RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

1. GENERAL
Restorative justice in the criminal justice system is a way of responding to oﬀending and the eﬀects
of crime that makes the people affected by the crime the focus of the process. Restorative justiceseeks to repair harm caused by the oﬀending, to appropriate responsibility for repairing the harm andto involve those who have been aﬀected by the harm, including the community, in the resolution.
The many different types of restorative justice processes simply reflect national and cultural
diﬀerences. Restorative justice is constantly changing to meet new circumstances.
International research shows that restorative justice significantly reduces imprisonment,
reconviction and reoﬀending. Importantly, it provides signiﬁcantly greater victim satisfaction. This
paper in support of the workshop at the United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention in Brazil will inparticular, focus on the research evidence which shows that use of restorative justice reduces the useof imprisonment and has other beneﬁcial results. Restorative justice is signiﬁcant in any discussion ofprison overcrowding.

2. DEFINITION
Definitions can be problematic but broadly speaking restorative justice refers to: 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 .1 The aims of restorative justice areto repair the damage created by criminal offending and restore the balance of relationships within society. 2
Restorative justice practices involve the devolution of some decision making power from the Stateto the community. It helps those caught up in criminal offending feel that their respective voices
are heard and respected - something which victims of crime increasingly feel the traditional criminal
justice system does not adequately allow.
Professor John Braithwaite, an eminent Australian criminologist, has said that restorative justice:
has been the dominant model of criminal justice throughout most of human history for all the world’s people .
Certainly this is true of restorative justice in New Zealand. Consedine notes3 that prior to European
contact, the indigenous Maori population had a well-developed system of custom and practice that
ensured the stability of their societies, one which had much in common with the philosophy of
restorative justice:
Essentially the system was akin to what is now referred to as restorative justice. There were anumber of important elements to this. When there was a breach, community process enabled aconsideration of the interests of the whanaungatanga (social group) and ensured the integrity ofthe social fabric. Through whanau (family) or hapu (wider family) meetings, and on occasional
iwi (tribal) meetings, the voices of all parties could be heard and decisions arrived at by consensus(kotahitanga). The aim was to restore the mana (prestige/authority) of the victim, the victim’s
family and the family of the offender, and to ensure measures were taken to restore the future1
2
3

Marshall T (1996) Restorative Justice: An Overview. London Home Oﬃce, Page 5.
Maxwell G (2007) The Deﬁning Feature of a Restorative Justice approach to Conﬂict, Institute of Policy Studies
Page 6.
Consedine, J. (1999) Restorative Justice: Healing the effects of crime, Ploughshares, Chapter 6. See also
by the NZ Mäori Council in, Bowen and Consedine (eds) 1999 Ploughshares.

185social order of the wider community. Because these concepts were given meaning in the context of
the wider group, retribution against an individual offender was not seen as the primary mechanism
for achieving justice. Rather, the group was accountable for the actions of the individual(manaakitanga) and that exacted compensation on behalf of the aggrieved .4
A traditional form of what we know as reparation (utu - balancing the scale) was muru. This
involved the oﬀending party and their kinsmen acting as a raiding party and plundering the oﬀenderand their kin of food or other resources (the scope and extent of the raid having been previously
agreed upon).5
It is certain that to a degree these restorative roots in Maori culture inﬂuenced and expedited theadoption of restorative justice processes in contemporary youth justice and the movement towards theuse of restorative justice in adult criminal justice settings in New Zealand.

3. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN THE YOUTH COURTThe enactment of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 in New Zealandintroduced a philosophical sea change in the youth justice system. Prior to this legislation many youth
oﬀenders were sent to institutions or to detention centres or borstal, places where they would further
develop their bad-boy/bad-girl image and learn new anti-social and criminal tricks.6
The existing system was seen to have failed to prevent reoﬀending and also failed in the manner inwhich it encouraged dependency on the welfare of the State. Further factors which inﬂuence calls forchange were summarised by Maxwell7:
Concern for children’s rights: a new approach to effective family therapy: researchdemonstrating the negative impact of institutionalism on children, inadequacies in the approachtaken in the 1974 legislation for young offenders: the failure of the criminal justice system totake account of issues for victims: experimentation with new models of service provision andapproaches to youth offending in the courts: and concerns raised by Maori about the injustices
that had been involved in the removal of children from their families.
All of these concerns led to the Children, Young Person and Their Families Act 1989 a radical pieceof legislation incorporating restorative justice techniques. This pioneering legislation has been thesubject of scrutiny by many other nations and adopted in whole or in part in youth justice systems
around the world.

4. THE KEY PROVISIONS SUMMARISED
The procedure now followed in New Zealand for youth oﬀenders is explained by His Honour JudgeF W McElrea.8
A typical restorative justice conference involves the prior admission of responsibility by theoffender, the voluntary attendance of all participants, the assistance of a neutral person as
facilitator, the opportunity for explanations to be given, questions answered, and apologies given,
the drawing up of a plan to address the wrong done, and an agreement as to how that plan will be
implemented and monitored. The court is usually but not necessarily involved.
In the youth justice sphere, about one-third of conferences are not directed by the court but are
4
5
6
7
8

Ibid at 86
Ibid at 87
Ibid at 102 - 103
Maxwell, G. (2007),inJudge FWM McElrea,.

186(Institute of Policy Studies, VUW) at 46

diversionary conferences, initiated - and attended - by the police. (However, New Zealand does
not subscribe to the practice in some parts of Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom of
having the police run the conferences. There is always an independent facilitator in charge.) If
agreement can be reached as to an outcome that does not involve the laying of charges, then no
charges are laid - so long as the outcome is implemented.
The youth court nearly always accepts such plans, recognising that the scheme of the Act places
the primary power of disposition with the FGC. However, in serious cases, the court can use awide range of court-imposed sanctions, the most severe being three months residence in a social
welfare institution, followed by six months supervision; or the court may convict and refer the
young person to the district court for sentence under the criminal justice act 1985 (s 283(o)),
which can include imprisonment for up to five years.
As with other diversion schemes, if the plan is carried out as agreed, the proceedings are usually
withdrawn; if the plan breaks down, the court can impose its own sanctions. Thus the court
acts as both a back stop (where FGC plans break down) and a filter (for patently unsatisfactory
recommendations).

5. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN THE ADULT COURTThe experiments with restorative justice for young people inevitably flowed into restorative
processes being used in the adult setting.
In New Zealand, adult courts began to accept restorative justice conference recommendations.
These conferences were run by community groups with support from local judiciary. A common
theme in the successful adoption of restorative justice processes in New Zealand and elsewhere has
been the involvement of the local community and the utilisation of groups already in existence andworking to deal with problems in local communities. For the most part the necessary infrastructure
existed. It simply needed to be supported by the State through the provision of necessary training
and/or funding.
In New Zealand some appellate decisions affirmed the right of New Zealand courts to take into
account restorative justice processes in adult criminal matters but in 2002 there was legislative
recognition of restorative justice in the adult criminal system.

6. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS SUPPORTING RESTORATIVE JUSTICE PROCESSESIn New Zealand, a number of legislative reforms were passed into law in 2002 which supported
and recognised restorative practices. In summary, the Sentencing Act 2002 requires that whensentencing an offender, the court must take into account any outcomes of restorative justiceprocesses and included provisions facilitating restorative justice conferences as part of the sentencing
process; the Victim Rights Act 2002, which also supported such conferences or meetings as a victimʼ
s right; the Parole Act 2002, which required a Parole Board to give due weight to any restorative
justice outcomes when considering the release of prisoners on parole; and, later, the Corrections Act
2004, which required the prison system to provide prisoners with access to any process designed
to promote restorative justice between oﬀenders and victims where appropriate. These legislative
provisions can be accessed at WWW.LEGISLATION.GOVT.NZ.

7. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE PRACTICES IN ADULT COURT
In adult criminal justice systems, restorative justice can occur:(a) as part of police adult diversion process;(b) pre-sentence (after a guilty plea but before sentencing); and(c) post-sentence (in the parole of oﬀenders and as part of re-integration back into the community).

187

(a) POLICE DIVERSION

For many years, the police in New Zealand have utilised a diversion scheme whereby an adultoffender who accepts responsibility for offending, is not prosecuted through the court but makes
amends for the wrong by performing some kind of community work, paying reparation whereappropriate and apologising to the victim. This saves considerable judicial time and the oﬀender avoids
the consequences of a conviction.9
The police have recently started considering referrals to a restorative justice process for certain
offenders who receive diversion. In such cases, the agreed means of making amends, will in largepart, stem from the restorative justice meeting, rather than simply being directed by the diversion
oﬃcer. Restorative justice used in this way, provides a more meaningful intervention for an oﬀenderwith better prospects for rehabilitation.

(b) RESTORATIVE JUSTICE CONFERENCING IN THE ADULT COURT

Once charges have been laid in court, there are some restorative justice processes which run
alongside the court process. The Sentencing Act supports restorative justice and allows theengagement in a restorative justice process to occur prior to sentencing so that the outcome of that
can then be taken into account by the sentencing judge. There is no deﬁnition of restorative justice in
the Act, so a variety of restorative justice processes can be used, but the most common process is therestorative justice conference, which is akin to the FGC in the youth court.
The general process for restorative justice conferencing in New Zealand is outlined below:10(b)(i) BEFORE A CONFERENCE
Restorative justice facilitators meet separately with the offender, the victim and their support
people, to assess whether a restorative justice conference would be helpful.
If the oﬀender does not take responsibility, is aggressive, or cannot participate fully because of ill
health or a disability the process will not proceed.
If the victim and oﬀender agree to meet and there is likely to be a positive outcome, the facilitators
arrange a conference.
Sometimes the conference will involve members of a community panel as well as, or instead of, adirect victim.
(b)(ii) AT A CONFERENCE
A restorative justice conference is a relatively informal meeting between the offender and thepeople aﬀected. They are there to talk honestly about what happened, what harm has been caused, andto work out ways forward. Conferences are private meetings. However, a report is prepared for the
court. How participants agree to move forward is for them to decide. Some conferences result in anagreement on a plan of action that the oﬀender will do to put things right, but this is not the outcome
at every conference.
The facilitators make sure that everyone is safe and supported, and that all participants have their
say without interruption.

9 More info on the adult scheme is available at http://www.police.govt.nz/service/diversion/policy.html
10 http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/r/restorative-justice-english-courts-118/
publication#20

188

Most conferences will agree on things the oﬀender can do to begin to put right the harm caused by
the oﬀence.
A report of the meeting and any agreements will go to the judge if the meeting happens before
sentencing.
(b)(iii) AFTER A CONFERENCE
The facilitators write a report about what happened at the conference and any agreements reached.
Copies are given to the victim, offender, and any others involved in the case, such as the police
prosecutors, victim advisers, probation oﬃcers and lawyers.
The purpose of the restorative justice report is to clearly set out agreements, as information for ajudge. They are not used to make sentencing recommendations to the court.
If the offender is still waiting to be sentenced the restorative justice report is given to thesentencing judge.
The sentencing act 2002 requires the outcome of restorative justice processes to be taken into
account by judges when sentencing. The judge also considers any other reports such as a pre-sentence
report about the oﬀender written by the probation service or a victim impact statement.
The judge chooses whether or not to make all, or some, of any restorative justice agreement partof the sentence.
The judge must, by law, consider what victims think, but also has to think about other informationand laws when deciding on the sentence.
Conferencing has been piloted in four district courts in New Zealand as a court referred restorative
justice project since 2001.11 An evaluation of the pilot12 found that there were high levels of satisfaction
amongst participating victims and offenders. The evaluation also showed a reduction in the reconviction rate of oﬀenders, fewer and/or shorter sentences of imprisonment imposed on participating
oﬀenders and more use made of home detention.

