RJC Responds To The 2024-2025 Independent Sentencing Review

The Restorative Justice Council welcomed the independent sentencing review and is responding to the call for evidence on behalf of our members and the broader restorative justice sector. In preparing our response, our CEO collaborated closely with Dr Katherine Doolin, a Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of Auckland, New Zealand. Together, they have co-authored our submission to ensure it is grounded in international evidence, which is a critical requirement outlined in the Terms of Reference for the review which emphasises the importance of basing the sentencing framework on proven strategies that effectively reduce offending.

BACKGROUND TO THE INDEPENDENT SENTENCING REVIEW

The independent sentencing review is guided by three key principles: first, sentences must punish offenders and protect the public, ensuring that there is always space in prison for the most dangerous offenders; second, sentences should encourage offenders to desist from a life of crime, ultimately reducing crime rates through lower reoffending; and third, there should be an increased focus on utilising punishment outside of prison.

The goal of the review is to identify long-term solutions for the justice system in England and Wales by examining the effectiveness and structure of non-custodial sentences. This includes developing robust community alternatives to imprisonment and exploring the use of fines. The review will look into how incentives can be used effectively in sentence management and evaluate the powers of the probation service in administering community sentences, as well as the implications of short custodial sentences.

Additionally, the review will assess the framework for longer custodial sentences, including minimum sentencing guidelines, the range of available penalties for different offences, and how sentences are administered. It will examine release procedures, community supervision duration, recall mechanisms, and the role of technology in supporting these processes. Consideration will also be given to whether the sentencing framework should be adjusted to meet the specific needs or vulnerabilities of particular groups, such as young adult offenders, older individuals, and women. Lastly, the review will address sentencing approaches for prolific offenders, particularly focusing on offences primarily targeting women and girls.

The panel's call for evidence focused on seven key themes:

  • History and trends in sentencing
  • The structure of sentencing
  • The use of technology in sentencing
  • Community sentences
  • Custodial sentences
  • The progression of custodial sentences
  • The individual needs of victims and offenders

In our response, we address each of these themes with a primary emphasis on the potential integration of restorative justice into any future sentencing framework.

RJC RESPONSE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Our response critically examines the evolution of sentencing practices in England and Wales, shedding light on key historical trends, contemporary challenges, and innovative reforms aimed at fostering a more humane, effective, and equitable justice system. We highlight the significant shift towards punitive measures, driven by public pressure for harsher penalties, and we argue for a balanced approach that encompasses rehabilitation, victim reparation, and community safety.

Historically, sentencing frameworks have seen substantial changes, particularly following the introduction of laws like the Sentencing Act 2020 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003. These legislative developments have led to increased sentence durations and mandatory minimums, resulting in longer incarceration periods. Our response points out that recent trends demonstrate an alarming rise in average custodial sentences—from 12.7 months in 2003 to 20.9 months in 2023—particularly for violent crimes. This shift raises concerns about the effectiveness of such punitive measures and their disconnect from core objectives like rehabilitation and victim support.

We advocate for a paradigm shift in sentencing practices, emphasising the need for evidence-based alternatives such as non-custodial sentences, community interventions, and restorative justice. Current practices show that short custodial sentences often fail to reduce recidivism and neglect the complex backgrounds of offenders. Consequently, more emphasis should be placed on addressing the underlying drivers of offending—such as mental health issues and substance abuse—while involving victims more meaningfully in the justice process with increased access to restorative justice.

We include international comparisons that highlight successful models where approaches prioritise rehabilitation, community reintegration and restorative justice over incarceration. By integrating restorative justice practices into community and custodial sentencing frameworks, our response argues for a system that not only holds offenders accountable but also facilitates healing for victims.

Furthermore, we put forward the case for leveraging technology to enhance accessibility and efficiency in restorative justice processes. We emphasise the development of secure platforms for virtual restorative meetings, which allow for broader participation and engagement between victims and offenders, regardless of geographical barriers.

Finally, our response underscores the importance of addressing individual needs for both victims and offenders within the justice system. By implementing trauma-informed practices and providing tailored rehabilitation programs, alongside robust support services, the justice system can create more effective pathways for recovery and reintegration, ultimately reducing recidivism and enhancing community safety.

Within our response we call for urgent reforms within the sentencing framework to embrace flexible, restorative, and rehabilitative approaches. By shifting towards a justice system that prioritises restoration and healing, we can cultivate safer communities and foster greater public trust in justice institutions.

FULL RESPONSE

THEME 1: HISTORY AND TRENDS IN SENTENCING

Sentencing in England and Wales has undergone significant transformations, primarily driven by pivotal legislative developments and public pressure aligned with its core objectives: punishment, crime reduction, rehabilitation, public protection, and victim reparation (Sentencing Act 2020). The Restorative Justice Council (RJC) aims to shed light on the key factors catalysing these changes, their implications, and the potential advantages of re-evaluating current sentencing practices, particularly regarding the use of short prison sentences.

The introduction of Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced stricter guidelines for serious offences, such as murder, leading to a rise in the average sentence duration across the board. Moreover, the implementation of mandatory minimum sentences resulted in increased custody lengths, reflecting an approach that prioritises deterrence and punishment over rehabilitation. Recent legislative developments have resulted in an increase in maximum penalties, which has led to a rise in the average time spent in custody from 12.7 months in 2003 to 20.9 months in 2023 (Independent Sentencing Review 2024 to 2025: Call for Evidence). This trend is particularly concerning for violent crimes. For example, the average length of a life sentence has increased over time (B Crewe et al., Life Imprisonment from Young Adulthood: Adaptation, Identity and Time. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020). While these legislative measures were intended to enhance public safety, they warrant scrutiny regarding their alignment with the other core objectives of sentencing.

