RJC Response to the Independent Review of the Prison System

Repairing harm, supporting change and building safer prisons: our response to the Independent Review of the Prison System

The Restorative Justice Council has submitted a joint response with Dr Katherine Doolin of the University of Auckland to the Independent Review of the Prison System in England and Wales: Call for Evidence.

For RJC members, this review matters because it is not only about prison buildings, population pressures or sentence lengths. It is also about the kind of justice system we want to help shape: one that contains harm, or one that also creates the conditions for accountability, repair and safer communities. Our members see every day that justice is strongest when the needs of victims, the responsibility of those who have caused harm, and the safety of the wider community are held together rather than treated as separate concerns.

Our response builds on a collaboration with Dr Doolin that has informed the RJC’s prison policy over the past four years. Rather than viewing the questions facing prisons in isolation, our submission focuses on the relationships between prison capacity, safety, workforce wellbeing, rehabilitation, victim participation and public confidence.

At the centre of our response is a straightforward proposition: a prison system should be judged not only by its ability to contain people, but by whether it can repair harm, support meaningful change and sustain public legitimacy. A system that protects the public only through containment, without addressing victims’ needs or the reasons people offend, cannot be effective in the longer term.

This article sets out the key themes from our submission: the purpose of prison, the need to reduce unnecessary demand for custody, the difference between “doing” restorative justice and “being” restorative, the importance of relational safety and workforce support, and what emerging practice can teach us. It also reflects on what these issues mean for RJC members and for the wider movement to embed restorative approaches across the justice system.

What should the prison system ultimately be for?

Our submission identifies three closely connected outcomes that the prison system should deliver: justice for victims, rehabilitation and reduced reoffending, and public confidence in the criminal justice system. These are not competing ambitions. Together, they provide the foundations for a safer, more humane and more effective prison system.

Delivering justice for victims must remain central. Justice cannot be understood only through the length of a sentence or the deprivation of liberty. Victims may need information, acknowledgement, answers and a voice. Where appropriate, they may also value a safe opportunity to explain, directly or indirectly, the impact of an offence to the person who caused the harm.

Restorative justice in custody can create opportunities for victims to ask questions, describe the impact of offending in their own words, regain agency and, in some cases, move towards safety and closure. This does not replace punishment or minimise the seriousness of an offence. It recognises that justice must include the needs of those harmed, rather than concentrating exclusively on the management of those responsible. Access should remain open while a person is in prison, subject to skilled practice, careful preparation and robust safeguards.

Rehabilitation is equally important because most people in prison will return to the community. It must involve more than compliance with prison rules or completion of prescribed programmes. People who have offended need opportunities to understand the human consequences of their actions, develop empathy, accept responsibility and take meaningful steps towards repairing harm where this is possible.

Public confidence depends on a system being both accountable and effective. Properly delivered restorative justice is not a soft option. It can require people who have caused harm to face the consequences of their actions in ways that conventional processes do not always achieve, while giving victims a more meaningful role than they are often afforded through criminal proceedings. Public confidence is strengthened when prisons are safe and purposeful, victims are treated as participants rather than bystanders, and people leaving custody are better prepared to live responsibly.

Connected pressures require a whole-system response

Our response identifies prison capacity, risks to rehabilitation, and the safety and wellbeing of staff and prisoners as deeply interdependent challenges.

Pressure on capacity affects safety. Unsafe prisons undermine rehabilitation. Weak rehabilitation increases the likelihood of further offending, which sustains demand for prison places. Addressing any one of these challenges without recognising the others risks shifting pressure around the system rather than resolving it.

Capacity is not simply about the number of cells available. It is also about whether prisons have the physical space, staffing, stability and regime capacity required to operate safely, decently and purposefully. When the system is under sustained pressure, access to education, treatment, family work, restorative justice, resettlement planning and other rehabilitative activity becomes constrained. Custody then risks becoming containment rather than an opportunity to support accountability, address harm or prepare people for a safe return to the community.

Short custodial sentences are a particular concern within this wider picture. They can disrupt housing, employment, family relationships and community ties without providing the time or support needed for meaningful rehabilitation. At the same time, longer sentences, mandatory minimums and increased average time in custody contribute to growing demand.

Our wider concern is a lack of strategic alignment. Sentencing policy, court recovery, probation capacity, out-of-court disposals, community sentences, prison population projections and victim participation are often considered through separate policy processes, even though they are deeply connected. Without coordination, a change in one area may simply transfer pressure to another. Prison capacity must therefore be treated as a whole-system issue, not only as a question concerning the prison estate.

Reducing unnecessary demand for custody

One of the most significant opportunities identified in our response is the greater and more consistent use of restorative and rehabilitative out-of-court resolutions in appropriate cases.

