Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY, DEFENCE AND WOMEN'S RIGHTS debate -
Wednesday, 18 Oct 2006

Restorative Justice: Presentations.

Apologies have been received from Senator Jim Walsh. I welcome everybody to the meeting, the purpose of which is to assist the joint committee in its preparation of a report on the issues relating to restorative justice in Ireland. The committee has appointed Deputy Jim O'Keeffe as rapporteur. It is expected its report will be published by late November.

Six groups will make presentations today. The first is the Nenagh Community Reparation Project. We will then hear from the Restorative Justice Tallaght Centre; the Garda Síochána; Mr. Kieran O'Dwyer from the Irish Prison Service; the probation and welfare service; and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Each group is invited to make an oral presentation not exceeding 15 minutes which will be followed by a discussion with members in the form of questions and answers.

The committee is particularly interested in the views of contributors on the current use of restorative justice measures as a public policy response to crime. We are also interested in future policy options which could be considered. We will suspend for lunch at approximately 1 p.m. for 45 minutes and the meeting must conclude no later than 2.45 p.m. Members should, therefore, keep in mind that we are very tight on time.

The written presentations forwarded by the groups have been circulated to members. I welcome the representatives from the Nenagh Community Reparation Project, Ms Alice Brislane and Ms Carolle Gleeson, both of whom have appeared before the committee before. Therefore, they are aware that members have parliamentary privilege, but that this privilege does not extend to witnesses. It is unlikely to come into play, but I am providing the caveat just in case.

Ms Alice Brislane

On behalf of the Nenagh Community Reparation Project, I thank the Chairman and the joint committee for the opportunity to make this submission. Ms Gleeson is our co-ordinator and will provide an overview of our project.

Ms Carolle Gleeson

Members of the joint committee may be aware of the group's background, but I will describe it briefly. It started in June 1999 and was an initiative of Judge Michael Reilly and the then principal probation and welfare officer, Mr. Martin Tansey. It is funded on an annual basis by the probation and welfare service, subject to an annual report and audit certificate. It deals only with adults and is grounded in the principles of restorative justice. It is unique as a community project in Ireland as it is operated by the community and through the formal criminal justice system. It adheres to best practice as outlined by many of our European partners and also in the draft report of the United Nations on crime prevention and criminal justice. It seeks to harness the moral resources and local knowledge of the community in a partnership of the Judiciary, the Garda, probation services and the community. Other stakeholders include local counselling services, solicitors and so on, all well versed in the principles and practice of our project.

The project does not provide an alternative to the criminal justice system, merely another option in community sanctions. It is often said that it is a soft option but I take issue with that because it makes offenders face the consequences of their behaviour. In the ordinary justice system the offender is somewhat distanced from the consequences of his or her crime because he or she is represented by a solicitor. Our project makes offenders come face to face with members of the community who confront them with the consequences of their crimes. The project provides both victims and offenders with a sense that the legal process is seen to be helpful and has treated them fairly.

All referrals come through the District Court and can be referred by the Garda, solicitors or the presiding judge. The perpetrator makes an informed decision, which is most important. Solicitors are familiar with the practices and the perpetrator is given a leaflet outlining the principles of the project and the process he or she will go through. The offender is then called to a panel meeting which comprises of the co-ordinator, a member of the Garda Síochána and two representatives from the community.

We first ask the offender to outline the circumstances leading up to the event, how he or she felt afterwards and what he or she might have done with hindsight, and a discussion follows. We aim to deliver a contract which consists of two parts. The first is to deal with the problems that may have led the offender to commit the offence in the first place which could include drink, drugs, anger management or a variety of other issues. The second is to ask the offender to make reparation to both the community or the victim, or both, and a great deal of initiative is expected of the offender in this regard. This can lead to some interesting ways of dealing with an offence. An offender involved in a racist offence was asked to meet African members of a local racial integration group. That was probably the first time in the offender's life that he held a conversation with someone from outside Ireland. There was a satisfactory conclusion in that case.

The benefits of the model are considerable. It is an imaginative way to deal with some types of crime that involves early intervention to address potentially serious behaviour from escalating into a cycle of offending. It provides the victim with a voice and an understanding of the offender which removes much of the fear. In addition, offenders tend to feel that the legal system has treated them fairly.

Ms Brislane

It should be recognised that our volunteers, who are the core of this project, are unpaid. We endeavour to provide some training through talks by the various agencies working in partnership with the project. Counsellors on anger management and addiction counsellors have made presentations along with the co-ordinator who has facilitated discussions around the problems facing panel members. Suffice to say that Nenagh has a strong community-based project with the emphasis on partnership and a reliance on volunteers.

At our last presentation to this committee on 25 March 2005, statistics were provided for the period June 1999 to September 2004. At that time a total of 63 offenders were referred to the project, from 19 to 30 years of age. Of that total, 92% were first time offenders and of those 84% did not re-offend.

Since then our referrals have averaged around 12 to 13 per year. In 2004 there were 13 referrals; two failed while 11 completed the contract. In 2005 there were 12 referrals and all completed the contract. In 2006 there were eight referrals and, to date, seven have completed the contract with one awaiting a panel meeting. Since January 2006, offenders with previous convictions have also been referred and completed the contract.

As previously stated, the Nenagh Community Reparation Project is unique and this is due to a very strong base of volunteers with a well developed sense of community. This model would not be easily applied in all communities, for example, some inner city areas where community has ceased to exist or the population is transient. The reparation process is, however, a valuable tool in resolving community fracas, dealing with racist issues and mediation between victims and offenders.

More recent examples in our own project resulted in the offender calling to the victim's home to shake hands and apologise while another offender met with two representatives from immigrant organisations to hear first hand the problems they encounter while being in Ireland. A frank exchange of views ensured a more balanced attitude to foreign workers.

Another area where restorative justice principles could be used in a community setting is mediation with minority groups such as Travellers and non-nationals from different cultural and religious backgrounds. The above suggestions would, however, require a more diverse group of community volunteers and a drive towards encouraging the participation of travellers and non-nationals.

Restorative justice practices provide for imaginative ways to address some types of crime within communities. They do not offer an alternative to the criminal justice system, but another option in community sanctions. We would like to acknowledge the invaluable support of judiciary locally in developing and supporting our project.

I thank the witnesses for their excellent contributions. I request Ms Kathryn Carolan and Mr. Peter Keeley to come forward to make their presentation after which the members will ask questions. I welcome the representatives of the Restorative Justice Tallaght Centre. I remind witnesses that members of the committee have parliamentary privilege and this does not apply to them. I am sure you are familiar with this. Who is the chairman or president?

Mr. Peter Keeley

Our chairperson, Marie Flynn, is not available and sends her apologies and best wishes to the committee. I am the director of the organisation. I am joined by my colleague Ms Kathryn Carolan, the casework manager.

Thank you. I invite Mr. Keeley to make his presentation.

Mr. Keeley

On behalf of the chairperson, who unfortunately cannot be here, I express our thanks for the invitation to talk about our work and to contribute to the work of the committee. Our organisation was formally established in 2000 and we provide a number of restorative justice programmes to the courts at pre-sentence stage. We are mainly concerned with victim-offender mediation and offender reparation programmes. I will later detail the workings of these models.

To date, we have had more than 350 court referrals to our service. The service is jointly funded by the probation and welfare service and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The service is a company by limited guarantee and a registered charity. We are committed to an inclusive partnership model of restorative justice which is reflected in the make-up of our boards of directors and management. These are mainly drawn from the probation and welfare service, community and victim representatives, and the Garda Síochána. We work closely with the Judiciary and I will expand on this later in the presentation.

We believe in the inclusion of all the criminal justice stakeholders in the restorative process. This reflects the ethos of the concept of restorative justice and is essential if we are to progress its wider practise within the established justice system. The probation and welfare service provides the finance for our work, but its contribution to our organisation goes far beyond that of a funding agency. Its personnel, from senior management to probation officers at local level, generously provide their time and expertise. Their commitment and contribution warrants a note today. The Garda Síochána also actively participates in the delivery of the programmes and the development of our service. Community representatives contribute significantly at every level to the work of the organisation.

We work closely with members of the Judiciary to promote a full understanding of our work and ensure the programmes we deliver are relevant to the work of the courts. We work particularly closely with Judge James Paul McDonnell in Tallaght and believe this professional working relationship is extremely important in ensuring that our work meets the needs of the courts and that we have their confidence. To achieve this we, along with representatives of the probation service, meet regularly with Judge McDonnell.

There are many different explanations and definitions of what restorative justice is. We have tried to adopt a straightforward and accessible set of principles to guide us and to help explain to the public the nature of our work. These principles are as follows: an acknowledgement that crime hurts victims and their families; that crime affects the offender, their family and the wider community; that the victim's voice should be heard; and that the offender should accept responsibility, consider and reflect upon the consequences of his or her action, and repair the harm caused.