By way of international comparison, between 2005-2015, the prison population in the Netherlands decreased by 44%, making it one of the lowest incarceration rates in Western Europe (M Boone et al., ‘Explaining the collapse of the prison population in the Netherlands: Testing the theories’ (2022) 19(4) European Journal of Criminology 488-505). The reasons for this significant decrease in prison numbers are varied, including fewer prosecutions, higher number of acquittals, an increased use of shorter prison sentences, court-ordered mediation, non-custodial sentences, including fines, and out-of-court disposals, and use of specialist rehabilitation for offenders with mental illnesses (Boone et al;, above; F Pakes, ‘British Jails are at breaking point - here’s how the Dutch halved their prison population’ 10 July 2024, The Conversation). 

Public demand for harsher penalties (and crime reporting and media calls for more visible punitive responses to offending), particularly in response to high-profile violent crimes, has significantly influenced legislative changes. Recent surveys have found that the majority of respondents felt that sentencing in England and Wales is too lenient, despite many of those surveyed being unaware of increases in the average sentence lengths and minimum terms for murder (J.V. Roberts et al., Public Knowledge of Sentencing Practice and Trends: Research Report. London: Sentencing Academy, 2022). This societal pressure for increased sentences often overlooks the necessity for rehabilitation, leading to a criminal justice system that focusses primarily on punishment rather than on recovery and creating opportunities for offender behavioural change. It is crucial to strike a balance between evidence-based practices that prioritise community safety and increasing sentencing options that prioritise rehabilitation and victim reparation.

There is a lack of evidence to suggest that longer prison sentences better reduce recidivism (Sentencing Council UK, Reconceptualising the effectiveness of sentencing - four perspectives, 2024), suggesting a disconnect between punitive sentencing and rehabilitation goals. The focus on punishment often neglects offenders’ complex and troubled backgrounds and fails to address the underlying drivers of offending, such as mental health, substance misuse, backgrounds of violence and victimisation, neglect and trauma.

There is also a lack of evidence to show that longer prison sentences support victims’ recovery and healing. Longer and more severe sentences do not equate to justice for victims. Victim studies have consistently found that victims prefer effective sentences over harsh sentences, with the most common desired outcome being that the offender does not re-offend (P Rossetti et al., Victims’ justice? What victims and witnesses really want from sentencing. London: Victim Support, 2010).

The RJC advocates for a move away, in appropriate cases, from short prison sentences to an increased use of community-based sentences and out of court disposals, in which restorative justice practices should play a greater role.

Evidence shows that short custodial sentences are generally ineffective in reducing reoffending. For example, more than half of people (55%) given a custodial sentence of less than 12 months are convicted for further crimes (Ministry of Justice, Sentencing Bill Factsheet: Short Sentences, 2023). Those serving short prison sentences often experience the lowest levels of support despite experiencing the highest levels of social need. Short custodial sentences often result in separation from family and community, and loss of employment and/or housing (M Cracknell, ‘Invisible men: Short prison sentences and the pains of invisibility and insignificance’ (2023) 62(3) The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice 341-356). These disruptions set the conditions for re-offending and feed into a revolving cycle of individuals being in and out of prison. By way of international comparison, those individuals serving short prison sentences in Norway are typically housed in smaller, more open prisons that are closer to communities and maintain closer ties to families, both of which increase successful resettlement on leaving prison (Cracknell, above).  

Non-custodial sentences are more effective at reducing recidivism compared with short prison sentences (Sentencing Council UK, above). Non-custodial sentences are better placed to maintain vital family and community connections and facilitate a smoother reintegration into society. By integrating rehabilitation programmes (such as counselling, job training, and education) into non-custodial sentences, offenders can address the factors driving their criminal behaviour, leading to sustainable outcomes and reduced future offences. Increasing the use of non-custodial sentences also reinforces options such as fines and community service, fostering public trust in a justice system that prioritises rehabilitation and victim and community reparation over punishment.

The RJC urges the Government to make greater use of deferred sentences. Deferred sentences have been available in England and Wales since the early 1970s, but their use has been low (J.V. Roberts et al., The Use of Deferred Sentencing in England and Wales: A Review of Law, Guidance and Research. London: Sentencing Academy, 2022). The White Paper, A Smarter Approach to Sentencing (2020), called for a greater use of deferred sentencing. The RJC is in favour of this stance. Deferred sentences permit the court to defer sentencing while the offender is given the opportunity to comply with stipulated requirements, which if successfully met the presumption is that a non-custodial sanction will be imposed instead of a prison sentence. Requirements often include treatment programmes, for example, residential or community-based alcohol and drug treatment. The RJC proposes that attendance at restorative community panels or restorative meetings with victims (where there is consent) could form part of deferred sentence requirements.

The RJC asserts that the current sentencing framework lacks a strong emphasis on victim reparation - a core sentencing objective - and on utilising holistic restorative justice approaches. The RJC strongly advocates for the increased use of restorative justice both within sentencing options and out of court disposals.