(c) MATARIKI COURT

Judges continue to support and adopt new initiatives for adults which draw on the philosophy
underlying restorative justice. A good example is a special court being set up in the northern mostregion of New Zealand to deal with the sentencing of indigenous Maori people. It is essentially arestorative justice conference which incorporates Maori tikanga (custom), but takes place in a special
court room with a judge as facilitator.
The process, though diﬀerent from conventional sentencing hearings, will not be alien because of its
connection with modern concepts of restorative justice, therapeutic justice, and sentence monitoring.
The process is similar to that used in the Koori Court of Victoria,13 Australia, the Murri Court ofQueensland,14 the Sentencing Circles of New South Wales,15 and the Gladue Court of Toronto,16 Canada,
but will be a distinctly New Zealand model.
The Matariki Court will sit in a standard courtroom around an elliptical table. A judge (expected

11 http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/i/information-about-the-court-referred-restorativejustice-pilot/publication
12 http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/n/new-zealand-court-referred-restorative-justicepilot-evaluation-may-2005/publication189to be a Maori judge in the pilot) will preside. At the hearing, the prosecutor will outline the oﬀence,
defence counsel will make a submission, a probation oﬃcer will speak and the views of whanau (family)
and other representatives will be sought. Two kaumatua (elders) of the defendantʼs iwi will thenparticipate in a judge-led discussion which may include interaction with the defendant, to arrive at asuitable sentence.
This special court sitting draws on other recently adopted initiatives in the youth court, which
involves a youth court judge sitting at the local marae (meeting house) to monitor the compliance ofMaori youth oﬀenders with the outcomes of their FGC.

(d) RESTORATIVE JUSTICE POST SENTENCING

A more recent development in the general ﬁeld of restorative justice has been its use post-sentenceas part of the parole system for prisoners.
It is important ﬁrst to give those initiatives some context.
The primary purpose of parole is to manage the safe release of prisoners from prison back into
the community. The international research shows that sensible parole decisions based on the best
research, can be three to four times more successful in preventing re-oﬀending than automatic releaseat the end of a fixed sentence. The Canadians claim six or seven times more success, but their
extraordinary use of halfway houses is part of the explanation for this. In New Zealand, the statistics
are elusive as it is hard to get a control group! It is thought that parole in New Zealand achieves
similar results to those revealed by the international research.
This makes sense because one would expect that those who are helped to get work, to have an
income, to have a good place to live, and to have pro-social people surrounding them, are going to do
better than people who are simply released from prison without any support.
There are other beneﬁcial purposes of a good parole system. Very brieﬂy, they are to encourage
good conduct in prison and to provide an incentive to undertake tough rehabilitative programmes,
which have been shown to be eﬀective in reducing re-oﬀending, and to save public money (it now costs
approximately NZ$95,000 a year to keep a prisoner in prison in New Zealand).
Finally, in New Zealand at least, managed parole which realises the benefits referred to above,
can have positive impacts on the disgraceful statistics which show that 51% of the adult male prison
population are Maori when only 15% of the entire New Zealand population identify as Maori. Worsestill, the prognosis for children of prisoners is well known; the research shows that they are nearlyseven times more likely to become prisoners themselves. If something can be done about amelioratingthat problem, then it is another signiﬁcant step towards a peaceful and crime free society.

13 Koori Courts were created in order to allow participation of the Aboriginal community and culture in the legal
system, in an attempt to bridge the cultural diﬀerences between Indigenous Australians and the imposed coloniallaw.
14 The Murri Court sentences Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander oﬀenders who plead guilty to an oﬀence whichfalls within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court. Murri Court provides a forum where Elders, Respected
Persons, Community Justice Groups and the oﬀenderʼs family can be involved in the sentencing process. Murri
Court proceedings are less formal than those in conventional Magistrates or Childrenʼs Courts. The Magistrate,
Elders and other participants may sit at a table close to the defendant, rather than on a raised bench.
15 See Criminal Procedure Amendment (Circle Sentencing Program) Regulation 2005. It directly involves local
Aboriginal people in the process of sentencing oﬀenders, with the key aims of making it a meaningful experience
for the oﬀender and improving the Aboriginal communityʼs conﬁdence in the criminal justice system.
16 The Toronto Gladue (Aboriginal Persons) Court is a specialist court of the Ontario Court of Justice, the criminal
jurisdiction of which is remarkably similar to that of the New Zealand District Court. For more detail see http://
www.aboriginallegal.ca/docs/apc̲factsheet.htm

