference are displayed.
Using this as a guideline, they explain how the conference will progress
and each participant’s role
in the conference. The co-ordinator then asks each member of the group
to introduce themselves in
turn. Robert’s mother, Linda, begins: “I’m Linda, and I’m here to
hopefully get as much help as we
can and make it clear to Robert that his actions were totally
unacceptable”, Robert: “I’m Robert and
I’m here because of the trouble I did and to apologise”, John: “I’m here
to give every bit of help that
I can to my son”. The police officer introduces themselves and explains
their role. Finally Katherine,
the victim representative explains she is “here representing the
[organisation]. I know Robert well.
I’m glad to be here to see him and help in any way I can.”
Following the introductions, the co-ordinator explains the
practicalities of the conference, including
fire exits and the location of toilets. They inform the group that
breaks can be called for a chat or
‘time-out’ if participants feel it is necessary. The co-ordinator
continues by describing the process as
voluntary and acknowledges that Robert “has made an effort to be here,
and that is commendable.”
The confidentiality of the conference and exceptions to this are
explained well, and the ground
rules, which are also displayed on a flipchart are described in detail.
The co-ordinator checks if
anyone has any questions or concerns, and as there are none, they then
invite the police officer to
read the statement of facts.
When asked how well they felt the co-ordinator explained what would
happen at the start of the conference most
young people answered ‘very well’ or ‘well’ (79%). Victims were
similarly positive; 95% felt that this was done ‘very
well’ or ‘well’; “brilliant – they went through it in fine detail and
explained everything.” A small number of young
people indicated that there were certain aspects at the start of the
conference that they did not understand. These
often related to language and concepts used; “the co-ordinator used
complicated words”; “the idea of the general
public as a victim”. Similarly, a minority of victims (5%) indicated
that there were aspects that they did not
understand, namely; ‘my role in deciding the plan’, ‘words the
co-ordinator used’, ‘the role of the mentor’ and ‘the
role of the solicitor’. The co-ordinator generally performed well in
checking that participants understood what would
happen; this was done ‘well’ or ‘ok’ in 87% of conferences. Participants
had questions in only sixteen conferences
and in all but one conference these were answered ‘very well’ (8),
‘well’ (4) or ‘ok’ (3).
In most conferences, the ground rules of the conference were displayed
on a whiteboard or flipchart. This acted as a
visible reminder, and where necessary, the co-ordinator would refocus
participant’s attention to the rules. Prior to
discussing the offence, the co-ordinator would often ask the group if
they agreed to adhere to the rules. In
conjunction with the ground rules on display, this proved to be a useful
way of establishing a ‘contract’ of behaviour.
Several co-ordinators also used a flipchart or whiteboard outlining the
progressive stages of the conference. Whilst
this was often valuable, particularly where the young person had
difficulties in maintaining attention, it may be seen
to detract from the spontaneity of conferences by making them overly
prescribed65. For example, in one conference
‘opportunity to apologise’ was listed as a stage of the conference.
The
conference
63
66 See Recommendation 12.
67 Namely, issues.relating to child protection and other offences.
68 See Recommendation 12.
Two further issues of note are that of confidentiality and
voluntariness. In the majority of conferences the co-ordinator
explained that the process was voluntary, however this was not well
explained in over a quarter (29%) of
conferences66. The re-iteration of voluntariness at the beginning of the conference
is important given that the UN
Guidelines stipulate that the process “should be used only with the free
and voluntary consent of the parties” (United
Nations, 2000). In terms of confidentiality, this was done ‘well’ or
‘ok’ in 93% of conferences. In 13 conferences,
however, the confidentiality of the process, and the exceptions to this67, was not made sufficiently clear. A
lack of
appreciation that the process is confidential could be seen as an
obstacle to participant interaction68.
5.5 Discussing the crime
Statement of facts
Following the opening stages in which the co-ordinator will introduce
participants, explain the process and establish
the conference’s ground-rules focus is then directed towards the offence
and its impact. In the vast majority of
conferences observed, the co-ordinator began this stage of the
conference by asking the police officer to read out a
pre-prepared statement of facts. This is put forward as ‘neutral’
perspective after which the young person and victim
can explain what happened from their perspective. Once read, the young
person is provided with the opportunity to
comment on the accuracy of the police officer’s account. In the majority
of conferences (84%), this account was
unquestioned, however, in 29 conferences young person or supporter(s)
did dispute some of the facts as read out.
Case study B: Disputed facts
Henry has been referred to a diversionary conference for the offence of
disorderly behaviour. He is
attending with his mother, Henrietta. Following the opening stages of
the conference, the co-ordinator
invites the police officer to read out the facts of the case and Henry
then proceeds to tell his story.
Following some questions by the co-ordinator, the police officer reads
from the statement again: “The
young person was shouting “I'm going to f**kin' kill you!’” Henry: “I
didn't say that now … I might
have shouted something else but I wouldn't shout that.” Co-ordinator:
“You agree you were acting in
a frightening and aggressive manner, but you don't agree with what the
police officer says you said?”
Henry: “No.” Co-ordinator: “Why?” Henry: “Cos I wouldn't have said
that.”
Focus then turned away from this disputed fact to the general impact of
the offence. This issue was
not resolved in the conference, however it was implied that the police
officer’s account was correct as
Henry was intoxicated at the time of the offence. Co-ordinator “you
drank eight cans in 1.5 hours”,
Henry: “Yep, it went straight to my head.”
It should be stated that the conference can offer an environment for
participants to discuss and debate the facts
surrounding the offence. However, on a few occasions, denial or
disputation of facts was more substantial and, as
illustrated in the case study below, led to the conference being
terminated:
Case study C: Disputed facts (conference terminated)
Ainsley has been referred to a diversionary youth conference for the
offence of assault. Ainsley’s
mother, Beth, is attending as his appropriate adult. Also supporting
Ainsley are Callum, his mentor,
and David, his social worker. No victim is in attendance.
Following the co-ordinator’s introductions and explanation of the ground
rules the police officer is
invited to read out the statement of facts. The police officer describes
how Ainsley kicked the victim
in the leg three times and spat in their face. The co-ordinator asks
Ainsley how he felt at the time; “I
know it was nearly a year ago.” Ainsley has his hands on his head and is
leaning back in his chair: “I
was angry that she took my cigarettes off me. I didn’t spit in her face.
I only hit her in the leg once.”
Co-ordinator: “What do you think now?” Ainsley: “Don’t know”. There is a
silence.
David, Ainsley’s supporter, questions Ainsley on what he is admitting
to: “You should be open about it
– either you are not telling all or she is lying. She has no reason to
lie.” The co-ordinator checks that
The
conference
64
69 See Recommendation 13.
70 See Recommendation 5.
Ainsley is only admitting to kicking the victim once. The police officer
then reads out the victim’s
statement and medical report. David speaks gently to Ainsley: “Two areas
of bruising indicate more
than one blow. You need to take responsibility. You have nothing to lose
by being honest - that was in
the past. You've changed. Be straight about it.” Ainsley becomes
agitated: “I am being straight about
this!” The co-ordinator reminds Ainsley that they have signed a form
admitting to the offence. Ainsley:
“I never. I only signed a document that I kicked her once. I remember
that.” The co-ordinator asks
Ainsley how the victim received the other bruises, Ainsley responds
aggressively: “I don’t know! I
kicked her once. That’s it.” The police officer asks Ainsley if it is
possible that he doesn’t remember
because he was angry, Ainsley: “No. I remember. I hit her once.” The
co-ordinator reminds Ainsley
that they are required to write a report to the PPS that he has not
fully admitted guilt. David “We
need to deal with this.” Ainsley: “They don’t f**kin’ believe me! What
is the point in coming here?”
The co-ordinator reminds Ainsley about his language and warns that the
conference will have to be
stopped. Ainsley indicates that he wishes the conference to be stopped
and a break is called. Ainsley
then withdraws his consent and the conference process is terminated.
Although such a scenario is representative of a small minority of cases,
it may be beneficial if the young person is
presented with the facts as they have been recorded for the offence.
While in legal terms it is not necessary for the
young person to share participant’s views on the surrounding facts, it
might be useful to explain to the young person
and other participants that there is a difference between debating the
facts and disputing the actual offence69.
Therefore, in terms of the former, the restorative philosophy of the
conference might facilitate disagreement and
dialogue around the facts of the offence. However, in the latter
scenario, that is, in agreeing to the actual crime, the
young person must consent to the legal elements that make up the
offence. Indeed, meetings between young person
and co-ordinator in the pre-conference preparation process may be seen
to act as an important safeguard in this
respect and can help to re-establish that the necessary admission of
guilt is in place.
The young person
Engagement
Observations found that young people generally engaged well in the
conference process, with the vast majority being
either ‘very’ (47%) or ‘a bit’ (51%) talkative when discussing the
offence. In only five conferences was the young
person observed to be ‘not at all’ talkative. Whilst some spoke freely
about the offence without any need for
prompting, others successfully engaged by responding to a series of
questions asked by the co-ordinator. As an aid,
several young people brought a worksheet they had completed in
preparation for the conference, and one young
person attended with their own notebook containing handwritten notes.
In the majority of conferences (56%) the young person was focused, and
did not appear agitated or restless. However,
in about a quarter of conferences (29%) the young person was ‘a bit’
restless / agitated and ‘a lot’ in a further 16%.
Such restlessness was evident by the young person fidgeting, sighing,
slouching, looking around the room and
moving about in their seat70. Given that the young person was present in a room with adults, this
seems
understandable and indeed normal. Whilst a number of young people were
restless throughout the entirety of the
conference, in several conferences, as will be discussed later in this
Chapter, this restlessness was particularly visible
when the plan was being devised.
As established earlier, many young people (75%) attended a conference
because ‘they wanted people to hear what I
had to say’. Observations found that in the majority of conferences the
young person successfully explained the
offence from their perspective either ‘a lot’ (49%) or ‘a bit’ (44%).
Young person: “Every time I
am in that area the police always stop me, search me, be cheeky with
me and I thought you were them so I was cheeky to you.
I thought you were someone else.”
Co-ordinator: “How did you
feel when you were arrested?” Young person: “I was scared ‘cos I
didn’t know what would happen to me and ‘cos I damaged
him so much. I didn’t mean to injure
him that much. I was scared I’d get sent to jail. He
couldn’t stand up, he was just lying there. He
couldn’t move at all.”
The
conference
65
In 12 conferences (7%), however, the young person did not explain his or
her perspective on the offence. This was
typically due to non-engagement or withdrawal by the young person as
opposed to domination by another
participant. Where the young person was having difficulty articulating
responses, the co-ordinator would often assist
them by asking a series of questions. Whilst often very effective, some
young people failed to respond to this
approach, providing ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘don’t know’ answers. On occasion,
repeated questioning by the co-ordinator led to
frustration and / or agitation on the part of the young person; “It was
a long time, nearly a year ago. I’ve already told
you. I don’t know why I did it. Why do you just ask and ask and ask?”
That some young people were under the
influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the offence also caused
difficulties in recollection: “I can only remember
when I was being chased. I can’t remember being in the shop. I was
drinking and on glue.”
On the whole, there was a general perception amongst young people that
their views were listened to at the
conference. When asked if they felt people listened to what they had to
say the vast majority of young people said
yes (93%) or ‘sort of’ (5%). Most young people also appeared to listen
to the victim when they explained their
perspective of the offence. This was apparent through eye contact,
nodding, sitting forward or by verbal assent; “uhhuh,
uh-huh”; as the victim explained the impact. For a small number of
conferences (10 or 6%) the young person
appeared not to listen to the victim. Of these, eight involved victim
representatives and only two involved personal
victims.
For many victims, the extent to which the young person made eye contact
was important, particularly with regard to
perceptions of sincerity; “he was saying the right things but they just
felt like words. He made bad eye contact”; and
“he looked me in the eye when apologising.” Half of all young people
(50%) were observed to engage directly and
did not avoid eye contact with any of the participants; however, in
29.4% of conferences the young person avoided
eye contact ‘a lot’ and ‘a bit’ in 24.3%. Such lack of direct eye
contact is perhaps unsurprising and may be related to
nervousness and discomfort experienced by young people.
Most young people did not appear visibly upset in the conference (90%).
In thirteen conferences the young person
was observed to be ‘a bit’ upset, and in six they were ‘very upset’. In
none of the conferences observed did the young
person become ‘very upset’ as a direct result of victim input. Instead,
all but one of the young people became ‘very
upset’ upon hearing the impact on their supporter(s), particularly their
parents; “I'm sorry for what I did and had to
bring you's into it”
Acceptance
of responsibility
In terms of accepting responsibility for their actions, observations
found that nearly all young people accepted
responsibility (97%) either ‘a lot’ (61%) or ‘a bit’ (36%); “we all take
responsibility. None of us can say we didn't do
it because we did. We've changed now”. In only five conferences did the
young person fail to accept responsibility,
two of which had a victim in attendance. Those that accepted partial
responsibility were sometimes observed to
attempt to mitigate their own role in the offence or ‘justify’ their
actions. This was particularly apparent when the
offence was against the police; “I don't like the police so I didn't see
any reason to give my right name to them.”
Although most young people did not attempt to explicitly ‘shift the
blame’, 21.7% did to some extent: “I wouldn’t
have done things if I hadn’t been grabbed in the first place.” In
interview, victims were asked if they felt that the
young person had taken responsibility for their actions. The majority of
victims felt that the young person had
accepted responsibility for their actions at the conference either ‘a
lot’ (67%) or partially (19%). Only seventeen
victims (14%) did not believe that the young person accepted responsibility.
The
conference
66
The victim
Engagement
Following the young person’s account of the offence, the victim was then
invited by the co-ordinator to respond by
describing the offence from their perspective. Overall, victims were
observed to be very engaged at this stage of the
conference; 83% were ‘very’ talkative and 15% ‘a bit’ talkative. The
forum of the conference was observed to
successfully provide victims with the opportunity to explain the impact
of the offence on them or those who they
represented:
Personal victim: “I know you
were messing around, but you hurt me. I felt sick. I went to the office
and told them, but I said I didn't want anything done.
I was sick and light headed. I go around [the
area] all the time and I'd be worried in case you go
near me. I don't want you to go near me. You
can say hello, but nothing else. Don't hurt me again.
I don't want you punished.”
Personal victim: “After it
happened I wouldn't go to school cos I was terrified of you. When I saw
you going into school I ran away. I was terrified. I
was shaking. You hurt me.”
Personal victim: “I was
working in a club to get extra money. It was my first car. Took me three
years to save up for it [describes damage to car] off
the road for 5-6 days. It took me two buses to
get to work. Frustrating. Not the worst thing that
could happen, but I was pissed off. I'm glad you
are here, that you are owning up and facing me face to
face. You are due respect for that. It is
difficult to put into words how pissed off I was that
night and when I got the bill a few weeks later.”
Victim representative: “You could
have set yourself on fire….you could have caused millions in
damages, people could have lost their jobs…Firemen
could have been needed elsewhere. You
were putting other people's lives in danger.”
In interview, victims were asked ‘if there was anything you wanted to
say that you didn’t get a chance to’. Most
victims (92%) indicated that they had said everything that wanted to in
the conference. Some victims, however noted
that there were some specific questions that they would have liked to
asked, for example, ‘why pick on me’ and more
general questions relating to, for example, the young person’s
background or drug use.
Personal Victim: “I wanted to
ask her more questions – like to know, ‘why did you threaten to put
me in hospital?’. I asked her why would you want to
put someone else through the pain you’ve
been through but she didn’t answer.”
Other responses to this question included a wish to tell the young
person ‘they have got the easy option’ and to ‘wise
up and take responsibility’. When asked why they did not ask these
questions in the conference one young victim
stated that: “There were a couple of questions I didn't want to say out
in case I was being rude … just in case it
offended the supporters.” This statement suggests that there may be some
form of perceived boundary at a conference
that participants feel uncomfortable crossing. One victim articulated
this, explaining that when discussing the impact
of the offence: “I don't think I would have been allowed to go much
further ... I got the feeling you weren't to say too
much against the young person.” The difficulty they encountered in
explaining the true impact of the offence to the
young person was revealed by one victim, who felt that doing so would
leave them vulnerable:
Personal Victim: “I didn’t
want to be asked to tell the young person how their actions affected
me…I was shaking and in tears at the time – reduced to
a quivering lump. It wouldn’t have
touched them; it would have given them a laugh …I felt
very guarded about what I was saying…I
was apprehensive about their attitude …I wasn’t
prepared to tell the young person how it affected
me because it was a professional incident. I told the
co-ordinator this and they respected it”
The majority of victims (67%) did not appear to be relieved or
unburdened at the conference itself, with no
significant difference between victims and victim representatives71. Only 30% appeared ‘a bit’ unburdened
and four
victims – two representatives and two personal victims – appeared ‘a
lot’ unburdened; “it’s really great me being able
to say this to you personally. It gets a lot of frustration off my
mind.” Similarly, a relatively small number of victims
71 This was measured by observing the victims’ demeanour throughout the
conference. For example, if they appeared agitated at the beginning of the
conference but
expressed or displayed relief as the conference progressed.
The
conference
67
appeared to be ‘empowered’ by the process; 22% were ‘a bit’ empowered,
and 2% (two victims) appeared to be
empowered ‘a lot’. Just under three-quarters (74%) of victims displayed
no sign of empowerment. When discussing
the offence, the majority of victims (81%) did not appear angry or
‘wound up’. However, 27 victims (19%) did
display some degree of anger, twelve of whom were personal victims.
Reaction
to the young person
All victims felt they were given the opportunity to tell the young
person how the crime impacted upon them or those
who they represented either ‘a lot’ (97%) or ‘a bit’ (3%). No victims
indicated that they were not given the
opportunity to explain the impact of the offence. In this respect, the
conference process was very successful in
meeting victim’s expectations given that the majority (86%) cited this
as a reason for attending. Victims were asked if
they felt the young person listened to them when they did so, and just
under three quarters (74%) believed that they
did, or did to some extent (16%). Only ten victims (8%) - six representatives
and four personal victims - felt that the
young person did not listen to them.
Most victims (71%) displayed some degree of frustration or anger towards
the young person at the conference.
Observations found that 28 victims (19%) appeared ‘a bit’ frustrated and
15 victims (10%) were very frustrated. In
some cases, this frustration was due to the particulars of the offence
and how it was dealt with. For example, in cases
where there was one victim but a number of co-defendants, some victims
attended the conference of each of the
young people involved. In several conferences, a lack of consistency
between the young people’s accounts led to the
victim becoming frustrated. To illustrate, in one conference, the victim
stated on several occasions that he was unsure
if the young person was being honest as none of the other young people
were admitting to causing the damage. In
another, the victim told the young person: “I was party to the other
conference and they said the opposite, so
someone is telling lies.” Whether or not it is appropriate to deal with
these cases separately is a practice issue and
something that might be best to determine on a case-by-case basis. On
the one hand, separate conferences may
support a more focused discussion about the offence and the contributing
forces as identified by the individual young
person. On the other hand, it may be difficult for the victim and other
participants to resolve or make sense of
different accounts of the offence where each young person attends a separate
conference.
The vast majority of victims accepted the young person’s version of the
offence either ‘a lot’ (69%) or ‘a bit’ (25%). In
total, nine victims (6%) did not accept the young person’s version of
the crime. Although most victims (89%) were
not emotionally moved by the young person’s account, many victims (74%)
expressed a degree of empathy towards
the young person, as is illustrated in the following case study:
Case study D: The sympathetic victim
Peter has been charged with shoplifting and common assault and was
referred to a youth conference
by the Public Prosecution Service. He has come to the conference with
his mother, Rhonda, his
mentor, Simon and his key worker, Terry. Gary, the victim of assault,
has decided to attend without a
supporter.
Following discussion of the offence, the co-ordinator begins exploring
contributory factors and
mentions the fact that Peter should have been in school at the time of
the offence. Gary asks Peter if
he is going to do it again. Peter: “No, I have been changing my ways and
everything”, Gary: “You
remind me a lot of me when I was younger. We come from a similar
background, but I made a
decision to change. You’ve come to that point in your life now.” Gary
speaks directly to Peter and
appeals for him to change his ways. The co-ordinator asks Rhonda,
Peter’s mother, how the offence
affected her. Rhonda: “I was just angry, guilty … I didn’t think he’d do
this. He wasn’t brought up to
do these things.” Peter: “Don’t feel guilty, Rhonda. It’s not your
fault. You haven’t failed.” Peter begins
to cry. The co-ordinator offers a break and Peter, Rhonda and the
co-ordinator leave the room. Gary
is sympathetic, “that poor lad was dumped on by his mates.” Simon,
Peter’s mentor, tells Gary that
“he has done a hell of a lot of work to change.”
The
conference
68
Impact
of the offence
The offence affected the victim ‘quite a lot’ in a third (33%) of cases,
followed by 30% of victims whom the crime
affected ‘a little’. According to the remaining eighteen victims (11%),
according to their account, the offence had no
effect72. Of these eighteen cases, when the nature of the offence is examined
only 4 were ‘personal’ offences. The
remainder were ‘victimless’ offences (eight) and offences against a
business or organisation (six). A significant
proportion of victims (24%) indicated that the crime had affected them a
lot, and in four cases it ‘totally changed
their life’. Specific effects referred to by victims include:
Table
5.1: Effects referred to by victims at a conference
Other effects referred to by victims included the impact on their
colleagues (31 victims), physical injury (21), loss of
trust (15), sleeplessness (4), need for counselling (3), depression (1)
and stress (1).
5.6 Conferences without victims
As previously explained, when visiting the victim for the first time a
co-ordinator should describe the various
alternative methods by which they can participate if they do not wish to
attend in person. A total of 31% of
conferences did not have a victim present, and as illustrated in Table
5.2 below, most conferences that proceeded
without a victim did have some alternative form of victim input. As
such, although some victims may not wish to be
directly involved in the conference, unlike the court process it still
may be seen to offer them a forum in which they
can present their views.
Table
5.2: Alternative forms of victim participation
Despite the fact that direct interaction with a victim appeared to have
a greater impact on the young person than any
alternative form of participation, indirect contributions to the
conference sometimes proved successful. The following
case study presents an example of when the victim’s perspective was
successfully integrated into a conference:
Form of Participation Percentage
Co-ordinator summarising previous
meetings/ discussions with the victim 34.5
Co-ordinator speaking of the likely
impact on the victim 23.6
A letter or written statement 18.2
Police officer summarising the victim’s
statement 1.8
A tape recording 5.5
Other 16.4
Percentage
Financial effects 45
Fear 31
Feeling unsafe 25
Anger 23
Anxiety 14
72 Notably, 60% of victims were representatives who may not have been
personally impacted by the offence.
The
conference
69
Case study E: No victim present
Peter has been referred to youth conference by the court for the offence
of common assault. He is
attending the conference with his mother and father, Rose and Steven.
The victim is unable to
attend, but is happy that the conference proceeds without him and has
prepared some questions for
the co-ordinator to ask Peter. Peter has engaged well in the conference,
has shown remorse and has
given a full account of what happened from his point of view.
The co-ordinator explains the victim’s physical hurt, time off work,
loss of pay and having to stay in
the police station until 4am. They also speak of the emotional effect
and explain how it felt to see
their friend also getting assaulted. The co-ordinator reads out one of
the victim’s questions: “what
gives you the right to attack someone you don’t know?” Peter: “There is
no right … we were just
being a**holes.” In their statement the victim explains that the mobile
phone that was stolen that
night was a present from his girlfriend. Peter nods. The co-ordinator
asks Peter if he understands.
Peter: “Yes, that he is shocked. It’s not right.” The co-ordinator goes
on the explain that the victim
still has the incident in mind when he is in the area and that he hopes
it will not happen again, but
would like reassurance. The co-ordinator again asks Peter if he
understands: “Yeah, he has been hurt
… losing money. I regret it like. I’m feeling sorry to them for that
there happening.” Peter appears to
be impacted by the victim’s statement.
After the conference, in interview, Peter shows further remorse “I
regret ever even doing that - it’s my
stupidity”. He explains that he would have liked to have met the victim:
“I wish the victim had have
been down - to try and express to him my regret.”
When we examine alternative forms of input more closely, however, it is
apparent that where there was no victim
attending their direct input (for example, a letter or tape recording)
was only present in a minority (36%) of cases. In
most conferences the victim’s views were either summarised by the
co-ordinator or the likely impact on the victim
was conjectured. Notably, where no victim was present direct input was
often seen to have a greater impact upon the
young person than discussions of the likely impact on the victim.
Interestingly, the lack of a victim was on some occasions observed to
have an impact on the process and the mere
fact that a victim did not attend was seen to affect the young person.
This is particularly true where non-participation
was a consequence of fear. In a written account read by the
co-coordinator, a relative of the victim explained that the
victim was “scared to meet the young person … scared they would come
back.” In another conference, the coordinator
explained to the young person: “we would usually talk to the victim now,
but I have had a telephone call
from the victim’s mother and she says he didn't want to get involved in
the conference. I did ask for a written
statement, but it didn't come.” This appeared to impact on the young
person who responded “it makes me feel bad”
and explained that they had attended in the hope of apologising to the
victim face to face.
Conferences with no identifiable victim(s) - such as drug related or
driving offences- posed a challenge in the
restorative context where victim / offender interaction is argued to be
integral. The lack of a ‘victim’ proved
problematic at some points, particularly in a process in which the
structure, language and outcome is very victim /
offender orientated. To illustrate, in one conference involving the
offence of disorderly behaviour the young person
had difficulty grasping the somewhat abstract concept of the ‘general
public as victim’: “what is the general public? I
don't understand what that means.”
Young person supporter(s)
Engagement
As mentioned previously, the legislation requires that each young person
referred to a youth conference must attend
with an appropriate adult or ‘supporter’73. The level of input and engagement amongst supporters varied between
conferences, with some actively engaging and others assuming a more
passive role. Observations show that most
supporters were engaged to some extent when discussing the crime; 22%
were involved ‘a lot’ and 55% ‘a little’. In
43 conferences the young person’s supporter was not involved at this
stage.
73 Section 57, 3A (4) Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002.
When discussing the offence, most supporters spoke up on behalf of the
young person either ‘a lot’ (26%) or ‘a bit’
(45%). Many, by invitation of the co-ordinator, described positive
aspects of the young person’s life; “he is very
talented academically”; “he has a very nice side to him that people
don't see”; and “he has improved at least 90%
from when this happened. He has left school now and got a job”. Where
the young person was quiet or having
difficulty articulating their response, several supporters were seen to
actively step in; “he finds it difficult to put it into
words - finds surroundings daunting. He has told us how sorry he is and
he wishes he could turn back time.” In
interview, one young person appreciated the presence of a supporter for
this reason; “when you are on the spot and
you don’t know how to say the right thing they can help.” Whilst most
young people’s supporter(s) positively engaged
and supported the young person in the course of the conference, this was
not, however, universal. In 30% of
conferences the supporter did not speak up at all on behalf of the young
person, and in nine conferences there was
visible tension between the young person and their supporter.
Observations found that most supporters (84%) fed positively into the restorative
atmosphere of the conference and
did not in any way mitigate or excuse the young person’s behaviour. Some
degree of justification was apparent in
twenty-five conferences (14%) and ‘a lot’ in only four conferences. Most
supporter(s) were seen to express ‘a lot’
(59%) or ‘a bit’ (35%) of disapproval that the offence had taken place.
In one conference, a supporter disputed the
fact that the young person had been referred to a conference and was
defensive of them throughout. Whilst
admittedly acting in support of the young person (who had consented and
was willing to participate in the
conference) their negative attitude created a hostile environment and
ultimately resulted in a bad experience for the
victim. In a further conference, the supporter made it known to the
conference that they felt that the offence was
extremely trivial and that the police were responsible for creating it.
Impact
of the offence
Following the young person’s and victim’s account of the offence and its
impact, the co-ordinator was observed to
invite the young person’s supporter to provide their perspective on the
offence. In most conferences observed, the
young person’s supporters described the impact on them a lot (21%) or to
some extent (42%). A total of 37% did not
discuss the impact on them. It should be noted, however, that not all
those attending as supporters – for example
social workers or mentors – will have been personally affected by the
offence and such discussion may therefore be
irrelevant. Observations found that the young person’s supporter,
particularly where they were a family member, often
assumed a ‘dual’ role in a conference. On the one hand, they provided
support to the young person however many
were also negatively impacted by the young person’s offending behaviour
and therefore were, in a sense, ‘victims’.
This was particularly apparent when the co-ordinator asked the supporter
to describe the impact upon them. For
many supporters, this was a difficult and upsetting process and many
spoke of feelings of regret, disappointment and
shame which no doubt added to the impact of the conference on the young
person;
“I felt angry with him and ashamed. I felt guilty …
That I failed him as a mother in some way.”
“Its [young person] who has done it, but you feel like
you have done it…you brought him
up…shocked, disgusted with him, ashamed”
“I'm annoyed and ashamed. I had a good relationship
with [the victim] and now I suffer from
stress related pain…I didn't bring him up to be like
this.”
“I’m really gutted. I mean, I cried like a baby when I
heard what happened. I could never have
believed it” and “I felt totally ashamed, everyone
would have seen the police coming to the door,
sticking a label on him”.
Often, depictions of the impact of the offence were contrasted with
words of support for the young person, “I was
completely shocked and disappointed, however I have to accept that this
was his first thing” and “I was disappointed
and sad … I’m not going to defend him – he was in the wrong – but he is
not a bad child.” Many supporters
therefore, whilst making the young person aware of the negative
consequences of their actions, still assumed a
supportive role. Occasionally, however, some supporters displayed signs
of frustration or exasperation towards the
young person and their offending behaviour:
"It’s no big shock he is in trouble, before and
since. I can see him ending in the Young Offender's
Centre. He has done things to me, and I'm his mum. He
says sorry and then does it again… he has
been caught on CCTV, but would still argue that it
wasn't him … Straight to YOC for [young
person] - a short sharp shock is what he needs.”
The
conference
70
The
conference
71
Such reactions were nevertheless uncharacteristic, and generally the
young person’s supporter contributed positively
to the conference.
Relationship
with young person
An additional issue of note is that of the relationship between the
young person and their supporter, specifically with
regards to young people in a care environment. In a small number of
conferences, there was little or no pre-existing
relationship between the young person and their supporter; “she doesn't
know me very well”. In such cases, the
supporter appeared merely to be fulfilling a legislative requirement
rather than acting in a meaningful supportive role.
The issue of potential role confusion is also of importance as in some
conferences, the role of the young person’s
supporter was not clearly delineated. The blurring of roles is not
necessarily a negative aspect of conference
processes however, in intra-familial or care contexts this is an issue
with which the process must deal. In one
conference the young person’s supporter – who knew both young person and
victim – acted more in the role of a
victim supporter. In another, where the young person had two
conferences, the young person’s mother was the victim
in the first conference and their supporter in the subsequent one. This
blurring of roles was most apparent in cases
involving a young person in care; one victim commented “I can't be a
victim and a social worker at the same time …
the victim has to enforce the young person’s plan”.
Overall, most young people interviewed were positive when asked about
their supporter; the vast majority viewed
their presence as either ‘helpful’ (23%) or ‘very helpful’ (70%); “when
you are on the spot and you don’t know how
to say the right thing they can help”; “they help stick up for you
without making it sound less of a crime. They backed
up the suggestions I made for the plan.”
Victim supporter(s)
Engagement
and impact of the offence
Although only seventeen victim supporters attended a conference, all
were observed to participate well and
contribute to discussion about the offence and its impact, with fourteen
speaking ‘a lot’ and three ‘a bit’. Most
supporters were observed to engage directly with the young person and
explained both the impact on the victim and
themselves:
Victim supporter: “When we got
the phone call saying [victim] had been stabbed I was really upset.
First I thought it was a practical joke, but at the
end of the day you could have been in jail for it.” …
Second victim supporter: “I couldn't go down to the
school. I thought he was going to be lying
there.” Victim supporter: “This is very serious.”
Ten victim supporters were seen to express some level of anger towards
the young person or their supporter(s). This is
perhaps unsurprising given the fact that the majority of victims with a
supporter were young people and the offences
were personal in nature, namely assault (12), robbery (1) and possession
of an offensive weapon (2)74.
As illustrated in the case study below, the input of the victim’s
supporter can often help in exploring the
consequences of the offence to a greater extent. However, there is a
danger of supporter domination, particularly
where the victim is a young person:
74 See Shapland, J., Willmore, J., and Duff, P., (1985) Victims in the criminal
justice system, Aldershot: Gower, where it is submitted that due to feelings of
guilt, victim
supporters might feel more able to display anger and emotion than the
actual victim.
The
conference
72
Case study F: Victim supporter
Anthony has admitted committing the offence of assault, and is attending
a diversionary youth
conference. He is attending with his mother, Barbara, and father, Carl.
The victim, Damien, goes to
the same youth club as Anthony. Damien is also attending the conference
with two supporters – his
father Ethan, and mother Frances.
Damien and Anthony interact directly with each other and engage well in
the conference. At times,
however, it appears that Damien is almost trying to downplay the impact
of the offence. The coordinator
asks Damien to explain how he felt, Damien: “they recognised me from the
youth club -
just teasing each other. There was physical harm but no emotional damage
or permanent feelings.”
At this point Damien’s supporter, Ethan, steps in and explains how he
viewed the impact of the
offence: “The bit that annoys Damien is that he was concerned there was
going to be comeback –
three ganged up on him. He felt like he couldn’t defend himself. He will
not go outside the youth
club now – he will wait for someone to collect him.”
Ethan looks directly to Anthony’s parents and explains why the offence
was reported, “If it happened
to me I would have went to the police. Why should I not because it was
kids?” Barbara, “if it had
been my child I would have been horrified. It knocks their self-esteem
and confidence. I would have
done exactly the same. Anthony knows what it is like to be bullied.”
The two groups of supporters continue to discuss the subject of bullying
amongst themselves at length. The coordinator
tactfully interjects to successfully bring Anthony and Damien back into
the discussion.
All victims attending with a supporter valued their presence, describing
them as either ‘very helpful’ (94%) or ‘a bit
helpful’ (6%). None indicated that their presence was unhelpful or that
they would have preferred to come alone.
One young victim explained that it was “better having someone beside you
who can help you and explain things in
words you understand”.