Restorative justice has been shown to meet the emotional needs of victims resulting from victimisation and have a positive psychological impact on victims (A. M. Nascimento, ‘The Psychological Impact of Restorative Justice Practices on Victims of Crimes - a Systematic Review’ (2023) 24(3) Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 1929-1947). Restorative justice can also help to address the broader impacts of crime, particularly for families and communities affected by offending (Growing Up Safe, Restorative Justice: Healing Families, Protecting Children, 2024. Available at: https://growingupsafe-sxm.com/2024/11/restorative-justice-healing-families-protecting-children/).

Restorative justice has been proven to reduce recidivism, particularly for lower-level offences, and demonstrated greater levels of victim satisfaction, procedural justice for victims, and offender accountability (L Fulham et al., ‘The effectiveness of restorative justice programs: A meta-analysis of recidivism and other relevant outcomes’ (2023) Criminology & Criminal Justice. Online First, 30 November).

The RJC urges the Government to consider strengthening the option for victims and offenders to have a restorative conference before the offender is sentenced. By way of example, Aotearoa New Zealand has a legislative scheme that allows for pre-sentencing restorative conferences in relation to adult offending to take place where there is consent from victim and offender. When a conference takes place, the judge must consider any outcomes agreed about how the offender will repair the harm done to the victim, when sentencing the offender. The sentence may be reduced to reflect the fact that the offender has accepted responsibility for their actions and any outcomes agreed between victim and offender during the restorative pre-sentence conference. 

Increasing the use of out of court disposals for low-level crimes, including restorative justice initiatives, would enable the police and prison service to allocate resources more effectively. This could lead to improved monitoring and management of serious high-risk offenders and enhance community safety and address public concerns about crime.

While recent changes in sentencing have resulted in longer prison terms, particularly for violent offences, these measures often overlook the other core sentencing objectives of rehabilitation and victim reparation. The RJC urges the Government to adopt a more balanced approach that increases the use of non-custodial sentences, deferred sentences, and out of court disposals, for appropriate offences and incorporates learnings from effective international practices to strengthen the sentencing framework. This would ultimately foster safer communities, public confidence in the justice system, and promote restorative justice for victims and offenders alike.

THEME 2: STRUCTURES

The Restorative Justice Council (RJC) aims to highlight the significance of defining punishment, exploring alternative forms of punishment, and proposing necessary reforms to enhance sentencing practices and the criminal justice system. The RJC advocates that reevaluating these aspects can significantly improve the effectiveness and humanity of our sentencing practices.

Punishment, a legal consequence imposed on offenders after conviction, serves several purposes: deterring crime, rehabilitating offenders, providing restitution to victims, and ensuring social accountability. Traditionally, punishment is categorised into a hierarchy, ranging from custodial sentences to community service. However, it is crucial to adapt this definition to reflect contemporary societal dynamics and criminogenic factors.

To effectively address the diverse needs of offenders and victims, the RJC asserts that alternative forms of punishment should be expanded. This includes increasing opportunities to engage with offenders positively, promoting rehabilitation, and restoring public trust through non-custodial sentences and out of court disposals based on restorative justice principles. Rehabilitation programmes should also target the underlying drivers of offending, such as substance use disorders and mental health, to reduce recidivism and encourage personal transformation.

The RJC asserts that there should be greater access for victims and offenders to restorative justice processes that facilitate dialogue between offenders and victims, emphasising the repair of harm over mere punishment. Restorative justice is not ‘a soft option’. It encourages the offender to take responsibility for their actions and actively take steps to repair the harm done by their offending behaviour. Restorative justice has been proven to reduce recidivism, particularly for lower-level offences, and demonstrated greater levels of offender accountability, victim satisfaction, and procedural justice for victims (L Fulham et al., ‘The effectiveness of restorative justice programs: A meta-analysis of recidivism and other relevant outcomes’ (2023) Criminology & Criminal Justice. Online First, 30 November).

Restorative justice also has been shown to meet the needs of victims, empowering them through a process that provides the opportunity to explain the effects of the offending on them and their loved ones, ask questions from the  person who has harmed them, and express a view as to how the harm done to them can be repaired (K Doolin, ‘But What Does It Mean? Seeking Definitional Clarity in Restorative Justice (2007) 71(5) The Journal of Criminal Law 427-440).

To effectively align the sentencing framework with statutory purposes, the RJC recommends that several reforms should be considered. Re-evaluating the existing sentencing guidelines should allow for flexible approaches that consider individual case circumstances. Ensuring justice is both proportional and equitable requires striking a balance between supply and demand by implementing processes to maintain equilibrium between available sentencing options and the resources of the justice system. Assessing facilities and services will help meet the demands of various sentencing types.

The RJC asserts that this review should consider empowering the Sentencing Council to regularly update guidelines based on emerging evidence about different sentencing types. This will enhance consistency, transparency, and responsiveness to societal needs, strengthening the effectiveness of alternative punishments.

Given the potential of restorative justice to play a significant role in future community and custodial sentencing criteria, the Government should also empower the RJC to regularly update its guidelines based on emerging evidence to ensure the commissioning and delivery of high-quality restorative justice processes.

Public confidence in the judicial system is paramount. As part of this, it is essential to provide ongoing training for judges, including providing up to date relevant data on sentencing outcomes, to bolster their confidence and trust in using non-custodial sanctions. Feedback mechanisms must be established to communicate the impacts of various sentencing options to inform legislative decisions. The Government should conduct regular impact assessments to evaluate the intended and unintended consequences of new sentencing legislation on community safety and offender rehabilitation, refining policies to ensure that they serve their intended goals.