190

New Zealand has had its own successes with restorative justice post sentencing. There is avigorous restorative justice programme being run in parts of the country by the Prison Fellowship,
although it is not yet systemic. There are many good examples of such interventions.
A young woman who, as a child, had watched her mother being murdered by her then partner,sought a restorative justice conference with the murderer who was still in prison. It was a toughconference because she was a very staunch and courageous woman and had lots of questions which thecourt process had left unresolved. She got the answers she needed. The victim says she is not now
concerned about the prospect of the oﬀender being released. It is not always about forgiveness, whichsometimes happens. It is about meeting victimʼs needs.
These things do not happen unless there is genuineness and honesty. Everyone in this meeting
was alert to that. The result is that the tragedy will remain a tragedy and the loss will remain aloss. But it means that fear of reprisals is put to one side and if these people ever meet again in asmall country like New Zealand, they will meet without embarrassment and with dignity. Family andfriends and others who might otherwise live in fear, can also be freed to get on with their lives. These
opportunities, are being missed because restorative justice is not yet systematically available.
There are other opportunities arising from general restorative practices post sentence. The faithbased communities in Canada developed the concept of circles of support for indeﬁnitely detained
prisoners; - often child sex oﬀenders who are notoriously diﬃcult to support back into the community.
This way of working - constructing artificial support where no natural support now exists - is wellknown in therapeutic communities and it is to be found now widely in the United Kingdom andelsewhere. New Zealand is just starting to develop its own version of circles of support within its own
cultural context.
Under the Parole Act, the Parole Board is obliged to give due weight to the outcome of any
restorative justice conference or process. The outcome is not deﬁnitive, nor should it ever be. What
this way of working does achieve, however, are better outcomes for victims. All the international
research supports that. The present court system leaves many of the questions a victim wants to ask
outstanding and leaves many issues unresolved.
Under the restorative justice model the focus is on the harm caused by the offences - harm tovictims, communities and oﬀenders. The aim of the process is to repair that harm. To facilitate thesame, the focus shifts away from the state and the courts towards the victims, the oﬀender and theirfamilies and communities. A healing process is sought for both victims and oﬀenders.
There is now an agreement with the Department of Corrections, which manages prisons in New
Zealand, to fund any restorative justice conference which the Parole Board recommends. A process isbeing developed to ensure that opportunities are not missed because it is easy for these conferences tobe undermined by those who have no concept of how it might work and who have no conﬁdence in its
eﬃcacy.
Referrals come from the Parole Board but they can also be instigated by victims, oﬀenders, caseoﬃcers, probation oﬃcers, social workers, prison chaplains, prison fellowship and other organisations
and people. It is not uncommon for prisoners to express their remorse and sorrow and ask if they
could meet with the victimsʼ families in a conference. It is not uncommon for victims to seek thesame.
This is highly professional work and no place for well meaning but untrained enthusiasts. The
role of the trained professionals to whom these matters are referred is ﬁrst to meet with the prisoner
to determine suitability and agreement to attend such a conference. If the prisoner is thought to besensible then contact is made with the victim to determine whether they are suitable and will agree
to attend a conference? If they are, then the arrangements move onto contact with support persons,191preparing everyone for the conference, arranging a date and eventually running the conference. A
report is then prepared on the agreed outcomes. It is a professional process requiring considerable
skills.17
It must be acknowledged that not all cases will be suitable for a post-sentence conference. If an
oﬀender continues to deny involvement or blame others, a conference is not appropriate. It will not
be helpful if oﬀenders have untreated mental health problems which prevent them taking part in any
rational discussion. It will not be appropriate or helpful if victims are so angry, bitter and intransigent
that they are not able to take part in any exchange. They have to be ready to participate. It may taketime but often people come to a point where they wish to get other answers about something which
remains a tragedy and continues to blight their lives.
The New Zealand experience is that, when successful, a restorative justice conference has
produced, if not forgiveness, an understanding and ability for both victim and oﬀender to move on andallow others to do the same. When this happens, it is truly impressive and often very humbling. It
makes the boardʼs decision making much easier although that is of course a secondary function.

