Draft protocols for community based restorative justice schemes
Publication Date: 02 October 2006 (Archive)
NIACRO's response to the second round of consultation on the schemes.
PUBLISHED JULY 2006
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO) is a voluntary organisation which has been working for almost 35 years to reduce crime and its impact on people and communities. NIACRO provides services which promote safer communities; work with children and young people who offend; provide services to families and children of offenders; support offenders and ex-prisoners in the community and work with prisoners.
1.2 NIACRO has links with all key criminal justice agencies in Northern Ireland and also relates to other bodies/organisation in the voluntary, community and private sectors.
1.3 NIACRO made a substantive response to the first set of Draft Protocols in February 2006 (NIACROs response to consultation on Draft Guidelines for Community Based Restorative Justice Schemes). NIACRO notes that generally speaking it is highly unusual to have a second round of consultation and would take the view that observations made in response to the first set of Draft Protocols are still of relevance.
2. SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS
2.1 NIACRO welcomes the comment in the Introduction that states, “it should be a common aim and responsibility of all (our emphasis) those involved in operating protocol, including the schemes to promote confidence in the Criminal Justice System”. This was a central tenet of our initial response.
2.2 NIACRO supports the requirement that Schemes should operate in full accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998, all current Equality Legislation as well as adherence to relevant sections of the UN “Basic Principles on the use of Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters”.
2.3 NIACRO agrees that it is important to optimise the reporting of crime to the police however we do recognise that societies whose experience of policing has been less contested issue also experience underreporting. This history therefore reinforces the requirement for a police service to nurture and develop public confidence to insure that the public feel confident and comfortable in terms of reporting crime.
2.4 This is particularly relevant in respect of paragraph 9, which states that, “community based schemes share the responsibility of helping to promote confidence in the Criminal Justice system, including the police”. This statement is that it does not take account of or acknowledge any legacy of the conflict and the experience of policing that some individuals, groups and communities have experienced, particularly during that time .It would be helpful if this was articulated perhaps by reference to the context of the Patton Commission. Further the statement infers unconditional support for the police in particular and the Criminal Justice system in general. NIACRO would argue that no organisation should be required to give unconditional support to any system and would reserve the right to raise issues and concerns as they arise.
2.5 The issue in respect of developing public confidence is again applicable in paragraph 9.
2.6 NIACRO is disappointed to note that its observations regarding fingerprinting and DNA have not been taken on board (paragraph 11). Whilst the consultation notes that, “police and PPS will seek to fast track the consideration of cases forwarded by schemes” it overlooks the fact that a regulated community based restorative justice scheme contains within its practice a rapid response while simultaneously protecting individual rights. The removal of the phrase “seek to” would be helpful.
2.7 Paragraphs 12 and 13 which outline the role of the PPS will introduce processes that will have the effect of slowing down the restorative process and the comments made in 2.6 are relevant.
2.8 The document appears to place the PSNI in a more central role than in the first consultation. Given the public confidence issues we would restate that the Schemes should be discussed in a criminal justice rather than a policing paradigm.
2.9 As stated in NIACROs previous response, NIACRO welcomes the involvement of the Criminal Justice Inspectorate.
2.10 NIACRO supports the use of POCVA in terms of protecting children and/or vulnerable adults and further supports accredited relevant training programmes.
2.11 The consultation suggests that schemes would be told who the “qualified independent point of contact for advice on human rights issues and legislation” is after the schemes sign the protocol. In terms of developing confidence they could be told prior to the event.
2.12 Should PBNI become the independent external complaints mechanism as referred to in paragraph 22, there are likely to be training and possibly resourcing issues. We also believe there could be a conflict of issues where PBNI to be the funder of some of the schemes
2.13 The July 06 Draft Protocol outlines a proposed model relating to a suitability panel comprising representatives of relevant statutory bodies which will receive information from the police (Annex). NIACRO has already made the point that independent organisations should be responsible for recruiting and selecting their own staff based on formalised recruitment and selection practices. The consultation should reference of the fact that NIACRO has a wealth of experience in terms of working with employers and those with records. Attached is a copy of NIACROs publication “Working with Conviction – a Guide for Employers”.
2.14 As stated in the previous consultation, NIACRO believes that the schemes have a responsibility to develop public confidence in their activities. The proposal to establish a CBRJ suitability panel partially divests them of this responsibility and it also interferes with their governance arrangements and their independent status. Consideration should be given to ensuring that the statutory Criminal Justice sector is represented on interview panels. Should that representative be unhappy with a particular appointment there should be a transparent processes of review.
2.15 As the model is outlined it does not allow for complete transparency in that it enables information to be inserted by organisations that may not be answerable to the applicant for example the information may be supplied under the guise of national security. If an applicant is deemed unsuitable for any post they should be given the reasons as to their unsuitability. Indeed imposing barriers to employment which remain disclosured and unchallengeable impede the development of public confidence in the Criminal Justice system and policing.
Conclusion