The RJC maintains that reforming the sentencing framework requires recognising the multifaceted nature of punishment and its various forms. By evaluating the current legislative landscape, enhancing the role of the Sentencing Council and the RJC within this, fostering judicial confidence, and learning from global best practices, the objectives of sentencing can be better achieved, particularly the goals of offender rehabilitation and restoration of victims. The RJC asserts that placing emphasis on alternatives to traditional punitive measures promotes a more humane approach and effectively addresses the root causes of criminal behaviour, benefiting offenders, victims, and the community.

THEME 3: TECHNOLOGY 

Using technology in the criminal justice system is not new. Electronic monitoring, for example GPS tracking, monitors offenders in real time, enforces curfews and ensures compliance with sentencing. It also grants offenders autonomy and aids in their reintegration into society. Transdermal alcohol monitoring devices enhance supervision, aiding in abstinence and provides insights into offender’s behaviour during community supervision. With the rapid advancements in technology, the Restorative Justice Council (RJC) urges the Government to seize the transformative opportunity that technology presents to revolutionise not only sentencing options and community management of offenders, but also to transform and widen access to restorative justice.

While our submission will focus on several areas where technology can enhance the criminal justice system, our primary focus is on how technology can expand access to restorative justice and maximise the Government’s previous investment in this field.

The RJC maintains that, by adopting a device-led restorative justice approach, restorative practices can be used more widely to empower more individuals to benefit from this approach. The flexibility that technology offers allows victims and offenders to engage in meaningful dialogue, irrespective of their location, ensuring that a wider range of victims can participate safely in restorative processes. The RJC has already collaborated with the technology sector to develop this technology and is currently in the testing phase with organisations across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

The technology being developed in collaboration with the RJC enhances the process by creating a secure platform, which prepares participants for the restorative process without the need for travel and, in some cases, even facilitates the meeting (e.g. restorative conference or restorative circle) remotely, with all communication supervised by the restorative practitioner. Using technology in restorative justice does not mean becoming dependent on automating the process by utilising bots or eliminating the human interaction that gives the restorative process its power. The technology still involves a skilled and highly trained restorative practitioner managing the restorative process.

Underpinning the technology with integrated Artificial Intelligence (AI) provides practitioners with the tools to effectively analyse offender behaviour patterns, predict risks, and offer data insights to monitor participant demographics, including age, gender, ethnicity, and socio-economic background. This allows for customised services, equitable access tracking, and community engagement. Systematically tracking cases from referral to resolution offers insights into restorative processes, enabling continuous improvement.

Anchoring restorative practices in robust data helps to drive meaningful change that promotes healing, accountability, and community trust. Adhering to evidence-based practices creates an equitable and responsive justice system that serves individuals and communities. The RJC maintains that investing in a technology-based model of restorative justice will provide the Government with a scalable and cost-effective restorative option that could be implemented nationwide. For more information, see the RJC’s recent publication, Improving Restorative Justice with Comprehensive Data insights (2024). Available at: https://restorativejustice.org.uk/resources/improving-restorative-justice-comprehensive-data-insights

The Government should also explore emerging technologies such as Mobile Biometric Authentication, which securely facilitates offenders to check in with probation/parole officers via smartphones, reducing frequent in-person visits. Inspired by practices in jurisdictions such as Arkansas (USA), this technology enhances compliance tracking and keeps probation and parole officers informed about offenders’ locations. Additionally, robust digital platforms can support community management by providing offenders with essential resources such as counselling, education, and job training, helping to foster community connections and enhancing reintegration. Integrating technology into remote supervision through video calls and app-based online interactions can help to facilitate communication and effective case management, empowering probation officers to monitor offenders and provide support without being a constant physical presence. Emerging technology can also support personalised sentencing options based on offenders’ progress and behaviours, rewarding compliance and engagement in rehabilitation.

Wherever technology is employed, the Government should ensure it aligns with Nudge Theory (R.H. Thaler and C.R. Sunstien, Nudge. Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness. London: Yale University Press, 2008). Implementing behavioural nudges, such as appointment reminders via apps or positive reinforcement for compliance, can positively influence offender behaviour, guiding them towards rehabilitation and adherence to sentencing conditions. Numerous examples of Nudge Theory in practice include the random control trial conducted by Durham Constabulary, which reported an impressive 8.5% reduction in reported residential burglary offences within the treatment group’s postcode location (A Crowe et al., ‘Nudging down residential burglaries: A randomised control trial’ (2024) 18 Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice. Advance access publication 11 June 2024). An in-depth overview of this trial is provided in the attached supporting evidence file. 

The innovative application of technology in sentencing has the potential to revolutionise offender management, enhance public safety, and promote rehabilitation. By embracing current and emerging technologies such as electronic monitoring, biometric authentication, AI, and virtual restorative justice, the justice system in England and Wales can tailor its sentencing options to meet the unique needs of offenders while upholding justice principles. It is imperative that the justice system adapts to technological advancements to maintain a balanced approach that emphasises accountability, rehabilitation, victim reparation and community safety.

THEME 4: COMMUNITY SENTENCES

The Restorative Justice Council (RJC) advocates for integrating restorative justice principles into community sentence and probation frameworks. This integration offers significant benefits for victims, offenders, and communities, contributing to a more effective and humane criminal justice system.