The purpose should not simply be to move cases away from courts. It should be to address harm earlier and more effectively. A restorative resolution can provide a structured opportunity for the person responsible to acknowledge their actions, engage with their impact and agree meaningful reparative steps. Where the victim wishes to participate, it can also allow their voice to be heard, their questions to be asked and the consequences of the offence to be understood.

Prison capacity cannot be secured by increasing the supply of places alone. Unless demand is also addressed at the front of the system, additional provision may be absorbed by continuing pressures arising from sentencing practice, court backlogs, recall and the use of custody where effective alternatives may be available.

Greater use of out-of-court disposals, community-based restorative panels, deferred prosecution-style approaches and deferred sentencing models could help reserve custody for cases where it is necessary for public protection. These approaches could also help prevent lower-level offending from being escalated unnecessarily into court and custody when accountability, reparation, treatment or community intervention would be more proportionate and effective.

For this to make a meaningful contribution, restorative options need greater national consistency. Current access depends too heavily on local arrangements, professional awareness, commissioning decisions and referral pathways. Restorative justice is considered across sentencing, courts, victims’ policy, probation, prisons and police-led disposals, but these areas are not yet coordinated as a single approach to managing demand.

Moving from “doing” restorative justice to “being” restorative

A central theme of our submission is the distinction between “doing” restorative justice and “being” restorative.

“Doing” restorative justice refers to specific intervention-based processes. These may include direct or indirect communication between a victim and the person responsible, restorative meetings and conferences, or processes responding to harm within a prison. They can allow victims to ask questions, describe impact and regain agency. They can also require those responsible to confront the consequences of their actions and consider what repair might involve.

“Being” restorative is broader. It means developing a values-led, whole-prison culture in which respect, empowerment, accountability, relationship-building and repair influence leadership, daily interactions, decision-making and responses to conflict. The submission identifies potential benefits including improved relationships, conflict resolution, safer environments, stronger emotional wellbeing, positive staff engagement and better preparation for reintegration.

Specific restorative interventions and broader cultural change both matter. The opportunity is not to choose between them, but to connect them. Victim-sensitive restorative justice can address the harm caused by an offence, while restorative practice inside the prison can help respond to conflict, bullying, violence and damaged relationships. A restorative culture creates the conditions in which those processes can be understood, supported and sustained.

This requires appropriate safeguards. Restorative work must be voluntary, trauma-informed and safely facilitated. Staff need training, leadership support and clear governance. Careful preparation and wrap-around support may be needed, particularly where people have complex histories, communication needs, neurodiversity, mental health needs or previous experiences of victimisation.

Safety and decency are relational as well as operational

Safety and decency are foundational conditions for rehabilitation, accountability and public protection. Overcrowded or under-resourced prisons, or environments dominated by fear and mistrust, are less able to provide purposeful activity, maintain stability, support staff wellbeing or help people take responsibility for harm.

Safety should not be defined only as the absence of disorder. It also depends on respectful relationships, clear boundaries, emotional support, communication and fair processes. Isolated restorative interventions may help address individual incidents, but sustained safety and decency require a wider culture in which respect, empowerment, accountability and repair are part of everyday prison life.

Restorative conferences, circles, conversations and questioning can be used to address internal conflict, including disputes between prisoners, bullying, violence, conflict between prisoners and staff, and difficulties within staff teams. These approaches recognise that safety is created not only through control and security, but also through relationships, procedural fairness and the ability to address harm before it escalates.

The ambition should therefore be to move from isolated pockets of restorative activity to planned, whole-prison approaches that build safer relationships, respond to harm more constructively and create decent conditions for rehabilitation and accountability.

Supporting the prison workforce to work relationally

The workforce challenges facing prisons are not limited to staff numbers. They also concern whether staff are supported and equipped to reduce conflict, build trust, understand trauma and enable harm to be repaired.

Violence, staffing instability, resource constraints and difficult working conditions affect staff confidence, morale and consistency. They can also reduce the time and emotional capacity available for relational work, restorative conversations, de-escalation, family engagement, conflict resolution and purposeful rehabilitative activity. This can create a cycle in which mistrust, fear and frustration increase, making prisons less safe for staff and prisoners alike.

There is also a risk that sustained pressure becomes normalised within prison culture. If burnout, staff loss and unsafe conditions remain defining features of prison life, staff will have fewer opportunities to develop the relational and trauma-informed skills required to work constructively with a complex prison population.

Our submission calls for restorative and trauma-informed practice to be embedded within staff induction, leadership development, supervision and everyday operational routines. This would provide practical tools for listening, setting boundaries, restorative questioning, de-escalating tension, resolving conflict and handling difficult conversations. It would also help staff distinguish between behaviour that requires control and behaviour that may call for curiosity, support and structured accountability.