There are many potential benefits from restorative justice. I say "potential" because restorative justice is not suitable for every victim and offender. However, victims of crime can seek, if they wish, an apology, some form of reparation, more information on the offence, or ask questions and raise issues of concern. They can participate in a real, safe and unthreatening way compared to what at times could be a passive and occasionally intimidating participation in the formal criminal justice system. They can tell their story and, in a channelled and structured way, they can take the opportunity to vent their frustration and anger. Many victims have taken the opportunity to sit with an offender in a safe, unthreatening forum, and advise him or her of the detrimental effects of their action on the victim and the victim's family. Offenders can show their remorse by offering an apology and reparation. They can provide further information to the victim on the offence and give commitments on their behaviour. They are strongly challenged about their behaviour and commitment to desisting from further offending.

It is an opportunity for the offender to take real responsibility in much the same way as my colleague from Nenagh has outlined. Participants in the process do not have the protection or support of a solicitor — they have to talk the talk and walk the walk themselves. This is one way to have them acknowledge their wrongdoing and determine their willingness to make amends and hopefully resume their place in the community. The community can actively participate in the response to crime as restorative justice facilitators — case workers — advocates and observers. Our case workers are ordinary members of the community from all walks of life and all parts of the country, and have different life experiences. They have all demonstrated a commitment to working with people affected by crime in a respectful, understanding and accountable way. We have a panel of 24 caseworkers and they are assigned cases as required. They are not volunteers and are paid an hourly rate for their work.

While Tallaght District Court is by far the biggest single referrer of cases, we have received referrals from a number of courts. To date we have received referrals from approximately 12 different district courts in Dublin. We have also received referrals from district courts in Kildare, Wicklow and Cork, as well as from the Circuit Court in Wicklow, Kildare and Dublin, and the District Appeals Court.

As with our colleagues in Nenagh, the programmes we provide are based on well established international models of victim-offender mediation and offender reparation. Complex work takes place in both models and I propose to highlight their core elements. Victim-offender mediation addresses serious assaults, criminal damage and larceny. The offender must plead guilty or have accepted the guilt of the court. He or she must willingly accept his or her own guilt in order to participate. The judge must make the referral in the pre-sentence mode. Victims and offenders are contacted separately. Further separate contacts and meetings take place and, if both parties are agreeable, some form of agreed communication can take place. This can often happen through verbal or written messages carried by our service, or a meeting can be arranged between the victim and offender with our service representatives present. I am sure committee members are well aware that many different options for progressing mediation are available. There is no obligation on a victim of crime to meet an offender. We are obliged to provide a report to the court on what took place and the judge makes a decision on the case. I will be happy to clarify any aspect of this.

The offender reparation model focuses on personal responsibility, accountability, consequences, education and choices for the future. This programme is, in the main, for first time offenders and deals with public order offences, low level assault and low level criminal damage. Reparation programmes are common in other jurisdictions; elements of this programme developed as a result of close collaboration between our organisation, the probation service and Judge McDonnell. The aim was to provide a programme that would challenge people involved in public order offences based around themes of behaviour, accountability, responsibility, and some financial reparation. It also provides a measured and considered response to those who were before the courts for the first time. Many of those who participate in this programme are aged between 18 and 26 and embarking on college or working life. A criminal conviction could severely restrict future career or travel prospects. All parties associated with this model feel this may not be a fair or proportionate response to a once-off transgression. In the paperwork before the committee I have outlined the details of the programme and I will be happy to clarify any issues regarding it.

On occasion we are requested by the courts or other agencies to intervene in a dispute or a difficulty where mediation or facilitation might be required. We have been invited into one or two education institutions and on occasions have been invited to participate in mediation and facilitation among a number of families. Those requests are rare but when they are made, we believe it is necessary and appropriate to respond.

Regarding other areas of work, we advocate and encourage the involvement of the community sector in the administration and delivery of responses to crime. Our community representatives contribute to all aspects of the work in terms of chairing our boards of management and our reparation panels. As I noted earlier, members of the community train to become restorative justice case workers and work alongside full-time professionals such as probation officers, members of the Garda and the victim support community.

We are involved in the safe place working group of the county development board and contribute to initiatives in the area of anti-social behaviour and crime prevention. Also, in the past we co-chaired with the Garda Síochána a local task group dealing with issues of crime and anti-social behaviour. We developed a small pilot programme for a second level school experiencing difficulties with incidents of violence and bullying. That programme focused on respect. We have contributed to a module to the UCD post-graduate diploma in mediation studies with regard to victim-offender mediation and were invited recently to contribute to its masters programme. We have also provided trainers and speakers to attend seminars and in-house training for other agencies.

I have listed a number of organisations, international and home-based, of which we are members and to which we are affiliated. That involves networking, gathering information on best practice and having contacts in other jurisdictions to ensure we are kept up to date on developments and issues in those areas.

I have also outlined a number of plans we hope to develop in future with the financial support of the probation and welfare service and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, including a new premises and further restorative justice initiatives. We will hold a national conference on restorative justice in November which will be formally opened by the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell.

What date in November?

Mr. Keeley

On 18 November. I have provided some details on that to Ms Mary Corrigan. Members are more than welcome to attend.

We believe there is merit in providing greater participation and a more proactive role for victims and offenders in the criminal justice system. Victims should have the opportunity to address their concerns or issues directly or indirectly to an offender in a safe, non-threatening and structured process. Offenders should be engaged in a challenging and robust but constructive manner. That engagement should focus on accountability, education and awareness raising but also on ways to repair the harm they have caused to the victim.

We recognise that as legislators this committee faces many challenges in considering the way this society should respond to crime, administer justice, meet the needs of victims and sanction those who have transgressed. We understand those policies must be effective, cost-effective and have the confidence of colleagues in Government, members of the public and the criminal justice agencies. We are not here to tell the committee that restorative justice is the panacea or that it is the solution for every victim or offender. We are saying that as a broader response to crime, restorative justice can make a significant positive contribution if properly resourced, planned and delivered in an appropriate manner.

We will now have questions from members. I ask Mr. Keeley to bank the questions. We will start with the rapporteur of the project, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe.

To explain my position, I have been asked to draw up a report for the committee. I do that on the basis of having great admiration for the work the various projects have been doing. I am examining the possibility of supporting any development plans they have but also developing further in other areas, possibly leading to some form of national roll-out for a restorative justice approach generally. My questions are designed to determine the areas where the projects have met difficulties and that may be of guidance to us in recommendations the committee will make on further development and a national roll-out.

A number of aspects appear to be common features between the two projects. The enthusiastic involvement of the judges in the areas concerned appears to be essential. Judge Michael Reilly was one of the people who stimulated the project in Nenagh. Judge James Paul McDonnell appears to be enthusiastic in the Tallaght area. Is it necessary that judges take a particular interest for such projects to be successful in a community?

My next few questions may stray somewhat outside the restorative justice area. Do the representatives believe that some form of judicial training is necessary to ensure that other judges are encouraged to get involved? The volunteer aspect appears to be slightly different between the two projects on which presentations were made. There appears to be a greater emphasis on the volunteer side in Nenagh, yet there is substantial volunteer involvement also in Tallaght. Does either project have a difficulty in getting volunteer involvement? Is there substantial support from the community from the point of view of human resources? Are new people coming forward or is there a tendency to rely on those who got involved at the outset?

I understand that part of the idea of restorative justice is victim satisfaction in terms of an apology from the offender and that victims have a stake, as it were, in the outcome. I get the impression that in some instances, victims have been slow to come forward. Have the representatives views on the reason for that, especially when the project is related to providing a degree of victim satisfaction?

Another main area is the issue of recidivism. I am not sure about the figures in Tallaght but a report in Nenagh some years ago indicated that there was only a 16% return to offending. Will both representatives provide the up-to-date figures on that? If people can be discouraged from further criminal activity, it would be a major bonus for the scheme.

I have two further questions. I take it that the enthusiastic involvement of the probation and welfare service and the Garda Síochána is necessary to ensure the success of the scheme. The representatives might comment briefly on that aspect.

The final issue I want to raise is cost. I believe keeping people on the straight and narrow, so to speak, and out of prison benefits society in general but also the offenders themselves. From the point of view of cost per individual involved as opposed to the direct financial cost of keeping offenders in prison, do the representatives have a view on the savings to the taxpayer? Obviously, it is not a cost-free situation to have heavy support from probation officers and others involved. If it costs €100,000 a year or €2,000 a week to keep somebody in prison, what would be the comparative savings to the taxpayer to keep offenders out of prison? This question is more relevant in the case of young offenders because I saw a figure in a newspaper the other day which indicated that the cost of keeping young offenders in prison is far greater than that for adult offenders. I would like the representatives to deal with these issues if they have the time to do so as they are relevant to the report.

They certainly will have time to answer them. I call Deputy Hoctor, one of the founders of the Nenagh restorative justice project.

I welcome my colleagues, Ms Alice Brislane and Ms Carolle Gleeson form the Nenagh Community Reparation Project. I am still a director of the project and therefore am very much involved in it. I also welcome Mr. Peter Keeley and Ms Kathryn Carolan from the Tallaght centre whom I know well.

