Te Ara Whakatika

Inside this issue

The Law Commission's recent report on New Zealand's court system, Delivering Justice to All, devotes several pages to discussing the current status of restorative justice in New Zealand.

Potential for Cross-cultural Healing

Two recent restorative justice conferences held on a marae demonstrated the potential for cross-cultural healing through the court-referred restorative justice process.

The conferences followed guilty pleas by three young men who had damaged an irreplaceable Maori carving at the entrance to the whare. The carvings had been fashioned by a master carver from specially selected totara. They were unique and part of the heritage of the area.

Two separate conferences were held, at which the victims were represented by a kaumatua, a cultural adviser and two chaplains.

The first conference, involving one of the offenders, began with a karakia. The cultural adviser explained that balance was needed in the Maori world between taha tinana and taha wairua - the world of tangible objects and the world of the intangible (spirit).

The carvings, he said, represented ancestors and held many hidden meanings. There was history and geneology in the carefully selected and crafted symbols in each carving. He used an analogy of computer icons, which have special meanings for those trained to read them.

The cultural adviser spoke of birds, which needed two equal wings to soar.

The physical wing, the tinana, of the carving might be patched, but the wairua or spiritual part had been seriously damaged and the bird was off balance.

The kaumatua explained that the carvings at the entrance were the assembly point for all who came to the marae. Once through them, visitors came under the protection of their host.

He said the carvings had been repaired in the physical sense, but from a Maori perspective, the mauri (spiritual fullness) had been desecrated, and two new pou needed to be made.

The offender said he had no idea about the spiritual meaning of the carvings; and that before the conference he could "only see one wing".

Although he had been taught Maori stories at school, he had not known about the meaning of carvings. He had learned through the restorative justice conference that they were more than just artworks. He said he was unable to find words to express the depths of his apology.

One of the chaplains said that participating in the restorative justice conference had lifted some of her grief, and that having it in the whare gave the process special significance.

Similar discussions took place at a second conference, involving two other offenders.

The cultural adviser made the point that people of different cultures have different kinds of art. Carvings are for Maori "their Picassos".

One of the offenders apologised for his part in the damage to the carving, saying that he now knew how horrible his offending had been.

The experience had given him "a huge wake-up call". The other offender said he could not apologise enough for what he did. He held no animosity towards Maori culture; the assault on the carving was random and on the night any target would have done.

As part of the restorative justice conference outcomes, the offenders agreed to make reparation for their share of the physical damage to the carving, and to write letters of apology to the marae.

Feedback Helps Improve Quality

Feedback from participants in court-referred restorative justice conferences is helping facilitators and provider groups improve the quality of future conferences.

Victims, offenders, support people and professionals attending conferences (such as lawyers, police officers and probation officers) are invited to fill out feedback forms at the end of each conference.

The responses are sent to the facilitators and provider groups, which are expected to work through the issues raised, either in group training or as part of individual professional development.

A selection of responses from recent restorative justice conferences follows:

How well did you think the report reflected what happened at the conference?

• "Very impressed with the effort our facilitators put in - revisiting to clarify issues until we were all sure of our direction."
• "You never really know what to expect. No-one could have prepared me."
• "Time was taken to go through the procedure and enough time to process information before the meeting."
• "I don't think anything could have prepared me for meeting the offender."
• "Both (facilitators) fully explained the process and empowered us to speak our minds."
• "Gave us ideas of what to talk about at the conference and how the conference works."
• "Two very professional women who cared very much."

How satisfied were you with the outcomes or agreements reached at the conference?

• "Very constructive outcomes which will hopefully address issues relating to the offending."
• "Financial contribution was appreciated, but doesn't replace personal belongings."
• "Quite a few misunderstandings were ironed out."
• "I feel the offender may have 'used' the RJ to minimise his penalty."
• "Good way to understand both sides and work out fair arrangement."
• "The conference assisted the healing process of the victim and family without interfering with the process of law and penalty."
• "I didn't feel fully satisfied that the offender will change in future, even though he was sorry."
• "Give and take from both sides."