8. SUMMARY
The diﬀerences between youth justice and adult justice in delivery of restorative justice processes
present two potential models for reform. But perhaps the most substantial diﬀerence is that the FGC
is mandatory in New Zealand for virtually all youth oﬀenders, while uptake in the adult setting is much
more sporadic, depending as it does on the agreement of all involved for it to occur. It may be that in
the future, restorative justice conferences should become mandatory for adult oﬀenders unless there
are strong and good grounds not to do so.
In New Zealand most restorative justice has taken the form of family group conferences for young
persons and community panels for police diversion. In other countries circle of sentence, which
originated in Canada, has been the primary restorative justice process but restorative justice has also
taken other forms. Those forms include offender-victim mediation18 and restorative reintegration
techniques such as the circles of support and similar reintegration initiatives involving the community,
victims, and concerned others.

9. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN EDUCATION
There are clear similarities between the ways society has historically sought to regulate behaviourin the wider community and in the school community. For many years, school disciplinary procedures
were similar to the procedure traditionally followed by courts, both in the way responsibility wasestablished and in the way consequences were visited upon those found guilty.
Perhaps the most fundamental similarity has been the belief that a tariﬀ based deterrent sentence
has been thought necessary to deter future offending by the culprit and others in the respective
communities. Meting out negative consequences following undesirable conduct has been the primary
approach - as a way to deter future similar conduct.
The focus in both arenas has therefore traditionally been on ﬁnding a suitable punishment for theoﬀender. Little focus has been given to the cause of the oﬀending. Neither the procedures in thewider community nor school communities are particularly suitable for identifying and addressing thecauses. Little if any focus has been on teaching new positive behaviours.
If success is measured as preventing further oﬀending by the present oﬀender and others in society,both systems have traditionally been found lacking. It must be recognised that after the punishment
17 For a clear statement of the principles to be considered see: United Nations (1999) Declaration of Basic Principles
on the use of the Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters: General Assembly Vienna : United Nations
18 See e.g. Umbreit, Victim meets Oﬀenderʼ the impact of restorative justice and mediation. Willowtree Press
Inc. New York 1994192

has been exacted, the oﬀender will almost always return to life in their respective community. In
what condition do we want that person to return? In the school setting, the final consequences(suspensions and exclusions) prevent the offender receiving one of the most fundamental tools forbuilding their future, an education. Involvement in education is crime prevention at its best.
Finally, both systems have tended to neglect the victims of the oﬀending in addressing the harmcaused to them and giving them a voice in determining the way in which the wrong committed againstthem can be righted.
The perceived shortcomings outlined above have all inﬂuenced the adoption of restorative justicepractices in New Zealandʼs criminal court systems. Since the same shortcomings can be identified
in the education setting, and since both are in the business of what Margaret Thorsborne and David
Vinegrad call behaviour management ,19 it was inevitable that restorative justice practices be
extended into the school setting.