Ms Alice Brislane thanked the local Judiciary, namely Judge Michael Reilly, for the support and initiative he has shown in regard to the Nenagh project. How many judges are involved in the Tallaght project? Mr. Peter Keeley named a number of District Courts, but I am interested to learn the number of judges involved. One of the challenges of our report, on which I commend the work of Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, will be to make these projects known to the Judiciary. I understand interest among the Judiciary in these projects is growing. This service is an alternative within the community sanction scheme. Supports for the Judiciary in respect of this service are required. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe mentioned training, but supports for the probation and welfare service in respect of this service are also required. Those in this service together with members of local communities have spearheaded these initiatives. I would like the committee to probe further how judges can become more involved, otherwise there is a fear that judges who are involved will be left with such projects as a good working concept, which are excellent on the ground but not spreading at the rate they should throughout the country.

What are the offences with which the Tallaght centre deals? Aside from petty crime offences, what is the nature of the more serious crimes?

Some of the questions I intended to raise have already been answered so I will be brief. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe referred to an aspect of the model I wish to raise. If the model were to be rolled out throughout the country with the obvious benefits it has in certain cases, one of the key questions would be its relative effectiveness compared to traditional criminal justice systems and restoration in terms of traditional models of punishment, detention or community service. It is important to know the relative effectiveness of the system in that respect. An indicator of that, as Deputy Jim O'Keeffe signalled, would be the rates of recidivism. Is there any comparison between the rates of recidivism for similar crimes which have gone through the traditional criminal justice system as against crimes which have gone though restorative justice systems?

What is the nature of the offences which are capable of being dealt with under restorative justice systems, a matter to which Deputy Hoctor referred? Representing a mainly urban constituency, I would like to think it would be effective in an urban environment. Perhaps this is a question more appropriate to Mr. Keeley. I imagine there are some hardcore repeat offenders, especially of public order offences in communities, which is the case particularly in certain estates in Limerick which I represent. Would this model be effective in dealing with repeat offenders?

What happens if the system does not work in the case of a offender? Is the case put back into the court list and the Probation of Offenders Act applied? I would be interested to hear what happens in such a case.

I am not sure which of the representatives described the system as being possibly the soft option. Many people approach us who want us to take the hard option and to be tough on crime. I would like one of the representatives to expand on how the system might be described as the soft option in dealing with these types of issues.

I wish to inform Deputy O'Connor that the representatives from the Nenagh Community Reparation Project and the Restorative Justice Tallaght Centre have given the history to their projects and outlined what they are doing. We are at the point where questions are being put by members.

I was at the funeral of a friend and I apologise for being late.

I wish to be associated with the welcome extended to both groups, particularly the Nenagh group as I have a good deal of contact with them. As Deputy Power mentioned Limerick, I will be able to mention Tallaght.

(Interruptions).

I was also going to praise Deputy Jim O'Keeffe because he has taken the initiative on this subject. When Deputy Hoctor and I have raised this service in Nenagh and Tallaght on a number of occasions, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe has been supportive of it. This is an opportunity for us to show our support for the service and also to demand that it be rolled out throughout the rest of the country.

I do not want to ruin Mr. Peter Keeley's career but he knows that I can take some small credit for dragging him away from the council and putting him into this service. I am delighted to praise the Tallaght restorative justice service. I have had a good deal of contact with it and with the other groups represented here and I am happy to support them.

Deputy Power raised the question of the system being perceived as a soft option and the issue of easier sentences, a point which is often made to me by people in Tallaght and in the wider constituency. I would be interested in the views of both groups on that issue, but I ask the representatives of the Tallaght centre in particular to give their view on that.

I wish to ask my Tallaght friends about the current budget for the centre and how it is being used. Bearing in mind that questions are asked about the service and how it has developed, will the representatives of the Tallaght centre outline the challenges they face in the delivery of their work and how the service might be expanded? I have raised this question on a number of occasions in the Dáil because the success of the projects in Tallaght and Nenagh demands that the Department should extend this service to the rest of the country. I know that the Tallaght centre will be happy to show the lead in that regard. I am sure Deputy Hoctor will make a similar point about the Nenagh project. I am not singling out Nenagh because Deputy Hoctor does that effectively. Therefore, I will concentrate on my friends in Tallaght.

I thank the Chair for facilitating me and I apologise again for being late.

I will take questions from Senator Moylan followed by Deputy Ó Fearghaíl.

I welcome the representatives of both groups and thank them for their presentations. Having read through the documentation I note they are doing an excellent job. I am of the view that much of the trouble gardaí encounter in dealing with offenders is the result of those people having consumed too much alcohol. It brings us back to the problems associated with alcohol consumption and the question of easy access to alcohol. I do not blame the publicans as alcohol is easily available from off licences. I recall the old saying that what is in a person when sober will come out when the person is drunk and that will cause major problems. I am a teetotaller myself. We need to consider how to deal with people who have created problems, as a result of alcohol abuse, for the Garda, the representatives present and the justice system. Is there a way of getting a commitment from these people to take a pledge for a number of years as part of this project? They could take on a two-year term of probation and not drink alcohol. I have been involved with young people through the GAA and so forth over the years and it was certainly easier to deal with people who were not consuming alcohol and staying out late at night.

I compliment our guests on an excellent and worthwhile presentation to the committee.

I congratulate the project on its excellent work and on the presentation given to the committee. With regard to the Nenagh project, why is the focus exclusively on adults? Some people would be of the opinion that there is a need to engage with people with difficulties before the age of 18. For the benefit of communities throughout the country that might be considering initiating a similar project to those in Tallaght and Nenagh, what is the fool's guide to establishing a restorative project in an area?

I welcome the two groups. The group from Nenagh mentioned that it had seven cases already this year. What is the limit? Can the group cater for many more? Are extra resources required? The cases are obviously referred by the judges. Is there a need for more cases to be referred?

I ask our guests to brief in their responses to these questions.

Ms Brislane

It is probably easier to deal with the last question first. With regard to the limit, one year we dealt with 24. Our problem is that the judges are changed in the District Court. If Judge Michael Reilly is not sitting, the other judges have not bought into the system. We have the infrastructure to deal with between 24 and 30 cases per year and we would gladly handle them.

Do none of the other judges apart from Judge Reilly refer people?

Ms Brislane

No. That is a major point for us.

Are they aware of the project?

Ms Brislane

I will take the other question about training for judges. I would not like to call it training for judges but it could be described as information for judges. We would be pleased if the judges came on board in support of the project. If Judge Michael Reilly is not in our District Court, we most likely will not get a referral.

Would a solicitor suggest it to a judge or is it always the judge's initiative?

Ms Brislane

Yes, but they are still slow to take it on. That is our major problem at present, not cost. Somebody asked if the problem was cost but it is not.

Ms Gleeson

Judge Smithwick, who is now retired, is the only judge in my experience, as the local probation officer, who referred somebody to our project. Every visiting judge will have a copy of our leaflet on his or her desk. In cases where we are bringing back contracts or a report to the court regarding restorative justice, I will usually ask to see the judge prior to the court proceedings to explain the project. In those cases, I have found the judges very helpful. However, there is certainly a reluctance to refer.

On the volunteer aspect, at present we have 14 volunteers in Nenagh. The committee takes time to find new volunteers and there was a new intake of four last year. They seem to be with the project for the long haul. With regard to victim involvement and satisfaction, I am usually the person who would meet the victim. On two occasions this year I had cause to contact victims. The first contact is a series of telephone calls and letters. There was a satisfactory outcome to the first case involving a community fracas. It was dealt with to the satisfaction of the victim. In the second case, the victim opted to meet me. The victim was extremely nervous about meeting the perpetrator of the offence but stated that she felt satisfied about being able to explain how she felt and to discuss it with someone. She spent over an hour with me and asked that I be her voice, as it were, in the panel meeting. That has yet to take place.

It tends to be satisfactory where we have the participation of victims. In the types of cases referred to us, however, the victim can also be the community as well as the gardaí. With regard to individual victims, it is a question of limited referrals.

With regard to recidivism figures, I had talks with the gardaí this week and have had such talks since early October. We wanted to have up-to-date statistics in readiness for Mr. Peter Keeley's conference. The gardaí assure me that the statistics will be ready by then. When the conference is held, we will have figures on recidivism up to this year. There was an 84% success rate up to 2004.

With regard to the involvement of the probation and welfare service and the Garda——

You can leave that matter to the Tallaght group. Do you wish to respond on any other item?

Ms Gleeson

I will respond to the question about cost. Up to 2005, we had €30,000 per annum and this year we received €40,000.

That seems to be very good value.

Ms Gleeson

I am not able to offer a comparison.

What is that money spent on?

Ms Gleeson

That is the salary for one administrator and the general running of the project.

Ms Brislane

We are slightly different from the Tallaght project. The probation and welfare service says the community is the core of our project but I believe the probation and welfare service is the core. We are slightly different from Tallaght in that respect. As a volunteer, I consider it most important that the probation and welfare service plays such a large role in our project. In fact, the service always manages the meetings with the offender. We are unpaid volunteers and these are the people who are well trained to deal with offenders. This is important to our project. It is also important that I, as chairman, should have confidence in these people when dealing with offenders, victims and people's lives. They are central to our project, as are the gardaí. The probation and welfare service is more central, however. It is wonderful to work with these people. They are unbelievable people in this area and have certainly been at the core of our project.