Evidence shows that restorative justice is not ‘a soft option’. It encourages the offender to take responsibility for their actions and actively take steps to repair the harm done by their offending behaviour. The restorative process supports offenders to recognise the consequences of their actions and develop empathy, make amends to the victim and ‘give back’ to the community. The presence of victims in restorative processes means that it is harder for offenders to insulate themselves from the impacts of their offending and rationalisations for their offending can be challenged more directly than what happens in the conventional criminal justice system. Restorative justice practices also provide scaffolded support for offenders to restore their sense of belonging to the community and support their reintegration to society (K Doolin, ‘But What Does It Mean? Seeking Definitional Clarity in Restorative Justice (2007) 71(5) The Journal of Criminal Law 427-440).

Restorative justice also has been shown to meet the needs of victims, empowering them through a process that provides the opportunity to explain the effects of the offending on them and their loved ones, ask questions from the  person who has harmed them, and express a view as to how the harm done to them can be repaired. Evidence shows that, where victims wish to take part, seeking ways to restore victims and provide opportunities for healing and moving forward should be central to restorative justice processes (Doolin, above).

Restorative justice emphasises community involvement, crucial for addressing crime and promoting rehabilitation (Doolin, above). Enhancing community sentences, such as unpaid work and treatment programmes, by engaging local community members in the rehabilitation process of offenders fosters collective responsibility, encourages pro-social behaviour and strengthens social norms against criminal behaviour.

Restorative justice supports individualised approaches, aligning with the need for targeted community sentences. Customising restorative programmes to address offenders’ unique backgrounds and circumstances deepens engagement and promotes personal responsibility and reconciliation, ultimately benefiting both offenders and victims.

Integrating restorative justice into community sentencing combines effective punishment with meaningful rehabilitation. Engaging offenders with victims through restorative processes fosters accountability and helps restore public confidence in community sentences. This approach emphasises reparation and healing rather than solely punitive measures.

Amidst ongoing pressures on our judicial system, restorative justice offers a robust alternative to the court. By utilising restorative justice for lower-level offences, more offenders can be diverted from the court system, efficiently addressing harm without the need for formal judicial proceedings. This leads to quicker resolutions, reduces the burden on courts, and supports community engagement while holding offenders accountable.

International examples of out of court processes based on restorative justice have shown success in holding offenders accountable while also supporting them to address the factors underlying their offending behaviour. In Aotearoa New Zealand, Te Pae Oranga is an Iwi Māori and New Zealand Police partnership initiative, which runs iwi (community) panels for adult offenders who have committed low level offences and have accepted responsibility for the harm they have caused. Victims are invited to attend the iwi panels. A 2019 evaluation showed that Te Pae Oranga was successful in holding offenders accountable, supported offenders’ recovery, and reduced harm from reoffending by 22 per cent (D Walton et al., ‘Iwi community justice panels reduce harm from reoffending’ (2020) 15(1) Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online 75). Further, New Zealand’s Family Group Conference youth justice model has reduced youth recidivism rates by 30% compared to traditional court processes (P Spier and R Wilkinson, Reoffending patterns for participants of youth justice Family Group Conferences held in 2011 and 2012 (Wellington: Ministry for Social Development, 2016).

The RJC advocates that it is essential to establish clear guidelines for which offences can be addressed through restorative justice to clarify the role that restorative justice can play in community sentences and out of court disposals. For non-violent offences, community restorative justice (either as part of community sentences or as out of court disposals) offers a constructive approach that allows offenders to make amends and learn from their actions, supporting broader rehabilitation goals.

Amid the pressures facing the probation service, restorative justice presents a resource-efficient method for managing offenders. Community-led restorative programmes draw upon local resources and support networks, alleviating some burdens on probation officers by encouraging community involvement in rehabilitation. By enabling participation in restorative circles or community conferencing, offenders can engage directly with victims and community members. This constructive dialogue fosters accountability and understanding, which are crucial for offender rehabilitation.

The RJC also advocates for an increased use of deferred sentences. Deferred sentences permit the court to suspend sentencing to give the offender the opportunity to comply with stipulated requirements, for example, treatment programmes. If successfully completed, the presumption is that a community sentence is imposed rather than a custodial sentence. There is strong international evidence for the effectiveness of deferred sentences. The RJC urges the Government to consider the example of deferred sentencing in Aotearoa New Zealand, which takes place in a number of specialist solution-focused (problem-solving courts). Arguably the most well-known example is Te Whare Whakapiki Wairua/The Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Court, which has been shown to reduce recidivism. Participation in a restorative justice community panel and/or a restorative conference with the victim (where consent is given) is a key part of the process for offenders completing the Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Court programme. A New Zealand Ministry of Justice evaluation (Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Court Outcomes Evaluation 2018-19, 2019) found that, within two years, participants were 23% less likely to reoffend than matched offenders. Participants were also 25% less likely to be re-imprisoned, and 35% less likely to reoffend for a serious offence. Evidence has shown that the drug treatment courts in Aotearoa New Zealand also help offenders to successfully address the drivers of their offending, strengthen their relationships with family and community, and promote successful reintegration into society (K Doolin and F Te Aho, ‘The Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Courts - Te Whare Whakapiki Wairua - in Aotearoa New Zealand’ (2018) New Zealand Law Journal 334-358).

As previously suggested as part of the RJC response for Theme 3, technology can further enhance restorative justice by facilitating the organisation of meetings, tracking progress, and connecting offenders with community resources. Virtual conferencing allows participation for those unable to attend in person, expanding engagement opportunities.