The small number of victim supporters attending conference can in part
be explained by the fact that 60% of victims
were victim representatives, many of whom felt that they did not need a
supporter as they were not personally
affected by the offence. A number of victim representatives indicated
that attending was “my job. I don't really feel
like an injured person” whilst another acknowledged that although
attending was “just part of the job” they could
“understand a member of the public would be different”. One victim
representative felt confident attending alone: “I
didn’t feel the need to have one. I knew it was a safe environment.”
This contrasts with a personal victim who was
concerned that “something might have happened if [their supporters]
weren’t there”.
In order to better understand the victim’s decision in attending without
a supporter, all victims who attended without
a supporter were asked why they attended alone. The most frequent
response was “I didn’t need a supporter” (30%)
whilst others included “I didn’t think about it” and “I had no-one to
come with me”. One victim representative felt
that an additional supporter would put the young person “under pressure
with a lot of people there”. In some
conferences victims felt that other attending victims acted as a de
facto victim supporter; “two of us here as victims –
didn’t see the need to have anyone else here.” Victims attending a
conference alone were asked if they would have
liked a supporter and whilst the vast majority responded ‘no’ (90%), 7%
indicated that they would have liked a
supporter. A few victims indicated that they would have liked a
supporter but “my choice of supporter couldn’t
attend” and there was “not enough notice” given for their supporter to
attend. Given the important role of the victim
supporter, it is imperative that their presence is facilitated and the
conference is held at a suitable time for them.
The
conference
73
5.7 Contributory factors
Discussion of factors contributing to the offence is a crucial part of
the conference process. The restorative philosophy
of conferencing seeks to deal with the causes of the offence but also to
look toward addressing these causes of
offending for the future. Facilitating dialogue around the reasons or
explanations for the offence is therefore an
integral part of the conference process. Indeed, observations found that
conference discussions did reach beyond
describing the circumstances of the actual offence to consider the young
person’s background and the causes of
his/her offending. In the majority or 88% of conferences contributory
matters were raised when discussing the crime.
Within this 88%, the most compelling factors emerging for young people
when discussing offence behaviour were
substance misuse (43% of conferences), peer pressure (39%), family
difficulties (35%), and the lack of a structured
lifestyle (26%).
In general, discussion about these matters injected a positive dynamic,
allowing the discussion to become
constructive and directed toward remedying the causes of the offence. In
this way, conference discussions delved
beyond the facts of the offence to seek some form of resolution for the
young person and remaining participants. The
following is illustrative of an instance where a number of contributory
factors were discussed.
Case study G: Contributory factors (alcohol, family
difficulties and
anger)
Aileen is charged with assault against another young person. Aileen
consents to attend a conference
with her mother, Bevin as main support and her friend Colleen. Dorian,
the victim in this case, also
attends with her parents, Eve and Frank for support. The police officer
is present. Some time after the
start of the conference Aileen’s solicitor arrives and joins the group.
During the proceedings the Coordinator
invites participant’s to look at the reasons behind the assault.
The co-ordinator suggests that Aileen could stop drinking. A long pause
ensues Police Officer
interjects, “Do you do a lot of drinking then? I mean what age are you?”
Aileen, “Sixteen” [SILENCE]
Police Officer, So how would you address the drinking?” Aileen, “What do
you mean?” Police
Officer, “How would you control it, stop?” Aileen, “Don’t know”. Eve,
(victim supporter), “When
you drink do you always end up in a bad way?” Aileen, “No”. Eve, “You
don’t always drink Buckfast
do ya?” Aileen, “No”. Eve, “Cos I’ve never drank it but I’ve heard its
lethal stuff” (Eve laughs and
Aileen smiles). Co-ordinator, “Bevin, would you like to add something?”,
Bevin, (Aileen’s supporter),
“It’s not a way of life…she does it inside, more controlled. I think
once she’s eighteen and can go
properly to bars she’d be much happier”.
Eve, Dorian’s supporter, and Aileen’s mother Bevin chat about alcohol
use by young people. Bevin
indicates that Aileen’s use of alcohol has caused difficulties in the
past and refers to problems at
home and the break up of the family. The co-ordinator continues to
facilitate and the group engages
well.
Co-ordinator, “So, we’ve talked about drink and family problems. Would
you agree with that
Aileen?” Aileen, “Yeah” Police Officer, “I’m just wonderin, is it just
through drink?” Aileen, “Yeah”.
Discussion continues about the offence. Co-ordinator turns to the Police
Officer, “Any thoughts?”
Police Officer, “If you think drink is a problem there are organisations
out there” Aileen, “I don’t
have a problem with drink”. Police officer, “And you don’t have a
problem with anger?” Aileen, “No,
I do. I want to do anger management for that” Police officer, “That’s a
positive step and there is local
projects”.
The group goes on to devise and agree the action plan. The co-ordinator
places suggestions for the
plan on the flip chart visible to everyone in the group. The
co-ordinator explains what will happen
with the plan and ensures that everyone is content with what has been
agreed.
The
conference
74
While it is important to look beyond the facts of the actual offence and
to address the causes of offending it is
important for background issues to be discussed in an appropriate and
confidential environment. In cases where the
young person is known to participants it may be useful to emphasise the
respectful nature of proceedings. The
potential for unwanted discourse was conveyed in one instance where the
supporter referred to the young person’s
family circumstances,
Young person’s supporter, “It’s
brave of [the young person]. There is so much going on in this head
– he probably remembers bits … his family were unable
to look after him.” Young person [angry]:
“You don’t need to bring that into it!” Young person
supporter: “It’s the reason behind this.” Young
person: “But you don’t need to bring that up!”
Underlying matters raised within other conferences included difficulties
experienced with education and schooling
and the absence of a structured lifestyle. This latter point often
related to a concern that local areas failed to offer
suitable leisure facilities for young people, “Nowhere for kids to go –
other than street corners. Where are they
supposed to go? It really is very, very difficult for them”, (young
person supporter). A further cause of offending
identified within the conference was bullying. One young person
described how the experience of bullying from the
start of the school term had left them worn-out:
“I was so sick and tired of everything - annoyed at
everyone calling me things from the beginning
of the school year”. Young person supporter: “she was
called a slut; things written on the toilets at
her school”
In other instances, conference participants discussed emotional issues
such as difficulties with concentration and
temper, problems due to living arrangements at the time of the offence
including cases where the young person had
experienced difficulties in care, and the context of intimidation by one
or more paramilitary organisations. In one
case it seemed that the entire background to the offence derived from a
paramilitary threat but the young person felt
unable to divulge any information. Discussion about the causes of the
young person’s offending behaviour tended to
centre on alcohol. When the co-ordinator tried to encourage an
explanation of why the young person had carried an
offensive weapon they did not respond. However, another participant
later stated that the young person was “under
threat” in the local area.
Although observed in only one conference, an issue contributing to the
offence included one young person’s desire
to return to a custodial unit. It appeared that levels of unhappiness
due to current living arrangements had caused the
young person to sense that custody was a preferable option,
Young person, “I wanted to
go back to [custody]. I went to court and got bail. Didn’t want to get
bail – wasn’t ready to go back [to residential unit].
Phoned social worker and told him if he didn’t
get me out I’d go mad”.
Finally, in a number of conferences participants discussed problems due
to the young person’s relations with the
police. There existed a feeling among some that being known to the
police meant that they were a target for
questioning and arrest,
Victim representative: “Why do you
have issues with us (the police)?” Young person: “Just. Some
police officers don't seem to like me.” Young person
supporter: “You feel harassed?” Young person:
“Yeah.” Co-ordinator: “Would you like to respond?”
Victim representative: “All police in the area
know [young person] now. I know him because of his
actions, which are uncalled for… we have to
drive around and if anyone gives you abuse you have to
stop them. … You don't know my
background” Young person: “Yous are just cops to me.”
Police officer: “You just see a uniform”.
However, often the conference offered a unique environment for the young
person and police officer to converse. In
many instances, this kind of interchange allowed the young person to
emerge with a changed perspective regarding
the police. In interview, one young person stated, “The peelers and me -
they were doing their job and I made it hard
for them.”
5.8 Apology and remorse
The apology
In the course of conference proceedings the young person may agree to
apologise for the harm caused. This may take
the form of a verbal apology to a personal victim where he or she is
present or a written apology or both. The
majority of cases involved a verbal apology (52%) and in one fifth (19%)
of cases the young person agreed to
apologise both verbally and in writing.
The progressive staging of the conference would suggest that the apology
follows discussion about the impact of the
crime and this would seem to be the most natural course. However,
observations showed that participant input was
often not as standardised and the young person might feel it appropriate
to apologise at any point or even through the
entirety of the conference, as illustrated by the case study below.
Case study H: Spontaneity and sincerity
Steve attended a conference with his mother, Rachael as his appropriate
adult and his mother’s
partner Tom as additional support. The conference is for an assault
against a 17 year old victim
Vincent. Vincent brings with him his mother, Yvonne and father Bert. The
co-ordinator begins by
thanking every one for their attendance and explains the conference
rules. The police officer reads a
statement of facts outlining the assault stating that the victim was,
“punched in the face”. Steve is
apologetic towards Vincent from the beginning of the conference,
Steve, “I was attacked three months before and on my guard. Your fist
clenched, not going to let it
happen again so I struck out. I shouldn’t have done it. Why would I hit
you. Only one of me and
two of you”. Steve and Vincent chat about the circumstances of their
encounter. Steve, “Wished I
hadn’t done it. It was a stupid reaction. I should have waited to see if
anything happened”. Vincent
explains his version of events and states that Steve has apologised, “He
did say sorry for doing it. I
accept your apology. Thanks for saying sorry and coming here”. Steve has
brought a letter of apology
to the conference, “Can I give him the letter now?”. Steve hands Vincent
a letter of apology.
Vincent’s parents talk about the impact of the offence from their
perspective. Yvonne feels that Steve
may have lashed out because of Vincent’s school uniform which in the
context of Northern Ireland
may have indicated a different religion. Steve responds, “Definitely
sorry for doing it and what I’ve
caused. Uniform? Definitely nothing to do with the uniform or religion
[…]”. Yvonne, “Religion
shouldn’t matter”.
Steve’s supporters indicate their disappointment regarding the offence
but speak in support of Steve
stating that he is a, “sensitive lad”. The co-ordinator summarises this
discussion and moves
discussion towards the plan. Steve talks to Vincent about the letter of
apology, “Sorry about the
spelling”. Vincent, “Don’t worry about that. Fantastic that you wrote
it. I appreciate that”. Vincent
then suggests several ideas for the plan, “…If you see anyone different
walk on by, no further
repercussions for me – even if I saw you in town”. Steve, “I’d actually
shake your hand if I saw you
after this”. Yvonne to Vincent, “You would too”. Co-ordinator, “Do you
want to now?” Steve and
Vincent stand and shake hands and the group proceed to agree a plan.
Nine out of ten victims (91%) who attended a conference received some
form of apology from the young person. Of
the seventeen victims who failed to receive an apology only one was a
personal victim of the crime. The young
person agreed to apologise in 87% of conferences with or without a
victim. Put another way, in all but 23 of the
conferences observed the young person apologised. Therefore, there was a
high rate of apology from young people
whether or not a victim attended.
A closer look at the results from conference observations shows that
while victim attendance had limited bearing on
the young person’s propensity to apologise where victims did attend the
likelihood of receiving an apology was also
influenced by victim type.
The
conference
75
The
conference
76
Table
5.3: Did the young person agree to apologise to the victim?
Therefore, those attending a conference who failed to receive an apology
were most often persons representing a
victim view and not actual victims. In interview young people indicated
that they did not apologise for various
reasons including that, ‘the actual victim wasn’t there’ and that, ‘the
crime was victimless’.
Victims were also asked why they thought an apology had not been
received. They indicated a number of reasons
including that the young person did not want to apologise, “the young
person claimed he had nothing to apologise
for and he wouldn’t apologise to anyone – made this extremely clear at
the conference and apparently during his
meeting with the co-ordinator”, (Victim Representative); or that an
apology had not been received because they were
not the actual victim, “[Apology] never arose. If any apology, it would
have been to the police. They were more the
injured party”, (Victim Representative).
In interview, researchers explored participants’ views on whether or not
the apology was prompted and whose idea it
had been to apologise. The majority of young people felt that the
apology had been their own idea, (84%), “To
apologise was my idea from the start, from the word go”, but fifteen
young people indicated that the apology had
been the co-ordinators idea. Just under two thirds or 63% of young
people felt they had apologised because they
wanted to with the remainder or one third stating that there had been
some degree of pressure. Of this one third,
57% (31) stated that they had apologised because they ‘had to’. However,
one young person explained how it is
possible to have an element of pressure but for the apology still to
have derived from free will,
“It was my own will but it was helped out of me. I
would have done it, but I needed reminded.”
Young people were also asked about their views on the impact or meaning
of the apology. The majority indicated that
they thought it had made both themselves (86%), and the victim (84%)
feel better or ‘sort of’ better. One young
person however expressed an amount of uncertainty due to the absence of
a direct victim at the conference, “Did the
apology make you feel better?” Young Person: “It did and it didn’t
because the victim wasn’t there.”
From a victim perspective, the majority believed that the apology had
been the young person’s own idea though
some felt it may have been prompted by others, “kept turning round to
his mum though but I think it was his idea”,
(personal victim). The fact that more young people than victims
perceived the apology as natural and unprompted
suggests a potential for misinterpretation within the conference group
environment. Over one quarter (26%) of
victims felt that the apology had been prompted by the co-ordinator and
14.5% felt the impetus came from the young
person’s supporter.
Victim Representative, “The young
person probably spoke to his parents and keyworker and
thought it was a good idea to apologise.”
Personal Victim, “I felt the
social worker had a lot of impact. It was also the social worker’s idea to
shake our hands [on the way out].”
Although 38% of victims stated that the young person had apologised
because they wanted to, 30% felt the young
person believed they ‘had to’, “He knew he had to – it’s like water off
a duck’s back”, (Victim representative); “I’d like
to think it was his own idea…he did want to apologise but he was told as
well”, (Victim Representative).
Nevertheless, acceptance of the apology was overwhelmingly positive with
only two victims observed to decline
acceptance of the young person’s apology.
Victim Type Yes No
Personal Victim 59 1
Victim Representative 60 9
Victimless Crime
(Representative Attends) 12 7
This is perhaps supported by the views of victims in interview where the
majority or a total of 85% of victims, were
either ‘happy’ or at least ‘sort of’ happy with the apology received
(see Table 5.4 below).
Table
5.4: Victim: If there was an apology from the young person,
were
you happy with it?
Victim Representative: “He knew he
had done wrong and was annoyed about it. At least he had
the guts to look the victim in the eye. It showed a
wee bit of maturity”
Personal Victim “He
apologises a lot”. “I know he is not going to do it again because me and him
are
friends”
As the majority of victims accepted the young person’s apology, the vast
number also expressed some level of
forgiveness toward the young person, (81%). As one victim stated, “there
is not all that would come here, but you've
got the courage to do it. I'm very grateful to you. You've had the guts
to do it and I don't want to see you punished”.
Of those who did not express any forgiveness, over half (15 or 55%) were
victim representatives and community
representatives or police officers attending in the case of a
‘victimless’ crime. In these instances and not being a
direct victim of the crime the tendency to express forgiveness may have
been irrelevant.
Overall, most young people attending a conference apologised. This was
so whether or not a victim attended the
conference. However, within those conferences with a victim, a lack of
apology or remorse appeared to be related to
the type of victim present. Therefore, the absence of apology within
conferences with victim presence had a high
relation to victim representatives or persons attending in the case of
‘victimless’ crimes. An explanation is further
suggested from the qualitative interview data from young persons and
victims indicating that at times an apology was
inappropriate in the absence of an actual victim.
Case study I: Uncertain victims
In this case, Henry is charged with the ‘victimless’ crime of disorderly
behaviour. Henry attends the
conference with his mother, Henrietta as a support. The police officer
and co-ordinator make up the
other attendees. The co-ordinator begins by introducing everyone and
explains that there is no
victim present because, “the victim is the public”. This is not
explained further and Henry appears
somewhat confused. The police officer provides a brief outline of the
offence. Henry is listening well
and making good eye contact with the police officer and proceeds to
explain his version of events.
Henry speaks about how he had acted aggressively towards another man
whom he thought had
threatened his friend. Henry states that as he went towards the man he
was arrested,
Henry, “If he wants me to apologise I will”. Co-ordinator, “Why?” Henry,
“Cos he deserves it. I
started it”. Co-ordinator, “Does anyone else have any views?” Police
officer, “I wouldn’t go that way
because this man didn’t make a complaint. We’re here because of what
happened slightly after that.
I won’t go into the legal issues here”. The police officer explains that
the offence is not against a
person, it is against the ‘general public’. Henry, “What is the general
public? I don’t understand what
that means?” The police officer attempts to elaborate on the concept of
the general public as victim.
The police officer refers to criminal behaviour that takes place in a
public place,
Police Officer, “Offence against the state therefore no need to
apologise to him ‘cos no compliant is
being made. I suggest you apologise to my Commander” Henry, “But how
would I do that? Write a
letter?” Police officer, “The co-ordinator will guide you”.
The conference continues to consider how Henry can make up for the
offence. Henry’s mother
Henrietta feels that the letter is a good way to make amends. The
co-ordinator checks again whether
or not Henry and his mother have understood the nature of the offence.
The group agree a plan and
the police officer explains to whom Henry should address the letter of
apology and that he should
apologise for the waste of police time and consequences for the public.
The
conference
77
Frequency Percentage
Yes 78 72
Sort of 14 13
No 17 16
The
conference
78
Shame and remorse
In over three-quarters of conferences (77%), the young person was
observed to display either ‘a lot’ or ‘a bit’ of
shame. In just under a quarter of conferences (23%) the young person did
not appear shameful. The presence of a
victim appeared to have an impact on whether the young person displayed
shame. In 81% of conferences with a
victim the young person displayed some degree of shame, whilst shame was
displayed in 70% of conferences without
a victim.
Similarly, observations showed a high rate of remorse. Therefore, in 92%
of conferences the young person expressed
some form of remorse. Out of those victims who attended a conference in
which the young person did not express
direct remorse, the majority, (13 or 72%) were made up of victim representatives.
As with the apology, this result may
be explained by a peculiarity that arises when asked to express direct
remorse toward a person who is not the actual
victim. In interview, comments from some victim representatives
indicated that direct remorse was not always
appropriate:
Victim Representative, “I don’t
think he used the word ‘sorry’. Nobody asked, ‘can I hear you
apologise’ or put him on the spot. But who would he be
apologising to? He was sorry he did it.”
Nevertheless, a number of victim representatives expressed annoyance at
the absence of remorse but this appeared to
occur where the young person failed to express any level of regret for
his/her actions, “The young person just had no
remorse – it makes me feel bad…he accepted that he did it, but there was
no responsibility in his acceptance”,
(Victim Representative).
5.9 Devising conference plans
Following discussion of the offence and, if relevant, an apology from
the young person participants are directed
towards the process of agreeing or devising a conference plan. At this
point, the co-ordinator usually summarises
participants’ discussion about the impact of the crime and explains that
the purpose of the plan is to repair the harm
and to address the causes of offending.
In order to gauge the extent to which participants were involved in the
process of arriving at a plan various matters
were explored including who had most and least say in devising the plan,
levels of engagement, perceptions of
fairness and overall satisfaction with the actual process. On the whole
results were very positive and showed high
levels of involvement from conference participants. Although there were
a small number of concerns, such as a few
instances of domination by professionals, co-ordinators were observed to
facilitate and encourage an inclusive
dialogue when devising the conference plan.
Involvement
Overall, young people and victims indicated approval at the extent to
which they were involved in devising the plan.
One young person understood the process of devising the plan thus, “It
gives you a chance to say what you want to
do and what you are comfortable with; victims have a say in what you do
too”. When asked if they would have liked
more say the vast majority of young people responded ‘no’ (Table 5.5
below).
Table
5.5: Young person and victim: Would you have liked more say
in
devising the plan?
Young Person Victim
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
A lot 7 4 4 4
A bit 8 5 10 9
No 143 91 93 83
Don’t Know 0 0 5 5
The
conference
79
Similarly, most victims were happy with their own contributions
although, as shown in Table 5.5 a slightly higher
proportion of victims than young people would have liked further input,
Personal victim, “I wasn’t
part of the action plan. The only thing I asked was financial – willing to
be flexible over time period. My main thing was the
financial thing. Down the list was his
recidivism being addressed – this has been addressed.”
In order to comprehend more fully perceptions of involvement,
participants were asked to identify who they believed
had most say in agreeing the plan. The most commonly named participant
was the co-ordinator, identified by 64 or
41% of young people and 41 or 37% of victims. However, this result might
be expected given that the co-ordinator is
required to facilitate agreement of the plan. Interestingly, in
observations the co-ordinator was identified as having
most input in just over one third or 35% of conferences followed by the
victim in 13%. In contrast, the young person
was identified as having most input in 11 or 6% of conferences.
Observations showed a minority of only 57 conferences where one or more
participants should have had more say
when devising the plan. In two thirds or 37 conferences this was identified
as the young person and it may be that in
some cases the young person should have had a more substantial part when
determining the actual plan75. In eight
conferences it was felt the victim should have had more say when making
suggestions for the plan,
Personal victim, “I felt when
it came to that bit [devising the plan] it was between the co-ordinator
and young person. Felt my job was done – felt I wasn’t
a big part.”
In as little as 14% or 24 conferences, it was observed that one or more
participants should have had less say. In seven
conferences this was the co-ordinator and in another seven, the police
officer. Although small in number, the coordinator
or police officer was at times observed to address the young person in a
moralizing or scolding tone76. This
is of course a practice issue but something which should be addressed.
In only two conferences the victim was
identified as the participant who should have had less say suggesting that
the notion of a dominant or overpowering
victim did not emerge from this research. Similarly, in two conferences
it was felt that the young person should have
had less say at the stage of devising the plan.
A not infrequent observation was a sense that a number of plans may have
been predetermined. In one conference
the co-ordinator was observed to ask the young person what they could do
to repair the harm caused by the offence.
The young person replied, “The things we talked about”. Nevertheless, it
is appropriate to assist participants in
making suggestions for the conference plan, and some victims indicated
how this might have helped,
Victim Representative, “I think the
co-ordinator directed us towards an appropriate plan for the
offence”
Although it is crucial to facilitate contributions when devising the
plan, it is important that this does not remove from
others the more restorative or healing elements of involvement and
decision-making power. In any event,
observations found that this delicate balance was usually achieved.
Engagement
An additional perspective on devising the plan was sought by looking
beyond involvement to a consideration of
participant engagement. While the foregoing discussion showed that under
involvement by the young person or
victim was in some respects related to domination by others, an
examination of participant engagement suggests that
low levels of contribution may relate also to feelings of reluctance or
even an uncertainty as to how to engage.
One young person stated how they, “…didn’t have much to say and didn’t
know what way to say it, so I didn’t say
anything”. The case study below provides an example of an instance where
the young person struggled to engage
when devising the plan.
75 See Recommendation 14.
76 See Recommendation 15.
The
conference
80
Case study J: Reluctance devising the plan
Todd attends a diversionary conference for driving offences with his
father Oliver as a main
supporter. Todd’s mother is also present. Rodger, a community
representative attends to provide a
victim perspective including the impact of vehicle crime on the
community. After introductions and
an outline of the facts participant’s ask Todd why he committed the
offence. Todd replies but is not
overly keen to elaborate, “Don’t know. Nothin else to do. Felt like
doing it so I did it”. Rodger asks a
few questions from Todd and talks about the consequences of his
behaviour. Todd’s parents speak
about the negative impact of his behaviour but also provide a positive
view of their son. Participants
turn to consider a plan,
Co-ordinator, “How could you make amends to the community Todd?”, Todd,
“Do something in the
community” Rodger, “What interests do you have? What do you like doing?”
Todd, “Anything,
football, PC, X box”. Father, “He can build things, create things, have
a go at fixing things”. Rodger,
“It would be good if he could do something he enjoys”. The co-ordinator
pushes for some
suggestions from Todd to help the community but there is no response.
Rodger indicates that Todd
could tidy-up in the area or cut grass but Todd shakes his head in
refusal. The co-ordinator asks the
police officer for suggestions. Rodger then suggests painting and Todd
agrees and suggests designing
a mural. The group discuss time scales and hours required but Todd
appears bored and disengaged.
The co-ordinator asks for input from Todd but there remains no response.
Oliver, Todd’s father, “Don’t really think he needs anything – he just
flips sometimes.” Co-ordinator,
“I don’t think the PPS will accept this unless there is something to
prevent reoffending”. Police
officer, “Could do some sessions on road safety and a letter outlining
the consequences of the
offence to the local police commander”. The police officer also mentions
sessions with the traffic
education officer and attendance at a local community project to address
why Todd got into trouble.
Todd’s parents indicate that they would not object to this. Oliver,
“Feel this is a good opportunity to
look to the future and get back on the right path”. Todd reluctantly
agrees but does not respond
further.
Silence follows and then the co-ordinator asks Todd, “Are you doing this
because you want to do it
or feel you have to?” Todd, “I want to do it”, Co-ordinator, “Plan,
twenty-four hours reparation, one
session with road traffic police, a minimum of eight sessions with a
local project. Anything else?”
Todd, “No”. Rodger asks if they can include sessions to work towards
career ambitions. Todd agrees.
Co-ordinator, “Investigate future career prospects within three months.
Mentoring project activities
once a week?” Todd agrees. Co-ordinator, “Mentor, six months”. The
co-ordinator checks if anything
has been excluded and draws the conference to a close.
As Table 5.6 illustrates, the overwhelming majority or 89% of young
people were observed to show some level of
engagement, (41% ‘a lot’; 48% ‘a bit’), when deciding a plan. In only
11% of conferences it was felt that they did
not, (see Table 5.6).
Table
5.6: How engaged was the young person in deciding the plan?
In one instance, the young person requested the co-ordinator to make
suggestions for the plan, “You come up with
things and I’ll answer them”. The young person was then observed to look
around the room and fidget while coordinator
and supporters discussed options for the plan. In another case, the
young person appeared somewhat
overwhelmed at the prospect of having to present ideas to the group:
Frequency Percentage
A lot 71 41
A bit 84 48
Not at all 20 11
The
conference
81
Co-ordinator asks the young person what he could do to “make reparation
/ recompense”. Young
person (arms folded sullen): “I don't know. You said to me it’s the victim who asks you what to do.”
Co-ordinator: “What can you do to show the victim you
won't do this again?” Young person: “I
don't know. How am I supposed to know? I don't know
about these things.” Co-ordinator asks
again later. Young person: “I told you earlier. I
don't know nothing to do”.
However, in most instances, engagement by the young person proved to be
constructive and contributed to a positive
dialogue when devising the plan. In one case, the young person
persistently refused suggestions arguing that the
activities proposed would be of little help to others, “No. I’m not doin
that. That’s not helping them”. Participants
continued to raise suggestions until the young person’s supporter
suggested a donation to a hospice, Young person
supporter, “Something for the Children’s Hospice. That’s for sick
children”. The young person responded with strong
agreement, “Yeah! I know. I’ll do that when I finish the other stuff”.
As shown by Table 5.7, 96% of victims were observed to engage ‘a lot’ or
‘a bit’ in the process of devising a plan.
Only 6 victims were noted not to have engaged at all and of these, three
were personal victims, three representatives
or community members attending for a ‘victimless’ crime.
Table
5.7: How engaged was the victim in deciding the plan?
For some victims, a lack of engagement may have related to a perception
that they had received what was required in
order to repair the harm. Indeed, some victims indicated that their
needs had been adequately met,
Victim: “I'm not sure if there is
anything else I want. The main thing I want is that it doesn't happen
again.”
The young person’s supporter asks the victim if there is anything the
young person can do for him.
Victim: “Nothing direct. My two
things were to get some money and an apology. I've got those. He
is already doing voluntary work in the community. I'm
not going to turn around and say 'help me
with my garden' or anything. He's damaged cars but as
his father said earlier people make
mistakes. If there is a change in his attitude that is
enough”.
Comments from other victims suggested that they misunderstood their role
in determining the plan and felt uncertain
as to the type of suggestions they could make. One victim believed their
role had ended following discussion of the
crime, “I don’t think the plan has anything too do with me”, (personal
victim). For some, feelings of fear either of
retaliation or of exposing themselves as vengeful meant they could not
speak freely about what they would have
liked to see in the plan,
Personal victim, “I felt
uneasy in that I would have loved to say he should walk round the avenue
[to avoid the victim’s house] but my wife and I felt
we could be victims again if we suggested that.
He might put our windows in if we suggested too much”
Personal Victim, “The victim
won’t speak out – makes them seem bitter and twisted. I won’t say I
want revenge – it would be counterproductive. Leave
[plan] to someone else. If he breaks it I want
him before the courts. No excuses. Want him before the
court. If you walk you can do it”
Overall, participants appeared to engage well when devising the plan. However,
out of those failing to engage the
greater number were young people. The overwhelming majority of
participants appeared to be satisfied with the
process of determining the conference plan. Again, more victims (93 or
66%) than young people (70 or 40%)
appeared ‘very’ satisfied and more young people (29 or 17%) than victims
(7 or 5%) were observed to be dissatisfied
(i.e. ‘not at all’ satisfied) though this was a small number overall
(see Table 5.8).
Frequency Percentage
A lot 88 63
A bit 46 33
Not at all 6 4
The
conference
82
Table
5.8: How satisfied was the young person / victim with the process of
determining
the plan?
In so far as young people are concerned, an element of unease or
discontent in relation to the actual process may be
expected due to the reality of making a commitment to complete a binding
conference plan. Nevertheless, caution is
required to ensure that the differential in satisfaction does not relate
to the contrasting positions of conference
participants, most notably the fact that the young person is most often
the only person below the age of eighteen.
5.10 The actual plan
Agreement
During the research period almost all conferences, (238 or 95%), reached
agreement on the content of a plan.
Observations showed that, on the whole, there was a high level of
agreement amongst all participants with 59% of
conferences where there was either ‘unanimous’ or ‘a lot’ of consensus.
Only 4% appeared to have little agreement.
Table
5.9: How much consensus was there amongst participants about
the
plan agreed?
Results show a minority of twelve conferences with no agreement.
However, in a number of these instances, certain
practical or technical reasons meant that a plan could not be agreed.
Therefore, in one case, the offence attracted a
mandatory court sentence and in another, heavy involvement in community
work meant that it would be impossible
for the young person to partake in a plan. In this case, it was
recognized by participants that the young person had
apologized profusely and expressed remorse. Interestingly, in one case
it seemed that suggestions were made by the
young person only because they did not wish to attend court. As such,
and given that the young person appeared not
to appreciate why an element of reparation might be included, an
agreement on the final plan was not reached.
Young Person
%
Victim
%
Very 40 66
Somewhat 43 29
Not at all 17 5
Frequency Percentage
Unanimous 44 25
A lot 63 36
Quite a lot 61 35
A little 7 4
None 0 0
The
conference
83
Case study K: Devising the plan
The police officer asks the young person if he would give money to the
store. The police officer
suggests £28.00, which was the value of the item stolen. The young
person is defiant: “do I have the
jacket? I'd be earning money for nothing. It’s like throwing £28 out in
the rain and saying goodbye to
it.” Co-ordinator: “That is what it was like for the store - you're
feeling what the store manager felt.”
Later the young person concedes to offer a smaller amount to avoid
sentencing in court; “I am
prepared to do it but not £28.00…I’m giving ten pound, fifteen pound but
yous are sitting there
saying that’s not good enough and that’s whats putting me off”.
Co-ordinator: “Amount doesn’t matter.
You haven’t been genuine and that’s why I think we should leave it”.
Young person: “No but I don’t
think that. If you leave it to [judge] something bad will happen to me
and I don’t want that”. Coordinator:
“We can’t come to agreement – you leave me no choice”. Young person:
“But I have come
to agreement- fifteen pounds”. Young person supporter: “Leave it to [the
judge]. [Young person] is the
most selfish wee boy I know”. Young person: “But I’m giving fifteen
pounds. The co-ordinator says I
can give whatever I want”. Young person supporter; “It’s your attitude –
you should be happy to give –
show you’re sorry”. Co-ordinator ends conference. The young person
states that he does not want to
go to court.
In a few of the conferences where a plan was not agreed the young person
withdrew consent. However, in one such
case, withdrawal did not negate expressions of remorse and the young
person was noted to have apologized to the
victim outside of the conference arena. In this instance, the victim was
moved by the young person’s reaction and felt
the young person to be sincere.
For the most part, young people indicated in interview that they were
willing to agree to the conference plan with
121 or 74% indicating that they had been ‘happy to agree’, (Table 5.10
below). The experience for the remainder, (42
or 26%), was either that they ‘had to’ agree or that they were unsure if
their agreement was due mostly to pressure or
free will, “Plan tries to make you do stuff you don’t really want to”.
Table
5.10: Young person / victim: Were you happy to agree or
did
you feel you had to?
A smaller number of five (5%) victims felt that they had to agree to the
plan. Given that the majority of victims
attending conferences where adults, (the majority were aged between 31
and 50 years), this may raise a question of
power imbalance due to age. That the conference environment may be
restrictive for young people is perhaps
supported by a greater level of reluctance observed toward conference
plans from young people than from victims or
indeed any other participant.
Table
5.11: Was there any reluctance to the plan from
young
person / victim?
Young Person
%
Victim
%
Happy to agree 74 87
Bit of both 12 9
Had to agree 14 5
Young Person
%
Victim
%
A lot 14 1
A bit 32 8
Not at all 54 91
The
conference
84
Therefore, Table 5.11 above shows that while no more than 1% or two
victims were observed to displayed a lot of
reluctance when agreeing the plan it was felt that 14% or 25 young
people showed opposition to the plan.
Co-ordinator: “what could you do for the plan?” Young person: “Nothing -
he is a policeman.” Coordinator:
“What do you think now?” Young person: “I don't know …
I shouldn't have done it.” Coordinator:
“What would you do now?” Young person: “Walk away
(why?) don't want another one
of these stupid conferences. Sitting listening to you
all day.” Police officer: “If it was me?” Young
person: “if it was a woman, I would say sorry.”
(Conversation continues) Young person: “Alright, I'll
write it (why?) for trying to head butt him … right,
I'll write it. Can I go now please?”