How well did you think the report reflected what happened at the conference?

• "The report was good and helped me understand what has been talked about."
• "I didn't think it was 100% accurate, but it did give an overall summary."
• "Very factual with events regarding feelings at the time - very important."

What were the best things about taking part in this conference?

• "A great weight off my shoulders, knowing that communication worked towards a positive outcome for both parties."
• "Able to say sorry and explain myself, front up about what I did."
• "It gave some sort of closure."
• "I found it a very healing process and those involved in the meeting very gracious and merciful."
• "Everyone got the opportunity to express how they felt about the impact of the car crash."
• "Letting my emotions out."
• "Meeting the offender, hearing how the consequences of their actions affected them and clearing up misunderstandings."
• "Felt more relaxed and gained confidence after being in shock (car accident)."
• "Helping the victim accept and move on from this incident."
• "Seeing people talking constructively and freely in a neutral environment."

What were the worst things about taking part in this conference?

• "Facing the offender; not knowing what to expect; allowing myself to show emotion in front of him."
• "Memory recall was very unpleasant."
• "Gut feeling the problem has not been solved."
• "Ongoing exhaustion as a result of this three-hour ordeal."
• "It was heart-breaking, to say the least."
• "Working through the process until everyone agreed was stressful, but the effort was worth it."

Restorative Justice Status Discussed

The Law Commission's recent report on New Zealand's court system, Delivering Justice to All, devotes several pages to discussing the current status of restorative justice in New Zealand, considering key issues and putting forward possible solutions to them.

It outlines the range of restorative justice initiatives that are linked to the court system, and briefly notes the 'considerable' alignment that there can be between restorative justice models and indigenous justice models.

The restorative justice movement is growing rapidly internationally and New Zealand has been a pioneer of various restorative justice models and processes, the report says.

It identifies several issues for consideration, and encourages the government to address these to ensure that there are clear accountabilities, transparent funding, consistent processes and fairness for the parties before the court in relation to restorative justice.

The need for a 'workable and appropriate system' for monitoring and enforcing restorative justice plans both before and after sentencing is also highlighted. The Law Commission sees that 'simple and regular reporting mechanisms can help change behaviour' and encourages further development of these.

The report suggests that it is important that responsibility for monitoring restorative justice outcomes not be left solely to the community, and that government agencies are better placed to undertake this.

The report highlights the range of information available on restorative justice approaches, including the 'ground-breaking' evaluation of the court-referred restorative justice pilot now underway, substantial research on family group conferences and the wealth of first hand experiences of practitioners.

The report refers to the United Nations Economic and Social Counsel's 2002 resolution that encouraged countries to use the UN's 'Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters' in developing and implementing guiding principles.

It outlines work being undertaken by the Ministry of Justice on developing a policy framework, which includes guidelines for restorative justice practitioners on the use of restorative justice in the courts, clarification of agency roles, and funding responsibility [Te Ara Whakatika issue 20].

The Law Commission suggests that it would be sensible for guidelines developed to be supported through legislation, and recommends that regulations should be developed "to provide a clear and rigorous basis for the operation of restorative justice programmes under the Sentencing and Victims Rights Acts".

It recommends that resources for restorative justice be channelled into the types of cases and programmes that offer the most benefit to victims, and the most likelihood of changing serious offending behaviour in the long term.

It also suggests that limits be set around the use of restorative justice so that the level of intervention is both proportionate to the offence and so that the risk of 'net-widening' (bringing cases into the court system that might not otherwise be included) is limited.

The report suggests that the challenge for the Ministry in implementing the principles of restorative justice will be to do so in ways that "provide leadership while also encouraging the community wellspring for restorative justice that has been so evident in New Zealand."

In May 2001, Government asked the Law Commission to review the structure and operation of New Zealand courts and tribunals. The review, which took three years, resulted in the report, Delivering Justice for All - A Vision for New Zealand Courts and Tribunals, which was tabled in Parliament on 16 March 2004.

