Re: hub review – clarity, timeliness and a more genuinely victim-centred approach
We welcome the update from HMPPS on the outcome of its internal review of the Restorative Practice Hub (Re:Hub), and the clarity it provides about the intended direction of travel following a period of significant challenge.
As the review itself recognises, there remains strong and widespread commitment to restorative justice across the system. At the same time, it is right that the review openly acknowledges the real and persistent difficulties that have emerged in practice, particularly around capacity pressures, delays in progressing sensitive and complex cases, and inconsistent communication about referrals, appeals, and decision-making. These issues are not abstract; they have tangible consequences for practitioners, services, and most importantly for victims, for whom delay and uncertainty can deepen harm rather than promote repair.
From the RJC’s perspective, the significance of this review lies in its willingness to be explicit about what has not been working and to commit publicly to addressing long-standing concerns, rather than minimising them. That transparency is an important foundation for rebuilding trust.
A central element of the review is the proposal to introduce greater clarity earlier in the process about circumstances in which restorative justice is, and is not, likely to be viable for individuals in prison or under probation supervision. This includes the introduction of a presumption of unsuitability for certain types of offending, while explicitly retaining the ability to proceed in exceptional circumstances. As the review makes clear, this is not a blanket ban, nor a departure from restorative justice principles, but an attempt to ensure practice proceeds only where it is genuinely viable, safe, and proportionate.
We are clear that this outcome should not be understood as constraining restorative practice or weakening access to restorative justice. Nor does it negate victims’ rights under the Victims’ Code to receive information about restorative justice and have it meaningfully considered. That right remains unchanged. What is being proposed instead is earlier, more honest communication about viability, so that victims are not left navigating extended delay, uncertainty, or processes that are ultimately unable to proceed.
Handled well, this shift has the potential to be more genuinely victim centred. Too often, victims invest emotional energy into pathways that only conclude after considerable time with a decision that they cannot move forward on safety or feasibility grounds. Clearer expectations earlier in the process can help avoid false hope, reduce unnecessary distress, and support more timely and humane decision-making. This strengthens, rather than undermines, informed choice and transparency, both of which sit at the heart of high-quality restorative justice.
We also recognise that how these presumptions are applied in practice will matter enormously. The sector will quite rightly scrutinise whether they are used proportionately, flexibly, and with sufficient attention to individual context. Where they drift into overly rigid or risk-averse application, they should and will be challenged, including by the RJC, in order to remain aligned with restorative standards and victim-centred principles.
Alongside the policy clarification, we welcome the range of operational and practical improvements outlined, including clearer complaints and appeals guidance, strengthened referral information, improved data systems and reporting, clearer written rationales for decisions, and ongoing stakeholder engagement. These are not peripheral process issues; they are fundamental to safe, consistent practice and to maintaining confidence between victims, practitioners, services, and Re:Hub.
As a sector, it is now right that we remain attentive to how these commitments are developed and implemented in practice. The detail will matter, particularly in ensuring consistency, proportionality, equity of access, and alignment with restorative justice standards. Implementation will be as important as intent.
On behalf of the RJC, I want to reiterate our commitment to continuing to work constructively and relationally with Re:Hub and HMPPS as this wider improvement process moves forward. Ongoing dialogue with practitioners, services, and people with lived experience will be essential if these changes are to deliver what they intend: restorative justice that is timely, transparent, safe, and truly centred on those most affected by harm.
Author: Jim Simon, Chief Executive Officer