However, in several conferences it was apparent that pressure to agree
derived from knowledge that the court
required a significant content before the Magistrate would approve the
plan. In one instance the young person agreed
to engage with a local community service whilst remarking, “Don’t want
to do it…does my head in”. The context of
negotiations indicated that though the young person did not wish this
activity to be included s/he nevertheless hoped
for court approval of the plan. Pressure from court exerts hefty demands
and removes from the conference an
important element of voluntariness77. In these instances, questions arise as to the authenticity of the
young person’s
consent. One co-ordinator was noted to caution participants and reminded
the group that, “The conference is about
making amends”. The following is illustrative of an instance involving
an element of persuasion due to knowledge of
what would be expected by the court.
Case study L: Voluntariness
Ally has agreed to complete a court-ordered conference for the offence
of criminal damage. At the
conference Ally’s keyworker Ned attends as main support. There is no
victim present however the
police officer and co-ordinator relay to Ally the impact of the offence.
The group progresses well.
Following a discussion about the offence participants consider options
for the plan,
Ally, “Is this the only conference I’m going to have?” Co-ordinator,
“Don’t know”. Ally, “When you
go back to court what will you say?” Co-ordinator, “We need to make a
plan. How to make up for
the harm” Ally, “Don’t know. I’ve said I’m sorry”. Ned, (Ally’s
supporter), “Do you want the police
officer to apologise on your behalf?” Ally, “Yes”. Co-ordinator, “My
suggestions would be a letter”.
Ally, “Aye”.
The discussion continues. Co-ordinator asks Ally if he has any other
ideas. Ally, “You come up with
things and I’ll answer them”. Ned, “Ally is very keen to get involved in
things that have
accreditation. How quickly do you need to know what he’ll do?” The
co-ordinator and Ned talk
through the options but Ally is disengaging. Ally then tells the group
about a boat he is making,
“Can I make something in woodwork?”. Ally then asks, “What’s the purpose
of this – all this here?
Does this go back to court. Am I going to get done for criminal damage?
What’s this youth
conference – I don’t understand this. Will I still get sentenced after
doing all this?”. The police officer
explains. Ally, “So what happens to the case? Is that it done?”
Co-ordinator, “It’s in court on
Monday- we don’t do anything until we see if the Magistrate passes it”
Ally, “They said no to the last
one”.
The co-ordinator and police officer continue to explain what can happen
at court. Ally is restless
and asks, “What time is it?” The co-ordinator draws the conference to a
close. Police Officer, “The
Magistrate may want to add to this” Ned, “He could do three items”.
Ally, “Is the boat not enough?”
Ned, “I think you need more”. Ally, “What else? I could make a wee
coffee table with fancy legs
and a drawer” Co-ordinator, “Minimum of twelve hours to complete the
project”. The co-ordinator
brings the conference to a close and explains the plan to Ally.
77 See Recommendation 16.
The
conference
85
Plan content
Though there emerged features common to many plans, such as an apology
to the victim or an activity to address the
causes of offending, each outcome varied in substance and length.
Indeed, it was observed that for the most part
plans resulted from group negotiation and consensus albeit varying in
degree. It was difficult to find a ‘typical’ plan
as linked to a particular offence category and given the diversity of
offences in any particular category and the
informal and exploratory nature of the conference process, this is an
expected result. The following pages include
examples of plans agreed for different offences at court-ordered and
diversionary conferences.
Offence: Criminal damage
Source: Court-ordered
Apology
Payment
Activities
Activities
Reparation
Written apology within two months of ratification
Donation of £40 to Named Charity at £5 per week for 8 weeks
One session of drugs awareness counselling organised
Four sessions addressing negative peer influence facilitated
Reparation work for 2 hours for 4 weeks
Offence: Common assault and possession of offensive
weapon
Source: Court-ordered
Community
Service
Activity
Restriction:
40 hours service for the community in a local project designed to assist
the disadvantaged in locality
12 sessions focusing on anger management and other offending-related
issues
Fully commit to school contract until the end of April 2005
Offence: Handling stolen goods
Source: Court-ordered
Apology A written apology within one month of the order being imposed
Offence: AOABH, criminal damage and possession of
offensive weapon
Source: Court-Ordered
Activities
Activities
Reparation
6 sessions (1 hour each) of Anger Management
1 session (1 hour) in respect of improving her relationship with others
5 hours of “good deeds” within named organization
Offence: Assault and robbery
Source: Diversionary
Payment
Activity
Activity
Donate an undisclosed amount of pocket money to named charity.
Make an object for local hospital.
Undertake individual work with named project once a week for 6 months to
address dealing with difficult situations
Offence: Deception
Source: Diversionary
Reparation
Treatment
Activities
Payment
Apology
Activities
Activities
Activities
60 hours reparation within the community
Undertake a psychological assessment and undertake follow-up deemed
necessary
Complete an intergenerational programme with named charity within 12
months of plan being ratified
Contribute £120 to a charity of choice at a rate of £5 per week
Write a letter of explanation for the offending to each person directly
affected by behaviour
Complete 6 sessions with named project on offending issues
Provide 3 monthly progress reports to the victims, through named charity
Continue to progress at school. This will be monitored by parents for 12
months or until plan is completed.
Offence: AOABH
Source: Diversionary
Activity Mentoring
In line with the restorative framework of conferencing researchers
observed the extent to which the outcome
incorporated notions of help or assistance for the young person,
punishment and re-education in relation to crime. It
was noted that 83% of plans included some degree of help for the young
person. Just over one quarter of plans, (47
plans or 27%), comprised some degree of punishment and over one half (90
or 52%) an element of re-education
regarding the young person’s offending behaviour. In all, retributive
notions of punishing the young person featured
neither frequently nor heavily, noting that it was present ‘a lot’ in
only three plans. Assistance for the young person
was certainly the most prevalent trait and this was reflected by the
comments of some victims,
Personal Victim, “Positive and
constructive rather than destructive for his self esteem…benefit
others…has committed himself to a lot of things.”
Victim Representative “All the
suggestions as a package will only benefit the offender – keep him
occupied and distracted.
Figure
5.1 Plan elements as a percentage of all plans
As shown, community service, payment, supervision and treatment elements
were absent from the overwhelming
majority of plans. In terms of the actual programmes recorded for all
plans, mentoring comprised a customary feature
whereas other schemes traditionally aligned with a ‘helping’ or welfare
perspective, peer influence education,
personal development and family support, constituted a minority aspect
of all plans, (Table 5.12)
Table
5.12: Type of scheme / programme in conference plan as a percentage
of
all schemes recorded.
Scheme Number Percentage of all
Schemes
Mentoring 69 20
Offence focused work 48 14
Reparation work 47 14
Drug/alcohol awareness 42 12
Victim/offence awareness 42 12
Voluntary/community Work 26 8
Anger management 20 6
Re-engage with existing scheme 13 4
Education/Training 11 3
Peer influence/education 10 3
Diversionary activities 6 2
Personal development 4 1
Attitude toward authority 4 1
Other 4 1
The
conference
86
The
conference
87
Education or training schemes were noted in only eleven instances of all
elements recorded for the 238 plans.
However, it should be stated that the actual content of many schemes
appearing within conference plans, such as
mentoring and voluntary or community work, may have offered education
and / or training opportunities for the
young person78. Although the actual substance of plans was often practical and
constructive, one victim believed that
the plan included enjoyable activities that would fail to offer benefits
to the young person,
Personal Victim,“Eight hours
doing something he enjoys and he thinks he’s helping someone and
wants paid for it. It shouldn’t have been something he
likes to do. It shouldn’t be something
pleasurable and enjoyable. I felt it was missing the
point. It may look good on paper but it won’t
help him at all. To a Magistrate reading it who
doesn’t know the young person it may look positive
but I don’t see it as an effective solution to the
young person’s problems.”]
Interestingly, restrictive elements did not appear regularly across a
wide range of plans. However, 72 plans did
demand a restriction on the young person’s physical whereabouts and of
these seven incorporated two restrictions
and one plan included three. Of note was a significant geographical
inconsistency in this regard. Therefore, out of the
67 plans agreed within the Fermanagh and Tyrone area, 55% incorporated
one or more restrictions. This contrasts
with conference plans emerging from the Greater Belfast area with only
20% including a restriction. The reason for
this result may be due to professional preference on behalf of some
co-ordinators. Indeed, in this respect, it may be
important to monitor the development of plans to ensure against a trend
in regional variation79. The following
provides an example of the type of restrictions that may feature in a
plan.
Finally, victim-focused aspects such as reparation and payment were
absent from a significant number of plans.
Indeed, observations found that in the majority or 66% of cases, the
young person did not offer any form of
compensation or reparation. However, this must be viewed in light of the
fact that the majority of victims, (85 or
57%), did not request any form of reparation or material recompense and
where victim representatives attended,
direct reparation was often inappropriate. Moreover, in a number of
cases reparation was not necessary as either no
financial harm had been caused or the property had been recovered
undamaged.
Offence: Criminal damage, burglary and theft
Restrictions
Apology
Reparation
Activity
Activity
Exclusion from the premises of named place for the duration of the
conference plan. To be
monitored by PSNI and relevant staff
Written apology
Thirty hours of reparation activities to the community
Six sessions with named project
Mentoring
Offence: Disorderly behaviour
Activity
Restriction
Restriction
Restriction
Activity
Referral to named organisation to complete six sessions to address
alcohol consumption.
Four week curfew to remain at home between midnight and 7 a.m. each
night. To be monitored by
PSNI.
Over the next four weeks when undertaking work placement young person
must make way to/from
place of work without entering named town. To be monitored by PSNI.
Make way home directly from college on [specified dates] whilst
recognizing this necessitates
travel through named town centre around 12 midnight. To be monitored by
PSNI.
Continue to attend training programme for the next 6 months.
78 See Recommendation 17.
79 See Recommendation 18.
The
conference
88
Participant perspectives on the actual plan
Perceptions of fairness in relation to the actual plan were extremely
high amongst both young people and victims.
Table
5.13: Young person / victim: Do you think the plan is fair to you?
In fact, as Table 5.13 shows, Young people and Victims displayed a
positive view in this matter, with 93% of young
people and 79% of victims believing the plan to be ‘very fair’ or
‘fair’.
Victim Representative, “He might
think that it is too much but in terms of balance it is fair. It can’t
be all roses for him”.
Personal Victim, was that fair
to you? “In the circumstances, yes. If he only earns £30 a week. A
token thing – you could probably dig your heels in and
ask for more but there is no point. In reality
you are not going to get what you ideally want. More
important that the offender sees the harm
caused and is held accountable for what he has done
meeting face to face”.
High levels of satisfaction with the actual outcome were also indicated
by victims and young people. Table 5.14
shows that 71% of young people and 79% of victims were either ‘very
satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ with the actual
outcome.
Table
5.14: Young person / victim:
Overall,
how satisfied were you with the outcome of the conference?
For those who felt dissatisfied, one young person believed the plan was
unjustified because he/she was the only one
apprehended, “I thought the plan was a bit hard … ‘cos there’s a lot of people
who do it and I’m just the one who
gets caught!”. Another young person indicated that the duration of
activity was unnecessary, “I felt 10 weeks at
[programme] was too much. Ripping the back out of it”.
As a final matter, an interesting result emerges if considering
satisfaction by victim type. Though only five victims felt
‘very dissatisfied’ with the outcome two were personal victims.
Similarly, when considering perceptions of fairness
most believed the plan to be fair. Of the small number of victims,
(seven in total), who felt the plan was ‘unfair’ or
‘very unfair’ six were personal victims.
Personal Victim, “Very unfair
– certainly not designed for victims. If designed for victims the
government would reimburse you”. Fair to the young
person? “Very fair – more designed for them,
to help them rather than the victim.”
Young Person
%
Victim
%
Very fair 29 29
Fair 64 50
Neither fair/unfair 3 15
Unfair 4 3
Very Unfair 1 4
Young Person
%
Victim
%
Very satisfied 22 44
Satisfied 49 35
Neither satisfied/dissatisfied 27 12
Dissatisfied/very dissatisfied 3 9
The
conference
89
While this should not detract from the positive experiences of victims
overall, it is interesting that the minority
reporting a negative experience are often personal victims. Though there
might be many explanations for this result, it
may also imply a differing perception of conference events for victims
depending on whether or not they have been
personally hurt by the crime.
Nevertheless, victim satisfaction in terms of the conference outcome did
not appear to relate to the seriousness of the
offence. Therefore, the small number of eleven (9%) victims indicating a
degree of dissatisfaction with the plan
attended for offences ranging in severity, from less serious property
matters to more serious offences against persons
and / or property. Moreover, out of the seven victims who attended a
conference for an offence involving ‘very
serious’ personal harm, the majority or five were either ‘satisfied’ or
‘very satisfied’ with the outcome. Similarly, 28 or
93% of victims attending for ‘serious’ offences against persons and / or
property were satisfied (15 ‘very satisfied’; 13
‘satisfied’)80.
Proportionality
A further indicator of the equity of conference outcomes is the extent
to which the plan is deemed proportionate to
the gravity of the offence. Though a concept that fits uneasily with the
individualistic and participant-led tenets of
restorative justice, it is an important tool to assess fairness and an
essential constraint where conferencing operates
within the realm of a traditional justice system. In order to determine
individual opinions on proportionality, young
people and victims were asked whether they believed the plan to be ‘too
hard’ or ‘too soft’.
Table
5.15: Young person / victim:
Do
you think the plan is too hard or too soft given the crime?
As shown in Table 5.15, the majority stated that the plan was ‘neither
too hard nor soft’ suggesting that from a
participant perspective plans did correspond to the seriousness of the
offence.
Victim Representative, “It is
difficult to know what is proportionate but the plan is neither
excessively severe or too lenient.”
Interestingly, out of the six victims who viewed the plan as onerous the
majority (four) were personal victims
including one injured party who was the victim of the more serious
offence of assault causing actual bodily harm.
However, at the other end of the scale the majority of those who viewed
the plan as too soft were also personal
victims (57%). The absence of a consistent response from personal
victims on the appropriateness of conference plans
suggests that matters other than the nature of victimisation may
influence perceptions of proportionality. This may
include factors such as the distance in time from offence to the actual
conference, how the victim feels following the
conference, views about the young person and the nature of the offence.
However, results showed little relation
between offence seriousness and victims perceptions of proportionality.
Therefore, out of the twenty five victims
believing the plan to be too soft, the majority attended the conference
for offences ranging in seriousness, with 11 or
44% attending for ‘intermediate’ offences against person or property, 8
or 32% attending for ‘serious’ matters, and a
small number of three present for ‘very serious’ crimes against the
person81. The following provides some comments
from victims, who believed the plan to be soft,
Young Person
%
Victim
%
Far too hard 3 0
A bit hard 10 6
Neither too hard/too soft 72 69
A bit soft 13 13
Far too soft 1 13
Don’t know 2 1
80, 81 The seriousness of each offence was categorised using an ‘Offence
Seriousness Scale’ devised for the purposes of this research. A full
explanation and details of
the Offence Seriousness Scale are provided in Appendix 6.
Personal Victim, “With victims
nothing is fair, it’s not severe enough. Wanted to lock her up. Don’t
think we had any say – thought the courts set out what
to do in the plan”,
Personal Victim, “Far too
soft…but I don’t think he could handle anything else.”
Personal Victim, “Apparently
this is his third offence [the plan] should be
harsher”,
In interview victims were asked if there was anything left out of the
plan that they would have liked included. Rather
positively, the majority answered ‘no’. When questioned further about
this, twelve victims identified elements that
they would have liked included, for instance,
◆ Help with
drugs/alcohol
◆ Help with confidence
◆ Mentoring
◆ Voluntary work with
an animal sanctuary
◆ Compensation and to
address a lack of schooling
◆ Restitution and
return of stolen items
Notably, the majority of elements identified by these victims related to
helping the young person rather than any
desire for punishment. However, three victims did feel that the young
person should have received a ban on entering
a certain area and one felt that s/he should have experienced a period
in custody.
In order to gauge more clearly the views of young people in relation to
the content of the plan, they were asked if
there was anything that they disliked. In response, the vast majority or
80%, of young people replied ‘no’.
Commonly identified features for the 20% of young people who indicated a
dislike included community work,
mentoring, and drugs or alcohol courses.
As a further measurement of conference plans participants were asked to
evaluate whether or not the young person
would complete the plan in light of its level of difficulty. As
illustrated in Table 5.16, the majority or 75% of young
people felt positive in this regard and believed that they would be
‘definitely’ successful in completing the plan,
“They probably could have got more out of me. Definitely not going to be
hard.” Though victims tended to be less
optimistic than young people on whether the plan would be completed, a
majority of two thirds (66%) felt definite or
mostly sure that this would be so.
Table
5.16: Young person / victim:
Do
you think the young person will be able to complete the plan?
These are some of the responses received from victims when asked if the
young person would complete the plan:
Personal Victim, “If he puts
his mind to it”.
Personal Victim, “Possibly – I
will be pleasantly surprised. Depends on the environment”.
Whilst over one quarter of young people responded ‘nothing’ when asked
to identify the most difficult aspect of the
plan, the most frequent element identified as difficult was the apology,
“The letter – I have to express it in my own
words and I don’t know what to say”. However, one young person was concerned
that an apology was insufficient to
remedy the harm caused to the victim,
“All the victim representative asked for was a letter
of apology. I know it was a lot of money, but I
don’t know. Could have done a lot more for the victim.
More than a letter of apology […] I think it’s
fair but I could have done more for the victim.”
The
conference
90
Young Person
%
Victim
%
Definitely 75 39
Think so 20 28
Not sure 4 17
Don’t think so 1 9
Don’t know 1 8
The
conference
91
One final issue relates to the degree of recollection among young people
of the content of the plan although it might
be expected and even normal for young people to not to recall the full
details of the outcome. In interview, some had
difficulty recalling the terms of the plan and a number had no level of
recollection of the plan details. In one
instance, where the plan agreed involved five significant elements, the
young person was asked if he/she could tell
the interviewer what was involved in the plan, “once a week some thing,
that’s it”.
The lack of recall from young people followed high levels of explanation
from the co-ordinator regarding the details
of the plan. Therefore, as illustrated in Table 5.17 below, in over one
third of conferences the co-ordinator was
observed to explain the plan ‘very well’ and in 47% ‘well’.
Table
5.17: How well did the co-ordinator explain the plan to participants?
In only a small number of conferences the plan was explained badly. This
suggests something other than clarity
causing difficulties for young people in recalling the plan. Indeed, the
lack of recollection does not mean that the
young person did not understand or agree to the plan. More often, this
lapse may have been due to the lateness of
the plan within the layout of the conference and a feeling of
restlessness among young people82. The following is a
response from one young person when asked if he could recall the terms
of the plan,
“Aye, some drug thing. Jesus, I forgot it all already
– a mentor and that football thing and two or
three things at [Youth Justice Agency project]. But
see when I was sitting there the stuff in my head
was just too much, felt like I was going to crack up.
Last 15 minutes I wanted to crack up. Felt too
much in a week like and too long – six months.”
5.11 Conclusion
By the end of the research, observations showed that the facilitation of
conferences and participant involvement in
conferences had progressed well. This is reflected in feedback from
interviews in which the majority of participants
were positive about their involvement in the conference. Generally,
victims were not nervous or fearful at the
prospect of meeting the young person. By contrast, observations and
interviews show that young people had a degree
of nervousness and discomfort suggesting that the conference was not an
‘easy’ process for many. Overall both
young people and victims felt the conference provided a forum in which
to present their views and to have their
perspective taken into account. In addition to the offence itself,
conferences also examined factors contributing to the
young person’s offending. From this, the most common background factors
were found to be substance misuse
(alcohol, drugs and solvents), peer pressure and family difficulties.
In contrast to court, the conference offered the opportunity for the
victim to receive an apology from the young
person. Indeed in the overwhelming majority of conferences the young
person did apologise. Young people were
seen to accept responsibility for their actions and display both shame
and remorse. The majority of conferences
resulted in agreement of a plan. Overall, there were high levels of
engagement and consensus when devising and
agreeing the conference plan. Indeed, most participants indicated that
they were happy to agree to the plan and felt
the plan was proportionate to the offence.
The subsequent chapter will continue by providing an overall evaluation
of participation within the conference,
facilitation by co-ordinators and levels of satisfaction.
Frequency Percentage
Very well 62 36
Well 82 47
Ok 15 9
Badly 13 8
Very badly 2 1
82 See Recommendation 5.
Chapter 6
Overall
evaluation of
conferences
6.1 Introduction
This chapter considers the overall levels of participation within
conferences and the quality of facilitation provided by
co-ordinators. It considers overall input when discussing the crime and
agreeing the conference plan, participants’
evaluation of their conference experience and observations in relation
to the skills of conference co-ordinators.
6.2 Summary of findings
◆ In the majority of
conferences, participants were involved when discussing the crime. 62% of
young people and 80% of victims were involved ‘a lot’ at this point.
◆ The majority of young
people, (91%), and victims, (81%), preferred the conference over court.
◆ 81% of young people
and 48% of victims felt better following the conference. Of the 52% of
remaining victims, the majority felt no different.
◆ 92% of young people
and 78% of victims believed the conference had helped the young person
realise the harm caused by the offence.
◆ The vast majority of
young people (86%) and victims (88%), would recommend a conference to a
person in a similar situation.
◆ Of the family members
who provided their views on the conference process, the majority
welcomed the opportunity to attend and believed the conference to have a
positive impact on the
young person.
◆ In 77% of conferences
the co-ordinator was either ‘very good’ or ‘good’ at involving others and in
84% of cases, ‘very good’ or ‘good’ at progressing the conference toward
agreement. Overall, coordinators
displayed particular skill in their ability to be inclusive and to treat
everyone in a
respectful manner.
6.3 Overall participation
Discussing the crime
Observations found that for the overwhelming majority of conferences all
participants were involved to some degree
when discussing the crime. Indeed, as shown in Table 6.1, only 2% or
four young people and 2% or three victims
were observed to be detached when discussing the offence.
Table
6.1: How involved were participants in discussing the crime?
By
percent (%)
In one conference, opportunity for the young person and victim to engage
in discussion did not arise due to
withdrawal of consent though, as mentioned earlier, the young person did
talk with and apologise to the victim
outside of the conference arena. In another instance though the young
person apologised then refused involvement
throughout and offered a guarded response when prompted by the co-ordinator
to talk about the crime,
Co-ordinator: “it’s very
important that you tell us so that [victim] understands”. Co-ordinator
prompts young person about previous meeting in which
he “did really well”. Young person “Can’t
remember what happened…drove down the road and back
up. I drove it down the road and got
caught…hit a curb and saw lights and pulled over.
Police officer has already told you how I got
caught”.
95
Overall
evaluation of conferences
Young Person Victim Young Person
Supporter
Co-ordinator Police Officer
A lot 62 80 22 88 35
A little 36 18 55 12 64
Not at all 2 2 23 0 1
96
While most participants were ‘a lot’ or ‘a little’ involved when
discussing the crime this did not detract from the
challenging nature of the conference. One young person required a number
of breaks in order to deal with the group
context of the conference. Observations showed that they experienced
difficulties communicating in the group
environment. The young person’s stress and lack of recall resulted in
constrained discussion about the circumstances
of the offence,
“No. I just can’t remember it. It was last year. Can
you remember what you did last year?” Young
person is frustrated. A ten minute break is called
after which the young person returns. The coordinator
asks the young person if s/he recalls the offence,
“No. I can’t remember. Heat of the
moment. I just got angry. I can’t remember nothing
about it, getting lifted or nothing”.
Such difficulty was not the sole experience of young people and indeed
one victim could not verbalise the personal
impact of the crime. Although it was not clear whether the nervousness
resulted due to the victim’s experience of the
crime, or due to the conference environment, or both, the victim as a
young person asked for their supporter to
communicate the effects of the crime. The victim was observed to pass
their personal notes to the victim supporter
who provided all input on the victim’s behalf. Interestingly, this did
not detract from the young person’s appreciation
of the impact of the offence and may have encouraged a heightened
sensitivity toward the victim. In interview, the
young person stated that the account and realisation of the impact of
their behaviour, “nearly made me cry”, and that
the best thing about the conferencing was, “apologising to [victim] and
knowing that she knows I meant it”. In one
other instance where the victim (who was under the age of 18) refrained
from a discussion about the crime the
conference operated via video link. It is difficult to ascertain whether
or not this lack of engagement can be attributed
to the physical distance or loss of immediacy between the victim and
young person, but there is little doubt that the
victim remained disinterested resorting to monosyllabic answers
throughout.
Devising and agreeing the plan
There were high levels of involvement in discussions concerning the
scope of the conference plan. Interestingly,
relative to other participants, young people were not as active as other
participants when devising the plan. As
shown in Table 6.2, in the majority of conferences the young person was
either ‘a little’ or ‘a lot’ involved in
suggesting the terms of the plan. However, in 40 instances or 22% of
conferences the young person did not propose
suggestions for the content of the plan.
Table
6.2: How involved were participants in making suggestions for the plan?
By
percent (%)
This may relate to levels of nervousness on behalf of young people or a
perceived difficulty in forwarding suggestions
in the context of a group environment. However, it may also be due to
not knowing what to suggest for the plan.
Nevertheless, an extremely positive result was observed in terms of
actually agreeing the plan with 92% of young
people either ‘a lot’ or ‘a little’ involved in agreeing the final plan,
(see Table 6.3).
In terms of victim participation, the vast majority engaged when
discussing the plan. Therefore, 105 or 87% were
involved in making suggestions for the plan. Of the small number of
victims who did not appear to be involved at
this point, results showed no correlation between victim types. There
was no indication from observations that these
victims opposed or did not agree with the plan.
Overall
evaluation of conferences
Young Person Victim Young Person
Supporter
Co-ordinator Police Officer
A lot 31 49 22 71 18
A little 46 38 49 27 58
Not at all 22 13 29 2 24
97
Finally, as shown in Table 6.3 below, the overwhelming majority of
participants were either ‘a lot’ or ‘a little’ involved
when deciding the final plan.
Table
6.3: How involved were participants in deciding the plan?
By
percent (%)
It is positive that, on the whole, young people and victims were
involved at the stage of agreeing to the plan and this
may lend weight to the previously mentioned observation, which showed a
high level of consensus amongst
participants when determining the plan, (Table 5.9: 25% ‘unanimous’; 36%
‘a lot’; 35% ‘quite a lot’ of consensus).
Verbal input
As a further method to consider overall involvement, researchers
observed the levels of verbal input by each
participant. Though levels of speech provide a crude indicator of
involvement, it can identify the principal conversant
within the overall conference dynamic. Perhaps, unsurprisingly,
co-ordinators were observed to speak most (in 134 or
72% of conferences). This may be expected due to their facilitative
role. Levels of verbal input were followed by the
victim, with most input in twenty conferences and the young person in
fourteen. In the majority of conferences the
participant who spoke least was the police officer followed by the young
person’s supporter.
This highlights an interesting point about the role of the police
officer within the conference. Therefore, they often
played a peripheral though not unimportant role providing an outline of
the facts of the offence. However,
observations showed that the exact function of the police officer was
sometimes difficult to place. Therefore, in many
instances they were observed to move beyond providing a summary of the
offence and sometimes acted as a support.
In one conference the police officer was observed to praise the young
person stating that they had provided a
comprehensive version of events. When the co-ordinator requested further
response the police officer stated, “You
basically got all the answers you needed from [young person’s] opening
statement…”. The police officer later
provided encouragement to the young person who was visibly upset, “It’s
to your credit you are here kid”. In another
conference the police officer commended the young person’s behaviour
since commission of the offence, “From a
police point of view we have had no bother from you since. Would like it
to stay that way – please keep at it”.
Nevertheless, there were a small number of cases in which the police
officer was observed to dominate proceedings.
This usually occurred when explaining the impact of the young person’s
behaviour or when discussing options for the
plan. In one instance the police officer introduced the notion of an
Anti-Social Behaviour Order, “If I hear you’re
causing problems in the area, first thing I’ll do is take out an
Anti-Social Behaviour Order on you”. When the young
person indicated that they did not understand, the police officer
explained in brief and stated, “Stay out of the area
because police will clamp down”. On other occasions, the police officer
was observed to demand greater plan
content arguing that the court would reject the group’s suggestions
unless further detail was agreed. Though occurring
in a minority of cases it is important to address over-involvement by
the police officer or any other conference
participant.
6.4 Overall evaluation of conferences
In order to understand participants opinions on the conference process
overall, young people and victims were asked
various questions including whether they would recommend the conference,
how they felt after the conference, and
perceptions of fairness and satisfaction. An understanding of the most
dominant themes from a participant
perspective was sought by asking young people and victims whether or not
they could identify the best and worst
features of their conference experience. Finally, a small number of
family members were contacted post-conference
to provide a family and supporter perspective on the conference process.
Overall
evaluation of conferences
Young Person Victim Young Person
Supporter
Co-ordinator Police Officer
A lot 51 43 24 79 16
A little 41 44 57 20 48
Not at all 8 13 19 1 36
Conference or court
For the most part young people and victims expressed a preference for
the conference process over court, (91% of
young people and 81% of victims).
Table
6.4: Young person / victim: Would you rather the case had gone to court?
For young people, reasons for preferring the conference were varied.
Interestingly, while observations showed that the
conference presented a challenging process for most young people, many
felt that it might offer an easier sentence
than court. However, this often related to negative perceptions of the
court, many young people stating that they
would prefer the conference in order to avoid the appearing in court.
Table 6.5 shows some of the reasons why
young people preferred the conference process.
Table
6.5: Young Person: If you prefer the conference to court, why?
When asked if they believed that the court sentence would have been
better or worse, 90% of young people felt that
it would have been worse, (36% ‘worse’; 54% ‘much worse’). Nevertheless,
from the perspective of many young
people, the formal atmosphere and impersonal setting meant that the
court and outcome was worse, “I think it’s less
formal and an easier environment – less stress […] it’s a better
atmosphere than something as formal as court. A court
is about punishment, whereas this is about what is fair to me.”
The preference for conferencing was apparent for victims independent of
victim type, therefore, the overwhelming
majority of personal victims favoured the conference as did the majority
of victim representatives and those attending
for a ‘victimless’ crime. Of the small number of thirteen victims
stating that they would rather the young person had
gone to court six were personal victims. Interestingly, all but two
actual victims preferring court felt that a court
sentence would be more severe though earlier in interview they did not
indicate that the conference plan was too
soft in light of the offence. Some comments from victims preferring
court included:
Personal Victim, “This process
would not have been my first choice for the offender. The offender
would have had more respect for the court process
regardless of the outcome”.
Personal Victim, “Court would
have been harder. If you can’t do the time don’t do the crime. She
needs to learn a hard lesson”.
Nevertheless, believing the court to be more difficult did not mean
participants viewed the conference as an easy or
effort-free option. Indeed, an element of irony results because while
the majority of young people felt that the
conference offered a more manageable sentence the apology, a feature
predominantly absent from court, was
identified as the most difficult aspect of the conference. On the whole,
a mutual feeling emerged among victims and
young people that the conference offered an environment that was more
meaningful,
98
Overall
evaluation of conferences
Young Person Victim
Number % Number %
Yes 8 5 13 11
No 147 91 95 81
Don’t know 7 4 10 9
Reason Percentage
Easier sentence than court 63
Avoid appearing in court 22
Court process too lengthy 1
Face to face interaction is better 6
Conference is more helpful 4
Don’t know 3
Young person, “This is
definitely better – face to face. You can sit down and talk to people about
what you done instead of being told what to do.”
Young person, “It gives you
a chance to see where the victim is coming from and for them to see
not everyone who does stupid things is an evil person.
It gives you a second chance.”
Personal Victim, Rather court? “No, because [the young person] wouldn’t have got help with his
addiction, wouldn’t have got the opportunity he has
now. He has six months of help”. Court more
lenient? “Not sure. Basically a sentence over and done
with. Now he has time to reflect on what
he has done to make amends as such. He has to engage
in the help people are offering. It’s his
own fault if he doesn’t take that chance.”
Personal Victim, “It’s too
easy for the perpetrator [in court]. The victim is invisible in the process.
Statistics show that young people through court
reoffend and statistics show in other countries that
this impacts reoffending”.
Only a small number of young people felt that they would cope better
with the court setting. One young person
expressed a familiarity for the court process and an uneasiness
regarding the unknown bounds of the conference
environment, “I know how to deal with court but not how to deal with
this”. Again, this confirms results from
observations and interviews suggesting that the conference can be a
meaningful but challenging task for young
people.
Personal impact of the conference
Overall feelings reported by young people and victims post conference
were mostly optimistic. The majority
expressed a series of positive or neutral emotions such as, ‘good /
happy’, ‘alright / ok’, and ‘relief’. Many also stated
that they felt better following the conference although this was a more
frequent response for young people than
victims.
Table
6.6: Young person / victim: Having finished the conference,
do
you feel better or worse?
However, on reading from the results in Table 6.6, we see that of the
victims who did not feel better the majority felt
no different. Therefore, only 4 victims stated that they felt worse and
five much worse. Feeling worse did not appear
to be related to victim type and indeed four out of the five victims who
felt much worse were victim representatives.
This should not mean a less concerning result, but simply that a decline
in outlook experienced by victims was
neither exclusive to nor common for those directly affected by the
offence. It seems that negative perceptions of the
young person’s attitude may have spawned feelings of regret,
Personal Victim, “I’m more
negative about the process than I was before”. Felt much worse because
of “the offender’s attitude and the fact that it was
tolerated…no-one is reaching the real offender.
People are just reacting to his anger, not addressing
it”. “I now want to slap it to him.”
In terms of the perceived impact of the conference, two thirds (45%
‘yes’; 17% ‘sort of’) of victims felt that the
process and the plan would help the young person refrain from crime.
However, whilst over three quarters of young
people believed this to be the case, 17 or 10% felt the action plan
would have no bearing on their future behaviour.
99
Overall
evaluation of conferences
Young Person Victim
Number % Number %
Much better 47 28 17 14
Better 89 53 41 34
Same 30 18 53 44
Worse 1 1 4 3
Much worse 0 0 5 4
Don’t know 1 1 1 1
100
This does not mean that these young people felt they would reoffend but
rather that the physical act of completing
the plan was not rated significantly in their outlook. One young person
noted that with or without the conference
they had decided to remain crime free,
Young person, “The
co-ordinator thinks it was to help me and the victim, but I don’t think it will
help me anymore than I will help myself. I didn’t need
to come here to know I was being stupid.”
As for influencing young person perspectives the majority or 92%, (82%
‘yes’; 10% ‘sort of’), stated that the
conference had made them realise the harm caused by the offence, “It’s
helpful because it makes me understand
what harm I’ve done – damaging property”. The response from young people
is illustrated in Table 6.7 below.
