David O'Mahony

This chapter reimagines restorative justice as a system which identifies the empowerment of victims and offenders as fundamental normative goals within criminal justice. Fostering agency and accountability among participants are the underlying values which provide both the justification for that goal (ie why re-empowerment matters) as well as the key drivers that ought to inform how restorative justice can be best calibrated to deliver it in practice. In many respects, these twin values simultaneously flow from and respond to the negative and disempowering consequences that modern criminal justice processes carry for many victims and offenders. Our argument is that the values and norms of restorative justice, as it operates within criminal justice, can be consolidated and clarified within our agency–accountability framework to allow for a clearer and more accurate explanation of how restorative justice works and the normative goals it ought to propel in practice. In other words, this framework lays down the normative goals and objectives for such interactions, and provides a sound theoretical foundation for restorative justice which is rooted in empowerment theory. Research evidence suggests that victims and offenders are more likely to feel re-empowered through mechanisms that enable them to exercise agency and accountability. Agency is evidenced by the individual and collective autonomy of participants, being able to make free and informed choices and play an active role in decision-making. In turn, this can bolster levels of legitimacy and fairness in terms of both the process and its outcomes. Accountability, on the other hand, entails being willing to hold and being held to account. This is evidenced by participants rendering themselves accountable in a positive sense for the impact and consequences of crime on both themselves and others. As Maruna highlights, a distinction can be drawn between ‘passive responsibility’ where individuals are held responsible for their actions and punished, versus ‘active responsibility’ where individuals actively take responsibility for their actions and look to put things right. Agency and accountability are thus conceived as forms of the latter, allowing participants to assume a sense of ownership over the conflict and the ways in which harms can be effectively addressed.

This article outlines juvenile crime and the operation of the juvenile justice system in Northern Ireland. It looks critically at how the justice system works and at some recent developments in practice and legislation, and it considers some of the obstacles and opportunities that are emerging at a time of change, especially following the Good Friday Agreement. The article first provides some general facts and figures on crime and victimization in Northern Ireland to place the debate in context. The article then provides details about the nature and extent of juvenile crime and describes the various stages of the criminal justice process, from police contact, to the sentencing of the juvenile court, to the operation of various court disposals. Prospects for the future in the treatment of juveniles in the Northern Irish criminal justice process are discussed.

Though Northern Ireland is a relatively small jurisdiction within Ireland and the United Kingdom, it has its own unique system of youth justice which very recently has undergone significant transformation. A restorative justice approach to deal with young offenders and victims has been mainstreamed through a process called “youth conferencing.” This new approach offers valuable insights in terms of youth justice policy and practice to the international forum and in this chapter we explore some of its potentials and limitations.

This article considers the role of community in a new model of restorative youth conferencing that has recently been introduced in Northern Ireland. It notes the considerable advantages of enhancing community involvement in criminal justice, but also recognises concerns particularly for a society that is just emerging from years of conflict. Whilst the scheme has clearly increased levels of participation, it is argued that there is potential to develop work further in partnership with elements of the community sector and to contribute to governance and democratic participation within a post-conflict society.

The task of delineating an appropriate role for the victim in the criminal justice system has been the subject of considerable debate in academia and policy circles for some time. While victim participation is considered something of a sine qua non of the restorative paradigm, many commentators remain sceptical of victim input in conventional sentencing on the grounds that it may lead to the imposition of overly harsh or onerous obligations. Drawing on evidence from a major evaluation of youth conferencing in Northern Ireland, this article challenges the assumption that victims are essentially punitive parties, and calls for a rethink of some of the fundamental values and assumptions that have traditionally resulted in their exclusion and even alienation in the criminal justice system.

The Northern Ireland youth justice system is unique within unique within Europe due to its adoption of a mainstreamed restorative justice approach, which has been integrated through a process called ‘youth conferencing’. The following provides a brief overview of this approach to youth justice and considers some recent findings from the perspective of victims who were involved in this process

This report was commissioned by the National Commission on Restorative Justice. It aims to inform the Commission of relevant research relating to the concept and practice of restorative justice abroad, and contains an overview of main issues and concerns which commonly arise when restorative justice reforms are implemented. This report provides an international review and analysis of the current state of restorative justice theory and practice.