I will move on to the Tallaght group but if there is something that the Nenagh group wishes to say afterwards, I will come back to them.

Mr. Keeley

I am conscious that there was a myriad of questions and I am usually the one asking the questions.

I hope Mr. Keeley is happy with all the advertising he is getting for his conference.

Mr. Keeley

I am happy to provide as much information as I can. Perhaps some of the answers to the questions that have been posed will overlap.

It would be better if Mr. Keeley could just answer the questions with factual information, rather than providing opinions or comments.

Mr. Keeley

On Deputy Hoctor's question, about two dozen different judges have referred offenders to the service since it was established. However, I note that Judge McDonnell has an intimate involvement with the service.

That is very encouraging, if I may say so. It is giving hope to Nenagh because we need the Judiciary to be involved with this.

The Deputy can use that against the Judiciary down there.

Mr. Keeley

It is quite encouraging but it is part of the daily challenge. I concur with some of the issues that our colleagues in Nenagh have raised. Some 24 judges over a period of five years having referred to our service is not that high a number. On pre-sentence court referrals, legislation might be an issue for the judges because the work we carry out is not grounded in legislation. We may need to examine that issue because judges operate under legislation, while we do not.

I do not feel I can make a direct correlation on figures. A figure of €100,000 per annum was mentioned as the cost of keeping a person in custody. We put approximately 120 offenders through our programme last year and our annual budget is around €320,000. With regard the Deputy O'Connor's budget question, we are quite satisfied with our relationship with the probation service. We have discussions on a regular basis and have two representatives of the probation service on our board of directors. The budget issues can be challenging but we always get around them. We have an agreed agenda going forward, so we are quite pleased as to how we are progressing the service. We are looking at new premises and, although a considerable amount of resources are required to go into this, the probation service has not been slow in coming forward with the required resources.

Regarding volunteers and community involvement, the last time we advertised for an intake of people to our panel of case workers, we had approximately 260 responses from every county on the island. We advertised in the national media and the response was quite encouraging. That number was whittled down through various exercises, including initial training and interviews, to a figure of 12 to join our current team, which brings it to 24.

The complex nature of some of the victim-offender mediation cases, which can require perhaps 12 to 14 hours of work and considerable preparation time, was one of the reasons the service looked at providing an honorarium as well as telephone and travel expenses for those working on the cases. They are not employees but are assigned as required.

I will provide the committee with recidivism figures for 2004 and 2005. There were 70 participants on the offender reparation programme in 2004. We were advised by the Garda Síochána that five of them had transgressed in the following 24 months. One hundred graduated, for want of a better expression, from the 2005 programme, of whom nine or ten have transgressed since. It is a matter of monitoring these figures and measuring them over a much longer period.

Are there no comparative statistics covering a similar batch of 100 people who went through the courts system?

Mr. Keeley

No. There is no such study in place. I am aware that one of our colleagues, Mr. Kieran O'Dwyer, will talk to the committee about research findings in his own presentation. Among our future plans is a comprehensive and independent review and evaluation of the work we are doing. We hope to undertake that within the next year or two. Significant numbers would be required to come up with a definitive analysis of how things are working.

Would it be fair to say that, from the Tallaght group's experience, there would appear to be a fairly low rate of re-offending?

Mr. Keeley

The evidence to date, based on the returns from 2004 and 2005, suggests that there is a low rate of recidivism. Many studies have taken place in other jurisdictions. In Ireland, we are only leaving base camp with regard to restorative justice. However, there are many such established services elsewhere that have been in operation for ten or 15 years. Research is available and I would be happy to forward such information on victim satisfaction to the committee.

That would be helpful.

Mr. Keeley

I also wish to deal with Deputy Peter Power's question concerning the hard core of people who consistently re-offend. During my presentation I said that restorative justice is not for everybody, whether victim or offender. Offender reparation is really for first-time offenders or those who may have committed only one or two offences. In victim-offender mediation we are dealing with serious assaults, larceny or individuals who may have committed criminal damage of some kind. They may also have some background. We will do our utmost to work with them and will put them through the process and focus on accountability and responsibility as well as looking at reparation and compensation. The court offers no guaranteed leniency to offenders who participate in the victim-offender mediation service. They put themselves at the mercy of the court in that regard. It is not for everybody.

I thank you very much for attending. It has been very helpful and puts more focus on the process of restorative justice and the reparation projects both in Nenagh and Tallaght. Hopefully, it will help to make them more successful than they are at the moment, which is the perceived wisdom of most of the people here.

Ms Gleeson

One very important question was raised as to why we deal with adults and not children. Under the Criminal Justice Act 2001, we have conferencing for children, which is similar. That is dealt with by the probation service through family conferencing. That separate area is provided for in the legislation.

Ms Kathryn Carolan

May I address the issue of over-consumption of alcohol? Do we have time?

Ms Carolan

Over-consumption of alcohol is a factor in 84% of our cases, and 74% of cases in the offender reparation programme, which concerns first-time offenders.

When the first-time offenders come to us, we provide education on alcohol awareness and they may be asked to attend between one and three AA meetings. Often it is the first time that they have thought about the effects of alcohol or the reason they were arrested. Many of them, young people between the ages of 18 to 26 mentioned by Mr. Keeley, have never really given it serious thought. We do a great deal of work on alcohol awareness.

I thank Ms Carolan.

I welcome Assistant Commissioner Pat Crummey, Chief Superintendent Pat Cregg, Inspector Finbarr Murphy from the Garda Síochána, and Mr. Kieran O'Dwyer from the Prison Service. We received two submissions, one from the Garda and one from Mr. O'Dwyer, both of which have been given to members. I ask that the delegation go through the pertinent points in an executive summary format.

Mr. Pat Crummey

I will give a synopsis of the paper submitted to the committee. Restorative justice has been in existence with us since May 2002 and has its foundation in the Children Act 2001. Since then, we have dealt with in excess of 700 restorative justice events. The programme is administered by the Garda National Juvenile Office and delivered locally by a countrywide network of specially trained juvenile liaison officers.

Under the Children Act 2001, the junior liaison officer scheme in operation since 1963 was ended and replaced by the diversion programme. This diversion programme could be described as a package of measures for dealing with children under the age of 18 who commit an offence. The programme is managed by a Garda superintendent appointed by the Commissioner and he is known as the director of the programme. That position is a statutory one under the Children Act.

Throughout the country there are 87 juvenile liaison officers of garda rank and eight members at sergeant rank. The director must consider every referral and it is the director who makes the decision on whether or not the young person is included in the programme.

The programme provides for formal and informal cautions. It provides for restorative cautions and restorative conferences. If I may, I might allow Inspector Murphy to give a brief overview later on the mechanics of conferencing, as he has direct responsibility for that. Since its inception we have been increasing the number of restorative events year on year since 2003, and in 2005 we dealt with 262 events, which represents a 48% increase on the 2004 figures.

In developing and deciding on the type of model that the Garda Síochána would use, consideration was given to existing models in New Zealand, Australia, the UK and the US. We found that the greatest focus should be on the level of training that we give to our people. As a result, we have a very strong focus on the training of our juvenile liaison officers. Inspector Murphy will go into the detail of that training, but it provides for mediation training at level one and level two, and annual conferences where they get together and exchange experiences and views. The range of cases dealt with covers the entire spectrum of crime, from minor public order offences all the way up to serious burglaries, robberies and assaults.

On the question of whether it works, I heard some of the previous speakers stating that it is not for everyone, and I would agree with that. It is not for every victim. It will not meet the needs of every victim. I will let Mr. Kieran O'Dwyer deal with the research specifically. We know that a large proportion of victims are quite happy with the process. We also know that offenders find it a difficult process. They also feel included and that they are being heard and treated with respect.

Recidivism is an important area in which we are interested and research is continuing. We need a good deal of research in that area before we can be certain as to where we are with that.

That is a brief overview. I will ask Inspector Murphy to deal with the level of training and the mechanics of restorative justice conferencing.

Mr. Finbarr Murphy

My first point, because it was mentioned earlier, is that we deal entirely with children. The programme is designed for people under the age of 18 and it operates within the context of the juvenile diversion programme. We have 95 juvenile liaison officers in the network which delivers that programme throughout the country.

On the mechanics of the programme, where a child commits an offence and the offence is detected, a referral is sent in to the national office, which is our office. We assess that referral. Based on that assessment and on a report from the juvenile liaison officer, we decide whether the child will be deemed not suitable, in which case a prosecution is contemplated at local level. If the child is deemed suitable for conclusion, he or she will get either a formal or an informal caution. The informal caution is a caution without supervision. The formal caution brings with it 12 months' supervision by the juvenile liaison officer. We received 21,000 referrals last year, 85% of which would have been dealt with by caution, either informal or formal.

How many referrals were there last year?