Table
6.7: Young person: Did the conference make you
realise
the harm you caused?
As with young people, the majority, (95 or 78%) of victims believed that
the conference had made the young person
realise the impact of the crime. However, one quarter of victims, (24 or
20%), compared to only ten or 8% of young
people felt that the young person remained unaware of the personal cost
of the offence. Of these victims, there
appeared to be no correlation between victim type with actual and
representative victims similarly inclined to view
the young person as not realising the impact of the offence.
Interestingly, the lack of convergence between victim and
young person perspectives is similar to the disparity of views in
relation to the apology. Therefore, some victims
sensed the apology to be prompted when the young person felt that this
was not the case. Again, this supports the
idea that differing communicative styles may result in a level of
disconnection between the individual’s meaning and
the interpretation of his/her intent as conveyed through the group
environment.
Purpose of the conference
Victims and young people were similarly positioned in their view on the
purpose of the conference with most
believing it to assist the young person, “Help me instead of punishing
me. Court would have punished me and then I
would have done it again. The way they did this I agreed to things.
Court would have just told you to do things.
Nobody should have the right to tell people what to do”, (young person,);
or to help both young person and victim
“To give the victim a voice – making them a real part of the process and
giving the perpetrator an insight”, (personal
victim). Interestingly, a very small number of young people (ten) and
three victims stated that the sole aim of the
conference had been punishment.
Perhaps not unrelated to the perceived lack of chastisement and
reprimand was the fact that perceptions of fairness
and satisfaction were extremely high. Out of all young people, only one
reported feeling very unsatisfied with the
process. In this case, a belief that the basis for prosecution was
unjustified meant that the young person regarded the
entire proceedings as unfair,
Young person, “I was doing
the same thing as every other person was…” Police Officer, “The
police got lots of complaints from people in the area
– swoop the place”. Young person, “And they
arrested one person! You’re a police officer and see
it from one point of view. I see it as a stupid
system. I was the only one stopped and prosecuted. I
could prove it in court. I sat and drank in
front of them loads of times and they do nothing about
it”.
In order to gauge perceptions of fairness among victims, each was asked
whether they believed their opinions were
taken seriously. The results were extremely encouraging in this regard,
with 92% of victims experiencing the process
as having been fair and 98% stating that their views were definitely or
‘sort of’ taken seriously. Notably, out of the
Overall
evaluation of conferences
Frequency Percentage
Yes 110 82
Sort of 14 10
No 10 8
three negative responses recorded, two related to one person tasked with
representing a victim perspective in two
conferences. These conferences related to the same young person and had
progressed one following the other. In this
instance the victim representative was dissatisfied with the young
person’s attitude, which s/he perceived as
nonchalant and blasé, “Positive things were offered. He is going to work
with the police to keep him out of [custodial
unit]. His first question was ‘What night?’. Cheeky git. People in his
area can’t get those opportunities”.
An important indicator though not an exhaustive determinant of
revictimisation is the extent to which victims report
feeling safe within the conference arena. Out of all victims interviewed
only two in total stated that they felt unsafe,
“I felt anxious and scared. I just wanted to get away from her, to get
out of the room”, (personal victim). This should
not undermine the overall positive outcome of 98% victims feeling safe,
though any level of insecurity is a serious
matter to be addressed. It seems that while there was potential to feel
unsafe certain factors ensured a secure
environment. When asked if they felt safe, one victim responded, “Yes -
because the police man was there”, (personal
victim). In this sense, though causing a degree of discomfort for some,
the presence of authority in the form of the
police brought a sense of security for several conference participants.
Recommending the conference initiative
Table 6.8 shows that, overall, 86% of young people and 88% of victims
stated that they would recommend a
conference to persons in a similar situation.
Table
6.8: Victim: Having done the conference, would you advise
another
victim to attend one?
When questioned further the most common response from young people
related to perceptions regarding the
outcome. Almost half (46%) of young people who stated that they would
recommend a conference believed it to be
more positive than court. Some young people indicated that the
environment of the conference offered something
more than a routine appearance at court and provided the option to say
sorry,
“It’s far better than court – you get to meet everyone
and say sorry. It’s brilliant.”
“Do a conference. It’s better than a judge shouting at
you and you thinking ‘F off I’ll do it again’
‘cos they are punishing you instead of helping you.”
“Aye, ‘cos it makes you feel better. ‘Cos you get to
say sorry but probably feel better saying it to
their face.”
Of the thirteen young people who would not recommend conference, various
explanations were received including,
‘the conference is s**t/ boring’, ‘you talk too much and it does your
head in’, and ‘it’s embarrassing’. When asked
whether they would advise a friend to attend conference or court, one
young person explained how the group setting
might be excruciating, “Court! ‘Cos it’s annoying this here. Speakin’ up
and everyone is lookin’ at ya”. Indeed, as
noted in the previous chapter, a number of observations showed shifting
movements, fidgeting, nervous outbursts and
giggles, supporting the view that there was a level of discomfort
experienced for some young people.
Only one victim stated that they would not recommend a conference and
for the overwhelming majority who would,
reasons related to numerous matters such as having the opportunity to
express their views and to confront the young
person, achieving closure, and the opportunity for the young person to
meet the victim face to face, “gives them [the
victim] the opportunity to speak their mind and to see what sort of
character the offender is. Also gives them a choice
in deciding what their punishment should be”, (victim representative).
Notably, a further 11% of victims felt that they
would recommend conferencing but it would depend on the offence, the
general view being that personal crimes
and/or serious offences would be more difficult to conference,
101
Overall
evaluation of conferences
Young Person
%
Victim
%
Yes 86 88
No 8 1
Depends on the offence/situation 1 11
Don’t know 6 1
102
Victim Representative, “It depends
on the offence. If it was a more serious offence I’d probably say
no but for offences like theft yes.”
Personal Victim, “Depending on
what for. For minor crimes yes. But serious crimes no. If the intent is
to mug someone but could end up with this absolutely
not. Crimes with actual harm to people- no.
Robbery, being held up with a knife. Once they lay a
finger on someone they have overstepped the
mark. The first time you do that is difficult – but
then there is no way back.”
Best and worst aspects of the conference experience
Key elements of the conference process from a participant perspective
were highlighted by asking young people and
victims to isolate the best and worst features. A vast array of
responses was received and whilst they are difficult to
group it is possible to extract key themes. On the positive side
participants referred to the opportunity for input and
the chance to state ones view. Interestingly, some young people
identified apologising as the best feature of the
conference, “Just that I got the chance to say I’m sorry”; “You get a
chance to apologise and you are not overpowered
by a judge”. Other aspects identified by young people included, ‘meeting
the victim’, ‘having my say’ and ‘everyone
talking / taking part’.
Victims identified the following when discussing best features,
Victim Representative, “The honesty
of the young person involved – answering questions I put to
him directly”.
Victim Representative, “Having
restorative justice done as I firmly believe in it” [the conference]
“gives both the victim and young person a good chance
for the future.”
Victim Representative, “Being given
the opportunity to talk to the wee lad and hope that he won’t do
it again. Also, I think the best part was talking to
his mum and understanding her position.”
Considering the negative aspects of the conference, as many as one fifth
of young people indicated that there were
none. However, other elements included ‘having to talk’, ‘having to meet
the victim’, and ‘being told to do things in
the plan’. Interestingly, one young person did perceive that the role of
the conference was to “tell you what to do”. A
common issue emerging for young people was the difficulty of the environment
whether due to numbers or to the
presence of adults and authority or both,
“Sitting talking to all those people … it was sh**e.”
“Having to go in and sit in front of the victim’s
parents.”
“Sitting with two police officers.”
“Walking in [to the conference]. There were too many
people, and the police officer.”
For victims the main predilections related to outcomes and certain
practicalities such as location and the distance in
time from the offence to the actual conference83,
Personal Victim, “That I will
not know the outcome of his action plan. My involvement is more or
less over”.
Victim representative, “The location
– noise outside. I had to tell them to be quiet – young children
looking in the window”.
Personal Victim, “It was too
late after the offence – having to remind the child and me which one it
was…”.
Overall
evaluation of conferences
83 See Recommendation 4.
103
Lastly, a number of isolated but important points were made by some
participants, which may be useful to consider.
Firstly, one victim queried the appropriateness of adopting particular
victim representatives on regular occasions
fearing they would become, “hardened” by the process. Indeed, attendance
by one individual over a period of time
may result in them becoming weary of the process. A second issue raised
regarded social workers and other
professionals within care environments who might attend as actual or
representative victims but in time become
responsible for monitoring the conference plan, “I can’t be a victim and
a social worker at the same time…the victim
has to enforce the young person’s plan”. Professional victims within the
care context will often or at least at times
fulfil a supervisory role and this may create unease when also adopting
the position of victim. Lastly, there was an
indication from some victims of the sensibilities of a break or the
availability of a private room to deliberate the
plan84,
Personal Victim, “It might be
appropriate when discussing the plan to have a separate room so you
can discuss it privately.”
Family perspectives
As a follow up on the main observations and interviews after the
conference, a small number of five family members
who attended in support of the young person, were contacted and agreed
to provide their views on the conference
experience. The conferences attended comprised both court-ordered and
diversionary and concerned a range of
offences from minor to more serious matters. In addition, a direct
victim or victim / community representative
attended each conference and all resulted in agreement of a plan, which
was passed, unaltered, by the PPS or court.
In terms of expectations, the majority of family members reported having
“no idea” what the conference might be
like but appeared willing and open to attend. One family, however,
reported their reluctance, “I didn’t even want to
go. He had done damage, not us. I felt embarrassed, he had to be
punished, not us, it was nothing to do with us.”
With regard to perceptions of their role within the conference,
interviewees considered themselves to fill a supporting
role, “so he doesn’t feel on his own and get crucified.” The value of
having a family member present was also
highlighted insofar as they gained a better understanding of what was
expected of the young person post conference,
in terms of the content of an agreed plan or issues of returning to
court.
A very personal element was present when discussing with families how
the young person had participated in the
conferencing process. On the whole, families reported being proud of the
young person, “he did his very best in the
situation.” However, some did recognise that the conference presented a
difficult undertaking for the young person,
“He was like any other teenager, sits, head down, hard to get anything
out of him.”
Immediately post conference, the young person’s family supporters
reported reasonable satisfaction with the process.
Nevertheless, one respondent did state that, “I couldn’t wait to get
out.” This may also suggest some level of
discomfort in the situation, due to any number of factors such as
embarrassment, relief or being bored or tired. In
addition, family members were asked in retrospect if the youth
conference and its outcome had benefited the young
person and / or the family as a whole. In four out of five cases, it was
recorded that the conference had some kind of
positive impact on the young person,
“It changed his whole outlook on life.”
“He’s quietened down and he’s working with a mentor
now and
he enjoys it.”
“[The young person] is now much more aware of the thin
ice he was treading on and how close he
got to being in serious trouble.”
The value of youth conferencing from a family perspective might be
considered by determining if they would
recommend others to take part. In interview, four out of the five
interviewees would “definitely” advise other families
to support the young person by attending the youth conference, “it was
worthwhile.” One respondent took a more
pragmatic approach, highlighting the reality of the situation in that
the ‘success’ of youth conferencing very much
Overall
evaluation of conferences
84 See Recommendation 5.
104
depends upon each individual young person, their attitude and approach
to it and the support network that can be
built up around them. This family member, however, did not reject the
idea of recommending a conference stating,
“but I suppose it can’t do any harm.”
Though a small number overall, this response is important to offer a
view of the conference process and its aftermath
from a supporter and family perspective. On the whole, the reaction from
families suggests that conferencing can be
a positive experience and while it was not an easy task to participate
most welcomed the opportunity to attend in
support of the young person.
6.5 Overall evaluation of co-ordinator’s role
As a final appraisal and taken as a whole co-ordinators displayed high
degrees of quality in facilitation skills. As
shown in Table 6.9, the ability of the co-ordinator to progress the
conference toward agreement was either ‘very
good’, (27%) or ‘good’, (57%), as was his/her involvement of others,
(‘very good’ in 35% of conferences; ‘good’ in
42%).
Table
6.9: Co-ordinator’s overall skills of facilitating participant involvement and
progressing
the conference towards agreement.
Overall, the performance of co-ordinator’s was extremely positive with
observations showing that on the whole there
was an endeavour to engage participant’s and this was achieved well.
Although not questioned directly about their
opinion of the co-ordinator a number of young people praised the
co-ordinator, and their approach,
“The co-ordinator was excellent through it all – helped mum and dead
good to us.”
Young person supporter. “Couldn’t have done it without the co-ordinator.
Fantastic the whole way through.” Young
person, “She helped us a wild lot.”
“The co-ordinator is brilliant. Has been really good, really helped me.
It’s been really good doing this today. Was
nervous but co-ordinator told me ‘don’t be’.”
Overall
evaluation of conferences
Progressing toward agreement Frequency Percentage
Very Good 50 27
Good 104 57
Ok 27 15
Bad 3 2
Skills of facilitating involvement Frequency
Percentage
Very Good 64 35
Good 78 42
Ok 35 19
Bad 7 4
The following case study provides an example of positive facilitation as
observed by researchers. It presents particular
skills in assisting input despite reluctance to engage from the young
person.
Case study M: Facilitating engagement
Alex agreed to attend a diversionary youth conference for a number of
driving related charges namely
taking and driving away, driving whilst disqualified and driving without
insurance. The vehicle
involved in commission of the offence belonged to Alex’s mother Betty
who attends the conference as
a victim. Alex’s father attends as his appropriate adult with the police
officer and co-ordinator making
up the remaining conference participants. The co-ordinator begins by
thanking everyone for their
attendance and invites introductions. The co-ordinator outlines the
purpose of the conference and
elaborates on the principle of voluntariness explaining to Alex that he
does not have to attend, “You
had a choice Alex”. The co-ordinator details the ground rules and points
to the flip chart highlighting
all points in clear language. The co-ordinator talks directly to Alex
and explains the concept of
confidentiality before checking whether anyone wishes to ask any
questions. S/he then summarises
the proposed course of events – “The police officer will summarise, Alex
can provide his account and
Betty can respond...”
The police officer provides a summary of the offence and the
co-ordinator asks Alex how it was that he
became involved. Alex provides a limited response and appears
disengaged. Co-ordinator, “It’s very
important you tell us so your mum understands”. Co-ordinator then
reminds Alex of a previous
meeting in which he did, “really well”. Alex responds with further
information about the offence but
his responses remain brief. The co-ordinator goes on to clarify several
words with Alex. When the
police officer states that Alex was, “driving erratically” the
co-ordinator turns to Alex, “Do you know
what erratically means?” and explains this concept. The co-ordinator
facilitates well and invites Betty to
provide input and encourages discussion about the impact of Alex’s
behaviour and asks Alex to think
about what might have happened. The co-ordinator progresses the
conference toward agreeing a plan,
Co-ordinator, “How can you guarantee it will not happen again Alex?”
Alex, “She knows” […] Coordinator
mentions that Betty, Alex’s mother, feels that Alex might need support.
Alex looks at the coordinator.
The co-ordinator states that Alex has already made payment and asks
Betty, “What needs to
be put right?” Betty, “I think the car being vacuumed and a regular
clean” Co-ordinator, “That’s up to
you Alex” Alex, “Aye”, (scratches head). Co-ordinator, “We are not going
to make you do anything
you don’t want to do”. The co-ordinator explains the implications should
Alex breach the conference
plan and helps Alex appreciate the aim of the plan, “We need to make
sure it is sorting your mummy
out for the harm caused”. Co-ordinator to Alex, “What would help you need
to stay out of trouble
and keep going down the good road?” Alex, “Not going to be in trouble so
don’t need no help” Betty,
“Maybe that mentoring support…you don’t want to go for overload – doing
well at school. Does
behaviour stuff at school”. Co-ordinator, “Do you know what Betty
means?” The co-ordinator explains
mentoring to Alex, “…enjoyable and interesting. It’s not a social worker
or probation officer. Someone
who wants to be with you. What do you think?” Police officer, “The word
often puts them off,
‘mentor’, it’s not someone posh”, Alex, “My mates brother does that
there – aye”.
The co-ordinator checks with Alex how long he would like to be involved
with mentoring and asks
the group if there is anything else they would include in the plan. Alex
and the police officer discuss
a local scheme involving young people in sport and football and Alex
agrees to talk to the organisers
about this. The co-ordinator ensures that Alex and others understand the
plan and consequences.
Co-ordinator, “Alex will get support from me in carrying out the plan”,
s/he explains his/her role as
co-ordinator in ensuring the plan is complete and asks Alex’s father if
there is anything he would like
to offer. The co-ordinator mentions that they have not introduced
anything within the plan to address
issues related to driving and that the DPP might wish to see this,
Co-ordinator, “The DPP might want to see something to do with the
driving aspect of the offence.
Road safety have a video package. I could include a session about that?”
Alex does not appear keen.
Co-ordinator, “I don’t want to be pushing you into stuff you are not
happy with”. Alex then agrees.
The co-ordinator outlines clearly the elements suggested for the plan
and explains the implications of
breach. The co-ordinator asks Alex if he understands and if he feels the
plan is fair. The group nods
in agreement.
105
Overall
evaluation of conferences
106
An important attribute held by the co-ordinator is an ability to use
appropriate language and to present the
proceedings in a way that permits all participants to understand. A
number of victims felt that this aspect of
facilitation was extremely important,
Victim Representative, “Important to
think about the young child’s level – learning difficulties – and
how things are worded. Words used were sometimes too
jargon-y due to the number of people
there”.
Personal Victim, “A lot of
stuff that was addressed was over the offender’s head, we lost his
attention”.
In no instance was the co-ordinator observed to speak in an
inappropriate manner. However, certain legal concepts
presented difficulties, including the idea of ‘general public’ as victim
and that certain criminal charges involved no
tangible victim. Some instances of misunderstanding did relate to more
routine use of language and wording.
Observations noted difficulty with certain phrasing, for instance, terms
such as, ‘reiterate’, ‘ratified’, and ‘DPP’.
As the co-ordinator is the main facilitator they can be expected to be
one of the primary discussants within the
conference proceedings. However, assisting the process is a different
matter than domination and in a minority of
cases the co-ordinator was observed to dominate proceedings. While this
was seen to occur in a small proportion of
conferences overall, it is important for facilitators to balance their
own role if others are to gain fully from the
process. Domination or inappropriate levels of input by participants
other than the co-ordinator did occur, most
notably the young person’s supporter followed in eleven cases by the
victim and eight instances by the police officer.
Nevertheless, it was found that on the whole, the co-ordinator dealt
with this well.
In the vast majority of conferences, it was observed that the
co-ordinator was effective and displayed particular skills
in their ability to be inclusive and to treat every participant in a
fair and respectful manner85. One victim noted how
the co-ordinator worked to achieve a balance in their approach towards
the young person and victim,
Personal Victim, “It’s not a
courtroom. I can’t say it wasn’t fair. The co-ordinator was fair in
chairmanship of it – they had to be seen not to be on
the young person’s side or my side. The coordinator
is not a judge but unfortunately it is pushed on the
co-ordinator.”
6.6 Conclusion
Overall, results showed that the involvement of participants and the
facilitation of conferences by co-ordinators was
overwhelmingly positive. In the majority of conferences most
participants were involved when discussing the crime
and the vast number had some degree of input when devising and agreeing
the conference plan. In interview, young
people and victims often reported feeling better following the
conference. Most indicated that they preferred the
conference process over court and felt that they would recommend the
conference to a person in a similar situation.
Family members were also positive after the conference and appreciated
the opportunity to attend in support of the
young person. On the whole, co-ordinators performed extremely well in
facilitating the conference and displayed
particular skills in ensuring the involvement of all participants.
Having considered the overall evaluation of conference proceedings, the
next chapter will explore the return of
conference plans to the court or Public Prosecution Service and varying
outcomes.
Overall
evaluation of conferences
85 See Recommendation 19.
Chapter 7
The making of
conference
plans and orders
109
The
making of conference plans and orders
7.1 Introduction
Having examined both the referral and convening of youth conferences, we
proceed now with an overview of the
return of conference plans to court or the Public Prosecution Service.
The numbers of plans returned, and their
varying outcomes, are examined here, as is the legislation governing the
process and key issues arising with respect
to it.
7.2 Summary of findings
◆ Two-thirds of
conference plans (67%) were passed in their original form.
◆ All conference plans
returned to the Public Prosecution service were passed, whilst just under two
thirds of plans were accepted by the court (63%).
◆ Differences in
decision making between Magistrates were evident between the Fermanagh and
Tyrone and Greater Belfast regions, with plans much more likely to be
passed in Fermanagh and
Tyrone.
◆ On the making of
Orders, observations found that legislative requirements are generally being
met
within the courts.
◆ In most cases,
reasons given by the court for the rejection of plans related to the nature of
the
offence. Whilst on some occasions the offence was believed to be too
serious for the imposition of
an Order, in others certain cases were not deemed serious enough.
◆ Of those referred to
a youth conference by the court, but did not receive a youth conference order
the most common alternative disposals were a conditional discharge or a
period of custody.
◆ On average, plans are
being completed within 67 working days, well within the year afforded by
the legislation.
◆ Only a small minority
(6%) of plans were subsequently revoked due to non-compliance.
7.3 Overview of plans returned
Following the convening of a conference the co-ordinator is required to
submit a report to the court or Public
Prosecution service. This report will contain information on the
pre-conference process, attendees at the conference,
an outline of the conference, the views of others86, and will conclude with a summary and
the co-ordinator’s
recommendations. The court or Public Prosecution Service will then
consider this report, and may accept or reject
any suggestions presented within.
Two thirds (67%) of all plans agreed at a conference were, upon their
return to court or the Public Prosecution
Service, passed in their original form. A small proportion of plans (9%)
were passed after receiving amendment(s),
whilst one quarter (24%) of plans were rejected in favour of an
alternative disposal.
Figure
7.1: Decisions by PPS and Court on returning plans
86 For example, any agencies with which the young person may have
contact or involvement.
110
The
making of conference plans and orders
When broken down into referral type, as displayed in Table 7.1 below, we
see that all diversionary plans returned
were passed. By contrast, just under half of all court-ordered plans
were passed (49%) and were much more likely to
receive either amendment (14%) or rejection (38%). This marks a clear
difference in decision making when plans are
returned between the two referral sources.
Table
7.1: Decisions by PPS and Court on returning plans (by referral source)
7.4 Return of diversionary plans
Following the convening of a diversionary youth conference, Section 58,
10A (2) of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act
2002 provides that co-ordinators may recommend one the following options
on returning the case to the Public
Prosecution Service:
◆ that no further
action be taken against the child in respect of the offence
◆ that proceedings
against the child in respect of the offence be continued or instituted
◆ that the child be
subject to a youth conference plan in respect of the offence
In the overwhelming majority (98%) of cases the co-ordinator recommended
a youth conference plan. Only two
diversionary conferences were not recommended to the PPS for plans - a
plan was not agreed in one and no further
action recommended in another86.
All plans agreed at diversionary conferences were subsequently ratified
by the Public Prosecution Service. On one
hand, the content of the conference plans could generally be viewed by
the PPS as acceptable and proportionate to
the offence. It may also be the case that once the PPS has rejected the
option of prosecution in favour of a
diversionary conference, they are satisfied to accept that participation
in a conference and agreement to a plan is an
acceptable ‘punishment’. Such an approach suggests an adherence to the
restorative philosophy that an outcome
should be accepted where it is a result of genuine consensus. However,
it is important that such outcomes are framed
within a context that takes into account the rights of the young person
and that plans should be carefully scrutinised
to ensure that the outcome is proportionate to the offence87.
7.5 Return of court-ordered plans
With regards to court-ordered conferences, Section 59, 33A (5) of the
Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 states that
co-ordinators may recommend one of the following options to the court
following a conference;
◆ that court exercise
its powers to deal with the child for the offence
◆ that the child be
subject to a youth conference plan in respect of the offence
◆ that the court
exercise its powers to deal with the child for the offence by imposing a
custodial
sentence and the child be subject to a youth conference plan in respect
of the offence
In the vast majority of cases (94%) the co-ordinator recommended that
the young person be subject to a youth
conference plan. In nine court-ordered conferences no plan was agreed
and it was instead recommended that the
court should exercise its powers to deal with the offence. In one case,
a conference plan was not recommended
because the offence carried a mandatory sentence which could not be
combined with a youth conference order.
Diversionary
%
Court Ordered
%
Passed unaltered 100 49
Passed with amendments 0 14
Not passed 0 38
87 See generally Ashworth (2001), Braithwaite (2002) and Cavadino and
Dignan (1997) for further discussion regarding proportionality
111
Making of youth conference orders
Section 60, 36J of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 states that
the court must not make a youth conference
order unless (a) it is of the opinion that the offence was serious
enough to warrant it and (b) the young person
consents to the Order. When making a youth conference order, the
legislation requires the Magistrate to explain
clearly why it is of the opinion that the offence is serious enough to
warrant an order. They must also explain to the
young person ‘in ordinary language’:
◆ why it is making the
order;
◆ the effect of the
order and of the requirements proposed to be included in it;
◆ the consequences
which may follow under Schedule 1A if he fails to comply with those
requirements; and
◆ that the court has
power under that Schedule to review the order on the application either of the
offender or of the responsible officer. (Section 36(K)2)
In most cases Magistrates were observed to explain the making of a youth
conference order to the young person. On
a few occasions, this was not covered in the depth that the legislation
requires, however this generally occurred in
the early stages of the service and was seen to improve as Magistrates
became more familiar with the process. The
following excerpt from court observations provides an illustration of
these requirements being carried out in full when
making an order:
Case study N: Making a youth conference order
The young person’s solicitor informs the Magistrate that the young
person has “fully accepted
responsibility and the harm caused. The goods were fit for resale and
they are keen to take this
opportunity”.
The Magistrate asks the young person’s solicitor if the young person
“consents to the terms of the
youth conference order” and the solicitor responds ‘yes’. The Magistrate
then speaks directly to the
young person, “I note with approval the way you have dealt with the
offence. You have fully
engaged with youth conferencing and this is an opportunity to put this
behind you. I am making a
youth conference order because of the serious nature of this offence.”
The Magistrate then proceeds
to outline each term of the order and checks that the young person
understands them and the
consequences of non-compliance. The Magistrate explains that the court
can review the order at
either their request or the request of the Youth Conference Service. The
court then rises for a copy of
the youth conference order to be issued to the young person and their
appropriate adult.
Court-ordered conference plans
In total, 63% of conference plans recommended by the co-ordinator were
either accepted outright (49%) or passed
with amendment (14%). Over a third of plans (38%), however were rejected
by the court in favour of an alternative
disposal. When broken down into region, as detailed in Table 7.2 below,
we see that no court-ordered plans were
rejected by the rural youth courts, whilst 54% of plans were not passed
by the Belfast youth court.
Table
7.2: Return of court-ordered conference plans (by region)
Greater Belfast
%
Fermanagh & Tyrone
%
Unaltered 32 89
Amended 15 11
Not passed 54 0
The
making of conference plans and orders
112
The
making of conference plans and orders
Therefore, over half of all referrals made by the Belfast youth court
did not result in a youth conference order. Such
regional variation is striking and suggests significant difference in
decision making between Magistrates. A practical
implication of such a discrepancy is that young people in Belfast are
far less likely to have their plan passed than
those in the rural regions88. The difference in decision making did not appear to relate to offence
type, as results
showed a similar distribution of offence seriousness for plans returned
to Greater Belfast and Fermanagh and Tyrone
courts. Therefore, at the high end of the offence seriousness scale,
only three plans (3%) returned to the Belfast youth
court and none in Fermanagh and Tyrone related to ‘very serious offences
and serious harm to the person’. Similarly,
27 or 26% of plans returned to Belfast youth court and 12 or 26% in
Fermanagh and Tyrone related to less serious
property offences (Table 7.3).
Table
7.3: Return of court-ordered conference plans by region and offence seriousness89
In terms of the profile of offences for which plans were rejected in the
Belfast youth court, the majority (24 or 42%)
related to ‘intermediate’ offences against person and property, followed
by 16 or 28% for ‘serious’ offences against
person and property, and 15 or 26% for ‘minor’ property related
offences. Two or 4% related to plans agreed for ‘very
serious’ offences and harm to the person. Of course, as shown in Table
7.2, no plans were rejected by Fermanagh
and Tyrone courts. Finally, there was some correlation apparent between
rejection of plans and levels of previous
involvement within the criminal justice system. Therefore, from the
criminal record information available, the results
showed that 20% of plans rejected related to young people with a history
of two or three previous sentences, 12% to
those with a history of four and 17 % to those with a record of five
previous court sentences. However, the results
showed that the majority (51%) of plans rejected by the court related to
young people with lower levels of
involvement in the criminal justice system, that is, with a history of one
or no previous court sentences.
The Justice (Northern Ireland) Act states that90
“if the court does not make a youth conference order
under paragraph
(2) (a) in a case where it has power to do so, it must give its reasons
in open court.” Interestingly, observations found
that the reasons provided for rejection of plans were most frequently
linked to the nature and/ or seriousness of the
offence. This notion of ‘seriousness’ appears to refer to the specific
circumstances surrounding the offence rather than
eligibility, as the legislation clearly defines which offences are
eligible for conferencing91. Section 60, 36J (4) of the
Justice (Northern Ireland) Act affords the Magistrate some guidance in
determining whether the offence is ‘serious
enough to warrant’ an Order:
In forming any such opinion the court must take into account all
information about the
circumstances of the offence, or of the offence and the offence or
offences associated with it,
(including any aggravating or mitigating factors) which is available to
it.
The most commonly observed reason given for not passing a plan was “the
offence is not serious enough for a youth
conference order” (19%). In half of those cases in which a youth
conference order was deemed too onerous, a
conditional discharge was imposed. This finding is interesting given
that the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act stipulates
that a court must not refer a young person to a youth conference where “it
proposes to deal with the child for the
offence by making an order discharging him absolutely or conditionally”92. In practice, this appeared not to be
strictly adhered to as a total of fifteen conditional discharges were
issued following the rejection of a youth
conference plan. Rejecting a conference plan outright, without taking
the opportunity to amend it, on the grounds
that the offence is not serious enough to warrant it and then imposing a
discharge may be counterproductive not least
for the young person93.
88 See Recommendation 20.
89 Offence seriousness was determined using an ‘Offence Seriousness
Scale’ devised for the purposes of this research. An explanation and details of
the scale are provided
in Appendix 6.
90 Section 60, 36J (7) Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002.
91 Section 59, 33 A (2) Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002.
92 Section 59, 33 C (5) Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002.
93 See Recommendation 21.
Greater Belfast
%
Fermanagh & Tyrone
%
Very serious offences / harm to the person 3 0
Serious offences against person and property 20 11
Intermediate offences against person and property 51 63
Not passed 26 26
113
The second most common reason for rejection was that the offence was
“too serious” for a youth conference order.
The case study below presents a situation in which the Magistrate
determined that the returning plan did not
adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence:
Case study O: Seriousness of the offence
The Magistrate impresses that the offence is extremely serious, and
would attract a period of
detention if appearing in an adult court. The young person’s solicitor
argues for the youth conference
plan to be passed, stating that the young person has no previous record,
was fully remorseful, has
demonstrated a mature attitude and that the offence was a ‘one off
mistake’. The Magistrate
continues by considering the youth conference plan in light of the
seriousness of the offence:
Magistrate: “We're not happy that two points on a youth plan will meet
the justice required here -
not happy having read it…The questions is do we have the plan looked at
again or refer to
probation?…I think we will probably do both - it may not be possible
given that the conference has
taken place for the co-ordinator to come up with more than two points…He
is very fortunate. He
has a good family…What I fail to understand is when a human being is
lying at your feet, incapable
of defending himself you don't wait ‘til he staggers to his feet, you
bury your foot in his head. You
and your mate probably wouldn't have stopped if it wasn't for the
intervention of the police…two
points don't even go one-quarter of the way to meeting the justice of
this offence.”
“I think, with respect, the Youth Conference Co-ordinator has missed the
seriousness of this
offence…We'll adjourn for four weeks for new youth conference report and
a pre-sentence
report…youth conferencing can review their plan and come up with
something much more than
this. Does he even know how serious this offence is? Totally, totally inadequate…if
not for the fact
that it is his first offence and the fact he made a plea this would be
much more serious…Consider
what you think will satisfy this court to make reparation not only to
the victim but to society at
large”
Other reasons given by the Magistrate for not accepting youth conference
plans included that it was “not appropriate
to put a plan in place where there was no empathy”, that it was not
appropriate for the young person to have four
youth conference orders running concurrently, the case was to be
adjourned for a psychiatric report, and that the
offence had two victims but only one was offered involvement in the
conference. Further reasons, as illustrated
below, related to the young person now residing outside the Pilot area94, that the plan was inappropriate, that
the
plan was unworkable in light of new developments and that a youth
conference order could not be combined with
another order95:
Magistrate: “I have a
small problem with this. He is now resident in Ballymena and therefore is not
resident in the area covered by Youth Conferencing …
Can’t consider youth conferencing as he is
not living in territory covered by it. I will have to
adjourn for a pre-sentence report.”
Magistrate: “I’m not
going to impose this youth conference order. Firstly, I think it is wrong that
a
child should pay money at this age. Secondly, the
community element is already provided for by
probation, and your report says that this element of
the plan would be overseen by probation, so if
he does not go to one probation meeting he can be
breached twice.”
Magistrate: “It is
entirely no fault of the youth conference service but in light of developments
the
plan is now redundant since a central part of the plan
is that he cooperates with probation and he
has shown, even a few minutes ago, that he's not
willing to do that.”
Magistrate: “We have not
imposed a youth conference order for traffic offences. We have to
disqualify.” The young person’s solicitor argues that
the youth conference plan is excellent.
Magistrate: “That may be, but I cannot impose it.” The
solicitor asks the Magistrate to pass the case
temporarily. When the case is called, the Magistrate
re-iterates that the plan cannot be imposed,
“As I have said, driving with no insurance means
compulsory penalty points. We are not imposing
a youth conference order.”
94 Section 59, 33C (1) (a) Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 states
that a youth conference order can only be made where “provision for youth
conferences has been
made for the area in which it appears to the court that the child
resides or will reside”.
