Professional Documents
Culture Documents
18
Lawrence Kershen has facilitated commercial and other mediations since he was accredited as a
mediator in 1994, and more recently as a restorative practitioner. With a background as a barrister, he
was a board member and latterly Chair of the Restorative Justice Council from 2003 to 2012.
PROBATION junior 73
PROBATION junior 74
with the benefit of hindsight some general guidelines and principles stand out if RJ is
to flourish.
A Restorative Justice body
A body that will promote the RJ agenda nationally whatever its name seems to be
essential. Whether such a body is a charitable company (like the RJC) or some other
organisation, it needs to be there, and perceived as there, for the good of all rather
than any sectarian group.
In addition, the support of champions and influential patrons seems in retrospect to
have been essential. A number of individuals and organisations played crucial roles in
promoting the understanding and credibility of restorative justice in the UK.
Champions like the then Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, Sir Charles
Pollard, academics such as Martin Wright, civil servants like Lizzie Nelson, then
Home Office lead on RJ, were all key figures.
There have been other key events and signposts along the way. Public confidence in
standards of good practice has seemed fundamental in such a delicate area of
endeavour. Developing Best Practice guidance, and moving from being a Consortium
to a Council was integral to maintaining practice standards. Although it was not
always politically easy, this has been a key contribution to the acceptance of RJ.
And of course influencing the media has been critical. The more that journalists in
print and visual media understand the effectiveness of RJ, the better embedded it
becomes. Accounts from victims of the benefits and the positive effects of the RJ
process are particularly valuable.
Governance
Another important step was encouraging RJC Board members to act and think in
terms of what is best for the organisation, rather than their own group or constituency.
Those who support RJ have often had to fight to sustain their vision against resistance
and cynicism. Sometimes individuals develop what might be called founder
mentality, where if a proposal wasnt in line with their thinking, it shouldnt be done
at all.
Yet what such a Board needs is not individuals who will represent their own
organisations or constituencies, but who are dedicated to the best interests of the
Council in driving a national agenda. At times, this may throw up crises of
conscience, yet it is vital for the healthy and effective functioning of the RJC. The
challenge of course is to manage those differences in a restorative way!
Diversity is a huge asset to such a body, so it is vital to reserve (and even write into
the constitution) some places on the board for those who come not from a criminal
PROBATION junior 75
justice background, but with experience in e.g. business. It helps of course if they are
sympathetic to RJ!
It is also valuable to carry out a skills audit, analysing what skills are represented in
the current make-up of the Board, and what skills are needed; then encouraging
applicants who will fill those skills gaps such as marketing, fundraising,
organisational development etc.
The restorative meeting
What has inspired me throughout is the experience of transformation that is
inherently possible in any such meeting. Individuals may approach it filled with fear,
dislike, or hatred, maybe built up over a long time yet can emerge on the other side
with affection or compassion or empathy for the other. How different from the
outcomes of traditional criminal justice.
Religion exhorts us to forgive those who wrong us. This may be very difficult to find
in our hearts when we feel ourselves to have been victimised. Yet the process of
meeting and talking offers a path to find that spiritual element. Thus it is not
uncommon to find contrition, regret, compassion, and empathy at such a meeting e.g.
the victim who after a couple of hours offers to help the offender find work. Or the
offender who wants to stay in touch with their victim to let them know about their
progress. Many other examples abound, as a brief look at the RJC website
www.restorativejustice.org.uk will reveal.
Implementing RJ - the Challenges
To those of us brought up in a retributive legal system the nature of a restorative
process is pretty unfamiliar. So it should not come as a surprise that RJ may be seen
as dangerous and threatening, and its potential for upset should not be
underestimated. A principal source of resistance to RJ may well be the apprehension
that stems from this unfamiliarity.
To address this, an approach is necessary that is to borrow Professor John
Braithwaites description both top down, ground up and middle out. A
communication strategy must seek endorsement from Government and policy
makers. It needs to address public perception and concerns. And it must engage with
professionals both in criminal justice e.g. judiciary, lawyers, probation, prison
service and business, as well as those who are already working in the restorative
field.
A good starting place however is the recognition that the existing system is not
serving us the community as well as it needs to. There is no need for a moral position
only the pragmatic and sad fact that in the UK at least, victims satisfaction rates
with criminal justice are low and recidivism is high. It has been helpful to cite the
PROBATION junior 76
Governments own research which shows that RJ offers 85% victim satisfaction rates
and a 27% reduction in reoffending.
Other challenges are around the sustainability of the body promoting RJ. Basically
this means money. Funding crises can sap energy that should be going into
development work. To avert these and the perennial search for money, sustainable
sources of funding have to be found. These may be from membership fees and
practitioner registration, from grant-making trusts and business sponsorship. It may
be that consultancy offers a revenue stream, although such fund-raising opportunities
are limited. Ideally committed funding from public bodies e.g. the EU, the State,
gives the greatest measure of sustainability though such funding can bring with it
particular challenges of its own.
Standards in RJ
There are of course other and more specific questions of policy and practice that have
to be considered e.g. confidentiality, voluntary nature of participation and so on.
However the most important function that a national body can offer I believe is
quality assurance for the public. At the heart of it is the need for a safe process, where
those involved and the community at large can feel confident that at the very least, no
further harm will be done, and at best the process is managed with integrity in a way
that is secure and effective.
Steps that have been taken to this end include:
-
It has been important that all of these have been created in conjunction with the
membership. Indeed it could be said to be essential that this body acts in a restorative
way in everything it does in other words that it walks its talk.
The view beyond
So RJ is not something to be imposed indeed it is a contradiction in terms and of the
spirit of a restorative approach. If RJ is integrated into the fabric of our society it is
because it expresses a progression. Revisiting Nils Christie, the State need no longer
PROBATION junior 77
take ownership of our conflicts. Humanity and our society have grown up enough to
be more responsible and response-able for resolving our differences ourselves.
Those who undertake this great work however should be under no illusions this is
about a change of culture. This journey from a retributive to a more restorative
system, from third-party resolution of disputes to self-determination, requires a shift
in attitudes and that takes time. It could be described as a kind of evolution. And
despite my mature age, I have not yet outgrown my tendency to idealism only now
I would express the ideal as Make Peace not War.
PROBATION junior 78