For this approach to be sustainable, it must be led, resourced and evaluated across the whole prison. Senior leaders need to model relational practice, staff need consistent support and supervision, and prisons need mechanisms for learning from incidents, tracking patterns of conflict and understanding what helps relationships recover.

Rehabilitation as an outcome of the whole prison environment

Rehabilitation should not be treated solely as a programme or activity delivered within custody. It is an outcome shaped by the entire prison environment, including its culture, relationships and regime.

Where operational pressures dominate, rehabilitation can become associated primarily with compliance. People may complete activities without having meaningful opportunities to understand the impact of their offending, address the causes of harm, rebuild relationships or develop a positive identity.

Fragmentation presents a further challenge. Education, treatment, employment, family work, resettlement planning, victim awareness, restorative justice and probation input are often treated as separate activities. If they operate in isolation, people may receive support for individual needs without experiencing a coherent pathway connecting accountability, practical resettlement, repaired relationships and return to the community.

Restorative justice should therefore be recognised as a core offer that complements rehabilitative activity across the prison estate. Direct and indirect victim-offender communication, restorative conferencing and wider restorative practices can help people understand the human impact of offending, develop empathy, accept responsibility and support longer-term desistance.

Restorative work should complement education, skills development, substance misuse treatment, mental health support, employment initiatives, family work and resettlement planning. It can connect practical change with moral and relational accountability and can act as a catalyst for engagement with wider rehabilitative activity.

Family-based restorative work also has an important place where offending, imprisonment or earlier harm has damaged trust. Where it is safe and appropriate, it can help people acknowledge impact, clarify expectations, repair relationships and rebuild support networks that may be crucial to resettlement. Restorative justice should form part of a coherent custody-to-community pathway linking accountability, victim participation, desistance, family repair, resettlement and reintegration.

Learning carefully from emerging practice

Our submission draws attention to emerging work at HMP Peterborough and HMP Forest Bank, while being explicit that the published evidence remains limited and that further evaluation is needed. These examples are not presented as fully evaluated models of whole-prison transformation. Their relevance lies in the practical learning they can offer.

At HMP Peterborough, restorative practice began on a single wing and developed gradually as staff confidence and capacity increased. Restorative awareness has since been incorporated into staff induction, and a designated restorative lead supports integration across the prison. Prisoners trained as restorative champions respond to lower-level conflict on the wings. The RJC has heard incidental evidence that these champions were sometimes aware of tensions before staff and that early intervention appeared to help prevent some disputes from escalating.

HMP Forest Bank represents a different but complementary journey, with staff leadership placed at the centre and restorative champions introduced mainly among longer-term prisoners. Its high remand population presents a specific challenge, and staff are seeking ways to respond while continuing to foster a restorative environment.

The learning offered by these examples is deliberately measured: start incrementally, build staff confidence, establish visible leadership, support prisoner champions carefully, connect restorative work to family repair and reintegration, and strengthen record-keeping and independent evaluation so that emerging practice can be properly understood.

What this means for our members

For our members, the submission reinforces the importance of continuing to advocate for restorative justice as part of a coherent, safe and evidence-informed justice system. It highlights the need for skilled practice, strong safeguards, proper resourcing and clear routes into restorative processes for victims, people in custody, families and practitioners. It also invites members to demonstrate what good restorative practice looks like in complex custodial settings, share learning from local innovation and keep making the case that repair, accountability and relational practice are central to public protection, not peripheral to it.

A prison system capable of repair and change

Across our joint response, the themes are consistent. Victim participation, offender accountability, workforce wellbeing, prison safety, rehabilitation and capacity cannot be separated from one another.

Increasing capacity without strengthening rehabilitation stores up future demand. Pursuing rehabilitation without safe and decent conditions is unrealistic. Seeking safety only through control risks creating containment without change. A sustainable prison system must address these pressures together.

Restorative justice offers more than a discrete intervention following harm. It can give victims a meaningful voice, require people to confront the consequences of their actions and connect rehabilitative activity to responsibility and repair. Restorative practice also offers a wider framework for prison culture, helping staff and prisoners navigate conflict, strengthen relationships and respond constructively when harm occurs.

The opportunity presented by the Independent Review is to recognise those connections and to place repair, relationships and meaningful accountability closer to the centre of prison policy. The aim should be prisons that are safer and more decent, a workforce that is skilled and supported, rehabilitation that is coherent and relational, and a justice system that reserves custody for cases where it is genuinely required.

That is not an alternative to public protection. It is a necessary part of achieving it.