Mr. Murphy

Some 21,000. We then take the formal cases and those are the ones that are considered for a restorative caution. That is where sections 26 and 29 of the Children Act come into play. Section 26 allows us to invite the victim to be present at the formal caution. Section 29 would extend the invitation to, perhaps, social workers or teachers, allowing a broader range of people to come together.

Assistant Commissioner Crummey alluded to the level of training. When we set about developing the Garda model and looked at models in other countries, our view was that one of the reasons models eventually either failed or ran out of steam was lack of training. We set about putting in place a complex training programme. Each juvenile liaison officer will receive three days' training in restorative justice practices delivered by a company, Real Justice, a worldwide organisation which specialises in restorative practice training. We follow that with mediation training where each juvenile liaison officer gets 80 hours' mediation training delivered over a three-month period, in which they explore cases, community mediation and the various types of mediation. They are certified to level one mediation by the Mediation Institute of Ireland and six months later we follow that training up with a two-day course focused on dealing with the victims and how to engage a victim in the entire process. We do so because we identified getting the victim on board as a problem. We want to continue that training twice a year when the groups come together and discuss their cases. People present a case to a group of their peers and outline how they dealt with it. Their peers will examine how restorative it was; whether it was voluntary and the various ethical issues involved. We establish whether we can improve and what we can learn from it.

Supervision is unique to our model in that the process does not end when the conference or caution ends. As the child is under supervision for 12 months, we can continue to work with him or her. This has proved particularly valuable in our model. As the Commissioner alluded to, we have been involved in minor cases but, because of the time involved in each case, 12 hours on average, with more complex cases lasting longer, we have focused on challenging cases, where possible. We have dealt with a number of serious cases such as assaults in which bottles were used. Recently a foreign national had his face slashed and we engaged in the restorative process. The case involved a member of an English rugby team that was visiting Ireland. A 16 year old was involved and he returned to Ireland to meet the injured party and resolve the issue. Plastic surgery is being provided to help the man recover from the incident. That is an outline of the training and mechanics of the programme.

Mr. Crummey

Under the Children Act 2001, a children committee, which I chair, was established. Its membership comprises Mr. Martin Tansey, former head of the probation and welfare service, and Ms Phil Hanna. Its terms of reference are to monitor the effectiveness of the diversion programme, review all aspects of its operation and keep training under review.

I thank Assistant Commissioner Crummey. I am sure there will be questions about the JLO programme. Mr. Kieran O'Dwyer has conducted substantive research into these matters. I call him to make his presentation.

Mr. Kieran O’Dwyer

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee. I very much welcome the opportunity to share my findings and thoughts on restorative justice. I was head of research in the Garda for 12 years and transferred to the Prison Service in May. However, I am attending in a private capacity. I am, therefore, not representing either organisation. I am not an advocate for any programme. I am also the Irish member of a European Science Foundation programme funding research into restorative justice, which concludes with a conference in Warsaw in November where the findings of this five-year programme will be presented. This may be of interest to the committee.

Is Mr. O'Dwyer employed by the Prison Service?

Mr. O’Dwyer

Yes, but in an entirely different area. The debate on restorative justice in prisons in Ireland has not yet commenced but I will look. I will outline the findings of the evaluation we conducted of the Garda programme. I began as a neutral researcher, even as a sceptic, of restorative justice but all the work I did domestically and internationally has made me an advocate or allowed me to at least recognise the potential and dangers of this system.

Previous contributors referred to the benefits for offenders, victims and the community which are looked on as the three main groups involved. The benefits for the offender, highlighted in the Garda evaluation, include the opportunity to make amends and be reintegrated into the community. Offenders are often short-changed by their experience of the court-based system and sidelined with somebody speaking on their behalf. Benefits for the victim include the opportunity to be heard and secure reparation for the harm caused. One of the greatest gripes victims have with the criminal justice system is they feel sidelined, despite recent changes to bring them into the foreground and involve them. Benefits for the community include involvement in the resolution of conflicts through volunteer work, the ability to support one group or the other or facilitate meetings, reduced reoffending, community harmony and improved safety.

Restorative justice relies for effectiveness and moral authority on the upholding of key restorative principles and values such as voluntary participation by offender and victim, impartial facilitation, balanced participation and respect for participants. Some of the key advocates of restorative justice emphasise the respect for participants inherent in the process, as space is provided for people to express their views and be heard. These are easy to sign up to. They are motherhood statements in many respects but the challenge is to make sure they are adhered to on a regular basis and that systems are in place to support facilitators and supervise their performance.

Restorative justice is not above criticism. Many do not support it, envisage great dangers and express concerns and uncertainty about aspects of the process, including the protection of the rights and well-being of offenders. This includes police-led programmes. The right to due process which is important in court is ignored by this system in the critics' eyes. They refer to the nature and proportionality of sanctions and ask whether there is a danger that, without due process and the safeguards provided by a court, disproportionate sanctions could be imposed on a weak offender or advantage taken of a weak victim. Issues such as the definition and role of the community have been raised. Who is "the community" that should be represented? How representative are the people involved? Many believe restorative justice should be community-based and that the State should stay on the sideline but they express concern about the role of professionals.

Restorative justice complements the criminal justice system; it is not an alternative but that view is not universal. Some commentators believe it should go back to its community roots. The role of police officers as facilitators has been a source of contention regarding perceptions of their ability to be neutral. Very little in the research I conducted or encountered elsewhere persuades me to rule any group inappropriate. It depends very much on the level of training, support and supervision provided. If I have time, I will refer to the strengths of the Garda model and the fact that gardaí work in a continuum of supervision with young people.

Restorative justice internationally is considered appropriate for juvenile offenders and less serious offences but, increasingly, is being used for adult offenders. Commentators argue that such offenders know enough about life to understand the concepts inherent in restorative justice and that it is more suitable for older persons. The system is increasingly being used to deal with more serious offences, including in prisons with the families of murder victims. Interventions can also take place at various stages in the criminal process — pre-court in the diversion programme, pre-sentence and post-sentence, including in prison. The principles underpinning juvenile justice systems, including the right of young people to be recognised and heard and to have matters discussed in a language they understand, overlap significantly with restorative justice. Given the 21,000 referrals and that 25% of cautions are formal cautions, there is potentially a significant pool of offenders who might benefit from restorative justice programmes. Victims should equally be a priority for us. One of the fundamental concepts of restorative justice is that crime is seen as a harm caused to a person. It is incumbent on us, first and foremost, to be concerned with repairing that harm.

Within the diversion programme close to one third of children reoffend. The new offence will often be relatively minor and subsequently they will often not reoffend. These form another potential group of offenders who could come under the ambit of and benefit from the restorative justice programme.

The Garda research findings on the offender perspective were consistent with international findings of police-led programmes and restorative justice programmes generally. One dimension examined was the process values. We found the majority of offenders participated actively and did not just sit there without taking part. They were involved in decision making, understood what was going on, agreed with decisions and accepted responsibility. The acceptance of responsibility was a key feature as participants finished with a better understanding of what their actions entailed, showed they were sorry and apologised. Not all apologised, but the majority did.

As part of the research, we interviewed a significant number of offenders and they confirmed they felt free to say what they wanted, felt treated fairly and that their participation was voluntary. Of those interviewed and whose parents were interviewed, 94% said they were satisfied or very satisfied with the programme. Supporters of offenders, mainly parents, felt the programme had a positive impact on their child.

We expected participants to say it was difficult, but there was a median score on level of difficulty. This may have been because they compared it in their minds with what they might have expected in court. Initially, some found it difficult, but when they met the victim and got over the intimidation of being in a room primarily dominated by adults, they found it easier. Factors that made restorative justice more beneficial for the offender included the direct participation of the victim. An affirmation of the offender was often a turning point. Offenders feel shame, blame and feel wrong. It is important to ensure that is not the sole after effect.

One of the unique features of the programme internationally is the extent to which participation is voluntary. A decision has already been taken to deal with an offence by diversion, so no extra sanction is imposed if the young person fails to comply or participate and walks away. This has proved to be a strength rather than a weakness. The key process value, supported by international evidence, is that offender satisfaction is related to the respect and opportunity to speak and the fairness of process and outcome.

We had a participation rate of victims of 76%. This is high by international standards, but there are some programmes with a higher participation rate. The rate indicates that no pressure was put on the victims. Involvement of victims was a significant learning point for gardaí. It was recognised early on that the Garda did not necessarily have the language or culture skills to deal with this in a programme that was primarily oriented towards offenders. However, because of a natural empathy with victims it was easy to put that right.

Victims participated for diverse reasons, including a desire to get answers to their questions. Many also desired to support the offender. This is not an opportunity provided in court, by and large. Victim satisfaction rates were high at 93%. We found little evidence of revictimisation. All victims felt they were treated with respect and fairness. Whatever about satisfaction with the offender, satisfaction with the process was often enough to help the victim feel satisfied overall. Agreements were reached in most cases or there was an understanding that no formal agreement was necessary. Common elements of interest to victims included an apology and, where relevant, reparation by means of compensation, community work or a charitable donation. Restorative events often helped achieve reconciliation in communities, small groups and between families. This would generally not be possible under a court based system.