95 See Recommendation 2.
The
making of conference plans and orders
114
Amendment of youth conference plans
That plans are returned to the referral source for approval may be seen
as an additional level of oversight to ensure
that plans are both proportionate and appropriate. This is of particular
importance where plans have the potential to
be quite onerous; as the only legislative restriction is that a plan
must last no longer than one year. As illustrated in
Case Study N above, the court has the power to amend a plan agreed at a
conference. The court may only amend a
plan with the consent of the young person, as the court must not make a
youth conference order without consent.
The option to amend was observed to be used on occasions where the plan
was viewed by the Magistrate as either
too severe or not strong enough96. A number of observations did suggest that the courts measured the
severity of the
plan according to the number of points or elements agreed, (see Case
Study P below). This is perhaps a matter for
further development given that the meaning and value of a conference
outcome may rest in the nature of a plan
rather than the number of elements appearing within it97.
The amendment of plans was generally administered in two ways; by
adjourning to enable conference participants to
suggest amendments (see Case Study O below) or the court itself amending
the plan on the day of its return to court
(see Case Study P below):
Case study P: Amended plan
Offence:
Possession of an offensive weapon
The solicitor asks the Magistrate if they would accept the plan. “I’m
not saying we wouldn’t consider
it, but two points in a plan is not enough for matters involving
carrying an offensive weapon. I
couldn’t adopt it. I have read plans with four or five points for lesser
offences.” Plan is adjourned in
order to consider amendments. (Sept 04)
The amended plan is returned to court two weeks later. The Magistrate
informs the young person’s
solicitor that they have “given consideration to the amended plan … I
take it your client consents?”
Solicitor, “Yes”. The Magistrate asks if the young person has any previous
offences. Magistrate,
“Taking into consideration your previous findings and the nature of the
matters before the court I feel
it is sufficient to impose a youth conference order.” The Magistrate
then summarises the order – a
letter of apology to the victim within eight weeks, attend named
programme for six months to work
on anger management, alcohol education and victim awareness, 48 hours
voluntary work with
names organisation. The Magistrate explains that if the young person
breaches the order it will return
to court and that they can revoke it and replace it with a period of
detention – “you would need to
have a pretty exceptional reason to avoid this.” The order is made, and
the court rises whilst copies
of the order are created for the young person, their parent and the
Youth Conference Service.
Case study Q: Amended plan (2)
Offences:
Shoplifting and disorderly behaviour
The young person has two youth conference plans back at court.
Magistrate: “I can see you got off
to a bad start but things have improved.” Solicitor: “I have gone
through the report with her and
subject to you she is happy with it.” The Magistrate then asks for the
facts of the case to be outlined.
The Magistrate then asks the Youth Conference Service if they want to
add anything, and they do
not. The Magistrate then speaks directly to the young person; “we have
read your first report and saw
how well you did – we are very pleased and you have to be congratulated.
We are very impressed
that you haven’t committed any offences in the past six months and hope
you continue to reap the
benefits of youth conferencing. We will grant you these youth conference
orders. These are not here
to punish you; they are for your benefit. We don’t want you committing
other offences.”
The Magistrate then goes through the two plans one element at a time,
and checks that the young
person is happy to agree to them. They add that “we are going to reduce
your curfew from three
months to one month to give you credit for how well you co-operated.”
They check that the Youth
Conference Service has no objection. The plan is made, but the
Magistrate does not explain breach
or potential return of the plan to the young person.
96 See Recommendation 22.
97 See Recommendation 23.
The
making of conference plans and orders
115
The
making of conference plans and orders
If the court has difficulty with a plan it is perhaps better to amend it
as rejection punishes the young person by having
to take part and may also leave the victim unhappy that something they
have both invested time in and agreed to will
not be put in place. Although this was a matter not covered by the remit
of this research, it may be useful to explore
the views of victims post conference following the courts’ decision on
the plan98.
7.6 Final court disposals
Table 7.4 below presents the outcome of cases referred to a youth
conference by the court and subsequently
disposed of in the period covered by the research. The most common
disposal is that of a youth conference order,
which occurred in half of all referred cases (49.7%). Interestingly, the
next most common outcomes represent
different ends of the range of disposals available, namely a conditional
discharge (15.4%) and a period of custody
(13.4%). These outcomes reflect the frequently observed reason given for
rejection that the offence was either ‘too
serious’ or ‘not serious enough’ to warrant a youth conference order. It
would appear, at this early stage of the court’s
experience with conference orders that offences falling in between these
most frequently result in a youth conference
order.
Table
7.4: Final disposal of all those referred to a court-ordered
youth
conference99
98 See Recommendation 24.
99 This table refers to all those referred in the Belfast youth courts;
where a final disposal was reached i.e. those young people who both completed a
conference and
those that withdrew consent before the conference took place.
Disposal Number Percentage
Youth Conference Order 97 49.7
Conditional Discharge 30 15.4
Custody 26 13.4
Probation Order 16 8.2
Attendance centre order 9 4.6
Fines Imposed 4 2.1
Withdrawn 2 1.0
Suspended Sentence 2 1.0
Absolute Discharge 2 1.0
Community Services Order 1 0.5
Community Responsibility Order 1 0.5
Referred to the Adult Court 1 0.5
Other 4 2.1
Total 195 100
116
The
making of conference plans and orders
7.7 Completion and revocation of youth conference
plans and orders
On average, conference plans were completed in 67 working days. This is
well within the given timeframe of one
year. Likelihood of completion does not appear to relate to the source
of referral; this was almost equal as 46% of
completed plans were diversionary and 54% court-ordered.
The revocation of youth conference plans or youth conference orders is
generally viewed as a last resort, and the
Youth Conference Service will endeavour to provide the young person with
every opportunity to address the issues
relating to non-compliance. This includes, where necessary, the
scheduling of a second youth conference.
Extenuating circumstances beyond the young person’s control - such as
family conflict or homelessness – may be
identified as the source of non-compliance, in which case the plan may
be temporarily suspended. In the case of
diversionary conferences, the legislation states that “proceedings
against the child in respect of the offence may not
be continued or instituted unless the child has failed to comply with
the requirements specified in the youth
conference plan to a significant extent.” In the case of breach of a
court-ordered plan, Schedule 10 of the Justice
Northern Ireland Act (2002) provides the court the option of imposing an
attendance centre order in addition to the
youth conference order, or imposing a new order whilst revoking,
amending or extending the youth conference order.
In addition, it has the power to re-sentence the young person for breach
“if he had just been found guilty of the
offence by the court.”
In total, eleven plans (6%) were revoked following ratification, six of
which were court-ordered and five diversionary.
At the time of writing, no information was available on the sentencing
outcome of these cases100.
7.8 Conclusion
The majority of plans agreed at a conference were passed by the court or
the PPS unaltered. All diversionary referrals
were passed without amendment, and two thirds of court-ordered plans
were passed either unaltered or with
amendment. However when examined more closely, there exists significant
disparity in decision making between the
Belfast and rural courts. On the making of youth conference orders
legislative requirements were generally carried
out, particularly with regards to the degree of explanation offered to
the young person. This was something observed
to have improved as the period of the research progressed. Refusal of
conference plans by the court was most often
related to the nature of the offence, namely that the offence was either
too serious or not serious enough to warrant
an order. Practice might be improved by amending plans to fit the
offence rather than rejecting them outright, which
would be of greater benefit to the victim, young person and indeed the
spirit of the legislation. Just under half of all
young people successfully completed their conference plan within the
period of the research, on average well within
the timescale defined by the legislation with only a small minority of
plans or Orders being revoked.
100 See Recommendation 25.
Chapter 8
Interviews with
stakeholders
119
8.1 Introduction
As part of the research interviews were conducted with key stakeholders
linked to the youth conferencing process.
These included representatives from the Police, the Youth Conferencing
Service, Community Restorative Groups, the
Public Prosecution Service, Northern Ireland Office Youth Justice
Policy, Probation Board and Youth Court
Magistrates. The interviews sought to get an insight into how the new
youth conferencing arrangements were
operating from the perspective of these different agencies and
individuals. The interviews aimed to identify how the
new policy was being received and how any problems and difficulties were
being dealt with.
8.2 Interviews with police officers
The research team interviewed four police officers involved with youth
conferencing. The officers were based in
Belfast, Whiteabbey and Carrickfergus.
Overall impressions
All of the officers expressed enthusiastic support for the restorative
principles that underpinned the conferencing
process. All believed that it helped the young person to appreciate the
true impact of the offence, and most thought
that it was helping to prevent repeat offending. One officer estimated
that 50% of those who had attended a
conference since the service began had not re-offended. One officer felt
that conferencing ‘created a sense of
ownership for the crime’ and brought about a ‘realisation factor’:
‘Court is a joke for juveniles. The solicitor does
everything and they don’t have to think or reflect
about what they’ve done and they can get away without
saying a word. The conferencing system is
far better in getting the child to think about what
they’ve done.’
Two officers were particularly keen to provide anecdotal evidence of
conferencing turning young people away from
crime. One reported that the re-offending rates were ‘noticeably lower’,
and another officer expressed his particular
satisfaction with one case where the young person had actually been
offered a permanent job with a victim.
All officers, however, mentioned that there was a small minority of
cases that were unsuitable for conferencing, either
because the offences were extremely petty, or because they were habitual
offenders:
“There are a small minority of offenders who will
never take responsibility for their actions.
Conferencing is just a waste of time and resources in
these cases.”
Two officers also noted that a number of ‘problem cases’ had arisen from
offences committed by children in care
against social workers. One officer suggested that some sort of special
provision be made for such cases, the same
individuals were committing minor assaults on their carers on a regular
basis. He said that it was impossible for the
young person to recall the specific circumstances surrounding any one
particular incident. Another officer stated:
‘Conferencing isn’t suitable for children’s home
offences. These are quasi-domestic situations, and a
conference is not the appropriate forum to resolve
these issues… These sorts of things go on all the
time, and it’s not possible to deal with all the
factors that led to one specific offence occurring’
This officer recalled one such conference where a young person had
committed six different assaults against care
workers within a short period of time. When told of the circumstances of
the offence in the conference, he simply
replied ‘if you said I did it, I must have done it’. The officer felt
that the young person was genuinely unable to recall
the incident.
Interviews
with stakeholders
120
Workload
All the interviewees acknowledged that the nature of their work had
changed substantially since the new system
came into operation. Concern was expressed by two officers that the work
seemed to come ‘in fits and bounds’, and
considerable uncertainty was expressed about the prospect of 17
year-olds being introduced into the system. A
number of officers noted that while workload would definitely increase,
it was unclear by how much and whether the
police would be able to cope with such an increase in their workload
with the existing resources.
Training
All officers expressed high levels of satisfaction with the training
they had received. It was described as ‘excellent’,
‘very comprehensive’ and ‘very thorough’.
Relationship with the PPS
The officers all felt that although conferencing was working well from
their perspective, there were certain logistical
problems with referrals from the PPS. One officer noted that it took 90
days for the PPS simply to register a case onto
their system once they had received it. This then reflected poorly upon
the performance of his office, since it made it
seem that the police had taken three months to despatch the file in the
first place.
The timing of an actual disposal decision was described as ‘very much a
lottery’. One officer said that it was
impossible even to give an average estimate of the turnaround time as it
was ‘simply far too unpredictable’. He cited
one case where a conference was held around 9 months after the date of a
very petty offence which the young
person could not even remember. Another officer noted that incidents
currently being investigated by the police (in
August / September) were unlikely to result in a conference before the
New Year. Another officer said that turnaround
time would ‘frequently be up to six months’, and recounted one case
where a decision had been taken 18 months
after the police had referred the case to the PPS. There was a feeling
among several officers that the PPS were
inadequately equipped to deal with the volume of referrals, although one
officer felt that these were merely ‘teething
problems’ which would eventually be ironed out. Concerns were also
expressed that such problems may be
exacerbated once cases involving 17 year-olds were introduced into the
system.
In addition, a number of the officers also expressed regret that they
had been ‘left out of the loop’ in relation to
deciding on the appropriate disposals. Although it was unusual for the
PPS to depart from a recommendation by an
officer, there was a feeling that mandatory referrals to the PPS in all
instances resulted in unnecessary delay and
wasted resources:
‘A lot of stuff shouldn’t be going to the PPS at all.
They shouldn’t have to deal with very minor
offences. It creates a lot extra paperwork and makes
the whole system more inefficient.’
‘The PPS don’t know the young person and aren’t
familiar with their background. They don’t have
the information we have from social services or
education & welfare. Decisions should be taken by
Youth Diversion Officers.’
Such a delay is obviously undesirable in relation to conferencing, which
is widely believed to work best when the
conference is held in close proximity to the offence. One officer
believed that the delay meant that the diversionary
function of the service had been ‘thwarted’.
Interviews
with stakeholders
121
Relationship with other statutory agencies
The lack of firm protocols for the sharing of information was identified
as a major weakness by a number of the
officers. Some of the officers spoke of very little contact between
statutory agencies and the police. One officer
stated:
“The lines of communication are very poor. We can’t
paint a picture of the young person’s
background in the way we used to.”
One mentioned an ‘unwritten agreement’ had been entered into with
Education & Welfare concerning when
information would be shared. Another officer said that Education &
Welfare were reluctant to share information in the
absence of formal protocols, whilst the probation service were ‘snowed
under and didn’t want to know’. The police
seemed to find that the onus largely rested on them in gathering
information about a young person’s background.
One officer suggested that he intended to organise regular, though
informal, ‘bureau-style meetings’ to facilitate the
sharing of information. Another suggested that more information should
be readily accessible on a computer database
that could be accessed by different agencies.
Relationship with the Youth Conferencing Service
Officers were asked about the nature of their relationship with the
Youth Conferencing Service and how they felt
conferences were being handled.
All interviewees spoke highly of the way in which conferences were
facilitated. Co-ordinators were described as
being ‘very well prepared’ and having ‘excellent techniques in getting
the young person to open up’. It was clear that
many officers felt they had built up relationships with individual
co-ordinators which resulted in a ‘good working
partnership’. Within conferences themselves, most officers saw their
function as working closely alongside the coordinator.
All the officers felt they were given ample opportunity to participate.
There were slight differences in the
way the officers perceived their role. One said that his purpose was
‘there to feed in all the background information’
and another asserted that he usually took the time to explain to the young
person why the incident in question was a
criminal offence. Two officers, in particular, saw one of the primary
purposes of their role as assisting the coordinator.
One described their role in the conference as a ‘double act’ and another
characterised it as a ‘team effort’:
‘I see my role mostly to present the facts… I also try
to support the co-ordinators if they get into a
sticky situation or if they get stuck for words…
Sometimes co-ordinators actually look to the police
to ask a few questions, just to give themselves time
to gather their thoughts or prevent the whole
thing just becoming a one-on-one between the
co-ordinator and the juvenile.’
All officers stated that the atmosphere at the conferences was very
positive, with the exception of a handful of cases,
including one instance where a young person’s father had been asked to
leave the conference because ‘he had a bad
attitude to the police’. One officer noted that most offenders were very
keen to talk, although they seemed ‘very
relieved’ when the conference finished.
Monitoring and follow-up
There were evidently quite a few cases where the police were involved in
the monitoring of conference agreements.
Two of the officers we spoke to considered that this function was
particularly problematic. One officer felt that ‘the
police should not be involved in monitoring anything’ and felt strongly
that this responsibility should lie solely with
the Youth Conferencing Service. He expressed a fear that once the system
was rolled out to cover 17 year olds, the
police would not be able to afford the time commitment to assist in the
monitoring of agreements. He also suggested
that many retired police officers would be willing to work with young
people in a supervisory capacity as they
carried out their action plans.
Interviews
with stakeholders
122
8.3 Interviews with youth conference co-ordinators
Nine conference co-ordinators were interviewed. The research team sought
to gauge the opinions of the co-ordinators
as to how well the conferencing system had run to date. More
specifically, co-ordinators were asked about how well
they had been trained; the nature of their work; their overall
impression of both the philosophy and practice of
restorative conferencing; and the particular strengths and weaknesses of
the service, including its future direction.
Overall impressions
It was clear that all the co-ordinators with whom we spoke were highly
motivated and deeply committed to their
jobs. The ‘working atmosphere’ in the Youth Conference Service was
described ‘notably different’ from other statutory
agencies by one co-ordinator and another described it as ‘a breath of
fresh air’. A number of interviewees also spoke
of how they felt their views and opinions were taken on board by senior
management, and felt strongly valued by the
Service. Co-ordinators used terms such as ‘exciting’, ‘creative’ and
‘innovative’ in describing the nature of their work.
One co-ordinator remarked:
‘Ever since I came here I’ve loved the way I can be
creative in my job. New ideas are always
welcomed, never dismissed. From the start we’ve all
been encouraged to think outside the box.
Compared to other agencies I’ve worked with, I feel I
really have the opportunity to develop myself
professionally here.
Another reflected:
‘I get a lot from this job – enjoyment, emotion, pain.
But the most satisfying aspect of it is seeing
the turnaround in a relationship between offenders and
victims.’
All co-ordinators felt they had been very well trained and showed a
strong awareness of the values and aims of
restorative processes. Many believed that it had underlined to young
people the need to take some form of
responsibility for their actions and gave communities and victims the
potential to play a role in a system that had
‘previously shut them out’.
Organisation and workload
The workload itself was seen as acceptable, although it was noted by
several co-ordinators that it tended to come in
‘bursts’:
‘The PPS is very slow. Ideally we’d like a steady
flow, but that’s not the way it works. Any day now
we’re expecting an avalanche of referrals.’
Some co-ordinators voiced some apprehension that they may become
overburdened when 17 year-olds were
incorporated into the system.
Co-ordinators were asked whether they felt any of the cases they had
handled were unsuitable for conferencing.
Three co-ordinators reported some concerns over the fact that resources
were occasionally being devoted to
processing some very minor cases which, in their opinion, should have
been disposed of in an alternative fashion.
One co-ordinator told us:
‘One case I dealt with involved a child taking £1.34
worth of confectionary from a petrol station. I
had to ask myself – is this really worth it, for the
sake of £1.34?’
Another remarked:
‘The service shouldn’t be taking on really petty cases.
That just devalues the entire conferencing
process.’
Interviews
with stakeholders
However, these co-ordinators did make it clear that such cases were very
much in an exceptional category and felt
that conferencing was appropriate for the vast majority of the cases
they had handled.
Several co-ordinators also expressed doubts as to whether it was
worthwhile to run a second conference about the
same issues that had been dealt with in an earlier conference. Some
co-ordinators stressed the need to rethink those
cases where multiple offences had occurred, and whether they ought to be
dealt with in separate conferences or in
the same session. One co-ordinator recalled an incident where a young
person had been referred for two conferences
for two incidents of criminal damage which occurred on the same day
within a few hours of each other.
Like many of the police officers we spoke to, some of the co-ordinators
questioned whether conferencing was
suitable for young people who had committed assaults against staff in
children’s homes. One interviewee described
the approach of the PPS as being ‘overly clinical’ in that they tended
to draw very clear boundaries around individual
offences, without taking into account the factors which gave rise to the
offending behaviour within a particular period
of time.
One co-ordinator voiced concerns that the PPS had referred a number of
very serious cases which he felt were
unsuitable for youth conferencing. One case concerned an offender who
was currently in custody for a very serious
assault. The Youth Conference Service had received five referrals for
this particular individual in relation to three
criminal damage charges and two assaults. In the opinion of this
co-ordinator, this case was a ‘clear waste of time’.
A final issue that arose in relation to their working practice concerned
the nature of the database where information
was recorded. A number of co-ordinators felt this database was
inadequate, as it did not give them a space to insert
an explanation for any delays that had occurred. One co-ordinator
reported:
‘It can seem at times we aren’t meeting our targets
because of the information that’s on the
database. We can’t explain or enter any sort of
explanation. Sometimes a young person might be
on holidays, for example, or other agencies have
created some sort of difficulty. That sort of thing
isn’t the fault of individual co-ordinators, and yet
we don’t have a chance to explain that.’
Experiences of conferences to date
On the whole, there was a broad consensus that most conferences ran
smoothly and had gone according to plan. Coordinators
expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the outcome of the vast
majority of conferences. On
occasions, young people could be very uncommunicative, but for the most
part, co-ordinators felt that they had
engaged with the process and held genuinely good intentions to meet the
terms of the conference plan and avoid
future offending.
Some co-ordinators expressed regret about the lapse of time that had
occurred between the incident in question and
the conference. It was noted that, on many occasions, a young person
would have committed other offences in the
interim, which may have a ‘blurring effect’ upon the conference in
question. A co-ordinator cited an example of a
conference which had been held in April 2005 in connection with an
assault that had occurred in a children’s home
in December 2003. The co-ordinator commented that the young person
genuinely was unable to remember the
details of the offence, which were particularly important for raising
emotions within the conference setting.
Relationship with conference participants
All co-ordinators expressed a very positive opinion of their working
relationship with the police officers who were
involved in conferencing:
‘All the ones I’ve come across are really dedicated
officers who know the score. There’s a lot of
trust between us, and we’ve built up a very effective
working relationship.’
The police were described as ‘very well prepared’, ‘very sympathetic’,
‘proactive’, ‘committed’, ‘supportive’ and
‘evangelical’. The value of police input was particularly discernable in
those conferences were victims had not
attended:
‘It’s good the way the police officer will often step
into the victim’s shoes, and tell the young
person how the victim would have felt in a particular
situation.’
123
Interviews
with stakeholders
124
Two co-ordinators expressed some concern about the attitudes of certain
individual police officers. One noted that a
‘certain officer’ tended to ‘write certain kids off’ before the
conference had begun:
‘There’s one policeman in particular who has a bad
attitude and talks about certain children as a
“bad lot”, a “lost cause” or a “waste of time”, and he
always seems to pre-judge the kids. I wonder
why he got involved in this area of work to begin
with.’
Although the co-ordinators generally regarded the role of the police
positively, another co-ordinator was critical of an
officer who ‘keeps trying to take over’ and ‘treads on my toes’ but felt
that he had been able to handle this situation
when it arose.
Some co-ordinators expressed disappointment with the number of
solicitors who had attended conferencing. Coordinators
were keen to stress that they advised young people to seek legal advice,
but many young people didn’t
seem particularly keen to have a solicitor present. However, a number of
instances were cited where solicitors had
agreed to attend conferences but had failed to do so. This resulted in a
number of conferences starting extremely late.
It was also noted by a majority of the interviewees that solicitors who
attended youth conferences did not generally
play an active role in the conference, and failed to understand the
process or goals.
The co-ordinators felt that, with the exception of a handful of cases,
family members and community representatives
who had attended conferences had played a positive role in the
conference. Most were quite keen to participate in
the discussion and contribute their thoughts towards the formulation of
action plans. Some families clearly had a
mistrust of state agencies, but many had made an effort to engage with
the process once they saw that the coordinator
and other participants were not intent on stigmatising the young person.
The formulation of conference plans
A number of co-ordinators reported that they felt a sense of pressure
towards the end of conferences, in trying to
devise a plan that would not only satisfy all the parties, but also get
through the courts:
‘The hard thing is… that you have to work for two
different audiences – victims and the courts.
Victims want their questions answered and want some
sort of respect and acknowledgement of
their status. But you have to always bear in mind what
the court is going to do with the plan.’
Co-ordinators agreed that the formulation of plans was really a matter
for the conference participants, rather than for
themselves. One noted that their function was ‘to facilitate, not to
dictate’. Some co-ordinators had mentally
formulated action plans in their heads prior to the conference to
prevent them getting ‘stuck’, or in case the
conference participants were non-communicative. Others said that they
preferred to leave the formulation of the plan
as much as possible for the conference participants.
Most co-ordinators believed that it would be helpful to have a broader
range of programmes that could be used as
part of conference plans. One co-ordinator argued that there needed to
be more options for reparation for under-16’s,
but that the courts were more concerned with the potential educational
benefit to the young person, rather than the
reparative needs of victims.
Co-ordinators were asked how they sought to preserve proportionality
within the plans. Most said that they relied on
their previous experience of orthodox disposals and had kept the
awareness of the tariff in the back of their minds.
The individual needs of the offender; his or her age, background,
record, and harm caused to the victim were also
factors that were taken into account. One co-ordinator stated that while
it was important to ensure some degree of
consistency in the way cases were treated, strict proportionality was
not required as the primary goal of a conference
plan was to ensure justice was delivered to both the victim and the
offender. Another felt that proportionality ‘is not
always possible in restorative justice’. A third interviewee believed
that proportionality was really part of the oversight
function of the courts, and that the plan was primarily formulated to take
into account the circumstances of a specific
offence.
Interviews
with stakeholders
The youth court
All of the co-ordinators perceived a very clear difficulty in relation
to the way plans were dealt with by a magistrate at
the Youth Court in Belfast. Two interviewees expressed the view that the
magistrate was not aware of the fact that
plans were devised by conference participants, rather than the
co-ordinators themselves. Three co-ordinators felt that
they had been treated in a ‘demeaning’ way in court. One remarked:
‘The magistrate has their own views and feels very
strongly about them. But every time I go up in
front of (a Magistrate) I feel like my professionalism
is being questioned.’
The co-ordinators were also keen to make clear the effects of plans
being rejected by magistrates. Several of them
commented that they felt time, effort and resources had been wasted,
whilst others drew attention to the fact that
many victims felt let down when the plans were rejected by the court.
Other comments from co-ordinators
concerning their experiences at the Youth Court included:
‘The worst part of it is when you have to go back and
tell a victim that the youngster can’t
complete the plan that was agreed because the court
won’t let him. That’s a real slap in the face for
a victim. It’s like telling him the system doesn’t
care about the harm he’s suffered after all.’
‘The worst thing is that the magistrate won’t use
their powers to vary the plans. If (a Magistrate)
doesn’t like it, the whole thing gets thrown out.’
Three of the co-ordinators also observed that the fact that so many
plans were being rejected by the courts meant it
was much more difficult to persuade victims to participate within the process:
‘You have to be really careful what you say to victims
now, because in realistic terms, there’s a
50/50 chance that the court isn’t going to approve the
plan. You have to be up front with victims
and tell them this at the outset, because there’s no point
in giving false hope. They tend to end up
quite angry and upset if they go through the motions
then have it all thrown back in their face.’
It was also felt by one co-ordinator that the attitudes of a magistrate
resulted in something of a ‘vicious circle’,
whereby fewer and fewer conference plans would end up getting approved
in the courts. Another interviewee noted
that solicitors ‘don’t like to rub up the magistrate the wrong way’.
Several of the interviewees made a point of contrasting the approach of
magistrates in different areas:
‘It’s strange in a way that they are all magistrates
dealing with similar cases in the same legal
system. Some magistrates seem to see conferencing in a
very different way.’
Monitoring conference plans
Some concern was expressed that much of their time was spent monitoring
conference plans. One co-ordinator
feared that this may ‘take away energy for conferencing’ and another
said that monitoring was ‘the most difficult part
of the job’. Several co-ordinators reported a conflict of priorities
during busy periods between arranging / attending
conferences and monitoring agreements:
‘Quite a bit of time is spent running around and
chasing up letters of apology, that sort of thing. We
anticipate a major increase in our workload when the
scheme is fully rolled out, and I’m not quite
sure how we’ll be able to juggle conferencing
alongside very extensive monitoring.’
Another stated:
‘Our role is very divided at the moment, between
conferencing and monitoring. Monitoring should
actually be dealt with by probation, or someone else…
They need to find people who can
specialise in monitoring. When the programme is rolled
out across the province, we are going to
have an influx of referrals which will make monitoring
very difficult.’
A number of co-ordinators also expressed regret that a number of
monitors had been withdraw from the Probation
Service and noted that the monitoring function would require some form
of fundamental review in the near future.
125
Interviews
with stakeholders
126
Relationships with solicitors
Many of the co-ordinators believed that there was some degree of
reluctance within the legal profession to accept
both the philosophy and practice of youth conferencing. One commented
that solicitors were keen to ‘make as much
money as possible’ and had thus had no interest in cases being resolved
quickly. Another noted that youth work was
seen as a ‘low priority’ within the legal profession and it was usually
young and relatively inexperienced solicitors
who attended the Youth Court:
‘These young solicitors don’t really want to get
bogged down in youth work for the rest of their
careers. They’ve no real interest in it and have no
idea of the philosophy behind the restorative
approach.’
One co-ordinator described a recent conversation with a solicitor in the
Youth Court who had described conferencing
as ‘pointless’. The co-ordinator continued:
‘Many solicitors we’ve come into contact with have
been nasty and dismissive of our work … they
don’t respect our skills and have no faith in the
restorative philosophy. They see us as liberal dogooders
and don’t want to have to engage with us.’
Another co-ordinator remarked:
‘Solicitors display a really negative attitude towards
conferencing. They haven’t made any effort to
get themselves up to speed with the process and very
rarely attend conferences.’
This co-ordinator also expressed the view that the introduction of a
system of specialist ‘youth advocates’, similar to
that in place in New Zealand, could overcome the problem of the legal
profession not wanting to embrace
restorative-based reforms to the youth justice system.
Future of youth conferencing
All co-ordinators felt that there was a bright future for youth
conferencing. Most expressed the opinion that
conferences did frequently work, in terms of diverting young people from
future offending. It was felt that conferences
were especially effective for first-time offenders, although some
co-ordinators were keen to stress that there had been
some notable successes even in the case of serial offenders.
One of the major obstacles for the future was the way in which
co-ordinators believed conferencing was perceived
by both magistrates and solicitors. Two co-ordinators suggested that
more training was needed, while another
suggested that some of the problems could be overcome if the magistrates
would be prepared to meet co-ordinators
prior to the hearing in the Youth Court. However, there was a consensus
that the attitudes of the courts needed to be
changed if conferencing was to be successful in the medium to long term:
‘Some Magistrates aren’t allowing the process to be
rolled out and take shape. Something needs to
be done to address this, or victims won’t want to
know.’
One interviewee felt that the negative attitudes was a mere symptom of a
wider scepticism towards restorative justice
amongst the general populace:
‘The key thing for the future is that we get the
public on board. We’ve got to gain their respect and
their confidence. I worry about the way restorative
justice is sometimes portrayed in the media as a
soft option. That’s not the case, and people have got
to understand what the process is all about.’
Interviews
with stakeholders
127
Many co-ordinators also felt there was a potential to work much closer
with community-based groups, including
Greater Shankill Alternatives and Community Restorative Justice101. One co-ordinator expressed a
particular
frustration that they were having minimal contact with non-state
restorative schemes:
‘It seems a bit daft just to keep them at arm’s
length, when we’re essentially working towards the
same thing. We need to get protocols put in place
pretty quickly so we can get some sort of
relationship established with them.’
Another remarked:
‘We’ve been told that we’re only to work with groups
that acknowledge the work of the police.’
Most co-ordinators believed that it was desirable for the Youth
Conference Service to forge a much stronger link with
these organisations. One co-ordinator described communities as the
‘listening ear’ on the ground, and questioned
how effective conferencing might be in the long run if communities
themselves felt excluded from the process.
Indeed, there was a broad consensus that the agency ought to work
extensively outside its own organisational
boundaries and work to develop partnerships with other agencies and
community groups.
From the point of view of their own working practice, some uncertainty
was expressed about what the future may
hold:
“We’re a very new agency, and not quite a full agency,
in the sense that conferencing still has to be
rolled out province-wide. I worry a bit that as we get
bigger, the red tape and paperwork might
drag us down’
Fears were expressed about the influence that bureaucracy may begin to
creep in over time. Some co-ordinators
noted the need to constantly review practice. While all anticipated that
their workload would increase, one described
a feeling of ‘fantastic fear’.
In spite of such difficulties, most of the co-ordinators were optimistic
about the future of the service and there was a
consensus that, given time, many of the problems could be effectively
ironed out.
8.4 Interviews with Public Prosecution Service (PPS)
The principle of PPS involvement
Prosecutors in the PPS office were keen to make it clear that that the
PPS strongly supports the recommendation of
the Criminal Justice Review that prosecutors should be involved in the
decision to refer cases to a youth conference.
The PPS also supported the decision taken by the Criminal Justice Review
implementation team that prosecutors
become responsible for all diversion decisions. This is a radical new
departure for the Prosecution Service as hitherto
the PPS has only considered the more serious cases where diversion may
not often be appropriate. Where the police
recommended a caution, the PPS could send the papers back to the police,
but there was a tendency for cases which
passed the evidential test to be prosecuted where there were no obvious
public interest grounds for non-prosecution.
With the new Public Prosecution Service taking over all decisions to
prosecute, it was appropriate that diversion
decisions should also be taken by the PPS. One of the advantages of this
was that greater consistency could be
brought into decision making. For example, there could be a situation
where you have two youths who are
suspected of committing a quite serious offence. If one of them denies
the offence, he/she would be charged and
prosecuted by the police but if the other youth admitted the offence
he/she would be given a caution. In such a case
it is better for a prosecuting authority to decide whether it might more
advisable to prosecute both the youths
together.
Interviews
with stakeholders
101 A number of community-based restorative programmes have emerged in
some republican and loyalist areas of Northern Ireland, which mostly deal with
low level
crime and neighbour disputes, see generally McEvoy and Mika 2002 for a
good desciption. The government has also recently issued draft guidelines for
consultation as
to how such schemes should operate. These guidelines are currently under
consultation.
128
There was general agreement amongst prosecutors that youth conferences
gave prosecutors an extra “tool to work
with.” They stated that it was always best to keep young persons out of
court where possible, but sometimes they
could be faced with young people who had committed quite serious
offences. As a matter of proportionality, these
situations called for something more than a warning or a caution and
without the option of a youth conference, such
persons would have to be prosecuted. The advantage of a youth conference
is that, while keeping young persons out
of court, it signals that they are being given a final chance. Another
advantage is that plans drawn up for addressing
offending behaviour have to be agreed by the prosecutor. This means that
account is taken of the need for
proportionality. Moreover the plans are enforceable as young people will
be referred back to the prosecutor and
prosecuted if they fail to complete them. Youth conferences are therefore
a useful means of keeping young people
out of court, whilst still enabling them to be prosecuted if their
conference plan is breached.
Prosecutors were upbeat about youth conferencing and confident that full
use was being made of conferences. The
PPS had adopted a practice of going through files with the Youth
Conferencing Service every quarter to explain
decisions to them and in general the Youth Conferencing Service seemed
to accept that full use was being made of
the Youth conferencing option. There had been a backlog of cases built
up in recent months caused by recruitment
problems within the new PPS which was launched as a new Service on 13
June 2005 so not as many cases were
being referred both in Belfast and in Fermanagh and Tyrone, but this would
change. Youth conferencing had been
rolled out to Newry and Armagh as well as Fermanagh and Tyrone.