10. THE NEW ZEALAND EXPERIENCE OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS
Restorative justice conferencing was formally introduced into schools in New Zealand in the late1990ʼs as part of a Ministry of Education initiative called the suspension reduction initiative. (There
had been many such private initiatives). A group from Waikato University was contracted to provide
restorative justice conferencing into ﬁve schools initially; with 24 schools subsequently sending theirstaﬀ for training. The group drew on the FGC concept. Suspension in those schools went down.20
In 2005 Sean Buckley and Dr Gabrielle Maxwell conducted an examination of the experiences of 15
schools in New Zealand who were utilising restorative practices.21 they reported that there were ﬁve
common restorative practice methods being employed:
the restorative chat is a one on one private conversation between staff and student where an issue
is discussed using a series of questions based on a restorative approach that aims to explore theevents, their consequences and how any harm can be repaired (that is, ‘what happened?’, ‘what
were you thinking at the time?’, ‘who do you think has been affected?’, ‘how could you have acted
differently?’ and ‘what do you need to make things right?’)
The restorative classroom is an open dialogue held within the classroom to discuss specificconflicts as they arise and how members of the class should approach potential conflict situations
before they happen. Often, a class will write down its agreed set of guiding principles and display
these within the classroom. At any stage, the class can revisit these principles and make changes.
The restorative thinking room is a room specifically set aside for students who have become
involved in a conflict situation and who may need time away from peers to regain their composure.
Time is spent in the restorative thinking room working though several restorative questions with astaff member and discussing the conflict and how to repair any harm caused.
A restorative mini conference is held for more serious conflict situations. It includes the victim, theoffender, a staff member and perhaps one other individual. The number of those in attendance islimited in order to make it easier for the conference to be quickly arranged and held.
The full restorative conference is loosely based on the youth justice family group conference. It

19Vinegrad, 2002, at 7
20 Wendy Drewery,21, Margaret Thorsborne and David(Institute of Policy Studies, VUW)

, Chapter 10 in. Wellington: Office of the ChildrenʼsCommissioner and The Institute of Policy Studies, School of Government, Victoria University.

193

may take several days or weeks to organise, because participants are likely to include, though
are not limited to, victims, offenders, staff, family/whanau, officials, and other support personnel.
Conferences are used for the most serious of conflict issues and can take several hours .22
Buckley notes that much like the adult criminal justice system, some of the schools have been
unable to secure the funding required to move to a fully restorative practice, so have been forced tooperate between management paradigms, either reverting to one based one exclusionary processes or mixing
this with a restorative process when only limited support exists for restorative options .
That has also been the experience in the adult court system, and it should not be seen as adisadvantage. A brief outline of how restorative justice is used in the New Zealand court system
illustrates the diﬀerent ways restorative justice can and is being used in the school setting while coexisting with the existing exclusionary processes:
As a diversionary procedure a restorative justice conference is convened in suitable cases prior
and as an alternative to a formal disciplinary investigation being launched. In the criminal system
police are utilising restorative justice conferences to develop a plan for ‘righting the wrong’ aspart of their adult diversion schemes. In the education setting a restorative justice conference
is convened to develop a similar plan, the successful completion of which would mean thatdisciplinary procedures need not be invoked.
As a procedure to be used to determine a suitable sentence/punishment/plan (or to present suchexclusion). In the youth court there is a separation to be found between (a) adjudication upon
liability, i.e. Deciding whether a disputed charge is proved, and (b) the disposition of admitted orproved offences. The adversary system is retained for the former, while a FGC, a key restorative
practice, is utilised for the latter. Something similar is already used in schools. The school could,
if it wishes, conduct its usual investigations in order to be satisfied that the conduct occurred.
The next step, (as in the youth court) would be to have a restorative justice conference to which
decision making power in respect of disposition can be devolved. The school board could meet
periodically to supervise compliance with the plan developed at the conference, as the youth court
does. 23
The vision for restorative justice in schools envisages a fully restorative approach (whole of culture)to the way the school orders itself in all its relationships and every aspect of its functioning; a fully
restorative therapeutic learning community.
Already some schools around the world have achieved this ﬁnal form. For others it will be a step
too far and smaller steps need to be taken before pursuing wholesale change.
One thing is certain. The experience of the criminal justice system in New Zealand has given birth
to a new approach to the management of relationship problems in many New Zealand schools. Other
countries have had similar successful experiences. Both justice and education have, in this area, muchto learn from each other about a process which will always be dynamic and challenging.