Restorative justice can be viewed as a victim-centred approach which conceptualises criminal behaviour in a very different manner from which it has been traditionally conceived within orthodox models of criminal justice. In recent years, it has come to exert an increasingly strong influence over juvenile justice systems as policymakers have become increasingly concerned about the capacity of the traditional criminal justice system to deliver participatory processes and fair outcomes that are capable of benefiting victims, offenders and society at large.

This chapter looks at the self-reported offending behaviour of school children in the Republic of Ireland. The findings are derived from the administration of international self-reported delinquency (ISRD2) questionnaire to a sample of students mostly aged 13–15 years (n = 1,570) in their first, second and third years of secondary school across a number of cities and towns. In order to accurately interpret the findings, it is important to highlight the local context and economic conditions. The Republic of Ireland’s official population is 4,234,925 as measured by the 2006 census. The latest figures revealed that 28% of the population was made up of children aged 18 or younger (CSO, 2002). The Irish economy has undergone a transformation within recent years and has moved from a primary dependence on agriculture to a dependence on trade, industry and investment. Over the last decade, there has been a dramatic reversal of fortune for the Irish economy, from a situation of high levels of unemployment and emigration to a position of almost full employment (see Fahey et al., 2007). Furthermore, a considerable number of people in the Irish labour market are now foreign nationals (NESC, 2005).

Restorative Justice and Transitional Justice are two distinct, through closely over-lapping, concepts which have been catapulted to the forefront of legal and criminological discourse over the course of the past two decades. Their growth has been nothing short of prolific: in both theoretical and practical terms. The conceptual overlap between restorative justice and transitional justice has been widely observed. Both discourses espouse similar values such as truth, accountability, reparation, reconciliation, conflict resolution and democratic participation. Both also offer a critique of overly retributive and adversarial justice structures, which have failed to involve communities, victims, and indeed perpetrators themselves, in orthodox processes. It has also been suggested that restorative justice can act as a catalyst for transitional justice through the creation of new community bonds and strengthening existing ones. It may also be used to reinforce the participatory potential of transitional justice mechanisms by including actors who have traditionally felt alienated from established legal processes and institutions. Indeed, Cordella has argued that a communicative conception of law ‘is a dyadic process that facilitates dialogue between community and transgressor’, which should allow communities to acknowledge their differences and identify transgressions as disputes among members. While restorative mechanisms are not the only means of facilitating such communication, it is undoubtedly the case that, in sharp contrast to conventional criminal justice processes, they maximise the potential for meaningful dialogue between victims, off enders and the community. Moreover, through opening this new space for communication, it is conceivable that restorative justice models may act as a social catalyst for broader inter-communal reconciliation.

Criminal justice reform plays a pivotal role in helping to foster reconciliation and peace-building in post-conflict societies. In the wake of their respective political transitions, both Northern Ireland and South Africa have formulated proposals for reform of their youth justice systems based upon restorative principles. This article analyses the attempts to roll out these reforms in both jurisdictions. It considers why new youth justice arrangements have largely been well received in Northern Ireland, yet have struggled to be implemented successfully in South Africa and reflects on possible lessons to be learnt in the context of post-conflict transformations.

Northern Ireland is unique in Europe with restorative justice and restorative practices having been mainstreamed within its juvenile justice system. Implanting restorative justice within its juvenile justice system came about following many years of conflict and the subsequent peace process in the late 1990s. As part of that process a series of reforms were made to criminal justice which saw the integration of restorative justice within the juvenile justice system. However, the integration of restorative justice has not been easy, or unproblematic. Difficulties have arisen because the basic system of justice remains retributive in nature. The criminal law and criminal justice system is generally used to punish offenders and deal with defendants in an adversarial system. Restorative justice has challenged these traditional principles and assumptions and there have been tensions in trying to integrate a model of restorative justice in a system that is so strongly rooted in notions of punishment and retribution.