Integrating restorative justice into community sentencing practices and out of court disposals has the potential to enhance outcomes for offenders, victims, and the community as a whole. By promoting dialogue, participation, and accountability, restorative justice can make community sentences and out of court disposals more effective, reduce recidivism, and support offender rehabilitation. The RJC urges the Government to consider the substantial benefits that restorative justice can bring to community sentencing, out of court disposals and the broader criminal justice system.

THEME 5: CUSTODIAL SENTENCES

The current sentencing framework for England and Wales has resulted in longer sentences for serious offences, often compromising justice goals such as rehabilitation and victim reparation. The rigid structure of minimum and maximum sentences mandated by Parliament is in need of reform. Granting greater discretion to judges and magistrates enables nuanced decision-making that tailors sentences to both the offences committed and the needs of the offenders.

Engaging community members in discussions about appropriate sentencing options fosters a sense of ownership over local justice processes, enhancing trust and cooperation with the justice system. By involving the community in the rehabilitation process, offenders gain a deeper understanding of the impact of their actions and are more likely to agree on restitution measures, promoting a holistic approach to accountability. This level of community involvement also has the potential to enhance transparency and accountability in sentencing, which is essential for building public trust in the justice system.

The Restorative Justice Council (RJC) asserts that there needs to be greater flexibility in sentencing. Introducing new custodial sentence types that incorporate flexibility and rehabilitation incentives is essential. For instance, tiered sentencing models could reward good behaviour and active participation in rehabilitation programmes with earlier release or reduced restrictions, encouraging positive conduct during imprisonment.

The RJC maintains that reform efforts of custodial sentences must prioritise rehabilitation to prevent recidivism and ensure that custodial sentences contribute positively to both offenders and society. Incorporating support services, such as substance use disorder treatment, mental health services, skills training, and educational opportunities, within the custodial framework equips offenders with the tools they need for successful reintegration upon release. Establishing structured follow-up programmes for released offenders based on a restorative framework, alongside ongoing support from probation services and community organisations, promotes sustained rehabilitation. Norway’s prison system is a successful example of achieving low recidivism rates through a focus on rehabilitation. A main part of this rehabilitative focus is prioritising education and community reintegration within its prison system, demonstrating the effectiveness of rehabilitative justice (M Denny, ‘Norway's Prison System: Investigating Recidivism and Reintegration’ (2016) 10(10) Bridges 22-37).

The RJC advocates that there should be greater use of alternative custodial options for those whose offending necessitates a period of imprisonment. To reduce reliance and strain on traditional closed prison settings, the Government should explore alternative custodial options, such as expanding eligibility for open prison placements to enable lower-risk offenders to engage in work, education, and community service. This approach aids rehabilitation and fosters reintegration by maintaining family and community ties. The use of more open prisons has been implemented successfully in Norway for individuals serving short custodial sentences (M Cracknell, ‘Invisible men: Short prison sentences and the pains of invisibility and insignificance’ (2023) 62(3) The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice 341-356).

Following the example of the Netherlands, the Government should explore the use of specialist rehabilitation programmes for offenders with mental illness. The Netherlands have nearly halved their prison population in recent years and now have one of the lowest incarceration rates in Western Europe and globally. Whilst there are many reasons attributed to this significant decrease in the prison population, the development of specialist rehabilitation programmes for offenders with mental illnesses has been a factor (F Pakes, ‘British Jails are at breaking point - here’s how the Dutch halved their prison population’ 10 July 2024, The Conversation). 

The RJC asserts that there should be increased use of home detention for appropriate offenders. For non-violent offenders, home detention with electronic monitoring offers a viable alternative to traditional custodial sentences. It promotes accountability while allowing offenders to maintain family connections and remain in employment, supporting their reintegration to society.

The RJC advocates that integrating and embedding restorative justice principles into custodial sentences is crucial for focusing on repairing harm and addressing the needs of victims, offenders, and the community. This applies both to promoting opportunities for external victims to meet with their offender in prison for a restorative process and creating opportunities to use restorative practices within the prison establishment. There are successful examples emerging within prisons in England and Wales of embedding restorative practices within their sites (e.g. HMP Peterborough and HMP Forest Bank), including induction processes, staff training, prisoner discipline processes, and for dealing with conflict within the prison. The RJC urges the Government to expand the use of restorative practices within prisons as part of internal prison processes and as opportunities for external victims to meet with their offender whilst they are serving time in prison.

While there are well-established structured opportunities for dialogue (such as restorative meetings, restorative conferences, victim-offender mediation) between victims and offenders, funded by Police and Crime commissioners, these are underutilised for those serving custodial sentences. There is evidence to support the positive impact of restorative justice during and after imprisonment. It can significantly enhance victim satisfaction and provide offenders with insights into the consequences of their actions (K Doolin, ‘Restorative Youth Detention: The Way Forward?’ (2022) 22(3) Criminology & Criminal Justice 367-382).

However, the current HMPPS Restorative Justice Policy Framework, designed to facilitate restorative justice processes safely and effectively for individuals serving custodial sentences, has inadvertently negatively affected crime victims. The restorative sector has pinpointed several challenges regarding the implementation of the HMPPS Restorative Justice Policy Framework and its integration into Re:Hub’s operational activities. The RJC, along with other organisations in the sector, has been actively working to resolve these issues, although progress has been limited.

A notable concern is the extended wait times for processing referrals submitted to Re:Hub by restorative service providers. Case studies presented to the RJC reveal delays of up to two years before decisions on case suitability are made. These delays have understandably caused anxiety and frustration for victims and the restorative practitioners who support them.

