Restorative Justice Inroads into the United Kingdom

Over the past three years, the United Kingdom has begun to implement significant changes in its response to youth crime.  These reforms have been promoted by the Blair Government as an effort to introduce restorative justice measures and reduce youthful recidivism.  A research report on initial results from 11 pilot sites was released in January 2001, and work continues toward the goal of nationwide implementation by April 2002.  This article will provide a brief history of the reforms, an overview of how they are being conducted, and a review of the findings of the first research report.

Background.  The 1998 Crime and Disorder Act united personnel from social services, education, police, the probation service, and the health authority into 155 local Youth Offending Teams (YOTs).  The initial objective of these teams was to prevent youth offending and reoffending by coordinating youth justice services in their localities.  

The 1999 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act provided for referral orders to Youth Offender Panels (YOPs) made up of at least one member of the YOT and two trained community volunteers. The YOPs are to provide a less formal context than court for the offender, the victim, their supporters and members of the community to discuss the crime and its consequences. In conducting those meetings, the YOPs are to be guided by underlying principles of restorative justice defined by the Home Office: restoration, reintegration, and responsibility (Newburn, et. al. 2001:3). 

Overview of Reforms.  The 1999 Act provided that the referral order should be the primary sentence for first time young offenders under the age of 18. The referral order must be given if the offender pleads guilty, has no prior convictions, and has never been bound over to keep the peace. (This requirement does not apply if the court dismisses the case, the offense has a mandatory sentence, or a custodial sentence is considered necessary.)  The referral order is to be the only sentence given by the court and is not to be accompanied by other sanctions. Referral orders identify the Youth Offending Team responsible for the case, the length of the order, and requires that the offender attend all meetings of the YOP (NACRO Youth Crime Briefing.1999:1). 

The 1999 Act also expanded the responsibility of the YOTs to include implementation, staffing, and training of the Youth Offender Panels. The YOT is responsible for preparing background reports, obtaining court papers and offending history, and  contacting victims (Home Office 1998; Newburn, et. al. 2001:3-4). 

YOPs are to conduct their first panel meeting within 15 working days from the day of referral. The young offender is required to participate, as are parents or guardians when the youth is under the age of 16.  Because of the stated restorative goals, meeting participants may also include the victim, a victim supporter, the offender's supporter(s), anyone else who may be seen as having a positive impact on the offender, and any interpreters that may be needed. The purpose of the first panel meeting is to develop and agree to a contract of activity for addressing the crime (Newburn, et. al. 2001:4). 

That contract must include two components.  The first is some form of reparation to the victim or the community for the harm caused by the offense. This may include a letter of apology, a verbal apology, service for the victim or the community, or a combination of the three.  The second component is a program of activity for the young offender to address the offending behavior.  This may include counseling, drug treatment, community service, job or educational training, and prohibitions against certain activities. An offender may be referred back to court for missing this meeting without an acceptable reason or for not fulfilling  the contract requirements (Newburn 2001:4; Home Office 1999).

Initial Results.  Since April 2000, YOPs have been piloted in 11 sites: Blackburn, Cardiff, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Swindon, Suffolk, Wiltshire, Hammersmith, Kensington, and Westminster. The first research report on these projects was completed in January 2001.  

Because the YOPs are scheduled to become national in April of 2002, the YOTs in each pilot area had a short time to recruit community volunteers and train them to start handling cases. This has hindered the diversity of ethnic and gender make-up intended for the YOPs: white women make up the majority of volunteers. The tight time frame also restricted training and evaluation procedures (Newburn 2001:10-12). 

The first report dealt with the attitudes and experiences of magistrates, clerks, and YOP participants. It concluded that each group is generally positive regarding the goals of the referral orders and the work of the YOPs. 

• Magistrates were generally satisfied that the young offenders were being treated fairly.  

• Clerks were also satisfied, but expressed concerns that young offenders who were sent back to court  would receive harsher treatment than if sent directly to sentencing, and that the mandatory nature of the referral could lead to a greater use of custody orders.

• Panel members were also positive, but expressed concerns about the lack of victim participation, the limited resources to organize activities to implement the referral contracts, the lack of stability (i.e. panel members not following a single case to completion), and the lack of information provided (Newburn, et. al. 2001:25-48). 

While the legislation provides that restorative justice principles should inform the YOPs, the report questioned whether this was being fully realised. 

• First, training on restorative justice and victim needs was limited (Newburn, et. al. 2001:16). 

• Second, there has been limited victim participation in the panel meetings. This may be caused by the short time-frame for holding the first panel meeting, or it may be because of difficulty in informing victims.  A restrictive interpretation of the Data Protection Act has led to problems in arranging for suitably qualified people to visit victims and explain what is being offered. Also, the victim’s presence and consent is not necessary for the convening of the panel or the creation of the contract. Whatever the cause, limited victim participation reduces the restorative value of the panel meetings for the offender and the victim (Newburn, et. al. 2001:47-48). 

Despite these issues, the research report noted that these initiatives offered a promising start. YOPs do create an informal space for discussion of the crime, expression of emotion, building victim empathy, and providing for reparation. It made several recommendations: 

• Training should have a stronger emphasis on restorative justice and victims issues.

• Efforts should be made to increase participation of victims, and those who do participate should be offered better preparation so that the understand the purposes of the YOP.

• More options should be developed and permitted for inclusion in contracts and reparation plans.

• More diverse YOP membership should be sought by increased recruitment in the broader community.

___________________

Works Cited:

Cullen, Roger. 2001. “Referral Orders and Restorative Justice Principles.” Restorative and Community Justice: Inspiring the Future. March 28-31. Winchester, England (paper summary). 

Home Office. 1998. “The Crime and Disorder Act.” Inter-departmental Circular on Establishing the Youth Offending Teams. 

Home Office 1999. “Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act- Implementation.”

  NACRO Youth Crime Briefing. 1999. “Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act- Part 1  Referrals to Youth Offender Panels.”

 Newburn, Tim, et. al. 2001. “The Introduction of Refferal Orders  into the Youth Justice System.” RDS Occassional Paper NO. 70.

 

September 2001