Prosecutors were heartened by the recent Youth Conferencing newssheet
indicating that 100% of victims would
recommend conferencing to other victims and 91% would prefer
conferencing to court disposals. These were very
positive indications that Youth Conferencing was working. On the other
hand, the real test was down the line when
the question would be how successful conferencing has been in changing
young persons’ behaviour and it was too
early to make an assessment of this.
Another positive benefit which seemed to be coming through was that
court time was being saved. One prosecutor
estimated that in Fermanagh and Tyrone at any rate, the lists in the
Youth Court had gone down.
Processes and procedures
Prosecutors acknowledged that there were a number of cases where consent
forms were not being returned by young
persons. Another phenomenon that was noted in Fermanagh and Tyrone was
that young persons were returning the
forms with only a partial admission and this meant that prosecutors had
no choice but to prosecute. One prosecutor
in Fermanagh and Tyrone said that the PPS were trying to engage with
solicitors in these circumstances to see if the
young person really was denying the full extent of the charge. If it
transpires that the young person was not really
contesting the charge then it was possible to review the case and go for
a youth conference. This was far more
advantageous for the young person because once the case gets to court,
although the court can order a Youth
conference, the young person will receive a criminal conviction if
convicted which will go against his record. If the
case is kept out of court on the other hand, this has less serious
repercussions for the young person.
Some solicitors, according to one prosecutor in Fermanagh and Tyrone,
are beginning to engage with the PPS before
cases get to court and to make written representations that for example
their client is admitting the charges before
court. But with others “the shutters go down”, a contest is assumed
until the case reaches court and by this time the
case is being prosecuted and it is too late to go for a diversionary
option instead. It was felt that solicitors need to get
on top of cases when they are not present at the police interview. Often
what can happen is that the young person’s
parent acting as an appropriate adult encourages the young person to deny
the offence at the interview stage (“My
Johnny would never do such a thing”). In reality the young person may be
happy enough to admit the offence but
this may never come across in the police file. When the solicitor speaks
to the young person, however, he or she
may find the young person is happy to admit the offence and if this is
communicated to the PPS a diversionary option
can be considered. The PPS however only has the papers to go on and
solicitors need to make written
representations so that the PPS can proceed down the caution or Youth
Conference route. In one case a boy was
charged with stealing a quantity of sweets from a tuck shop. At
interview his mother was there and he denied the
offence. The PPS had to prosecute because of the denial. But the
solicitor later made representations that the boy
wanted to admit the offence. The police were then able to go for a
simple caution with the father, not the mother,
present at the caution.
Interviews
with stakeholders
Making youth conference decisions
Prosecutors are still awaiting a protocol which would set out the
various boundaries between informal warnings,
cautions, youth conferences and prosecution. At first all cases were
looked at by very senior staff but as the pilot has
been rolled out this is no longer possible and prosecutors accepted that
there is now a need for written guidance.
A good starting point, however, is the Code for Crown Prosecutors which
was published on 13 June 2005. Before
there can be any question of diversion, there must be a decision made
that the test for prosecution has been met.
The Code makes it clear that there are two considerations here – an
evidential consideration and a public interest
consideration. The evidential test is satisfied where there is
sufficient evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of
conviction. Once the evidential test is met the next consideration is
whether the public interest requires prosecution.
According to the Code (para 4.3.3), the presumption is that the public
interest requires prosecution where there has
been a contravention of the criminal law and this provides the starting
point for consideration of each individual
case. However, there are cases where although the evidence is sufficient
to provide a reasonable prospect of
conviction, prosecution is not required in the public interest. The Code
states that prosecutors should positively
consider the appropriateness of a diversionary option if the defendant
is a youth. In the case of young people then,
the public interest does not require a prosecution. And broadly
speaking, the policy is that young people should not
be prosecuted.
In many cases it will be easy to determine what if any diversionary
option is appropriate. In many respects going for
a Youth Conference is a last ditch attempt to keep someone out of the
criminal justice system. For if you go down the
Youth conference route and this for whatever reason does not work out,
the only alternative is a prosecution.
Generally speaking, you have to weigh up the severity of the offence and
the prevalence of the offence against the
attitude of the young person – have they previous convictions, do they
admit the offence? Some cases are easy but
others are more difficult. One example given was of a 15 year old girl
who was charged with a girl of 19 with
trashing school property causing extensive damage to school project
work. The girls had no previous record, they
admitted the offence but it was decided that it was necessary to
prosecute because of the seriousness of the offence.
Another example was where a 15 year old boy who had been out drinking,
he had a knife with him and picked an
argument with someone outside a bar, he then followed the person into
the bar and stabbed him in the back. Again,
in this case the seriousness of the circumstances would mean that you
would have to go for prosecution.
Prosecutors said that with experience you get a feel for what is right,
but it is a good policy for prosecutors to note
the reasons for decisions. It was important to make a note of the
reasons in the file, taking into account factors X, Y
and Z. This was needed in case the decision ever had to be justified in
a judicial review.
When it comes to approving the Youth Conference plans, the figures
showed a 100 per cent approval rate. One
prosecutor said that he was happy to give the Youth Conference Service a
fair degree of latitude over the plans. They
were the experts in this matter as they were the ones who had got the
plans agreed. He accepted that there is a need
to ensure that the plans are reasonably proportionate but there had to
be a degree of give and take in these matters. If
professionals were always challenging each other, the system would break
down.
As regards breaches of the plans, a prosecutor in Fermanagh and Tyrone
said there had been one or two breaches
and in these instances, prosecutors would have little choice but to
proceed with a prosecution.
Problem areas
Prosecutors considered that there were still delays in the system. They
were trying to prioritise cases but one
prosecutor said that there was a problem with the quality of police
files. He had come from England and in his view
the quality of PSNI files was lower than in England and Wales. His
impression was that young police officers were
not receiving adequate training in presenting files. Prosecutors could
only act on the papers given to them and if
there was incomplete information this could hold things up. Prosecutors
needed to know not just about the
circumstances of the offence but about the background of the offender and
the attitude of the offender. Including,
does the officer think that the young person would admit to the offence?
It was important that these matters were dealt with now as it was
envisaged that there would be a considerable
increase in youth cases now that 17 year olds were being brought within
the youth justice system.
129
Interviews
with stakeholders
According to another prosecutor who deals with Youth Court cases in
Fermanagh and Tyrone was that here the Youth
Court sits only once a month. The result was that when there is a court
ordered Youth Conference which has to be
later approved by the court, there can often be a delay of a number of
weeks before the next sitting of the court. All
this is not good for the young person. The intention behind youth
conferencing was that young people are quickly
brought to account for their offending behaviour. A court ordered
conference is often one that should have been
diverted for youth conferencing in the first place without the need for
court intervention but for one reason or another
was not able to. You then get a further delay because of the infrequency
of court sittings after the court order is made
before the plan can be approved by the court at a later sitting.
Generally speaking, prosecutors appeared to be happy with the way in
which the youth conferencing system was
working. There was a challenge for the PPS in getting the cases turned
round quickly. All cases tended to be dealt
with as they came in, but there was a case for a fast stream for young
persons. The dynamics of the present
arrangements will change quite considerably when 17 years olds are
brought within the youth diversion system.
8.5 Interview with Northern Ireland Office, Youth
Justice Policy
representative
This interview sought to gain an insight of the youth conferencing
initiative from the more general youth policy
perspective.
Background to conferencing
It was noted that youth conferencing was one of the most significant
developments in youth justice policy for some
time. It provides a new role for the victim in the criminal justice
process, while holding young people accountable
for their actions and provides for the opportunity to develop responses
to offending that can be tailor made to suit the
offence.
From the outset there was a desire to keep conferencing within the
criminal justice system and give the courts and
prosecution service oversight of the process. This was seen as
important, as it would engage the elements of the
criminal justice system in the process of delivering plans which
actively involve victims and offenders. The aim of the
legislation was to empower both the courts and prosecution service in
this process, giving them oversight of plans
and the ability to add, detract or reject plans if necessary.
Youth conferencing also fitted in well with the more general policy of
trying to divert young people away from the
formal criminal justice system where possible. It was pointed out that
much of the evidence shows that once young
people end up in court they often go on to re-offend and move further
and further into the system. Conferencing was
an opportunity to keep less serious offenders out of court and to speed
up the system of justice. As such it could
provide another way of dealing with young offenders, which holds them
accountable and gives the victim an input,
while not drawing young people further into the criminal justice
process. To this end, diversionary conferences were
seen as especially useful as a way of dealing with less serious
offenders.
The practice
It was noted that there had been a relatively slow start to the process
when it was first introduced, but this appeared to
be a result of the whole system coming to grips with the new ways of
working. However, after the first couple of
months things picked up and the number of cases increased significantly.
One of the difficulties noted in terms of translating the policy into
practice has been the problems caused by delay in
the criminal justice system. Cases take a considerable amount of time to
deal with, from the date of the offence to the
time the courts deal with the matter. Delays in the system can undermine
the restorative process and it was noted that
there is a need to make the system more efficient so there is less delay
in delivering justice. The policy intention was
that conferencing would speed up the delivery of justice, and it has the
potential to do so, however, there are
significant delays for example in getting cases to the attention of the
conferencing service which need to be addressed.
130
Interviews
with stakeholders
131
Another issue noted in relation to the process of translating policy
into practice were difficulties experienced in the
Belfast court. It was apparent that the magistrate in this court was
resistant to conferencing and this had resulted in
problems in terms of granting some conferencing orders. The relationship
with the court became difficult over
conferencing and this was a disappointing obstacle. Despite this, it was
felt that the overall project was working well
and it continues to develop towards its potential.
From a policy perspective it was noted that the involvement of the
courts was not meant to be a simple rubber
stamping exercise. Rather the involvement of the court was supposed to
give the conferencing process a measure of
oversight and to involve the courts in meaningful and innovative
responses to offenders and their needs, as well to
victim’s needs. To further this objective the courts need to be fully
engaged in the process so they feel more
ownership and there is a clear recognition of their important role.
For the future, it was felt that increased use could be made of
diversionary or prosecution led conferences. It was
suggested that diversionary conferences could be used for a broader
range of offenders and offences than is presently
the case. Since young people effectively go through the same process
when a conference is convened, whether
referred by the court or prosecution, it may be more efficient if more
use is made of diversionary conferences, as they
are quicker than going through the courts. The courts could then be
reserved for the most difficult cases. This could
speed up the process and make diversionary conferences the main-stream
approach to offending. However, it was
noted that this will be a matter for the prosecution service to decide.
8.6 Interview with probation manager
Probation supports the Youth Conferencing approach, using a restorative
justice model, as it is consistent with their
philosophy which emphasises the importance of getting young people to
take responsibility for their actions and
behaviour. Though conferencing is now dealing with many young people who
probably would have been given
probation orders in the past, there is still room for the probation
service, especially for young people who are not
suitable for conferencing, such as high risk offenders and young people
who are repeat offenders.
It was felt that at the early stages when the Youth Conferencing Service
was being set up there could have been more
thought given to the whole of the criminal justice system and how it
works as a system. This might have aided its
early development. The process was not as inclusive as it could have
been and probation was not fully consulted
during the development of the youth conferencing service. Though they
were informed they felt they were not fully
consulted. This left probation somewhat confused about their role in the
process and how they would relate and work
with the conferencing service.
Despite this there has been a lot of progress in developing good working
practices between the two organisations.
This is important as probation has been working with many of the young
people that conferencing is dealing with, so
there is a need to share information and work together. Protocols have
been developed recently with community
services and the conferencing service so there are clearer directions
and good practice in sharing information and
working together. This is something that could have been developed at a
much earlier stage if there had been better
consultation in the early development of the service and it would have
been better if such things had been put in
place at the outset.
Interviews
with stakeholders
132
Effects on workforce
The introduction of the conferencing also impacted the work force of the
probation service. Posts were advertised for
conference coordinators and the pay levels were above probation levels,
so a whole group of staff were lost when the
service was set up.
‘In effect we felt they poached our existing staff
base and left us short in some respects.’
This was also problematic, as it was noted that the pool of qualified
staff in Northern Ireland is quite limited. Again it
would have been better if there had been more coordination and
collaboration between the players so arrangements
could have been put in place to better manage the recruitment of staff.
However:
‘Having said that, those that have gone have done very
well and have moved to the restorative
justice approach successfully.’
It was felt that by and large the relationship between PBNI and
conferencing has moved forward and it is now
working well, and this has largely been out of necessity.
‘There has been some conflict, but the general
relationship is very positive and this is largely down
to the good will of the people on the ground, who
generally know each other or have worked
together in probation in the past. There have only
been a few instances where there have been
problems between probation and the youth conference
service and these have occurred because of
a lack of communication, and they have been resolved.’
Probation and youth justice
In relation to the bigger picture and how restorative justice fits into
the rest of the criminal justice system, it was
suggested that less thought had been given to this.
‘There still appears to be a lack of coordination
which is now starting to be addressed by the Youth
Justice Board. This will be important as players and
stakeholders need to work together for a
common purpose rather than seeing themselves in some
form of competition.’
When conferencing rolls out to the rest of Northern Ireland it is hoped
that things will further settle down and people
will be more comfortable with their roles and good working arrangements
and protocols will develop further.
The experience with the development of conferencing has made probation
think about better partnership approaches
and how we can improve working practices with other agencies.
‘The partnership approach could be improved further so
different agencies work together more
effectively delivering services to our client base and
one model that might be worth exploring here
is the use of teams, which has been used successfully
in England and Wales.’
It was suggested the Northern Ireland Office regard youth justice as
something looked after by the Youth Justice
Agency, but there are other elements - such as probation – and this
should be addressed in terms of the planning and
the delivery of services to young people, so the elements are more
joined-up and logical in terms of their practical
delivery.
The conferencing service has organised seminars on their work which
probation staff have attended and have found
these very useful for staff.
‘They have also helped communications between our
organisations and staff which is a positive
thing and something we would encourage. In terms of
bettering our communication, we have
recently encouraged conferencing representation at our
probation team meeting which we feel
facilitates better working practices and
communication.’
Interviews
with stakeholders
8.7 Interview with youth conferencing service manager
Development and implementation of youth conferencing.
The manager felt that the development of youth conferencing in Northern
Ireland was a very intense process and it
has taken a lot of work to translate the basic policy intentions into
practice. This process was aided considerably by
an advisory group and much of the early work was undertaken with staff
in the Northern Ireland Office and criminal
justice policy section.
The early roll out of conferencing in Belfast was slow, and initially
there appeared to be only a small number of cases
making it through the system for referral. This was due to the system
adjusting to the changes that had occurred, and
after a couple of months many more cases started coming through.
In the early days there were also many challenges that had to be faced.
These were mostly due to the fact that this
was such a different way of working and people needed time to understand
and get used to the new process. The
changes caused difficulties for some as it challenged how they worked.
For others the conferencing service was now
operating with clients they would have dealt with in the past. This led
to a degree of resistance, especially when it
was understood that conferencing was to become the main platform for
work with young offenders. However, this
resistance has mostly moved to accommodation and to acceptance over
time.
Generally speaking there was an acceptance of the changes that were made
following the introduction of
conferencing and most supported it, especially the restorative
principles underpinning the process. For some groups it
presented real challenges, for example to the legal profession. This was
due to the fact that it meant a completely
different way of operating, that practitioners had to get used to.
Solicitors on the whole, however, proved to be very
adaptable and they have been willing to shape their role to fit with the
process and the new ways of working. They
have actively engaged in the process of training and the conferencing
service has given a number of presentations
about conferencing at the Law Society which were well attended and
fruitful.
The introduction of conferencing caused challenges for the probation
service in the early days. It seemed there was
some organisational resistance in probation to conferencing when it
started and this appeared to have been caused
by the fact that conferencing was moving into an area that probation had
occupied previously. However, things
settled down we were able to work together and develop methods of
sharing information, such as how reports would
be produced for the courts, how the services would cooperate together
and how we would share information. This
has been an ongoing process which has been necessary, but it has also
been positive and levels of communication
and cooperation are now very good.
The relationship with the police has also been positive. However the
youth section of the police is only a small part
of what is a very big organisation. Conferencing has worked with these
officers since the beginning of the initiative.
There have been a number of joint training sessions held with the police
and these have been useful in building up
relationships and getting to know each others’ perspective. Though there
have been one or two police officers who
have been sceptical, the vast majority have been very helpful and the
practical work has been facilitated by a
willingness to share information and work together towards a common
purpose.
It was also noted that sometimes police officers are victims of crime
themselves. On a number of occasions, however,
the officers have not been able to attend conferences due to other
duties or work commitments. The conferencing
service would like the police service to recognise the importance of
such officers attending conferences and
facilitating their attendance as part of their duty.
In relation to the prosecution service there has been a good working
relationship since the outset. Both conferencing
and the prosecution service worked together since the original planning
for the service. In many respects the
relationship was not difficult because they were not a threat to each
other in any way and had a common purpose.
‘There are clear working procedures and they have an
ongoing review system and meet quarterly
with prosecutors in the various areas to look at
systems, processes and outcomes, which is working
very well.’
133
Interviews
with stakeholders
134
Similarly it was reported that the relationship with the court service
has been very good since the outset. The whole
process of how cases are listed, how warrants are issued etc have all
developed through the courts. The conferencing
service is also currently developing working practices in the rural
areas which have recently introduced conferencing.
There have been some general problems of communication with the courts
however:
‘Though there have been difficulties at times in
communication with particular magistrates,
conferencing and the conferencing service has been
largely accepted by the courts as a productive
way of dealing with young offenders which gives victims
a stake in the process.’
Current challenges facing the conferencing service
A number of challenges facing the conferencing service were discussed,
these included the inclusion of 17 year olds
in the youth court. It was noted that this will significantly increase
the number of cases eligible for conferencing. They
will also bring different types of problems and needs, such as drug and
alcohol issues, dependent children and many
more will be living independently of their parents.
‘The conferencing service will have to adapt to meet
these needs and provide effective conferences
for such cases.’
More generally it was commented that there needs to be a continued
effort to raise public awareness of conferencing
to keep the current high levels of victim involvement. Victims need to
be made aware that conferencing is productive
and a positive way of dealing with crime and the role of the victim is
essential in that process.
It was recognised that the inclusion of 17 year olds will also mean many
more motoring offences. It was felt that
there is no place for the conferencing process in the business of
imposing fixed penalty points or fines for minor
motoring incidents such as no MOT or tax certificate. However,
conferencing could have a valuable input when
dealing with motoring incidents that involve or potentially involve
victims, such as dangerous driving, or driving with
excess alcohol. The current position is that all such cases are dealt
with directly through the court’s powers, excluding
conferencing. It was felt that it would be beneficial if the legislation
was changed to allow the conferencing service to
work with such individuals, particularly as this could have the
potential to give such offenders a much clearer
understanding of the impact of their behaviour from a victim’s
perspective and a deeper understanding of the
consequences of their actions.
‘The conferencing service also has to look at how it
can engage with the community further. In
particular, the service is aware of the work of
community based restorative programmes in some
areas. The service wishes to work with such groups in
the future and recognises that there is a wide
diversity of community organisations and groups that
represent a range of diverse interests.’
In relation to working with the other criminal justice agencies, it was
noted that there needs to be an ongoing process
of dialogue, so that working practices are effective and the
conferencing service operates in an efficient and effective
manner. This is particularly important in relation to the service’s
relationship with the courts, so there are clear
channels of communication and the service is able to have a good working
relationship and is able to respond to the
needs and concerns of magistrates.
Lastly, it was suggested that there is the potential to extend the
number of cases that are dealt with by conferencing
through referral by the prosecution service. This was the case in all
areas, but especially in the rural areas, where
some cases with few prior convictions are presently being dealt with
through the courts. It was suggested that since
young people go through the same conferencing process whether they are
referred by the court or the prosecution
service, there is scope to increase referrals through prosecution. This
would have the added advantage of speeding up
the process, particularly given that youth courts only sit once or twice
a month in some of these areas.
Interviews
with stakeholders
8.8 Interviews with magistrates
Two sets of interviews were completed with magistrates from the Belfast
and Dungannon area youth courts and one
interview was completed with the magistrate from Omagh youth court. The
magistrates were asked about the
introduction of youth conferencing and how it was operating in their
areas, they were asked about how well the new
arrangements were working and the problems and opportunities it
presented.
General principles
All of the magistrates supported the general principles of restorative
justice and thought it was a good idea in theory,
particularly as it is supposed to make offenders take responsibility for
their actions and it can help them understand
the impact of their actions on victims. The fact that victims are
involved and the conference is a forum for the victim
to express themselves and receive some form of reparation was also seen
as positive.
The magistrates felt they were well prepared and trained for the
introduction of conferencing and the court staff were
also well trained for the changes. There was less satisfaction with the
manner in which the legislation was introduced
and it was felt that there could have been more consultation before the
legislation was ‘imposed’ on the courts.
In the first months of operation there were a number of problems that
emerged and these mostly related to people
getting used to the new arrangements. The solicitors, for example, had
to come to terms with a whole new process
and represent their clients in a different manner than they were used
to. However as time passed they generally
learned how the new system operated and adjusted to the changes.
‘The first months were more difficult as it was a
period of adjustment, especially for the youth
conference staff appearing in the court.’
The conferencing staff needed to establish their role in the court and
while this went well in most of the courts, it was
seen as a more difficult process in the Belfast court.
Issues and concerns
The mandatory nature of the legislation was an issue for one of the
magistrates, who felt this inappropriately took the
decision making power away from the court. However other magistrates
felt that it needed to be mandatory as it was
supposed to be the main avenue for dealing with young offenders. The
mandatory nature of the legislation was also
seen as a difficulty for cases where magistrates felt that conferencing
might not be suitable. For example, where the
young person had committed a number of offences and was not responding
to previous conference orders. It was felt
that such young people should be sentenced immediately by the court and
not referred time and time again.
Similarly, it was felt that imposing a conference order on someone who
had breached an existing order was not
appropriate.
Delay was an issue that was raised and it was felt that the conferencing
process can cause added delays to a system
that is already very slow. The rural court was used as an example of
this, because the court only sits once per month.
Therefore any adjournment automatically adds at least another month of
delay to the process.
‘The mandatory nature of referrals also can impact
delays whereby cases which are not suitable for
conferencing have to be referred. They are then
returned to court at a later date simply to be dealt
with using the court’s sentencing powers which
obviously adds delay.’
The plans presented to the courts were generally seen as good and it was
noted that they have been improving over
time, though a number of issues were raised with respect to them. One
magistrate felt plans were generally very
similar irrespective of the offence and bore little relation to the
seriousness of the offence. However other magistrates
pointed out that most of the plans they had seen were good, though some
were either too severe or too lenient in
relation to the offence. It was clear that magistrates felt it important
that plans reflect the relative seriousness of the
offence, so they are proportionate. The method of achieving this
differed, with some plans being rejected outright by
courts, while other magistrates sent plans back for reconsideration
giving clear directions as to what elements of the
plan needed addressing.
135
Interviews
with stakeholders
136
In general it was felt that youth conferencing was most appropriate for
less serious offences and for offenders that did
not have a long list of previous convictions. These cases could be
easily processed and dealt with through
conferencing. However for more serious offences, especially those that
would normally attract a custodial sentence,
there was less willingness to see conferencing as a viable method of
disposal. One magistrate felt that it was
counterproductive to allow individuals to receive multiple conferences
and felt that such cases should automatically
be sentenced by the court. It was felt that:
‘these individuals play the system, know how to
manipulate things in the conference and are not
being dealt with effectively.’
On the other hand, it was noted that some children may end up with very
restrictive plans simply because they are
willing to agree to anything that is put to them. This was seen as a
danger as plans have the potential to be very
onerous.
Concern was expressed about children in children’s homes being pushed
into the court system and through
conferencing because some homes have a policy of automatically
prosecuting children, even if they commit minor
offences. This was considered a waste of resources and damaging to the
children themselves. It was felt that such
cases issues should be dealt with in the home or through diversionary
means.
Diversionary or prosecution referred conferences were mentioned and two
of the magistrates felt that more use could
be made of such conferences. It was suggested that court ordered
conferences should be reserved for contested cases
or serious offences.
Overall the magistrates felt that youth conferencing was a good idea in
principle and that the practice and operation
of the system had improved since it was first implemented. Issues remain
about how it is working, especially for the
more problematic cases and repeat offenders. However, there was
agreement that levels of communication between
the court and the conferencing service have improved over time and that
many difficulties could be dealt with
through better communication and planning. Indeed one magistrate
suggested that it might be useful to develop
protocols for types of offences or offenders who are clearly not going
to benefit from the conferencing process. Such
arrangements could reduce delays and improve operation.
8.9 Conclusion
From the interviews conducted it was apparent that the major
stakeholders endorsed the restorative principles that
underpin the reforms of the youth justice system. There was enthusiastic
support from some for the ideas behind
youth conferencing and it was largely seen as a very positive
development to youth offending. Although there were
some concerns around how conferencing had been introduced, and some felt
there could have been a better process
of consultation, most expressed general confidence in the overall
direction of the reforms. However, there were
concerns and issues that were raised, which in many respects are to be
expected in the aftermath of such a
substantial change in policy and practice.
Concerns were raised about the impact of delay on the conferencing
process. It was noted that it is often many
months after the young person has offended before they are dealt with
through the criminal justice system. Delays
appear from the time the young person is arrested, to preparation of a
file for the prosecution service, to the stage the
prosecution refers the case and again until the case is actually dealt
with or disposed of. It was evident that much of
the delay takes place before cases are referred to the conferencing
service and all concerned agreed that it is
important to avoid delay. Delay undermines the whole process and the
beneficial effects of conferencing are
jeopardised if the participants feel the offence was something that was
remote in time. Indeed participants have often
‘moved on’ themselves and dealt with the aftermath of the offence. In
effect, delay makes the offence seem as
something that was distant and in the past, and this is
counterproductive for the restorative process. The importance
of avoiding delay, especially when dealing with young people, is
underlined in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act
2002 which stipulates ‘…that any delay in dealing with young people is
likely to prejudice their welfare.’
Interviews
with stakeholders
137
Some stakeholders noted that conferences were sometimes held for very
minor or even petty offences. This was
considered counterproductive given the significant resources necessary
to convene a conference. It was suggested
that very minor offences would be better off being dealt with by way of
a police caution or warning. Similarly, a
number of stakeholders felt that more use could be made of diversionary
or prosecution referred conferences, than is
presently the case. A reduction in the number of cases sent for
prosecution through the court and instead referred
directly for conferencing by prosecution could increase the speed at
which cases are dealt with. Also, it was noted
that young people go through the same conferencing process irrespective
of whether the court or prosecution referred
them. Indeed, the Magistrates supported an increase in the use of
diversionary referrals, thereby reserving the court
for more serious or contested cases.
The issue of children in care committing relatively minor offences and
being dragged through the criminal justice
system and put through conferencing was also raised. This was seen as a
problem by stakeholders. A number of the
magistrates felt this was inappropriate and suggested that these types
of incidents should be dealt with in the
children’s home or through some diversionary means, but not through the
criminal justice system. If anything, it was
felt that drawing such children, who are often already vulnerable, into
the formal criminal justice system only
reinforces their feelings of rejection.
A general point that was made by many of the stakeholders was the
importance of fostering good lines of
communication between all those involved in the process of delivering
justice to young people. It was apparent that
when difficulties have arisen, they were usually caused by ineffective
means of communication. The importance of
developing and strengthening working practices which allow for the
effective delivery of services in a sphere that is
multi-agency requires that communication is of paramount importance.
Many of the stakeholders felt the
development of agreements and protocols were useful tools of
communication which helped foster effective working
practices.
Interviews
with stakeholders
Chapter 9
Conclusion
9.1 Introduction
This report has examined the implementation and progress of the new
youth conferencing service within Northern
Ireland. Covering the period from the service’s inception on the 1st
December 2003 until the 30th June 2005, the
research has sought to identify both strengths and weaknesses of the
conferencing initiative and to determine to what
extent it is proving effective in meeting its stated objectives and
outcomes.
Despite some initial ‘teething problems’ the implementation of youth
conferencing has progressed well. This is
explored here, with reference to issues identified previously within the
review of the literature.
9.2 Victims
Victim participation
By the end of the research period, results showed over two-thirds or 69%
of conferences with a victim present. This
figure compares favourably with international research and suggests that
the Northern Ireland youth conferencing
service has achieved a high rate of victim attendance. While victim
presence is important, the decision to attend
should always be voluntary (Reeves and Mulley, 2000). Indeed, the
literature points out that a crucial indicator when
measuring the progress of conference initiatives is the extent to which
victims feel able to provide or refuse consent
(Victim Support, 2003a). Rather positively, the majority or 79% of
victims interviewed stated that they were ‘keen’ to
attend and 91% felt that the decision to attend had been entirely their
own.
As alluded to in the literature, where a victim does not attend,
alternative forms of input are important for a number
of reasons (Hoyle, 2002). First, they provide the victim with a voice in
the process even where he/she does not wish
to attend; and second, they inject an individual perspective, which may
influence the dynamics of the conference. In
the majority of conferences without a victim, some form of victim
perspective was included. On the whole this
involved a summary of previous meetings between the victim and
co-ordinator, a letter from the victim or a reference
to the probable impact in light of the facts of the offence. In terms of
restorative potential, observations showed victim
statements or letters to have more bearing than indirect contributions,
such as a summary of the likely consequences
of the offence.
Victims expressed a number of reasons for participating in the
conference process and, in line with the literature,
these often related to a desire for information and a forum in which to
state their views. Therefore, 88% of victims
attended to hear what the young person had to say and 86% wanted the
young person to know how the crime had
affected them. Restorative justice literature suggests that there may be
a wish for vengeance on behalf of victims
(Ashworth 2001; Strang, 2000), however, this was not evident from the
research; with many or 79% of victims stating
that they had participated in the conference in order to help the young
person. Overall therefore victim participation
was prompted by altruistic or welfare concerns rather than any desire
for ‘punishment’.
Finally, it is useful to learn about the views of victims who did not
participate in the conference process. International
research suggested that low rates of attendance may have been due to
practical matters including a lack of suitable
timing and facilities (Maxwell et al, 1993). Research also highlights
numerous reasons for victim non-participation
including a desire by victims to move on or fears of retaliation.
Interestingly, the majority of non-participating victims
referred to personal reasons for their decision not to attend, such as
not wishing to meet the young person face to
face or a belief that the offence was not serious enough to warrant
attending the conference. In general therefore
non-participation by victims was not related to the level of
organisation or service provided by the Youth Conference
Service.
Victim satisfaction
If avoiding the problem of secondary victimisation, victims should feel
satisfied following their conference
experience. Indeed, much of the literature on victimology highlights
negative experiences of the justice process as
exacerbating and creating feelings of victimisation by victims. In this
research, the majority of victims were satisfied
with the conference and 92% perceived the process as either ‘very fair’
or ‘fair’. Similarly, most victims felt that their
views had been taken seriously and reported a series of positive
feelings immediately after the conference.
141
Conclusion
142
Early research on Family Group Conferencing in New Zealand found a
significant number or one third of victims
reporting feeling worse following the conference process (Maxwell et al,
2003). In the post conference interview,
however, the majority of victims stated that they felt better or no
different. In the literature, positive victim
experiences have been related to a number of factors including the
chance to explain the impact of the crime,
receiving an apology, or understanding why the offence occurred.
Therefore, the fact that all victims believed that the
conference provided an opportunity to explain the effect of the crime
and that the majority of young people either
apologised to the victim or displayed a degree of remorse, may have
contributed to the overall positive results from
victims participating in the conference process.
As a further appraisal of the conference from a victim perspective, the
research found 81% of victims preferring the
conference over court and most willing to recommend a conference to a
victim in a similar situation. The reasons
provided for favouring the conference included the opportunity presented
to express a personal view and to confront
the young person, achieving closure, and the unique circumstance of
meeting the young person face to face.
Interestingly, some victims sensed that the experience of the conference
process might differ depending on the level
of victimisation. Therefore, 11% of victims interviewed stated that they
would recommend a conference but it would
depend on the offence, serious or violent offences warranting more
cautious consideration.
Information
The provision of information about the conference process and how the
case is progressed is important to avoid
feelings of re-victimisation. Though the extent of victim needs remains
unknown, victims should be kept updated on
the progress of the case (Strang, 2000). Throughout the research,
victims reported feeling well informed and prepared
for their participation in the conference. The majority also stated that
they had been told of possible outcomes, which
meant that victims entered the conference with realistic expectations.
This is particularly important given that
outcomes must be approved by the PPS or court and in light of the fact
that, within this research, 50% of conference
plans were rejected by the Belfast youth court.
While a small number of non-participating victims were contacted during
the period of research, most attributed a
level of importance to being kept informed about the final conference
outcome. Indeed, the literature points out that
those victims who choose not to participate can continue to experience
an element of the restorative process if they
are informed of the progress of the conference and outcome (Hoyle,
2002). In this instance, four out of the eleven
non-participating victims stated that they had been fully informed about
the outcome.
Reparation and outcomes
When evaluating restorative processes from the point of view of the
victim, it is important to consider the extent of
involvement and individual victim views on the actual outcome. Very
positively, the majority of victims were
observed to engage when devising the plan and 95% appeared satisfied
with the process of the conference at this
point. The majority of victims were also satisfied with the actual
outcome and believed the conference plan to be fair.
Although only a small number of five victims felt ‘very dissatisfied’
with the final conference outcome and seven
perceived the plan as unfair, several of these (eight in total) were
personal victims directly affected by the crime. This
is an interesting result and not dissimilar to existing literature,
which attributes a difference in victim experiences to
the type or level of victimisation. Therefore, those having a more
difficult experience in the aftermath of victimisation
might report less satisfaction with the restorative proceedings (Daly,
2005). Nevertheless, low levels of victim
satisfaction in relation to the conference outcome did not appear to
relate to the seriousness of the offence. Therefore,
the small number of eleven (9%) victims indicating a degree of
dissatisfaction with the plan attended for offences
ranging in severity, from less serious property matters to more serious
offences against persons and / or property.
In terms of reparative outcomes and meeting victim needs, nine out of
ten victims received an apology from the
young person. Those who failed to receive an apology were victim
representatives for whom a direct apology was
often inappropriate. Indeed, in interview a number of representatives
felt that receipt of an apology was irrelevant.
Although the majority of conference plans contained some level of
re-education for the young person in relation to
further offence behaviour, only a minority of plans incorporated payment
or material reparation for the victim.