The report, which is nearly 400 pages long, contains 160 recommendations. Some of these recommendations are for major restructuring within the court system while others are for relatively small adjustments to current systems and processes. Government is considering what the implications of each of the recommendations are and which recommendations it wants to implement, which it may not support, and which it may want more time to consider.

The report is available on the internet at the Law Commission's website: http://www.lawcom.govt.nz

A hard copy can be obtained from the Law Commission, telephone 04 473 3453.

Sharing Common Concerns

South Island restorative justice coordinators and facilitators are meeting in Rangiora in mid-May for a workshop to discuss current issues and share ideas.

One of the organisers, Linda Gaskin, says the six-monthly meetings began in a small way two years ago with coordinators of Crime Prevention Unit projects.

Rangiora was chosen as a central meeting point in the South Island.

"The workshops have grown to include people from as many schemes and projects as possible, and we've widened the scope to include facilitators, coordinators, and other people involved and interested in restorative justice.

Linda is the coordinator of Timaru's Project Turnaround, "a community diversion scheme and restorative justice scheme in one", which involves victims, offenders, the community and the police.

"Meetings are held to consider plans, and if all goes well and plans are completed, the offenders are diverted from the court."

The other organiser of the May workshop is Tricia Hird from the West Coast Restorative Justice Group.

Linda says the workshops "have grown into something that is really worthwhile.

"We come from a number of different schemes and models, but we have that common interest, and a desire to share ideas."

She says that a lot of the people who will be attending the Rangiora meeting work in isolation.

"We're not big projects. I'm the only coordinator in Timaru. For a while after we started in 1996 I was the only one in the South Island. It was quite a lonely job in a lot of ways, because I didn't have any colleagues.

"For this (the six-monthly workshop) to have grown and developed over the years is marvellous, because it is a way for us to get together to share common concerns, but also to celebrate and share stories and offer advice to colleagues."

Linda is hoping the meeting will be attended by people from Nelson, Blenheim, Waimakariri, Christchurch, Ashburton, Timaru, Oamaru, Dunedin and the West Coast.

"We run on a fairly informal basis. We have an agenda, but we're open to what discussion arises."

She says there are a lot of hot topics at the moment, "but we're mindful of not trying to do too much".

Training is one issue that will definitely be discussed at the May meeting, which will also be addressed by South Island police prosecutions manager Inspector Garry Lennan.

For further information, contact Linda Gaskin (email: project_turnaround@xtra.co.nz, or Phone 03-688 9088) or Tricia Hird (email: restorejustice@snap.net.nz, or Phone 03-768 3304).

Project Update

More than 450 restorative justice conferences have been completed since the court-referred restorative justice pilot began in 2001. The four-year pilot project is running in four district courts - Auckland, Waitakere, Hamilton and Dunedin. A thorough evaluation is being carried out. The aim of the pilot project is to find out whether restorative justice increases the involvement and satisfaction of victims in the criminal justice process, enables offenders to take responsibility for their actions, and reduces reoffending.

Te Ara Whakatika is produced by the Ministry of Justice to ensure the wide community of people who support the restorative justice movement are kept informed about the court-referred restorative justice project. The items in this newsletter do not necessarily reflect the views of the Ministry of Justice or official policies. Articles in this newsletter may be copied and reproduced, but Te Ara Whakatika must be acknowledged. Te Ara Whakatika can be viewed online at www.justice.govt.nz/crrj.

Inquiries regarding the court-referred restorative justice project should be directed to: Alison Hill, Ministry of Justice, PO Box 180, Wellington, Phone (04) 918 8839, Fax (04) 918 8820, email: alison.hill@justice.govt.nz; or to co-ordinators Islay Brown (Auckland) Phone 025 745 141, (09) 916 9000; Garry Summers (Waitakere) Phone (025) 271 5148, (09) 916 5268; Marianne Lammers (Hamilton) Phone (07) 957 7816, (025) 271 5203; Cathy Brown (Dunedin) Phone 025 271 5164, (03) 471 5170. Te Ara Whakatika mailing list inquiries should be directed to: Abpost, PO Box 38756, Petone, Wellington. Fax (04) 568 3400.