The overall conclusion was that while restorative justice is no panacea, it can deliver important benefits to victims, not least by providing a voice in the resolution of their case. International experience is that victims can benefit where adequate account is taken of their needs. They cannot be taken for granted and there is a need to take time in approaching, understanding and supporting them. One encounters in international literature areas where participation and satisfaction rates were often low, but this was often due to clumsy approaches or the oversight of sometimes not inviting their participation. Where victims' needs are considered in terms of venue and time, they often take the opportunity to participate.

In terms of outcomes, the level of ambition of agreements varied significantly, but was a result of consensus among participants. Decisions were almost invariably by consensus, but there were one or two instances where individuals said they felt under some kind of pressure, normally from their supporters. None of the agreements appeared disproportionate to the harm caused or the needs of the offender. Restorative justice defines proportionality in a different way perhaps, but there was no evidence that there was anything that would be considered disproportionate by either definition.

Offenders complied with the agreements in 89% of cases. This is high, but not the highest by international standards. There was non-compliance in 12 cases out of 147 and of those 12 only two involved elements of commitments to victims that were not honoured. Reoffending occurred in one third of cases, but we cannot draw any conclusions from that because the speculation is that difficult cases were targeted. This is one of the difficulties. The rapporteur mentioned that in getting international evidence it is difficult to get hard evidence that derives from experiments that compare like with like. Cases going to court are, typically, more serious and cases going to diversion less so. We did not have a matched, controlled experiment in our research and merely record that 33% reoffended. Some 84% overall did not reoffend or committed only one new offence, often of a minor nature.

While I was listening earlier, I picked out some findings on the effectiveness of restorative justice in terms of reoffending. I looked at one case where there was a matched, controlled pair experiment in a police-led programme in Canberra, the RISE project. It had four groups of offenders. For one group of juvenile offenders involved in violent crime, it recorded a decrease in reoffending of 38% compared with a matched group who had gone to court for similar offences. Interestingly, there were no net reductions for juveniles who were involved in shop-lifting offences or juveniles or young adults involved in property crime. Paradoxically, they looked at re-offending by a group who were on charges for drunk driving and there was an increase of 6% in those who went the restorative justice route. This appears a little bizarre but the explanation offered is that the person's licence was often suspended by the court and this effectively took them off the road so that they could not re-offend.

Another study looked at re-offending after two years by 590 first-time offenders in New South Wales. This recorded reductions in re-offending of 15% to 20%. It is very difficult to find reliable data but the burden of the evidence is that it does at least have a modest impact on re-offending which is reduced if the conditions and the implementation are right.

One critical learning point in the Garda experience and which crops up all the time is that careful preparation is seen as crucial to the success. However, there is a recognition that this is time-consuming. The average evaluation time ran for 20 months and the average preparation time was ten and a half hours, in the case of both the Garda evaluation time and ours. On the extent to which restorative justice involves participants other than the offender and the victim, the average number of participants was 5.1 in the Garda cases, excluding JLOs and just under five when excluding all gardaí. The average number of supporters per offender was only 1.35, one and a third. One would normally expect both parents at the very least to be there, although maybe not so in the case of a big group. The impact of participation will require further research. The extended family were involved in just over 3% of cases. Supporters other than parents or guardians were involved in only 15 out of 147 cases. This would not be unusual in some cases at an international level. In order to help a young person and to focus on the future rather than the past, it seems desirable to explore the potential for involving more support people for the young person.

The range of meeting duration went from 20 minutes — which is a bit short — to two hours. The shorter events were considered to be less restorative and there is some tentative evidence that re-offending rates tended to be a little higher. Our conclusion is that restorativeness is a continuum. Even at the shorter events and with smaller numbers, restorative justice and restorative values are at play, with benefits to be had compared with the court system.

I stress the importance of the process and of the dialogue which occurs neither too often nor too well in the court-based system. The allowing of story telling and allowing people to personalise the experience and to make a human connection is vitally important and this comes across in the international evidence also.

Deputy S. Ó Fearghaíl took the Chair.

We will block the questions on this occasion.

I thank the delegation for the presentation which has been very helpful. It gives rise to a number of other questions. A very basic question is the extent of restorative justice. The Garda presentation was mainly concerned with children under the age of 18 and related to the diversion scheme. Taking the broader picture, does the delegation regard the adult caution scheme as being of the same ilk, as being restorative justice? What is the linkage into the court-based schemes? What involvement has the Garda Síochána, if any, in the scheme in Nenagh and Tallaght? Is it all part of the one broad approach? I will not include prison as being restorative justice as we have enough on our plate.

The diversion programme is a major programme. I do not fully understand the reference to 21,000 referrals in 2005 and 262 restorative events. What fits into what category? I know the distinction between what is unsuitable or between formal and informal but what happens to the other referrals?

There seems to be a major emphasis on training and I presume it is a very important part of the process. The delegation has proved a strong point about training.

The main interest of the committee, apart from being enlightened on the work under way which is even more considerable than I thought, is where we go from here. What recommendations can the committee make to develop this approach further? It might be difficult for members of the Garda Síochána to talk about the question of resources but I invite them to feel free. Mr. O'Dwyer is probably even freer to talk about this. If there is to be a greater emphasis on restorative justice at all levels, Mr. O'Dwyer refers in his recommendations to the need for greater support, the provision of extra resources and more oversight and transparency. The committee is looking to make sensible, practical recommendations for building on the undoubted good work under way. How does the delegation see the work developing further either at the juvenile level, the under-18 level, the adult level or at the court level? I invite the delegation, if not to write the script for the committee, to contribute to the writing of the script in that regard. I may return with questions about legislation later.

I welcome our guests, including the members of the Garda Síochána and Mr. Kieran O'Dwyer. I wish to record the gratitude of the Nenagh group for the great relationship that has been formed with the superintendents and the gardaí in Nenagh. They are a key factor in the success of the project. It was not easy for them or for anyone else to take the risk on a new project and be prepared to fail.

The term, "soft option", is used by people who are often misinformed or not fully informed on the whole concept of restorative justice. Is the concept welcomed and supported within the Garda force or are its merits something that the gardaí present need to convince their colleagues about?

I will address a question to Mr. O'Dwyer. Ireland has not had the experience of restorative justice in schools. However, it has worked very successfully in some European countries where students use restorative justice methods to help with the working of discipline in their schools. I would be interested to hear from either group on the matter. In particular, Mr. O'Dwyer might be able to inform us more about the matter. Could he envisage it working in the Irish school system?

I welcome the groups and thank them for their presentations. Some 21,000 referrals is a large number. While different divisions are involved, how many gardaí are involved in that type of work? The witnesses may not be in a position to give that information today. Mention has been made of referrals from courts. We must recognise the outstanding Garda work in nipping in the bud cases that do not need to go to court. Those of us living in rural areas know that in the past more of our gardaí lived locally with us. They were aware of who were likely to step out of line and could check them before matters went further. Now it has changed considerably. However, I recognise the great work done by gardaí in taking people in hand without getting any great credit. I am well aware of people who got that chance from a garda and did not re-offend.

Mr. O'Dwyer stated that one third of the offenders re-offend within 12 months. Do a large percentage of these people re-offend within a month?

Mr. Crummey

I will work backwards and deal with the last questions first. I will ask Mr. O'Dwyer to deal with the question about re-offenders. The numbers of gardaí we mentioned this morning, the 87 JLO gardaí and eight sergeants, are only the people who are dealing with restorative justice in the formal sense. In addition other gardaí are involved in the arrest of offenders and they refer them on to the JLOs who take them through the process. We must also not forget the number of incidents where gardaí simply caution and advise people on the street without putting them through any formal process. That can be done through Garda involvement in youth clubs, football teams or any other activities in which gardaí are involved in parishes. The overall number of gardaí involved in the process in some way or another is huge because it involves many more than those who are part of the formal process.

Is it seen as a soft option? Not at all and certainly not throughout the organisation. Before we had restorative justice, since 1963 we have had what we refer to as the JLO scheme, which had many of the elements of the restorative justice scheme. It had the caution element, supervision and that type of thing. It is very much an accepted part of the criminal justice process within the Garda Síochána and is not seen as a soft option whatsoever. Our focus and that of Chief Superintendent Cregg and his staff in the national juvenile office is to ensure that all juveniles who find themselves on the wrong side of the law are given the option of being part of the restorative justice process. We want to ensure that nobody slips through the cracks. Some young offenders are actually charged and brought before the courts without being given the opportunity to go through this system. That is our focus at present.

Deputy Jim O'Keeffe asked about the extent of restorative justice. At present it applies only to juveniles and is being operated strictly for them. It is a relatively new concept for us, as an organisation, and our focus and emphasis at this time is to bed it down with our own people in the juvenile area. We have a steep learning curve to climb with our juvenile liaison officers. Inspector Murphy has outlined the level of training we want to give to our people to bring them up to the level of expertise that they can effectively administer this programme. That is our focus at present. We have no objection in principle to it being extended to the adult community. Gardaí caution adults for minor offences every day of the week instead of processing them through the system. We do not have any principled objection to bringing them into the formal arena. It is most likely the way the scheme will develop.