However, given that the majority of victims did not want any level of
compensation or reparation from the young
person, this outcome fits well with the overall results from the
research.
Conclusion
9.3 Young people
Engagement and satisfaction
Young people’s perceptions of the procedural aspects of the conference
process appeared to be as positive as for
victims. However, and perhaps surprisingly, results showed that young
people could find involvement in the
conference to be more challenging and difficult. Overall, young people
were observed to engage well in the
conferencing process and expressed satisfaction with the way their case
had been dealt with. The majority (93%)
contributed well when discussing the crime and, when provided with the
opportunity to tell ‘their story’, they felt that
their views were listened to (98%). Any failure to engage on the part of
the young person was generally a result of
nervousness, embarrassment, lack of recall (as a result of passage of
time or consumption of drugs and/or alcohol),
the lengthy nature of conferences, and, in a few cases, defiance. Almost
all (93%) young people felt that the
conference was fair, and it is argued that where young people feel they
have been treated fairly by the criminal
justice system they are more likely to respect and obey the law in
future (Tyler, 1990). The positive perception of
young people towards the process is clearly reflected in the fact that
86% would recommend the process to another
young person in their situation.
Although there was a general perception amongst young people that the
conference process was in some way ‘easier’
than court, this was not borne out by observations, in which many young
people displayed discomfort and found the
conference to be a challenging experience. Indeed, the youth
conferencing process does not end with the conference
itself and it will be interesting to see if, and how, these perceptions
change upon completion of the agreed
conference plan.
Referral and informed consent
The UN guidelines on the administration of restorative justice programs
state they “should be used only with the free
and voluntary consent of the parties” (United Nations, 2000). Although
interviews suggest that, for the majority of
young people the decision to attend a conference was their own some did
indicate that they felt pressurised into
attending a conference and that this could emanate from any number of
sources. The issue of consent is particularly
relevant to court, where observations found that the manner in which
consent was obtained did not appear to fully
provide the young person with the opportunity to make a considered and
informed choice. Of course, it should be
stated that in interview few young people indicated that they had
attended due to pressure from court (13 in total).
The pre-conference process offers the young person the opportunity to
reaffirm consent on learning more about what
conferencing entails. Indeed, one quarter (25%) of young people
subsequently withdraw their consent following
referral (89% of which were referred by the court) suggesting that this
does occur in practice. Some young people
may, however, be reluctant to withdraw consent after initially accepting
in fear of being frowned upon by the court or
Public Prosecution Service.
A surprising finding was the disproportionate number of young people
(29%) referred to a conference who resided in
a care environment, the vast majority (88%) of which were referred by
the court. On the whole, many offences for
which young people in care were referred were specific to the context of
being in care, for example assault on a
member of staff or criminal damage to furniture in the residential unit.
These conferences present particular
difficulties as highlighted by the comments of victims; “I can't be a
victim and a social worker at the same time” and
“I wasn’t prepared to tell the young person how it affected me because
it was a professional incident.” The extent of
overrepresentation and the appropriateness of such cases going through
the conferencing process or indeed the
courts raise important questions.
Power imbalances
Power imbalances may occur in conferences as a result of three factors
(i) the perceived roles of participants, (ii) lack
of knowledge and (iii) external factors. In terms of perceived roles,
when positioned in a room of adults the young
person may be seen to be at a disadvantage. Although the practice and
philosophy of youth conferencing does not
encourage it, the young person may arrive at the conference with the
preconceived notion that as they are ‘in the
wrong’ they have little say in the outcome. Every effort should
therefore be made to ensure that the youth conference
is a democratic process in which the young person is fully included and
that their input and contributions are valued.
Overall, observations found that this was facilitated well and young
people were both encouraged and involved
throughout the various stages of the conference.
143
Conclusion
144
‘Knowledge imbalances’ may occur when the young person and their
supporter(s) have little idea on what to suggest
for a conference plan, in terms of what is both available and
appropriate. In several conferences, the co-ordinator and
/ or other professionals were observed to dominate on occasions where
other participants were not forthcoming in
making suggestions for the plan. A successful pre-conference preparation
process and perhaps time during the
conference for the young person and their supporter(s) to consult in
private before the plan is devised will go far in
ensuring that this does not happen. Indeed, interviews found that the
vast majority of young people felt well prepared
for the conference itself, and were satisfied with their level of input
into the plan.
As plans must be ratified by either the PPS or court, these bodies may
be seen as exerting an ‘external’ influence. On
some occasions, this was explicitly observed where conference
participants emphasised the importance of devising a
plan which would satisfy the Magistrate. Pressure to come up with a
proportionate plan can detract from the
restorative philosophy of the process, and may result in the young
person agreeing to something they are not entirely
comfortable with. It is vital that any plan agreed within a conference
is a result of genuine consensus amongst
conference participants and not as a result of external pressure.
Indeed, interviews found that most young people
were indeed ‘happy to agree’ to the conference plan and felt that it was
proportionate to their offence.
Outcomes
Overall, young people were very involved in agreeing the plan, were
satisfied with its content, and felt that it was
proportionate. Plans generally did not focus primarily on punishment,
but rather on ways in which to address the
young person’s offending behaviour. This reflected the desire of many
victims, who valued involvement in the process
rather than punishing the young person. As such, many plans contained
positive elements which constructively
looked at ways to deal with factors contributing to the young person’s
behaviour, the most common being substance
misuse, peer pressure and family difficulties.
It is interesting that one court in particular chose to reject a
significant proportion of plans. In terms of meeting the
needs of both the young person and victim, it may be worthwhile for the
court to consider amending rather than
simply rejecting plans. For many young people and victims, the
conference process was a challenging experience
and for the plan to be rejected outright may be viewed as a ‘double’
punishment, and negatively impact upon their
perceptions of fairness.
9.4 Conclusion
In conclusion, the majority of findings within this report show that the
implementation of the new conferencing
service in Northern Ireland is progressing well. In the period of the
research it has become established as a
mainstream approach to young people who come in contact with the
criminal justice system. Overall, participants
report high level of involvement and satisfaction with the process and
outcomes. As the system of youth conferencing
develops it will be interesting to consider whether this process impacts
on recidivism102. However, it is important to
note that the process itself may be seen to have inherent value, given
the high rates of satisfaction and perceptions of
fairness indicated by victims and young people.
Conclusion
102 See Recommendation 26.
Recommendations
The results presented within this report show that overall the
implementation of youth conferencing in Northern
Ireland progressed well. In addition, it is anticipated that the
practice of youth conferencing and the knowledge of the
service by others, will improve with experience and time. Nevertheless,
there are certain matters that may be useful
to consider in the further development of the youth conferencing
service. The following are recommendations for
future practice and research:
The referral process
1) Prosecution referrals: 31% of referrals for Youth Conferences emanated from the Public
Prosecution Service and 69% from the youth court. The majority or 53%
related to intermediate
offences against person or property. Serious offences accounted for 23%
and minor matters for
21% of referrals. The majority of ‘minor property related and other
minor offences’ were referred to
the Youth Conference Service by the court (71.4%) and not the Public
Prosecution Service (28.6%)
as might be expected. This suggests that the PPS is referring a
substantial number of intermediate
and some minor offences to the court. This conclusion is reinforced by
the fact that courts made a
conditional discharge in 15.9% of cases rather than accept the Youth
Conference plan. The courts’
resources might be best reserved for the most serious and complex cases,
those raising issues of
public interest and protection. In light of the very promising results
reported in this evaluation
particularly in the area of victim satisfaction it is recommended that
the PPS increase the
proportion of referrals for diversionary conference primarily on the
basis of seriousness of the
offence, though previous convictions should also remain a consideration.
2) Upper age limit: Where a young person becomes an adult in the course of youth court
proceedings, article 30 of the Criminal Justice (Children) (NI) Order
1998 permits the youth court
to make any order which it would have made had they not reached that
age. In a number of court
observations, a youth conference plan was rejected because the young
person had reached 17
years of age before the plan returned to court. Although this was not
the intention of the
legislation, it is permissible, and consequently it may be useful to
explain to the young person, at
the stage of initial referral, that refusal due to age is a possible
result. In this way, the young person
can make a more informed choice about whether or not to attend the
conference (3.5 Court-
Ordered Referrals).
3) Mandatory penalties: At present, the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 prohibits a youth
conference order in combination with a further court order103. As a result, the court was unable to
accept a youth conference plan in a number of motoring cases because the
offence attracted a
mandatory penalty. Furthermore, figures showing a high proportion of
motoring offences amongst
17 year olds, means that the introduction of this age group to the youth
court will have a
significant impact in this regard. Attendance at a conference by the
young person should not
necessarily be prohibited, as exposure to the potential consequences of
road traffic offences to
victims may influence future behaviour. It is recommended that a
legislative amendment be
considered that would permit a youth conference order in combination
with a mandatory penalty
in appropriate cases and provided the young person consents. In either
scenario, it is crucial that
the young person is provided with the necessary details to enable an
informed choice as to
whether or not to attend the conference (3.5 Court-Ordered Referrals;
7.5 Return of Court-Ordered
Plans: Court-Ordered Conference Plans).
4) Court-ordered conferences and consent: the established practice and formality of the youth
court meant that there were varying levels of input from Magistrates
when requesting consent to
attend a conference. Although staff from the Youth Conference Service
attend court and meet with
the young person after each referral is made, it would seem more
suitable for the court, either
through the Magistrate or a legal representative, to ensure that in each
case the young person has a
full understanding of the process before accepting consent (3.5 Court-Ordered
Referrals). It is
recommended that this could be facilitated by young people, their
parents or carers and their legal
representatives being fully informed about the youth conference process
in a standardised way by
representatives of the Youth Conference Service outside the court room
prior to being asked if they
give their consent to participating in a conference.
147
Recommendations
103 Section 60, 36J (9) of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002.
148
5) Referrals from care system: A significant proportion of young people referred to a conference
were in the care system, the majority of who were referred by the court.
It is recommended that
unless serious offences have been committed, that steps should be taken
to avoid court
prosecutions of looked after young people.
Preliminary stages of the conference process
6) Time from the offence to the conference: in all cases involving children and young people, it is
important to avoid unnecessary delay. However, distance in time can also
impact on the
conference process by affecting the level of recall by the young person
and / or the victim about
the actual offence. The average length of time from the offence to the
day of the conference was
120 working days. In interview, some victims expressed a concern at the
lapse in time since the
original offence. Although it is difficult to make a specific
recommendation in this respect, it may
be useful to bear in mind and to monitor the impact of this particular
time distance in the further
development of the youth conferencing service (4.3 The Convening of
Conferences; 6.4 Overall
Evaluation of Conferences: Best and worst Aspects of the Conference
Experience).
7) Conference length: the majority of conferences permitted a sufficient amount of time to
deal
with the relevant issues and to engage all participants. However, the
average conference lasted for
one hour and a number of conferences lasted for more than 90 minutes. A
number of participants
felt that this was too long. In observations, young people also appeared
restless toward the end of
proceedings and when agreeing the plan. Therefore, it is recommended to
make more provision for
a break or time out during the conference proceedings (4.3 The Convening
of Conferences; 5.5
Discussing the Crime: Young Person: Engagement; 5.10 The Actual Plan:
Proportionality; 6.4
Overall Evaluation of Conferences: Best and worst Aspects of the
Conference Experience).
8) Conference Venues: the majority of conferences took place in the purpose built Youth
Conference headquarters in Belfast. Occasionally, community venues were
used where this proved
more convenient for participants. However, one young person supporter
was concerned that the
location was too local and an issue of privacy did arise. While
achieving accessibility, it is
recommended that it may be helpful to confirm with all participants that
they are comfortable with
the location of a community venue (4.3 The Convening of Conferences).
9) Observation room: in a few cases, the one-way observation room appeared to cause problems
due to the presence of a mirror. To avoid this occurring, it is
recommended to install a curtain or
blind, which could be drawn over the mirror when the observation room is
not in use (4.3 The
Convening of Conferences).
10) Information on persons attending the conference: in most cases, young people and victims
were well informed about the conference before attending. However, a
very small number of
victims felt they were not informed about who would attend and one
victim felt particularly
uncomfortable due to the presence of a person whom they did not know was
attending. It is
therefore recommended that participants are informed and provided with
up to date information on
the persons who are or even might be present at the conference (4.5 Preparation
for the
Conference: Victim).
11) Informational material: the majority of victims and young people were satisfied with
information provided to prepare them for the conference. It is
recommended that victim
representatives have access to preparation materials, which include a
business or community
perspective and contain guidance on why victim representatives might
attend (4.5 Preparation for
the Conference: Informational Material; 4.6 Non-Participation: Victims).
Recommendations
149
12) Victim non-participation: Although the sample was small, the views from victims who chose
not to participate in the conference process suggest two points to
ensure good practice in these
cases. It is recommended firstly, where the victim requests it, information
should be provided to
them on the progress of the case. Secondly, where the victim makes an
alternative contribution
such as a letter or a statement, it is important to offer information on
how this input was received at
the conference. Every effort should be made to facilitate alternatives
when appropriate (4.6 Non-
Participation: Victims; 4.7 Conclusion).
13) Delays: Where the conference was delayed, most victims (83%) and young people
(80%) were
kept informed, however 17% of victims and 20% of young people were not
told why there was a
delay. It is recommended that when delays occur, all parties are kept
well informed of the causes
and likely starting time.
14) Legal representation: When asked if they were informed of their right to legal advice, the
majority (76%) of young people stated that they were. However 21%
indicated that they were not
and 4% could not remember. It is recommended that the Youth Conference
Service ensure that all
young people are informed of their right to legal advice.
The conference
15) Explaining the conference process: At the opening stages of the conference, it is important for
the co-ordinator to establish the purpose and practicalities of the
process. Results showed that in
the majority of cases this was done well. Furthermore, the use of a flip
chart acted as a useful tool
to assist in explaining this process. It is recommended for continued
training to ensure that visual
aids are used appropriately and that they do not encourage the
development of an overly
standardised or prescribed format to conference proceedings (5.4 Opening
Stages of the
Conference: The Co-ordinator).
16) Confidentiality and Voluntariness: continued training is required to build upon the positive
aspects of the conference, in particular, to ensure a clear explanation
at the start of the conference
of the voluntariness of participation and the confidentiality of
conference proceedings. When
explaining the concept of confidentiality, it is important to state the
circumstances in which
information revealed within the conference might be disclosed to third
parties, for instance,
concerns regarding child protection or information regarding further
offences (5.4 Opening Stages
of the Conference: The Co-ordinator).
17) The facts of the offence: a statement of facts regarding the offence is provided in each
conference by the police officer. In a number of cases the young person
disagreed with the facts as
read. However, participants should be helped to understand that there
can be a difference between
disputing the facts, a process and dialogue which the conference process
might legitimately
facilitate, and disputing the legal elements which make up the offence,
a more serious matter
suggesting that the young person has not accepted responsibility for the
offence (5.5 Discussing the
Crime: Statement of Facts).
18) Involvement when devising the plan: observations showed a minority of only 57 conferences
where one or more participants should have had more say when devising
the conference plan.
However, in two thirds of these cases or 37 conferences this was
identified as the young person. In
some instances therefore it is recommended to facilitate the young
person to have a more
substantial part in determining the actual plan (5.9 Devising Conference
Plans: Involvement).
19) Professional input when devising the plan: observations showed only 24 conferences where it
appeared that one or more participants should have had less say when
devising the plan. In a very
small number of these cases the police officer or co-ordinator was
observed to address the young
person in a scolding tone. It is recommended that this is a practice
issue which could be addressed
through ongoing development and training (5.9 Devising Conference Plans:
Involvement).
Recommendations
150
20) Agreeing the conference plan: conference participants should be aware that the court might
assess a conference plan according to how far it is proportionate to the
offence. However, in a
number of observations, there appeared to be a level of undue pressure
due to a knowledge that
the court would require significant content before it would approve the
plan. Further training is
recommended for co-ordinators to assist in ensuring that external
demands do not overly influence
participants when devising the plan. Indeed, the value of the process
may be undermined if it
appears that the court is directing the plan. (5.10 The Actual Plan:
Agreement).
21) Plan content: though there were features common to many plans, such as an apology to
the
victim and / or an activity to address the causes of offending, each
outcome varied in substance
and length. Results showed that certain programmes or schemes were used
regularly within plans
whilst others appeared more peripheral. As such, mentoring and offence
focused schemes
appeared common whereas anger management, education or training featured
for a minority of all
plans. It is recommended to evaluate further the level of diversity
within plans, given that schemes
such as ‘mentoring’ and ‘offence focused work’ can involve young people
in a wide range of
opportunities, including the establishment of links to education and /
or training (5.10 The Actual
Plan: Plan Content).
22) Regional variation within conference plans: it is important to examine the development and
content of plans to ensure against a substantial difference in plans by
region. This is particularly
important in relation to the inclusion of restrictions, with results
showing 55% of plans from
Fermanagh and Tyrone compared to only 20% of plans from the Greater
Belfast region including
one or more restriction. As such, it recommended to monitor regional
inconsistencies to ensure
against any perception or practice of ‘justice by geography’ in relation
to the content of conference
plans (5.10 The Actual Plan: Plan Content).
Overall evaluation of conferences
23) Co-ordinator skills: results showed that in the vast majority of conferences, co-ordinators
displayed particular skills in their ability to be inclusive and to
treat every participant in a fair and
respectful manner. It is recommended that training continue to build
upon and reinforce this
positive aspect of the conference process (6.5 Overall Evaluation of
Co-ordinator’s Role).
The making of conference plans and orders
24) Return of court-ordered plans: the results showed a geographical inconsistency in relation to
the acceptance and refusal of court-ordered conference plans. While all
conference plans resulted
in a youth conference order following referral from the youth courts in
Fermanagh and Tyrone, over
half of all referrals made by Belfast youth court did not result in an
order. This presents a
considerable variation in outcome by region and is perhaps an issue for
further monitoring. The
practical result is that court-ordered conferences in Belfast are far
less likely to result in acceptance
of the youth conference plan, (7.5 Return of Court-Ordered Plans:
Court-Ordered Conference
Plans).
25) Issuing a conditional discharge in place of a
youth conference plan: the most frequent
order
made by the court following refusal of a youth conference plan was a
conditional discharge104. The
Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 provides that the court should not
offer referral to a youth
conference where it is minded to impose an absolute or conditional
discharge103. It seems that this
is a legislative safeguard to ensure that less serious cases do not
proceed by way of youth
conference. It is recommended that if the court anticipates a
conditional discharge, it would seem
more within the spirit of the legislation not to offer referral to a
youth conference. If following this
practice, there might be a reduction in the number of plans refused on
the grounds that the offence
is not serious enough to warrant a youth conference order (7.5 Return of
Court-Ordered Plans:
Court-Ordered Conference Plans).
Recommendations
104 Section 59, 33 C (5) Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002.
151
26) Amending court-ordered plans: given the high rate of rejection of youth conference plans at
the Belfast youth court, it might be helpful to provide further training
on the possibilities for
amending a youth conference plan. This can facilitate the identification
of suitable cases where it
might be more positive to amend rather than to refuse the youth
conference plan (7.5 Return of
Court-Ordered Plans: Amendment of Youth Conference Plans).
27) The value of youth conference plans: it appeared from court observations that the value of a
youth conference outcome was at times assessed according to the quantity
or level of content
within the plan. Therefore, a conference plan might be rejected on the
grounds that ‘two points’
are insufficient to address a ‘serious’ offence. However, the worth of
any conference plan is a
complex measurement and may rest in the nature of the agreement rather
than the number of
elements appearing within the plan. As such, it may be useful to develop
further training and
educational materials in this regard (7.5 Return of Court-Ordered Plans:
Amendment of Youth
Conference Plans).
Further research
In order to appreciate the impact of youth conferencing on participants
and relevant stakeholders and to assess how it
is received by the youth justice system in Northern Ireland, it is
crucial that its development is carefully monitored.
Although it is not possible at this early stage of implementation to be
aware of all aspects of the service that might
benefit from research, there are certain areas that would be important
for further examination:
28) Post conference perspectives: further research can assist in the development of the youth
conferencing service by exploring the perspectives of young people,
victims, families and other
participants in the period following the actual conference proceedings.
For instance, it may be
important to learn about the perceptions of and impact upon participants
following acceptance or
refusal of the youth conference outcome and issues arising from
fulfilment or breach of the final
conference plan (7.5 Return of Court-Ordered Plans: Amendment of Youth Conference
Plans).
29) Completion and revocation: the results showed a high rate of completion of youth conference
plans and orders. However, given that youth conferencing is in an early
stage of implementation,
this research was unable to investigate this aspect of the service in
detail. It would be useful to
explore further the completion of youth conference outcomes and the
consequences of breach.
Indeed, where youth conference orders are revoked, it will be important
to monitor and establish
any trends in relation to final sentencing outcomes (7.7 Completion and
Revocation of Youth
Conference Plans and Orders).
30) Recidivism: although recidivism should not constitute the sole indicator when
evaluating youth
conferencing schemes, it would be of value for additional and
longitudinal research to assess the
level of reoffending following engagement by young people with the youth
conferencing service
and assess what elements of the process appear to have the most
beneficial results (10.4
Conclusion).
Recommendations
References
Ashworth, A. (2001) Is Restorative Justice The Way Forward For Criminal
Justice?
Current Legal Problems,
54, pp. 347-376.
Barton, C. (2000) Empowerment and Retribution in Criminal Justice. In:
H. Strang, and J.
Braithwaite Eds., Restorative
Justice: Philosophy to Practice. Ashgate:
Dartmouth, pp. 55-76.
Bazemore, G. and Walgrave, L. (1999) Restorative Juvenile Justice: In
Search of Fundamentals and
an Outline for Systemic Reform. In: G. Bazemore and L. Walgrave, Eds., Restorative Juvenile
Justice: Repairing the Harm of Youth Crime. New York: Willow Tree Press, pp. 45-74.
Blagg, H. (1997) A Just Measure of Shame? Aboriginal Youth and
Conferencing in Australia. British
Journal of Criminology,
37 (4), pp. 481-501
Braithwaite, J. (1988) Crime, Shame
and Reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Braithwaite, J. (1999) Restorative Justice: Assessing Optimistic and
Pessimistic Accounts. In: M.
Tonry, Ed., Crime and
Justice: A Review of Research. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, pp. 1-
127.
Braithwaite, J., (2002) Restorative
Justice and Responsive Regulation. Oxford: Oxford
University
Press.
Brown, J. (1994) The Use of Mediation to Resolve Criminal Cases: A
Procedural Critique. Emory
Law Journal,
43, pp. 1247-1273.
Cavadino M. and Dignan, J. (1997) Reparation, Retribution and Rights. International Review of
Victimology,
4, pp. 233-253.
Christie, N. (1977) Conflicts as Property. British Journal of Criminology,
17(1), pp. 1-15.
Clairmont, D. (2005), Penetrating the walls: implementing a system-wide
restorative justice
approach in the justice system. In: E. Elliott and R.M. Gordon Eds. New Directions in Restorative
Justice: Issues, practice and evaluation. Devon: Willan Publishing, pp. 245-265.
Cohen, S. (1985) Visions of
Social Control: Crime, Punishment and Classification. Cambridge:
Polity.
Crawford, A. and Newburn, T. (2002) Recent Developments in Restorative
Justice for Young People
in England and Wales: Community Participation and Representation British Journal of Criminology,
42(3), pp. 476-495.
Crawford, A. and Newburn, T.(2003) Youth Offending and Restorative Justice: Implementing Reform
in Youth Justice.
Cullompton: Willan.
Criminal Justice Review Group (1998) Review of the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland: A
Consultation Paper.
Belfast: HMSO.
Criminal Justice Review Group (2000) Review of the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland..
Belfast: HMSO.
Cuneen, C. (2003) Thinking Critically about Restorative Justice In: E.
McLaughlin, R. Fergusson et
al. Eds., Restorative Justice:
Critical Issues. London: Sage, pp182-195.
Daly, K. (2000) Revisiting the Relationship between Retributive and
Restorative Justice. In: H.
Strang, and J. Braithwaite Eds., Restorative Justice: Philosophy to Practice.
Ashgate: Dartmouth, pp.
33-54.
Daly, K. (2002) Restorative Justice: The Real Story. Punishment and Society,
4(1), pp. 55-79.
References
155
Daly, K. (2003) Mind the Gap: Restorative Justice in Theory and
Practice. In: A. Von Hirsch, J.
Roberts et al Eds., Restorative
Justice and Criminal Justice: Competing or Reconcilable Paradigms.
Oxford: Hart, pp. 219 -236
Daly, K. (2005) A tale of two studies: restorative justice from a
victim’s perspective. In: E. Elliott and
R.M. Gordon Eds. New Directions
in Restorative Justice: Issues, practice and evaluation. Devon:
Willan Publishing, pp.153-174.
Dignan, J. (2005) Understanding
victims and restorative justice, Berkshire:
Open University Press.
Dignan, J., and Lowey, K. (2000) Restorative Justice Options for Northern Ireland: a Comparative
Review. Belfast: HMSO.
Doak, J., (2005) 'Victims' rights in Criminal Trials: Prospects for
Participation' In: Journal of Law
and Society 32(2),
pp. 294-316.
Gray, P. March, 21 2005.The Politics of Risk and Young Offenders’
Experiences of Social Exclusion
and Restorative Justice, British Journal of Criminology. Advanced Access
first published on 21
March 2005, Doi:10.1093/bjc/azi018.
Haines, K. and O’Mahony, D. (forthcoming 2006), Restorative Approaches, Young People and Youth
Justice.
Hayes, H. (2005) Assessing Re-offending in Restorative Justice
Conferencing, The Australian and
New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 38 (1), pp. 77-101.
Hayes, H. and Daly, K. (2003) Youth Justice Conferencing and
Re-offending. Justice Quarterly,
20(4), pp. 725-764.
Hayes, H. and Daly, K. (2004) Conferencing and Re-offending in
Queensland, The Australian and
New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 37 (2), pp. 167-191.
HMSO (1999) The Referral Order Draft Circular Version 3. Available:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ERO/records/ho415/1/yousys/dgcourt.htm
[23 January 2006]
HMSO (2002) The Victim's
Charter: A Statement of Service Standards for Victims of Crime. London:
HMSO
Home Office (1997) No More Excuses: A New Approach to Tacking Youth
Crime in England and
Wales. Available:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/jou-no-more-excuses?view=Html
[23 January 2006].
Home Office (2000) The Referral Order: Guidance to Youth Offending
Teams. Available:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ERO/records/ho415/1/yousys/dgyot.htm
[23 January 2006]
Home Office (2002) The Referral Order and Youth Offender Panels:
Guidance for Courts, Youth
Offending Teams and Youth Offender Panels. Available:
http://www.youth-justiceboard.
gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/7A25AD98-8515-427F-8976-
A6625789B54C/0/referral_orders_and_YOPs.pdf [23 January 2006]
Hough, M. and Mayhew, P. (1985) Taking Account of Crime: Key Findings from the Second British
Crime Survey Home
Office Research Study No. 85, London: HMSO
Hoyle, C., (2002) Restorative Justice and the ‘Non-Participating’
Victim. In: C. Hoyle and R. Young,
Eds., New Visions of Crime
Victims. Oxford: Hart.
156
References
Hoyle, C., Young, R. and Hill, R. (2002) Proceed with Caution: An Evaluation of the Thames Valley
Police Initiative in Restorative Cautioning. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation
Hudson, B. (2003) Victims and Offenders In: A. Von Hirsch, J. Roberts,
et al. Eds., Restorative
Justice and Criminal Justice: Competing or
Reconcilable Paradigms. Oxford: Hart, pp.
177-195
Johnstone, G. (2001) Restorative
Justice: Ideas, Values, Debates. Devon: Willan.
Karp, D.K. (2002) The Offender/Community Encounter: Stakeholder
Involvement in the Vermont
Reparative Boards. In: D. K. Karp and T. Clear Eds. What is Community Justice: Case Studies of
Restorative Justice and Community Supervision. California: Sage, pp 61-86.
Karp, D.R. (2004) Birds of a Feather: A Response to the McCold Critique
of Community Justice.
Contemporary Justice Review, 7 (1), pp. 59-67.
Karp, D.R., Sweet, M., Kirshenbaum, A. and Bazemore, G. (2004) Reluctant
Participant’s in
Restorative Justice? Youthful Offenders and Their Parents, Contemporary Justice Review, 7 (2), pp.
199-216.
Kurki, L. (2002) Evaluating Restorative Justice Practices. In: A. Von
Hirsch, J. Roberts, et al. Eds.,
Restorative Justice and Criminal Justice: Competing or
Reconcilable Paradigms. Oxford: Hart, pp.
293 -314
Latimer, J., Dowden, C., and Muise, D., (2005) The Effectiveness of
Restorative Justice Practices: A
Meta-Analysis, The Prison
Journal, 85 (2) 127-144.
Lawson, C.L. and Katz, J. (2004) Restorative justice: an alternative
approach to juvenile crime,
Journal of Socio-Economics,
33, pp. 175-188.
Levrant, S., Cullen, F., Fulton, B. and Wozniak, J. (2003) Reconsidering
Restorative Justice: The
Corruption of Benevolence Revisited? In: G. Johnstone, Ed., A Restorative Justice Reader.
Cullompton: Willan, pp. 417-425.
Luke, G and Lind, B. (2002) Reducing Juvenile Crime: Conferencing versus
Court. Available:
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB69.pdf/$file/CJB69.pdf
[23 January 2006].
Lyness, D., Campbell, P., and Jamison, C. (2005) A Commentary on Northern Ireland Crime
Statistics 2004,
Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency.
Marshall, T. (1999) Restorative
Justice: An Overview. London: Home Office
Research Development
and Statistics Directorate
Maxwell, G. and Morris, A. (2002) Restorative Justice and Reconviction. Contemporary Justice
Review, 5(2), pp. 133-146.
Maxwell, G., and Morris, A. (1993) Family, Victims and Culture: Youth Justice in New Zealand.
Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington.
Maxwell, G.M. (2005) Achieving effective outcomes in youth justice:
implications of new research
for principles policy and practice. In: E. Elliott and R.M. Gordon Eds. New Directions in Restorative
Justice: Issues, practice and evaluation. Devon: Willan Publishing, pp.53-74.
Maxwell, G.M., Kingi, V., Robertson, J., Morris, A. and Cunningham, C.
(2004) Achieving Effective
Outcomes: Youth Justice in New Zealand. Wellington: Ministry of Social Development.
<http://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/publications/csre/achieving-effective-outcomes-youth-justicefull-
report.pdf>
References
157
McCold, P. (1996) Restorative Justice and the Role of Community In: B.
Galaway and J. Hudson,
Eds., Restorative Justice:
International Perspectives Kugler: Amsterdam, pp.
85-101
McCold, P. (2000) Towards a Mid-range Theory of Restorative Criminal
Justice: A Reply to the
Maximalist Model. Contemporary
Justice Review, 3(4), pp. 357-414. McCold, P. and
Watchel, B.
(1998) Restorative Policing
Experiment: The Bethlehem Pennsylvania Police Family Group
Conferencing Project.
Pipersville: Community Service Foundation
McCold, P. (2004) Paradigm Muddle: The Threat to Restorative Justice
Posed by its Merger with
Community Justice. Contemporary
Justice Review, 7 (1), pp. 13-35.
McCold, P. and Watchel, B. (1998a) Community is not a Place: A New Look
at Community Justice
Initiatives. Contemporary
Justice Review. 1(1): p 71
McEvoy, K. and Mika, H. (2002) Restorative Justice and the Critique of
Informalism in Northern
Ireland. British Journal of
Criminology, 42(3), pp. 534-562.
McEvoy, K., Mika, H. and Hudson, B. (2002) Practice, Performance and Prospects for Restorative
Justice. British Journal of Criminology, 42(3), pp.469-475
Miers, D. (2001) An
International Review of Restorative Justice.
London: HMSO
Miers, D. (2004) Situating and Researching Restorative Justice in Great
Britain. Punishment and
Society, 6, pp. 23-46.
Moore, D. and Forsythe, L. (1995) A New Approach to Juvenile Justice: An Evaluation of Family
Conferencing in Wagga Wagga. Available: http://www.aic.gov.au/crc/reports/moore/ [August 30th,
2004]
Morris, A. (2002) Critiquing the Critics: A Brief Response to Critics of
Restorative Justice. British
Journal of Criminology,
42(3), pp. 596-615.
Morris, A. and Maxwell G. (1998) Restorative Justice in New Zealand:
Family Group Conferences
as a Case Study. Western
Criminology Review 1 (1) Available:
http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v1n1/morris.html [August 30th, 2004]
Morris, A. and Young, W. (2000) Reforming Criminal Justice: The
Potential of Restorative Justice In:
H. Strang, and J. Braithwaite Ed, Restorative Justice: Philosophy to Practice.
Ashgate: Dartmouth,
pp. 11-33.
Morris, A., Maxwell, G., and Robertson, J. (1993) Giving Victims a
Voice: A New Zealand
Experiment. Howard Journal
of Criminal Justice, 32(4), pp. 304-321.
Muncie, J. (2005), The globalization of crime control – the case of youth
and juvenile justice: Neoliberalism,
policy convergence and international conventions, Theoretical Criminology,
9 (1), pp.
35-64.
Newburn, T., Crawford, A., Earle, R., Goldie, S., Hale, C., Hallam, A.,
Guy Masters, G., Netten, A.,
Saunders, R., Sharpe, K., and Uglow, S. (2002) The Introduction of Referral Orders into the Youth
Justice System: Final Report. London: HMSO.
Newburn, T., Crawford, A., Earle, R., Goldie, S., Hale, C., Masters, G.,
Netten, A., Saunders, R.,
Sharpe, K. and Uglow, S. (2001) The Introduction of Referral Orders into the Youth Justice System.
HMSO: London
Northern Ireland Office (2003) Criminal Justice Review Implementation Plan (Updated June 2003)
HMSO: Belfast
References
158
Northern Ireland Office (2004) Victims’ and Witnesses’ Views on Their Treatment in the Criminal
Justice System.
NISRA: Belfast.
O'Mahony, D., Chapman, T. and Doak, J. (2002) Restorative Cautioning: A Study of Police Based
Restorative Cautioning Pilots in Northern Ireland. NISRA: Belfast
Pavlich, G. (2005) Governing
Paradoxes of Restorative Justice. London:
Glasshouse Press.
Polk, K. (1994) Family Conferencing: Theoretical and Evaluative Concerns
In: C. Alder and J.