Additionally, there is a lack of transparency in decision-making processes. This can result in restorative providers who work directly with victims not receiving timely updates on case progress. While it is acknowledged that certain information related to decision-making is not suitable for sharing, victims should be provided with a clear rationale for the decision in a timely manner. This lack of transparency has led to inconsistent communication between restorative providers and the Hub, potentially affecting the collaborative efforts needed for successful restorative processes.

The absence of a defined process for service providers and/or victims to appeal decisions can also impact accountability and cause frustration within the restorative sector. While the RJC and the broader restorative sector understand the importance of ensuring the safety of all participants, it is essential that any relevant department is adequately resourced to meet the demands placed upon them.

The RJC respectfully urges the Government to review the existing HMPPS Restorative Justice Policy Framework and the associated Re:Hub processes. This is because the RJC believes that these processes may not fully align with their intended purpose and could be potentially affecting the wellbeing of crime victims.

Reforming custodial sentences is crucial for creating a more equitable, effective, and humane criminal justice system. Such reforms can enhance rehabilitation opportunities for offenders, address victims’ needs through meaningful reparation and dialogue processes, and improve community safety by reducing recidivism. By embracing flexibility, community involvement, and transparency in sentencing, the justice system can cultivate a restorative approach that benefits all parties involved.

THEME 6: PROGRESSION OF CUSTODIAL SENTENCES

The progression of offenders through custodial sentences is a crucial component of sentencing reform. The Restorative Justice Council (RJC) maintains that reforming this progression through an approach that integrates restorative processes is essential for improving justice outcomes for offenders, victims, and communities.

It is crucial to ensure a smooth transition and reintegration from custody to community life, as most prisoners will eventually return to society. Expanding eligibility for open prisons will allow more offenders to thrive in environments that support rehabilitation and community integration. Establishing clear pathways for engaging in community work while imprisoned fosters responsibility and prepares offenders for successful reintegration.

Observing international practices can inform effective reforms. Incentivising positive behaviour and participation in rehabilitation opportunities while in prison can enhance outcomes for offenders. Norway’s prison system is a successful example of achieving low recidivism rates through a focus on rehabilitation. A main part of this rehabilitative focus is prioritising education and community reintegration within its prison system, demonstrating the effectiveness of rehabilitative justice (M Denny, ‘Norway's Prison System: Investigating Recidivism and Reintegration’ (2016) 10(10) Bridges 22-37).

However, the Government should look carefully at the international examples being mooted presently, such as those in Texas (USA), which allow prisoners to be eligible earlier for parole consideration by engaging in educational and rehabilitative activities. Recent commentary has suggested that, while such schemes are designed to incentivise compliance and good behaviour, there is no guarantee of early release from prison or successful rehabilitation (M Deitch, ‘The UK looks to Texas for prison solutions — but is it looking through rose-coloured glasses?’ London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 10 October 2024. Available at: https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/resources/uk-looks-texas-prison-solutions-%E2%80%94-it-looking-through-rose-coloured-glasses

Increasing the use of temporary release arrangements and Home Detention Curfews for eligible prisoners is vital. These programmes should be accessible to more offenders, particularly those actively participating in rehabilitation, to motivate ongoing positive behaviour change efforts and facilitate smoother transitions post full release from prison.

The current system of automatic release points can create inconsistencies and may not accurately reflect an offender’s rehabilitative progress. By implementing flexible release criteria that consider individual progress and achievements is crucial. A personalised approach can enhance public safety and better assess readiness for reintegration.

Effective post-release management is crucial for successful reintegration. Analysing and prioritising probation resources to target supervision efforts effectively is essential. Providing additional support to individuals with higher risk factors or histories of reoffending can reduce the likelihood of recidivism. Addressing underlying factors that may lead to a recall, such as housing instability or substance misuse, is also crucial. Targeted support can pave the way for long-term success and diminish the chances of recidivism.

Developing alternative interventions for managing offenders at risk of reoffending post-release, such as enhanced support services and community monitoring, can reduce unnecessary recalls to custody. The current recall system often appears overly punitive and can hinder rehabilitation. Establishing transparent guidelines for determining when offenders should be recalled to custody is essential. This process must involve assessing risk increases and incorporating restorative justice practices before considering detention.

The RJC advocates that reforming the progression of offenders through custodial sentences within a framework that prioritises restorative practices is essential for cultivating a more humane and effective criminal justice system. By enhancing transitional pathways, implementing incentive structures, reassessing release criteria, improving post-sentence supervision, refining recall processes, and learning from international examples, we can create a system that prioritises rehabilitation. This comprehensive approach promotes individual growth and fosters a safer, more cohesive society.

THEME 7: INDIVIDUAL NEEDS OF VICTIMS AND OFFENDERS

The Restorative Justice Council (RJC) emphasises the importance of addressing the individual needs of victims and offenders in the context of this consultation. By doing so, we advocate for a fair and effective justice system that holds offenders accountable while simultaneously supporting victims in their recovery.