Is the cautioning of adult caution purely informal?

Mr. Crummey

Purely informal. I am talking about a garda stopping an adult for a minor offence, and rather than summonsing, prosecuting and bringing that person through court he gives the person a caution. He might say: "You shouldn't have been doing that. You've been driving a little erratically. Watch the way you drive and continue on." There is no court appearance or further consequence for the driver. That is very informal.

In the Tallaght or Nenagh projects the initiative is from the judge and not from gardaí.

Mr. Crummey

In those cases referral is through the court.

Mr. Pat Cregg

There is no formal linkage between the juvenile programme and the programmes in Tallaght and Nenagh. While local gardaí are involved in those programmes, it is on an independent basis. There is no formal or legal linkage with the juvenile programme.

I refer back to the referral of the 21,000, which caused some confusion. I will ask Inspector Murphy to explain how the 21,000 figure relates to the overall referral of incidents. The numbers referred would be somewhat less than that.

Mr. Murphy

Under the Children Act, any offence committed by a child must be referred to the office. We received in excess of 21,000 referrals last year. I will outline how we processed them. Some 14% of children were not suitable and would have been referred back to the court system as they did not accept responsibility or the offence was too serious. In a certain number of cases no further action was taken and when we investigated them, either they were of a minor nature or there was not a solid case against the child. Some 6% of cases were pending. Some 75% of cases referred to our office were dealt with by way of a caution under the diversion programme. Breaking that figure down further, 58% were dealt with through informal caution and just 17% of the 21,000 were dealt with through formal cautions. We chose from that cohort for restorative action. In 3,677 cases, children were given a formal caution and placed under supervision. Out of them we picked the 277 cases for restorative action. I hope that gives some clarity.

I see the figures here and I understand how the 21,000 is eventually boiled down to the 3,577 who received formal cautions. Would informal cautions be JLO cautions?

Mr. Murphy

The JLO will call out to the house. The main difference between the formal and informal cautions is that formal cautions involve 12 month's supervision. The informal caution is dealt with and that is the end of it. There is no follow up from it.

Okay. Some 10,000 young people would have received a caution.

Mr. Murphy

Yes.

They would have been told to conduct themselves in the future, etc.

Mr. Murphy

The juvenile liaison officer would have called to their houses to discuss the matter with their families and to issue the cautions.

Some 3,677 young people received formal cautions, involving 12 months of supervision by the juvenile liaison officer.

Mr. Murphy

Yes.

There were 262 "restorative" events in the same year. Are those 262 cases included in the overall figure of 3,677?

Mr. Murphy

Yes.

How does the Garda select the 262 cases which require additional intervention? What happens in addition in such cases?

Mr. Murphy

In the 266 cases in question, we invited the victims to attend when the cautions were being issued.

The victims were involved.

Mr. Murphy

The cases were dealt with under the "restorative" approach. The victims would have attended, or ensured their views were represented or asked somebody else to attend on their behalf. That is how the system of restorative caution, or restorative conference, works under the Act.

What happens if victims do not want to be involved or object to being involved? People might decide that they do not want to participate in the system, or that they would prefer the case to go to court.

Mr. Murphy

In such a case, the Garda proceeds to issue the caution. It would have made a decision to deal with the incident by means of caution at that stage. The Garda would have taken the views of the victim into consideration at an earlier stage. If victims decide they do not want to participate in restorative conferences, we ask them whether they would prefer for someone to attend on their behalf. We have encountered instances of people being prepared to talk to offenders over the telephone, or to send in letters and photographs to be shown to the offenders.

The views of victims have sometimes been expressed by Victim Support. Victims of crime often feel that the gardaí who dealt with their incidents know how they felt at the time and are therefore in the best position to outline how the crime impacted on them. If a victim does not want to attend a restorative event, that does not immediately mean the event will not go ahead. If the person does not want to go, we respect that. If victims say they do not want their views represented at all because they do not want the perpetrator to know how they felt, we do not engage in the process.

Mr. Crummey

It is important to mention that 97 gardaí all over the country are not making arbitrary decisions on cautions and family conferences. Such decisions are made by the director of the programme, who is the superintendent in the national juvenile office. All cases must be referred to that person. All the details of the background circumstances must be referred to him. He makes the decision.

Acting Chairman

Would Mr. O'Dwyer like to respond to any of the questions which have been asked?

Mr. O’Dwyer

The success of the restorative justice system has been a well-kept secret, for honourable reasons. Perhaps we could take some action to raise awareness of it, while continuing to respect the privacy of the participants, which is of paramount importance. It is important to tell the good story, particularly at a time when most agencies have a good deal of experience. The issue of resources is an important one. It is remarkable that the Garda programme has achieved so much. Even though juvenile liaison officers were busy before the restorative justice element was included in the programme, they were willing to take on quite onerous additional work. I understand that some resources have been made available, but more resources are required if we are to make further progress with the programme. The same could be said of all the programmes we are pursuing, all of which involve costs.

Acting Chairman

Does Mr. O'Dwyer think the programme could be put on a statutory basis?

Mr. O’Dwyer

Opinion is divided on whether it would be useful to put it on a statutory basis. My view is that it would help because statutory requirements cannot be ignored. The Children Act 2001 gave a big impetus to the diversion programme. Further legislation could be useful, although it could result in the loss of some flexibility. It would have to be framed carefully but it would probably give a strong fillip to the movement. It is important to focus on quality. It would be relatively easy to increase the numbers by choosing cases which do not necessarily benefit from this additional effort. It is a useful thing to do but it needs to be focused where it can have the most effect.

I would like to make a couple of comments on some of the other points which were made. Our study highlighted evidence of the perception of restorative justice within the Garda Síochána. There is anecdotal evidence that one or two of the investigating gardaí or station members who observed the system in operation were initially strongly against the approach taken in individual cases, perhaps involving serious crimes, but by the end of the session they were firm believers, having seen the transformation that had taken place. It can be quite impressive to attend such events. It is important to raise awareness. There might be a perception that the diversion programme is a softer option, generally, but most people agree that everybody deserves at least one chance.

There is some potential in the schools area. A number of initiatives are being pursued in Ireland. A cross-Border group is involved in that. There is scope for the philosophy of restorative justice to be highlighted on a much broader scale, for example in workplaces. It can be used in schools to empower pupils and staff.

I will conclude by speaking about reoffending. A small number of reoffenders became persistent offenders. That is defined in two ways. One definition relates to a person who has committed at least five subsequent offences and the other relates to a person who has committed at least ten subsequent offences. Some 84% of those involved in the programme did not reoffend, or reoffended just once, with that offence being something like possession of alcohol, trespassing or public disorder. Those who become reoffenders comprise a relatively small group, which suggests to me that people have tried to apply this new initiative to difficult cases. I can provide more figures in that regard if the committee wishes.

Acting Chairman

I thank Mr. O'Dwyer. We are under a little time pressure at this stage. I thank the various witnesses for their assistance to the committee. I am sure their contributions will prove invaluable. The committee will reconvene at 1.45 p.m. I ask members to co-operate by being in attendance when we will hear from the probation service, as well as from the Secretary General of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Sitting suspended at 1.05 p.m. and resumed at 1.45 p.m.

Acting Chairman

We are operating to a particularly tight schedule. We must vacate this committee room by 2.45 p.m. I welcome Mr. Michael Donnellan, director of the probation service, Mr. David O'Donovan, deputy director, Mr, Brian Horgan, senior probation officer with the probation service, Mr. Seán Aylward, Secretary General of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ms Michelle Shannon, director of the youth justice service and Ms Mary Burke, principal officer in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I invite Mr. Donnellan to make his presentation.

Mr. Michael Donnellan

I thank the Chairman. Mr. O'Donovan will provide a brief background into the work of the probation service and Mr. Horgan will speak about restorative justice on the ground. If the committee wishes, we will be available to answer questions.

Mr. David O’Donovan

I thank the Chairman. The probation service helps to reduce the level of crime and increase public safety by working with offenders in a humane but effective way to change their behaviour. There was some discussion this morning about soft options. The probation service does not see itself as operating soft options. Our job is to address offenders and to get them to face up to their crimes, which fits in very well with the whole approach of restorative justice.

We have a total staff of over 450, including 78 community service supervisors, to whom we will refer in due course. We operate from 48 community based locations across the State. We are organised into teams and every area has a team headed by a senior probation officer. My colleague, Mr. Horgan, is the senior probation officer in charge of the Tallaght project.

Some 48% of our budget of almost €50 million funds programmes for offenders provided by almost 70 probation supported projects. Approximately 40 of these are probation projects, in that their raison d’être is to provide programmes for the probation service. In other cases, it is a matter of us buying into existing programmes to extend their scope and take referrals from us. We heard about the two restorative justice projects that are located in Tallaght and Nenagh.