Wundersitz, Eds., Family
Conferencing and Juvenile Justice: The Way Forward or Misplaced
Optimism? Canberra:
Australian Institute of Criminology, pp. 123-140.
Reeves, H. and Mulley, K. (2000) The New Status of Victims in the United
Kingdom: Opportunities
and Threats. In: A. Crawford and J. Goodey Ed, Integrating a Victim Perspective within Criminal
Justice. Ashgate:
Aldershot.
Retzinger, S. and Scheff, T. (1996) Strategy for Community Conferences:
Emotions and Social Bonds
In: B. Galaway and J. Hudson, Eds., Restorative Justice: International Perspectives Kugler:
Amsterdam, pp. 315-336
Roche, D. (2001) The Evolving Definition of Restorative Justice. Contemporary Justice Review¸ 4(3-
4), pp. 341-353
Roche, D. (2002) Restorative Justice and the Regulatory State in South
African Townships. British
Journal of Criminology,
42(3), pp. 514-533.
Roche, D. (2003) Accountability
in Restorative Justice. Oxford: Oxford
University Press
Rutherford, A. (1992) Growing out of
Crime: The New Era. Waterside Press:
London
Sanders, A., Hoyle, C., Morgan, R. and Cape, E. (2001) Victim Impact
Statements: Can’t Work,
Won’t Work, Criminal Law
Review, p447
Shapland, J., Willmore, J, and Duff, P. (1985) Victims in the Criminal Justice System. Aldershot:
Gower.
Sherman, L., Strang, H., Barnes, J., Braithwaite, J., Inkpen, N. and
Teh, M. (1998) Experiments in
restorative policing: a progress report on the Canberra Reintegrative
Shaming Experiments (RISE)
Available: http://www.aic.gov.au/rjustice/rise/progress/1998.html [23
January 2006]
Strang, H. (2001) Restorative
Justice Programs in Australia: A Report to the Criminology Research
Council. Available:
http://www.aic.gov.au/crc/reports/strang/ [August 8th, 2004]
Strang, H. (2002) Repair or
Revenge: Victims and Restorative Justice.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Strang, H. and Braithwaite, J. (2001) Restorative Justice and Civil Society Cambridge
University
Press
Trimboli, L. (2000) An Evaluation
of the NSW Youth Justice Conferencing Scheme Sydney:
NSW
Bureau of Crime Statistics & Research
Turner, S. (2002) Young People’s
Experience of the Young Offenders Act.
New South Wales: Youth
Justice Coalition
Tyler, T. (1990) Why People Obey
the Law. London: Yale University Press
Umbreit, M.S., Coates, R.B. and Vos, B. (2004) Restorative Justice
versus Community Justice:
Clarifying a Muddle or Generating Confusion? Contemporary Justice Review, 7 (1), pp.
81-89.
References
159
Unied Nations Economic and Social Council (2000) Basic principles on the
use of restorative
justice programmes in criminal matters ECOSOC Res. 2000/14, UN Doc
E/2000/INF/2/Add.2 at 35.
Available:
http://www.un.org/documents/ecosoc/dec/2000/edec2000-inf2-add2.pdf
[23 January 2006]
Van Ness, D. and Strong, K. (1997) Restoring Justice. Cincinnati: Anderson
Vanfraechem, I. (2005) Evaluating conferencing for serious juvenile
offenders. In: E. Elliott and R.M.
Gordon Eds. New Directions
in Restorative Justice: Issues, practice and evaluation. Devon: Willan
Publishing, pp. 278-295.
Vanfraechem, I. and Walgrave, L. (2004) Restorative Conferencing in
Belgium: Can it Decrease the
Confinement of Young Offenders? December 2004, Corrections Today,
pp. 72-75.
Victim Support (2003) Policy on Restorative Justice. Available:
http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/Resources/pdf/Vic_Supp_on%20RJ_in_CJOct03.pdf
[23 January 2006].
Victim Support (2003a) Restorative Justice: the Government’s Strategy
July 2003 Response by Victim
Support. Available:
http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/Resources/pdf/Victim_Support.pdf
[23 January 2006].
Von Hirsch, A. (2000) Proportionate Sentences: A Desert Perspective. In:
A. Von Hirsch and A.
Ashworth, Eds., Principled
Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy.
2nd ed. Oxford: Hart, pp.
168-180.
Von Hirsch, A. and Ashworth, A. (2000) Principled Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy. 2nd
ed. Oxford: Hart
Walgrave, L. (2000) Extending the Victim Perspective towards a
Systematic Restorative Alternative.
In: A. Crawford and J. Goodey, Eds., Integrating a Victim Perspective within Criminal Justice:
International Debates.
Aldershot: Ashgate, pp253-285
Warner, K. (1994) Family Group Conferences and the Rights of Offenders.
In: C. Alder and J.
Wundersitz, Eds., Family
Conferencing and Juvenile Justice: The Way Forward or Misplaced
Optimism? Canberra:
Australian Institute of Criminology, pp. 141-152.
Wemmers, J. and Cyr, K. (2004) Victims’ Perspectives on Restorative
Justice: How Much
Involvement Are Victims Looking For? International Review of Victimology,
11, pp. 259-274.
Wilcox, A., Young, R. and Hoyle, C. (2004) An evaluation of the impact of restorative cautioning:
findings from a reconviction study, Home Office Research Findings 255, London: HMSO.
Young, R. (2001) Just Cops Doing ‘Shameful’ Business? Police-led
Restorative Justice and the
Lessons of the Research In: A. Morris and G. Maxwell, Eds., Restorative Justice for Juveniles:
Conferencing, Mediation and Circles. Oxford: Hart, pp. 195-227.
Zauberman, R. (2000) Victims as Consumers of the Criminal Justice
System? In: A. Crawford and J.
Goodey, Eds., Integrating a
Victim Perspective within Criminal Justice: International Debates.
Aldershot: Ashgate
Zehr, H. (1990) Changing Lenses. Pennsylvania: Herald Press
Zehr, H. (2005) Evaluation and restorative justice principles. In: E.
Elliott and R.M. Gordon Eds.
New Directions in Restorative Justice: Issues,
practice and evaluation. Devon: Willan
Publishing,
pp. 296-303.
Zigenhagen, E. (1977) Victims, Crime
and Social Control, New York: Praeger
Publishers
References
160
Appendices
Appendix
1: Young Person Interview Schedule
Appendix
2: Young Person Abridged Interview Schedule
Appendix
3: Victim Interview Schedule
Appendix
4: Non-participating Young Person Interview Schedule
Appendix
5: Non-participating Victim Interview Schedule
Appendix
6: Offence Research Scale
163
Appendix
1
Appendix
1: Young Person Interview Schedule
Date & Time of Interview: -
Reference: -
Interviewer:-
SECTION 1: PERSONAL INFORMATION (from database)
Gender M / F Age ( )
Religion
_______________________________________________
Ethnic Origin
_______________________________________________
Postcode of residence ________________________________________
Living arrangements ( ) With parent/step parent
( ) With other relative
( ) On your own
( ) In care
( ) In penal institution
( ) Other ____________________
Schooling/Employment ( ) Attending school
( ) In employment
( ) Unemployed
( ) Other _____________________
Nature of Crime
____________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Type of Crime (research scale)
_________________________________
Date of crime
______________________________________________
Diversionary or Court- Ordered Conference?
_____________________
Previous involvement in criminal justice system?
Yes/No
If yes, brief
details ____________________________________________
164
SECTION 2: PREPARATION FOR CONFERENCE
2.1 When did you first hear about the option of a
conference? - From who?
2.2 Did a coordinator come out to see you after that? Yes/No
2.3 How helpful was that? very good good ok bad very bad
2.4 Did you get any advice from a solicitor about
today? Yes/No
2.5 Were you told you had a right to legal advice? Yes/No
If yes, by who? ______________________________________
___________________________________________________
Before today:-
2.6 Were you told what the conference would be like?
a lot a bit no
2.7 Were you told who would be there?
a lot a bit no
2.8 Were you told what was expected of you during the
conference?
a lot a bit no
2.9 Were you told what the result could be?
a lot a bit no
2.10 Were you told what would happen if you didn't
attend? Yes/No
2.11 Did you have any questions about what would
happen? Yes/No
IF YES:-
2.11.1 How well were they answered?
very well well ok badly very badly
Appendix
1
165
2.12 Were you given any leaflets, CDs or DVD's about
the conference? - what?
( ) leaflets ( ) dvd ( ) video
( ) other _____________ ( ) No ( ) Can't remember
2.13 IF YES, did you read/watch them? Yes/No
IF NO:- why not?
IF YES:- how good were they? very good good ok bad very bad
2.14 Is there any other information that would have
been helpful? Yes/No
If yes ___________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
2.15 How keen were you to take part in today's
conference?
keen neither keen/unkeen didn't want to
Why? __________________________________________
_______________________________________________
2.16 Was taking part something you wanted to do or
something someone else made you feel you should do?
all me mostly me both mostly pressure all pressure
If pressure, from who? ________________________________
I now want to read you some reasons why people might
take part in these conferences. As I read each one, can
you tell me if it was one of your reasons for coming
today
2.17 I wanted to hear what the victim had to say
yes sort of no
2.18 I wanted to help the victim
yes sort of no
2.19 I wanted to make up for what I had done
yes sort of no
2.20 I wanted people to hear what I had to say
yes sort of no
Appendix
1
166
2.21 I wanted the victim to forgive me
yes sort of no
2.22 If diversionary, I didn't want to have to go to
court
yes sort of no
2.23 I thought my punishment would be easier than if I
went to court/was sentenced by the court
yes sort of no
2.24 Any other reasons?
SECTION 3: COMING TO THE CONFERENCE
3.1 How nervous did you feel about:
a. Coming to the conference today?
very a bit not at all
b. Having to speak at the conference?
very a bit not at all
c. Meeting the victim/hearing what they had to say?
(if more than one victim, record
separate answers for each)
very a bit not at all
3.2 Did you know the victim before the crime? (if more
than one victim, record separate answers for each)
Yes/No
If yes, how?
________________________________________
__________________________________________________
3.3 Did you have any problems getting here today? Yes/No
( ) transport ( ) finding the venue
( ) cost ( ) time off school/work/training
( ) childcare etc. ( ) other
Details
________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
Appendix
1
167
3.4 If conference started late, were you told why? Yes/No
What reason? ___________________________________
________________________________________________
SECTION 4: THE CONFERENCE ITSELF
The start of the conference
4.1 How well did the co-ordinator explain what was
going to happen during the conference?
very well well ok badly very badly
4.2 Was there anything you didn't really understand? Yes/No
If yes, details
_____________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
4.3 I see you had ___________________ with you today -
How helpful was it having them with you?
very helpful a bit helpful not helpful
Explain ____________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
4.4 Would you have liked to have anyone else with you
as well? Yes/No
If yes, who?
________________________________
Your treatment during the conference
I'm now going to ask you some questions about how you
felt you were treated during the conference
4.5 Do you think you were treated fairly by :
the coordinator? Yes sort of No
if present, the victim ? Yes sort of No
(if more than one victim, record separate answers for
each)
if present, the victim's supporter(s)? Yes sort of No
the police officer? Yes sort of No
4.6 Was there anyone who treated you badly? Yes sort of No
If yes, who & how
____________________________
Appendix
1
168
4.7 If victim involved, do you think you were treated
as well as the victim was?
yes sort of no No victim present
4.8 Do you think people listened to what you had to
say?
yes sort of no
4.9 Was there anything you wanted to say that you
didn't? Yes/No
If yes:-
4.9.1. what _____________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
4.9.2 why didn't you say it ________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
4.10 Is there anyone you think should have said more
during the conference?
4.11 Is there anyone you think should have said less
during the conference?
The Victim (IF NO VICTIM (REP) INVOLVED, GO TO SECTION
5)
I'm now going to ask you a few questions about the
victim (if more than one victim, record separate answers for
each)
4.12 How did you feel when you saw the victim at the
conference today?
( ) angry ( ) embarrassed
( ) nervous ( ) guilty/ashamed
( ) felt nothing ( ) other _______________________
4.13 Had your opinion of the victim changed by the
end?
Yes No Don't know
expand __________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
Appendix
1
169
4.14 Did you understand how the victim felt?
yes sort of no
4.15 Did what they said make you feel sorry for what
you had done?
yes sort of no
4.16 Did young person apologise to the victim during
the conference? (if more than one victim,
record separate answers for each) Yes/No
IF NO:- why not?
IF YES:- (complete whether or not V present if apology
offered/agreed to)
4.17 whose idea was this?
( ) your own
( ) your supporter
( ) the victim
( ) victim supporter
( ) the police officer
( ) the coordinator
( ) other ________________________________
4.18 Did you apologise more because you wanted to or
because you felt you had to?
wanted to had to bit of both
4.19 Do you think your apology made the victim feel
better?
yes sort of no
4.20 Did apologising make you feel better?
yes sort of no
SECTION 5: THE ACTION PLAN
A. IF NO ACTION PLAN AGREED:
5.1 I see no plan was agreed today; why do you think
that was?
Move to section 6
Appendix
1
170
B. IF ACTION PLAN AGREED:
I now want to ask you a few questions about the action
plan that was decided.
5.2 Can you remember what the action plan says you
have to do?
5.3 Were you happy to agree to the plan or did you
feel you had to?
happy to agree bit of both had to agree
If had to, who made you feel this way? _______________________________
5.4 Do you think the plan is fair to you?
very fair fair neither fair/unfair unfair very unfair
5.5 Do the think the plan is fair to the victim? (if
more than one victim, record separate answers for each)
very fair fair neither fair/unfair unfair very unfair
5.6 Do you think the plan is too hard or too soft,
given what you've done?
Far too hard a bit hard neither too hard/too soft a bit soft far too
soft
5.7 Is there anything you really don't like in the
plan? Yes/No
If yes, expand
_____________________________________
_________________________________________________
5.8 Do you think you'll be able to complete all of the
plan?
definitely I think so not sure don't think so no
5.9 What bit do you think will be hardest for you?
5.10 Who do you think had most say in what went in the
plan?
5.11 Would you have liked more say in what went in the
plan?
a lot a bit no
5.12 Would you rather have gone to court/been
sentenced by the court than come to the conference?
yes no don't know
Why?___________________________________________
Appendix
1
171
5.13 Do you think a court sentence would have been
better or worse?
much better better same worse much worse
SECTION 6: IMPACT OF THE CONFERENCE
You'll be glad to hear we're near the end now - just a
few more questions.
6.1 Having finished the conference, how do you feel?
6.2 Do you feel better or worse than before the
conference?
much better better same worse much worse
6.3 Why do you think they had this conference? (give
options)
( ) to punish you ( ) to help you
( ) to help the victim ( ) to help you and the victim
( ) other ___________________________
6.4 Did the conference make you realise the harm you
caused?
yes sort of no
6.5 Do you think the action plan will help you stay
out of trouble in the future?
yes sort of no
6.6 Do you think taking part in the conference will
help you stay out of trouble in the future?
yes sort of no
6.7 Overall, what was the best thing about the conference?
6.8 Overall, what was the worst thing about the
conference?
6.9 Overall, how satisfied are you with the outcome of
the conference?
Very satisfied satisfied neither satisfied/unsatisfied unsatisfied very
unsatisfied
Appendix
1
172
6.15 Having taken part in the conference today, what
would you tell another young person in your position who
couldn't decide whether or not to come to a
conference?
Any other questions or comments?
Appendix
1
173
Appendix
2: Young Person Abridged Interview Schedule
Date & Time of Interview: -
Reference: -
Interviewer:-
SECTION 1: PERSONAL INFORMATION (from database)
Gender M / F Age ( )
Religion
_______________________________________________
Ethnic Origin
_______________________________________________
Postcode of residence
________________________________________
Living arrangements ( ) With parent/step parent
( ) With other relative
( ) On your own
( ) In care
( ) In penal institution
( ) Other ____________________
Schooling/Employment ( ) Attending school
( ) In employment
( ) Unemployed
( ) Other _____________________
Nature of Crime
____________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Type of Crime (research scale)
_________________________________
Date of crime
______________________________________________
Diversionary or Court- Ordered Conference?
_____________________
Previous involvement in criminal justice system?
Yes/No
If yes, brief details
____________________________________________
Appendix
2
174
PRE-CONFERENCE
Did the co-ordinator come and see you before today's
conference? Yes/No
How good was that?
Very good Good OK Bad Very Bad
Did you get any advice from a solicitor about today? Yes/No
Were you told you could speak to a solicitor? Yes/No
How keen were you to come today?
Keen Didn't really care Didn't want to
Why?__________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Did anyone make you feel you had to come - or did you
want to come?
All me Mostly me Both Mostly pressure All pressure
If pressure, from who? ________________________________
Why did you decide to come? (prompt - help victim;
easier than court; say sorry?)
How nervous did you feel about coming here today?
Very a bit not at all
If nervous, what were you nervous about? (prompt -
speaking; meeting victim?)
THE CONFERENCE
How well did the co-ordinator explain what would
happen during the conference?
very well well ok badly very badly
Was there anything you didn't really understand? Yes/No
If yes, details
______________________________________
_________________________________________________
Appendix
2
I see you have ______________ with you today - how
helpful was it having them with you?
very helpful a bit helpful not helpful
Would you have liked to have anyone else with you as well? Yes/No
If yes, who?
________________________________
Do you think people treated you well during the
conference?
Yes sort of No
Was there anyone who treated you badly?
Yes Sort of No
If yes, who & how
____________________________
____________________________________________
APOLOGY
Did what the victim said make you feel sorry for what
you had done?
Yes sort of No Don't know
If apology, Did you say sorry because you wanted to or
because you felt you had to?
wanted to had to bit of both
Did saying sorry make you feel better?
Yes sort of No
ACTION PLAN
Can you tell me what the action plan says you have to
do?
Were you happy to agree to the plan or did you feel
you had to?
Happy to agree Bit of both Had to agree
If had to, who made you feel this way? _____________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
Do you think the plan is fair?
Very fair fair neither fair/unfair unfair very unfair
175
Appendix
2
176
Do you think the plan is too soft or too hard on you?
far too hard a bit hard neither too hard/too soft a bit soft far too
soft
Do you think you'll be able to do everything in the
plan?
Definitely I think so Not sure/Don't think so No
What bit do you think will be hardest for you?
Who do you think had most say in what went in the
plan?
Would you have liked any more say in what went the
plan?
a lot a bit no
Would you rather have gone to court/been sentenced by
the court than come to the conference?
yes no don’t know
Do you think a court sentence would have been better
or worse?
much better better same worse much worse
POST CONFERENCE
How do you feel now its over? (prompt)
Do you feel better or worse than before?
much better better same worse much worse
Why do you think they had this conference?
( ) to punish you ( ) to help you
( ) to help the victim ( ) to help you and the victim
( ) other ___________________________
Do you think the action plan will help you stay out of
trouble in the future?
Yes sort of No
Overall, what was the best thing about the conference?
Overall, what was the worst thing about the
conference?
Appendix
2
177
How satisfied are you with the outcome of the
conference?
Would you tell a friend to do one? - Why?
Appendix
2
178
Appendix
3: Victim Interview Schedule
Date & Time of Interview:-
Reference:-
Interviewer:-
SECTION 1: PERSONAL INFORMATION (from database)
Gender M / F (P) Age ( )
Diversionary or Court-Ordered Conference? ______________________
Nature of Crime: ( ) personal - direct contact with young person
( ) personal - no contact with young person
( ) against a business you own
( ) against a business/organisation you work for
( ) other _______________________
Specifics of crime:
______________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
Date of crime: ______________________________________
Is the victim: ( ) sole victim of crime
( ) one of several victims
( ) victim representative (not actual victim)
( ) other
Appendix
3
179
SECTION 2: PREPARATION FOR CONFERENCE
2.1 Who first told you about the option of a
conference? – how?
2.2 When was that?
2.3 Did anyone get in touch after that to tell you
more about the conference? Yes/No
IF YES:-
2.3.1 Who? _____________________________
2.3.2 How?
( ) in person ( ) by telephone ( ) by letter
2.3.2 How helpful was this?
very good good ok bad very bad
2.4 How long ago were you given the date of today's
conference?
2.5 Did this give you enough time to prepare? Yes/No
2.6 Did you get any advice from a solicitor about
today? Yes/No
Before today:-
2.7 Were you told what the conference would be like?
a lot a bit no
2.8 Were you told who would be there?
a lot a bit no
2.9 Were you told what was expected of you during the
conference?
a lot a bit no
2.10 Were you told what the outcome could be?
a lot a bit no
2.11 Were you told about other options if you didn't want
to attend? Yes/No
(Live link, video, letter etc)
What?
__________________________________________________
Appendix
3
180
2.12 Did you have any questions about what would
happen? Yes/No
If yes, how well were they answered?
very well well ok badly very badly
2.13 Were you given any leaflets, CDs or videos about
the conference?
( ) leaflets ( ) dvd/cd-rom ( ) video
( ) other _____________ ( ) No ( ) Can't remember
2.14 IF YES, did you read/watch them? Yes/No
IF NO:- why not?
IF YES:- how good were they?
very good good ok bad very bad
2.15 Is there any other information that would have
been helpful? Yes//No
If yes ____________________________________________
_________________________________________________
2.16 How keen were you to take part in today's
conference?
Keen Neither keen/unkeen Didn't want to
Why? ________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
2.17 Was taking part something you wanted to do or
something you felt pressured into doing?
All me Mostly me Both Mostly pressure All pressure
If pressure, from who? ________________________________
2.18 What were your expectations in coming to today’s
conference?
I now want to read you some reasons why people might
decide to take part in these conferences. As I read each
one, can you tell me if it was one of your reasons for
coming today
2.19 I wanted to help the young person
yes sort of no
Appendix
3
181
2.20 I was curious to find out what the young person
was like
yes sort of no
2.21 I wanted to hear what the young person had to say
yes sort of no
2.22 (P) I wanted to find out why they victimised me
yes sort of no
2.23 I wanted the young person to know how their
actions affected me/us
yes sort of no
2.24 I wanted to hear the young person apologise
yes sort of no
2.25 (P) I thought it would help me move on
yes sort of no
2.26 Any other reasons why you decided to take part in
the conference?
SECTION 3: COMING TO THE CONFERENCE
Record: In person or Video link? ________________________________
3.1 How nervous did you feel about:
(a) coming to the conference today?
Very a bit not at all
(b) having to speak at the conference?
Very a bit not at all
(c) meeting the young person/hearing what they had to
say?
Very a bit not at all
3.2 Did you know the young person before the offence? Yes/No
If yes, how?
________________________________________
3.3 Did you have any problems getting here today? Yes/No
( ) transport ( ) finding the venue
( ) cost ( ) time off school/work/training
( ) childcare ( ) other __________________
Appendix
3
182
details: _____________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
3.4 If conference started late, were you told why Yes/No
What reason? _____________________________________
_________________________________________________
SECTION 4: THE CONFERENCE ITSELF
The start of the conference
4.1 How well did the co-ordinator explain what would
happen?
very well well ok badly very badly
4.2 Was there anything you didn't really understand? Yes/No
If yes, details _____________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
4.3 Did you have a supporter with you today? Yes/No
If supporter present:-
4.4 Who?
______________________________________________
4.5 how helpful was it having them with you?
very a bit not at all
Explain ____________________________________________
4.6 Would you have liked to have anyone else with you
as well? Yes/No
If yes, who? ____________________________________________
4.7 Would you have preferred to come on your own? Yes/No
If no supporter present:
4.8 Would you have liked to have anyone with you
today? Yes/No
If yes, who?
_____________________________________________
4.9 Why did you decide to come alone?
Appendix
3
183
Your treatment during the conference
I'm now going to ask you some questions about how you
felt you were treated during the conference.
4.11 Do you think you were treated fairly by :
the coordinator? yes sort of no
the young person? yes sort of no
the young person’s supporter(s)? yes sort of no
4.12 Was there anyone who treated you badly?
Yes sort of No
If so, who & how _____________________________
____________________________________________
4.13 (P) Do you feel your needs, as a victim, were
properly addressed?
Yes sort of No
4.14 Did you get a chance to tell the young person how
their crime impacted upon you/the business
Yes sort of No
4.15 Do you feel the young person listened to you?
Yes sort of No
4.16 Do you think the young person accepted
responsibility for their crime?
Yes sort of No
4.17 Was there anything you wanted to say that you
didn't get the chance to? Yes/No
IF YES:-
4.17.1. what
________________________________________________
4.17.2 why didn't you say it
___________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
4.18 Is there anyone you think should have said more
during the conference?
4.19 Is there anyone you think should have said less
during the conference?
Appendix
3
184
The young person
I'm now going to ask you a few questions about the
young person
4.20 How did you feel when you saw the young person at
the conference today?
4.21 Had your opinion of them changed by the end?
Yes No Don’t know
expand __________________________________________
_________________________________________________
4.22 Were you satisfied with the young person’s
contribution to the conference?
yes sort of no
4.23 Were you upset by anything they said?
yes sort of no
4.24 Did the conference help you understand why they
committed the crime?
yes sort of no
4.25 Did the young person apologise to you during the
conference? Yes/No
IF NO:- why do you think they didn't?
IF YES:-
4.26 whose idea did that seem to be?
( ) the young persons ( ) young person supporter
( ) yours ( ) your supporter
( ) the police officer ( ) the coordinator
( ) other ________________________________
4.27 Do you think they apologised more because they
wanted to or because they felt they had to?
wanted to had to bit of both
4.28 Were you happy with their apology?
yes sort of no
Appendix
3
185
SECTION 5: THE ACTION PLAN
5.1 Was an action plan agreed Yes/No
5.1.1 If no action plan agreed, why do you think that
was?
Move to section 6
B. IF ACTION PLAN AGREED:
I now want to ask you a few questions about the action
plan that was decided.
5.2 Were you happy to agree to the plan or did you
feel you had to?
happy to agree bit of both had to agree
If had to, who made you feel this way? ____________________________
5.3 Do you think the agreed plan is fair to you?
very fair fair neither fair/unfair unfair very unfair
5.4 Do the think the plan is fair to the young person?
very fair fair neither fair/unfair unfair very unfair
5.5 Do you think the plan is too hard or too soft,
given what the young person did?
far too hard a bit hard neither too hard/too soft a bit soft far too
soft
5.6 What do you think is the best feature of the plan?
5.7 What do you think is the worst feature of the
plan?
5.8 Was anything left out, that you would have liked
to be in the plan? Yes/No
If yes:
5.9 Do you think the young person will be able to
complete all of the plan?
Definitely I think so Not sure Don't think so No
5.10 Who do you think had most say in deciding the
plan?
Appendix
3
186
5.11 Would you have liked more say in what went in the
plan?
a lot a bit no
5.12 Would you rather the young person had gone to
court/ been sentenced by the court?
yes no don't know
Why?_________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
5.13 Do you think a court sentence would have been
harsher or more lenient?
a lot harsher harsher same more lenient a lot more lenient
SECTION 6: IMPACT OF THE CONFERENCE
You'll be glad to hear we're near the end now - just a
few more questions.
The young person
6.1 Do you think the young person now realises the
impact their crime had on you?
yes sort of no
6.2 Do you think they're happy with the outcome of the
conference?
yes sort of no
6.3 Do you think the action plan will help them stay
out of trouble in the future?
yes sort of no
6.4 Do you think having taken part in the conference
will help them stay out of trouble in the future?
yes sort of no
On you
6.5 Having finished the conference, how do you feel?
6.6 Do you feel better or worse than before the
conference?
much better better same worse much worse
why _________________________________________
______________________________________________
Appendix
3
187
6.7 What do you think was the main purpose of this
conference? (give options)
( ) to punish young person ( ) to help young person
( ) to help you ( ) to help young person and V
( ) other
6.11 Do you think the conference was fair overall?
Very fair fair neither fair/unfair unfair very unfair
6.12 Do you think your views and opinions were taken
seriously?
Yes sort of no
6.13 Did you feel safe during the conference?
Yes sort of no
6.14 What was the best thing about the conference for
you?
6.15 What was the worst thing about the conference for
you?
6.17 Overall, how satisfied are you with the outcome?
Very satisfied satisfied neither satisfied/unsatisfied unsatisfied very
unsatisfied
6.17 Having taken part in today’s conference, would
you advise another victim to attend? Yes/No
Why?
Any other questions or comments?
Appendix
3
188
Appendix
4: Non-participating Young Person Interview Schedule
(Withdrawal
post referral)
Case Number:
Stage young person withdrew at:
Reason recorded in YCS database:
Date of Interview:
Q1. Can you tell me what made you decide not to take
part in a conference?
Prompts: Were you worried about having to meet the victim? Yes/No
Were you worried about having to speak in front of everyone? Yes/No
Q2. Was it your decision not to take part or did
anyone else influence your decision? - Who?
Q3. Is there anything else the people from the Youth
Conference Service could have done to get you to take part? -
What?
Prompt: do you think they explained things well enough? Yes/No
Is there anything you didn't really understand? - what? Yes/No
Q4. Can you tell me what happened with your case after
you decided not to do a conference?
Q5. What is happening with your case now?
Appendix
4
189
Q6. Do you now wish you had done a conference? - Why?
Outcome of case (if known):
Appendix
4
190
Appendix
5: Non-Participating Victim Interview Schedule
Case Number:
Stage V withdrew at:
Date of interview:
Date conference took place:
Progress post conference:
Q1. Can you tell me your reasons for not attending the
conference?
Prompt: were you worried about having to meet the young person? Yes/No
Were you worried about having to speak in front of a group? Yes/No
Q2. Were any of the following reasons part of your
decision not to attend?
Having to take time off work ( ) Transport ( )
Loss of earnings ( ) Childcare ( )
Q3. Could anything else have been done to persuade you
to attend the conference? - What and who by?
Q4. Were you told about other opportunities (other
than attending) to contribute to the conferencing process?
Yes ( ) No ( )
If yes, what? Have
someone else attend on your behal ( )
Letter ( )
Have coordinator summarise your views ( )
Tape recording ( )
Video recording ( )
Other _________________________________
Appendix
5
191
Q5. Did you use any of these options? Yes ( ) No ( )
If no, why not?
If yes, which?
If yes, how satisfied
were you with this?
Very satisfied satisfied neither satisfied/unsatisfied unsatisfied very
unsatisfied
Q6. Have you received any feedback on the outcome of
the conference? - details?
Q7. Are you satisfied with the level of feedback
received? Yes ( ) No ( )
If no, why not?
Q8. If outcome known, are you satisfied with the
outcome of the conference? Yes ( ) No ( )
If no, why not?
Q10. Do you regret not attending the conference at
all?
Why?
Appendix
5
192
Appendix
6: Offence Research Scale
Youth Conferencing Research
Offence Research Scale
June 2004
The following is an outline of our Offence Research Scale for the Youth
Conferencing Research. In devising the scale
we took into consideration a number of sources of information and scales
that had been used elsewhere. The core aim
was to construct a basic seriousness score for offences (rather than
offence classification) that was easily understandable
and makes practical sense in terms of ranking seriousness.
The core sources of information that were used in devising the scale
included: a scale use by Newburn et al in the
evaluation of restorative schemes in England and Wales (devised from a
classification scheme used by the Probation
Service and Home Office in 1994); the Code for Crown Prosecutors applied
by the Crown Prosecution Service to
determine whether offences should be brought for prosecution in the
public interest; an assessment of the maximum
penalties available for offences in Northern Ireland; and information
from a recent study by Quinn and Jackson which
looked at a sample of juveniles arrested for a range of offences in
Northern Ireland.
Whilst none of the above sources in and of themselves gave us a complete
answer to our questions, taken together and
with a number of other factors, they provide the background for a practical
model of offence seriousness that can be
used for the present research. Other factors that were also taken into
consideration included: the degree, type and
potential for harm; the degree of malice and intent to cause harm; the
degree of violence; whether the offence was
directed at property or at the person; whether the offence involved
violence; the relative value of property involved;
whether the offence was arrestable or not and whether the offences were
classified as triable summarily, either way or
by indictment.
Appendix
6
193
Type 1. Extremely serious offences - attracting life sentences
Including: Manslaughter, Robbery with firearm, Arson with intent to
endanger life, Rape, Orchestrating a riot
Type 2. Very serious violent offences and offences
causing serious harm to the person - only includes offences resulting
in serious harm or the potential for serious harm, excludes purely
property related offences.
Including for example: Threat to kill, Wounding with intent, Assault
occasioning grievous bodily harm, Very serious
sexual offences, Robbery with weapon, Arson, Serious public disorder,
Aggravated taking and driving away, Causing
death by dangerous driving, Supply of controlled substances, Abduction,
Possession of firearm, Aggravated burglary
Type 3. Serious offences against the person and
property related offences - offences which cause
harm or the potential
for harm and property related offences which involve goods with a value
of at least £250.
Including for example: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm,
Theft/Handling over £250, Obtaining by deception
over £250 value, Criminal damage over £250, Burglary dwelling, Robbery,
Taking and driving away, Allowed to be
carried, Dangerous driving, Riotous behaviour, Bomb hoax, Possession
drug class A, Other sexual offences (eg indecent
assault)
Type 4. Intermediate offences against the person and
property related offences - offences that are
intermediate in
terms of their seriousness and result in minor injury or involve goods
or property with a value between £50 to £250.
Including for example: Common assault, Assault police, Theft/Handling
(£50-£250), Obtaining by deception under
£250, Criminal damage (£50-£250), Theft from a vehicle, Possession of
drugs, Disorderly behaviour, Resisting arrest,
No licence, No insurance, Excess Alcohol, Driving whilst unfit, Failing
to provide breath specimen, Possession of
offensive weapon, Going equipped, Burglary non-dwelling, Careless
driving, Possession drug class B, Indecent exposure
Type 5. Minor property related and other minor
offences - non-violent and minor property
related offences with a
value of under £50, that do not result in physical injury.
Including for example: Theft (under £50), Criminal damage (under £50),
Handling stolen goods (under £50),
Interference with vehicle, Obstruction, Simple drunk, Breach of peace,
Failing to give details, Minor motor vehicle
and driving offences (e.g. speeding, bald tyres), Obstruct police
Appendix
6
Northern Ireland Office
Criminal Justice Directorate
Statistics and Research Branch
Massey House
Stoney Road
Belfast
BT4 3SX
Email: statistics.nio@nics.gov.uk
Telephone: 02890 527534
Facsimile: 02890 527532
www.nio.gov.uk
ISBN 1 90 3686 19 9