…

The introduction of the offence of ‘squatting in a residential building’ in section 144, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 marks an important turning-point in the UK state’s relationship with practices of unlawful occupation. By directly criminalising
the unlawful occupation of residential buildings (including vacant buildings), the 2012 provision is widely regarded as establishing ‘the criminalisation of squatting’.1 This departure is significant for many reasons, not least for its impacts on the parties to this
conflict: the squatters, the landowners, the state as enforcer of criminal justice and the wider community. It has raised important questions about the appropriate role of the criminal law and criminal justice system in resolving what have traditionally been regarded in English law
as ‘private’ property disputes, and about the role of the media and public opinion more generally in shaping the discourses of public policy.
This chapter analyses the criminalisation of ‘squatting in a residential building’ through the lens of restorative justice. Drawing on Nils Christie’s seminal work on ‘conflicts as property’,2 we consider how section 144 has changed the dynamic of squatting, from a conflict over private property between the owner and the squatter, to be resolved using the civil law of enforcement of private property rights, to a ‘crime’ against the ‘state’ which  requires public punishment, retribution and censure.

The introduction of the offence of 'squatting in a residential building' in section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPOA) marked an important turning-point in the UK state's relationship with practices of unlawful occupation. By directly criminalising the unlawful occupation of residential buildings (including vacant buildings), section 144-widely regarded as 'criminalising squatting' 1-has changed the legal character of squatting. Once viewed as a conflict over private property between the owner and the squatter, to be resolved using the civil law toolkit of remedies for 'simple' trespass and the recovery of possession through enforcement of private property rights, squatting has been redefined as a crime against the state, requiring public punishment, retribution and censure. From one perspective, while section 144 marks a distinctive development in directly criminalising the activity of squatting in residential property, the link between unlawful occupation and criminal penalties is not a new one in England and Wales. The activity of unlawful occupation has long been surrounded by criminal sanctions, actionable both by private individuals and by the state (through local authorities). Prior to the enactment of LASPOA, the starting point for landowners seeking to recover property from squatters was the civil remedy of seeking an interim possession order. The effectiveness of this procedure, introduced in 1995, was bolstered by a 'fast-track' option, allowing a hearing within three days of the application. 2 Crucially, however, before LASPOA the criminal jurisdiction was not invoked unless a squatter breached an interim possession order by refusing to leave premises within 24 hours of the service of the order, returned to the property to which the order applied within 12 months, or knowingly or recklessly gave false information in order to obtain or resist such an order. In such cases, sections 75 and 76 of the Criminal Justice and 1 Ministry of Justice, 'Homeowners protected, squatters criminalised' (Press Release, 31 August 2012), http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/press-releases/moj/homeowners-protected,-squatters-criminalised. 2 Civil Procedure Rule 55 and Sch 1, Ord 24 and Ord 113.

Restorative justice literature is replete with references to ‘benchmarks’ or ‘indicators’ of good practice. As with many other criminal justice interventions – statistics on the use of conferencing are commonly used to attest its success (or, in some cases, failures). Over the past three decades, commentators have proposed a range of frameworks concerning what restorative processes should look like, what values and practices they ought to espouse, and indeed whether or not they ought to be classed as forms of restorative justice at all (Daly, 2002; O’Mahony and Doak, 2017; Zehr, 2005). As restorative conferencing becomes more widely adopted, evaluations have sought to measure practice on the ground, to better understand whether or not a particular programme ‘works’. Yet there still is no common view of what constitutes ‘success’. The concept is necessarily in the eye of the beholder and is dependent not only on the desired outcome(s), but also the way in which evidence is gathered and interpreted to measure against particular benchmarks. Some organisations, including criminal justice agencies, may measure success in terms of crime prevention and reduced re-offending, often from a standpoint of managerial efficiency and cost/benefit analysis; practitioners may measure it in terms of levels of participation and agreed outcomes; individual stakeholders may measure it according to whether they had a satisfactory experience of the process. Academic proponents may look through a wider collective lens to explore, for example, whether underlying relationships are repaired (e.g. Llewelyn et al, 2013), or communities are healed (e.g. Crawford and Clear, 2001). Beyond these, there are conceptual measures of success, depending on whether a scheme aims to be retributive, rehabilitative or reparative. Aiming to contribute to the Handbook’s objectives, this chapter critiques evidence relating to five common benchmarks which are frequently invoked in restorative conferencing research: success by rates of participation, engagement, satisfaction, restoration and reducing recidivism. In particular, we consider the operation of youth conferencing in two jurisdictions, Northern Ireland and New Zealand. These jurisdictions are unique because restorative conference is mainstreamed within the youth justice system; prosecutors and courts are under a statutory obligation to make referrals. We were both part of a team that undertook an extensive evaluation of the Northern Ireland scheme shortly after its roll-out (Campbell et al, 2006). As with other chapters within this section, we critically review the evidence as to ‘what works’. However, we argue that much of the discourse around what constitutes success needs to be more finely attuned to take into account the nuances of restorative conferencing practices and outcomes. We propose that it may be beneficial in terms of evaluating and understanding the success of conferencing, to use an overarching framework of values which could help inform these benchmarks, which we have labelled elsewhere as the ‘agency-accountability framework’ (O’Mahony and Doak, 2017).