The RJC asserts that a victim-centred approach to sentencing is essential. The justice system (and those working within the system) must ensure that the unique needs and circumstances of victims are recognised throughout the investigation, judicial and sentencing processes. Robust evidence demonstrates that providing clear information about their rights, available support services, and legal proceedings (including the outcome of their case), and providing access to a range of support services, including counselling, legal assistance and financial support, empowers victims of crimes, helping them to feel informed and more central to the process (H Strang, Repair or Revenge: Victims and Restorative Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

Restorative justice has been shown to meet the emotional needs of victims resulting from victimisation and have a positive psychological impact on victims (A. M. Nascimento, ‘The Psychological Impact of Restorative Justice Practices on Victims of Crimes - a Systematic Review’ (2023) 24(3) Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 1929-1947). Integrating restorative justice into the criminal justice system allows victims to engage directly with offenders in a safe and controlled environment. Taking part in a restorative process (such as a restorative conference or other forms of victim-offender dialogue) enables victims to express the impact of the crime on their lives, seek answers to questions from the person who has harmed them, and express their views as to how the offender could repair the harm caused to them. Evidence has shown that participating in a restorative process can help to empower victims and foster a sense of moving forward (K Doolin, ‘Restorative Youth Detention: The Way Forward?’ (2022) 22(3) Criminology & Criminal Justice 367-382).

Evidence has shown that longer and more severe sentences do not equate to justice for victims. Victim studies have consistently found that victims prefer effective sentences over harsh sentences, with the most common desired outcome being that the offender does not re-offend (P Rossetti et al., Victims’ justice? What victims and witnesses really want from sentencing. London: Victim Support, 2010).

A thorough assessment of offenders’ needs and circumstances is crucial to supporting effective rehabilitation and reintegration. Factors such as mental health, substance abuse, trauma history, and socio-economic background should inform appropriate sentencing and rehabilitation options. People in prison are more likely than the general population to come with histories of social exclusion, including having grown up in care, poverty, family violence and intergenerational criminality, and lacking educational engagement (K Williams et al., Prisoners’ childhood and family backgrounds. Results from the Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SPCR) longitudinal cohort study of prisoners, London: Ministry of Justice, 2012: 7-14).

Offenders require access to rehabilitation programmes (both when in prison and on community sentences) tailored to their specific challenges. For instance, individuals struggling with substance use disorders should receive drug treatment services, while those with mental health concerns should have access to psychological support. Such tailored programmes increase the chances of successful reintegration and reduce recidivism. The RJC would urge the Government to consider international examples of specialist, solution-focused courts where the sentence is deferred to give the offender the opportunity to take part in a treatment programme to address the underlying drivers of their offending, of which community restorative justice panels or meetings with their victim are a key part of the programme. Te Whare Whakapiki Wairua/The Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Court in Aotearoa has been shown to aid offenders’ recovery, reintegration into families and community, and reduce recidivism. A recent New Zealand Ministry of Justice evaluation (Ministry of Justice, Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Court Outcomes Evaluation 2018-19, Wellington: Ministry of Justice, 2019) found that, within two years, participants were 23% less likely to reoffend than matched offenders. Participants were also 25% less likely to be re-imprisoned, and 35% less likely to reoffend for a serious offence.

Maintaining family and community ties is essential for an offender’s rehabilitation and reintegration to society. Efforts should be made to facilitate these connections during custody and after release. Programmes that promote family visits and community involvement can create a supportive environment for reintegration. Where family ties have been broken owing to offending behaviour, the RJC advocates that restorative justice offers opportunities to repair the harm caused and, where appropriate, rebuild a strong family network of support.

Both victims and offenders often have experienced trauma that impacts their interactions with the justice system. Implementing trauma-informed care practices can lead to more empathetic responses, acknowledging the backgrounds and experiences of all individuals involved.

Empowering both victims and offenders to have a voice in the processes affecting them enhances their sense of agency. Providing avenues for input and feedback through restorative processes contributes to better outcomes for all parties.

Addressing the individual needs of victims and offenders is crucial for establishing a just and effective criminal justice system. By adopting victim-centred approaches, tailoring rehabilitation programmes, and ensuring accessible support services, improved outcomes can be achieved for both victims and offenders.

AUTHORS

Jim Simon, Chief Executive Officer, Restorative Justice Council

Jim Simon became Chief Executive of the Restorative Justice Council (RJC) in April 2019, following 21 years in the education sector. Drawing on his extensive experience as a head teacher, he has collaborated with schools, youth offending services, and police to implement restorative practices aimed at improving outcomes for young people. Jim currently serves as Chair of the Advisory Board for the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Restorative Justice. He is a strong advocate for restorative practices, believing they empower communities to resolve conflicts, build positive relationships, and foster a more unified society. This belief is reflected in his vision for the RJC, which champions the essential role of restorative practices in promoting fairness and unity. In addition to his work at the RJC, Jim is a founding member of the Global Alliance for Restorative and Social Justice and Director for the Florida Restorative Justice Association, where he collaborates with international partners to integrate restorative practices for a fairer society. His efforts demonstrate a deep commitment to creating a just and equitable society.

Dr Katherine Doolin, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Dr Katherine Doolin is a Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of Auckland, New Zealand, having previously worked in the law faculties at the University of Birmingham and University of Kent. Dr Doolin researches and teaches in the areas of criminal law and criminal justice, with particular expertise on restorative justice, prisons and youth justice. Her current research focusses on prison violence and on the use of restorative justice post-sentence, including in prisons. Dr Doolin has been a Visiting Scholar at the Faculty of Law and Institute of Criminology at the University of Cambridge, the Department of Social & Policy Sciences at the University of Bath, and the Institute of Criminology at KU Leuven, Belgium. She has extensive experience of carrying out evaluations of restorative justice schemes for adult and youth offenders. Since completing a doctorate at the University of Kent on restorative youth conferencing, Dr Doolin has published widely on restorative justice and presented on her research at over 40 international conferences, workshops, and seminars.