11. CONSEQUENCES OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE - REDUCTION IN USE
OF PRISON AND REOFFENDING
There have now been a number of studies looking at the eﬀects of restorative justice in its very
many guises on reoﬀending and re-imprisonment.

22 Taken from Restorative Practices in Education: The Experiences of a Group of New Zealand Schools by Sean
Buckly, chapter 11 in(Institute of Policy Studies, VUW)
23
, Margaret Thorsborne and David
Vinegrad, 2002, at 7

194

The New Zealand court referred restorative justice pilot was evaluated in terms of reoﬀending overa two-year follow up period. The report can be found at http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/
global-publications/e/evaluation-of-the-court-referred-restorative-justice-pilot-case-studies/publication. It showed a reduction in re-imprisonment rates, a reduction in reconviction rates andsigniﬁcant beneﬁts to victims.
A review of restorative justice conferencing on reoﬀending by Dr Heather Strang and Professor
Lawrence Sherman conducted under the auspices of the Jerry Lee Centre of Criminology inPennsylvania but concentrating on the United Kingdom position, showed a significant reduction in
reoﬀending. A summary of the ﬁndings of that research project showed a 27% reduction in crime.
Interestingly enough, that research also showed that restorative justice conferencing worked bestfor the most frequent oﬀender, worked best for violent oﬀences rather than property oﬀences, wasmore eﬀective for serious oﬀending and was wasted on minor oﬀences.
Yet another important ﬁnding from that research was the beneﬁcial eﬀect on victims which showeda dramatic decrease in post-traumatic stress symptoms and consequently a significant effect on thehealth budget - an aspect of restorative justice which has hitherto been neglected.
These research evaluations have been replicated in the Australia Rise Evaluation, a long-term
project conducted in Canberra, Australia,24 in the Indianapolis Juvenile Property/Violence Study in
the United States and in the studies in Northumbria, London and the Thames Valley in the United
Kingdom.
Additional support, if it is needed, can be obtained from a 2008 study conducted by the Sheﬃeld
University - Centre for Criminological Research. Their website is http://www.shef.ac.uk/law/research/ccr/.

12. CONCLUSION
Victims of crime and oﬀenders are disenchanted with the criminal justice system. Last year the
Chief Justice of New Zealand delivered a speech which received widespread coverage in the media. In
it, she suggested that the traditional criminal court process should not overly accommodate victims,
focusing instead on the dispassionate and fair delivery of justice.
Against this view, Professor Howard Zehr25 has recently advocated restorative justice processes asproviding a mechanism through which victims rights may receive greater recognition. Incorporating
restorative justice as a mandatory practice at all court events would also go some way to lowering ourimprisonment rate and reducing re-conviction rates. It clearly has positive eﬀects for victims, helping
them understand the oﬀending and to move on with their lives.
Restorative justice conferences can also be a better place than courtrooms for identifying andaddressing the underlying causes of crime. Restorative justice conferences can bring an oﬀender into
contact with the necessary state agency into to provide the services an oﬀender needs if they are toturn away from crime and/or drug dependency.
This is not to say that there should be no punishment for criminal oﬀending. The worst and mostdangerous oﬀenders are likely to require incarceration in some form. However, there is support in
New Zealand to tilt further still in favour of a restorative approach to criminal justice in the adultcourts.
24 See http:// www.aic.gov.au/rjustice/rise/
25 Author of the seminal book on restorative justice (1990) Change Lenses: A new Focus for Crime and Justice :Herald Press.

195

The advantages of restorative justice processes are first and foremost in bringing home to theoﬀender the consequences of his wrongdoing and making him accountable. They also meet the needsof victims so that they are victims no longer. They also have to do with preventing reprisals andrevenge.
Restorative Justice can restore some peace to communities after terrible things have happened. It
can also have other consequences in the reduction of imprisonment, preventing re-oﬀending and better
outcomes for victims.

196