This report presents an overview of restorative justice provision within Constabularies across England and Wales in 2018 and builds on a previous survey conducted in 20091. The research reveals that restorative interventions have a long history in some Constabularies, that they are widely used across most forces and that there has been an increased diversity of practice and implementation since the last survey.
What is clear beyond the varied landscape of practice is a passion and commitment to meet the needs of victims and to deal with crime in a more meaningful and effective way for all concerned. Austerity has meant that Constabularies have fewer resources and increasing demands that require more creative strategies to tackle crime that involve partnerships. Restorative provision appears to be a key site where this is taking place with fervor.

This bulletin presents the interim findings of an evaluation of the recently introduced Northern Ireland restorative youth conferencing initiative. The findings are based on research conducted by the Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Queen’s University, Belfast and focus on the functioning of the scheme in the early months of its operation, from its inception on the 1st December 2003 until the 31st August 2004.

Though Northern Ireland is a relatively small jurisdiction within Ireland and the United Kingdom with a population of just over 1.7 million (of which about 183,000 are 10–16 years of age — the current age of criminal responsibility for children), it has its own unique system of youth justice which very recently has undergone significant transformation. A restorative justice approach to deal with young offenders and victims has been mainstreamed through a process called “youth conferencing.” This new approach offers valuable insights in terms of youth justice policy and practice to the international forum and in this chapter we explore some of its potentials and limitations.

This review of juvenile crime and justice has been prepared for the Criminal Justice Review Group which was set up following the Good Friday Agreement to provide a wide-ranging review of criminal justice in Northern Ireland. The review was commissioned to help inform
the Review Group of relevant research information in and around the broad area of juvenile justice. Specifically it was set out in the objectives that it should give consideration to the following elements: models and systems in other jurisdictions, including Scotland and the
Republic of Ireland; accountability and confidence building systems that are used in other jurisdictions and an assessment of their relative effectiveness; equity and fairness issues in relation to how other systems operate and in relation to relevant international standards;
options for the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland that can be considered, and an assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of various options on the operation of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland.

This report is based on a major research evaluation into restorative youth conferencing in Northern Ireland. 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).

This book proposes a new theoretical lens through which the theory and practice of restorative justice can be analysed. Given the sheer pace of recent developments in the field, there has been a clear need to re-evaluate the utility of some of the prevailing benchmark theories and to reimagine the shape and role of theory in guiding restorative justice provision within criminal justice. Drawing on empowerment theory, we argue that the joint concepts ‘agency’ and ‘accountability’ (which we label the agency-accountability framework) provide a useful lens for reimagining how restorative works and the normative goals it ought to encompass. From our perspective, programmes which aspire to be regarded as ‘fully restorative’ should be designed, implemented and evaluated in such a way that agency and accountability are maximised.

This book details the first communities based crime survey carried out within Northern Ireland. It explores a number of
questions beyond the usual remit of local crime surveys in order to more fully understand a whole range of issues relating to the experience of living in a society where the more obvious manifestations of conflict are beginning to recede and other more mundane but still important issues relating to crime and policing are coming to the fore. The production of this book coincides with dramatic changes to the political, social and criminological framework of Northern Ireland. Following the conclusion of the multi-party talks in April 1998, and the enactment of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 detailing structures for devolved government, there has been a movement towards restoring ‘normal’ political conditions in the jurisdiction. Along with the large-scale political changes there has been a concomitant process of review in the areas of criminal justice and policing. Mechanisms have been put in place to secure the early release of the vast majority of paramilitary prisoners and provisions for victims of the conflict have been considered.
These changes reflect the fact that life in Northern Ireland is poised to
change in fundamental ways and will hopefully emerge as, in the words of the Independent Commission on Policing, ‘a community at peace with
itself and committed to the democratic process’ (Patten, 1999 p. 1).