Last June the Minister relaunched the probation service. This was a significant event for us. We used to be called the probation and welfare service. We dropped the word "welfare" to avoid any further confusion with social welfare. I compliment the committee on using the correct title. We also got a new logo and e-mail address and we launched a new website. Apart from the external appearances, we also produced a strategic plan for 2006 and 2007 which addressed the key issues we currently face in conjunction with the Department. In addition, we produced a work plan. One of the areas it addressed is restorative justice. I will hand over to Mr. Horgan.

Mr. Brian Horgan

One of the strategic goals for our plan for 2006 and 2007 is to "further develop restorative justice models and reform and revitalise our delivery of community service". To this end, we will plan and develop more focused and dedicated programmes, as and where appropriate, particularly into identified hub areas. However, expansion alone is not the answer. It has been suggested to the Minister that he would commission a working group to review restorative justice models both in Ireland and internationally and generate proposals for development. More details are expected within the next month of what is hoped will be a senior level group. A cross-sectoral group, incorporating practitioners, managers and academics, should help to build confidence in restorative justice as the basis for viable community sanctions.

Equally, we will bring an enhanced victim focus into day to day practice in an integrated way, so sensitivity to victims becomes central to our work, in assessments for court, in supervision and in the management of serious and violent offenders. In 2005, a total of 46 victim reports were prepared for courts, outlining both the hurt caused and how victims might be helped to recover. We plan to work towards an enhanced service for victims that courts might avail of, that could be linked to real effective sentencing options other than custody.

Much of the work of probation officers under the Children Act 2001 will be restorative in nature, especially family conferencing for young offenders, which commenced on 29 July 2004. The family of the offender, plus significant people in his or her life, are brought around a table with the victim, to understand the harm caused and to determine practical ways in which the offender can make reparation. During 2005 a total of 47 referrals for family conferences were received from the courts.

Offenders also make recompense to communities that have suffered from crime by performing hours of unpaid work for the benefit of that community under a community service order. A total of 1,167 such orders were made in 2005, requiring 122,000 hours to be performed, in lieu of some 350 person-years in custody that would otherwise have had to be served. However, the service intends to revitalise community service by a review of its operation and consequent implementation of an updated model and structure of operation.

Many different restorative justice schemes operate in jurisdictions across Europe, Australasia and North America. Research suggests that both victims and offenders are more likely to be satisfied with the process and the outcome than are comparable groups dealt with by traditional penalties. Victims are less likely to fear re-victimisation and offenders are more likely to meet their obligations than those dealt with in traditional ways. There are, therefore, significant gains to be achieved for the Irish criminal justice system and the probation service is committed to develop processes and interventions that realise those gains.

Mr. Donnellan

In summary, the probation service wants to examine how a restorative approach can be mainstreamed into our everyday work so we can deliver more effective sanctions in the community for the benefit of victims and also to challenge offenders in their behaviour.

I am conscious that the joint committee has time constraints so I will compress the comments I was proposing to make. The Department's mission is to work for a safer, fairer Ireland. This is a very tall order and high ambition. The restorative justice topic, which is being discussed today, fits very neatly into our core mission. The committee has had presentations from a variety of the agencies in the justice area on this topic and it has a copy of the Department's overview document, which sets out general information. I hope it will be of use to the committee.

The belief that wrongful actions should have real consequences is central to the concept of criminal justice. A society in which people conduct themselves inappropriately and cause suffering or loss without consequences is an unjust society. The restorative justice model is one of the more benign ways of meet the central requirement of a civilised society. I regard it as having considerable potential for further use in the criminal justice system. However, the concept must be kept firmly within the jacket of the criminal justice system and should not become part of some alternative society or state within a state. It is very important that it mesh in with the other elements of the criminal justice system and be subject to appropriate constitutional and democratic oversight.

The concept of restorative justice offers a voice to the victim, which is unusual in a rather formal adversarial system. The voice of the victim can be overlooked in more traditional or historic modes of court procedure. Restorative justice also confronts in a very real way and challenges offenders to consider the damage they have done and acknowledge the consequences of their wrongful behaviour in a very direct way.

I agree with my colleagues in the probation and welfare service that restorative justice is not an easy option for an individual going that route. On the contrary, an offender subject to restorative justice may be answering fully, for the first time, for behaviour in which he may have been involved for some time.

Members will have heard from representatives of the Nenagh and Tallaght projects regarding the type of work they are doing with the support of the Department. We fully fund the activities of both projects and they do not have to go around rattling the tin to keep their operation going. This year we provided €320,000 for the Tallaght project and €40,000 for the Nenagh project, which very much hangs out of the court operation in Nenagh. We support the work of both projects in any way we can and know the probation and welfare service makes a very valuable and valued contribution to the work in both projects.

In recent years, restorative justice was used significantly both by the Garda and the probation and welfare service when dealing with younger offenders. This is an area in which restorative justice has the advantage of having a legislative base. It was one of the key features of the Children Act 2001. The committee will be aware that this Act increased the age of criminal responsibility to 12. A commencement order was made and it was formalised this very week, on Monday, 16 October, which has had the effect of removing a number of younger offenders from the criminal justice system.

The 2001 Act also provided for family welfare conferences to be carried out by the Health Service Executive in the case of younger children under its remit. This provision has also been commenced. Sitting beside me is the recently appointed national director of the youth justice service, Ms Michelle Shannon. She has a background in the Departments responsible for education and justice, in which she has worked for many years dealing with offenders and policy in respect thereof.

Many of us listened for a long time to the criticism that we needed a joined-up approach to dealing with the problems of troubled young people. With our colleagues in the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health and Children, we tried to put the pieces of the jigsaw together in a new way to ensure the young person and his or her family were dealt with in an holistic way. This is why, following our review of the youth justice system, the Government agreed in December 2005 a number of reforms, including amendments to the Children Act 2001 and the setting up of the youth justice service.

The service was established as an executive office of our Department and it will have responsibility henceforth for the development of strategy in the area of youth justice, but also for the detention facilities for offending children under 18 years. In addition, it will assume responsibility for the implementation of the provisions of the Children Act 2001 in relation to community sanctions, restorative justice conferencing and diversion projects where they affect young people.

The Children Act 2001 was an important Act. It gave the courts a range of options for dealing with offending behaviour. It declared firmly, and established, that detention was the option of last resort. We have been slow to implement the full range of provisions of the Act but this is because a commencement order signed by the Minister becomes a very real liability on the system and our agencies. This liability must be met and fulfilled.

We have been rolling out the initiative at an increasing pace and we are now planning the implementation of the outstanding provisions at the turn of the year. This will include the commencement of a number of new community sanctions, which will be operated by the probation and welfare service. The service recently established a young persons probation division, which will deal with all probation issues in regard to youths under 18. This is a welcome and important development. I am not sure if it was adverted to by the director.

I see merit in exploring how we can extend the use of restorative justice around the country beyond the pilot programmes. The probation and welfare service, in its strategy statement of July 2006, stated it wished to see an expansion of the restorative justice approach in a planned and targeted way. Mention was made of the setting up in the coming days of a new working group to review restorative justice developments, nationally and internationally. In a matter of weeks, we will be bringing that to finality and we are just awaiting the formal proposal on the matter.

The committee has heard about the conferencing work of the Garda in the juvenile diversion programme. The feedback from this programme is good. The Department and the youth justice service office will continue to support the Garda in every way they can in developing the family conferencing model in a sustainable way. We will take on board any recommendations of the committee, established under section 44 of the Children Act, to monitor the effectiveness of the programme.

A member of our staff, Ms Mary Burke — not the present Ms Mary Burke — was seconded by us, as part of our analyst development programme, to the Institute of Public Administration to train as an analyst and obtain a Masters in economic science. Her dissertation subject was "Family Conferences: Process and Issues". I have read her report, which comprises a very detailed analysis of the process. It makes a number of recommendations for improvements, which we will be considering.

I am sure the committee, in its deliberations, will come forward with new ideas, to which we look forward. Some will concern policy and I am sure we will be advising the Minister on how to respond to them. The Department is interested in finding avenues to expand the concept of restorative justice within the overall criminal justice response to offending behaviour. The restorative justice model is not for everybody; there are certain categories of crimes in respect of which it would be inappropriate to opt for an informal approach. There is certainly scope for further development of the restorative justice approach, particularly regarding those who have not established a life-long pattern of criminality. It is very important that the voice of the victim be heard and that he or she experience justice in the way his or her concerns are met through restorative justice activity.

I look forward to responding to any questions the Chairman or members may have.

That was a helpful presentation from the probation and welfare service and Mr. Seán Aylward, Secretary General of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. No one on the committee wants to recommend the establishment of any programme that would lead to an alternative system of justice or a state within the State. We recognise the concerns expressed in Northern Ireland at the activities of some groups that have a different approach to the principles of restorative justice and I want to make it clear there is no such interest here. We want the full involvement of State bodies, including the Garda Síochána and the probation and welfare service in any development of restorative justice.

From this morning's discussion, there seems to be a good case for the establishment of a statutory underpinning for the development of restorative justice. Listening to the witnesses, it emerged as something that should be considered. I am particularly taken by the fact that the development under the Children Act seems to have provided that underpinning. There may be a case for doing this on a broader basis. Some judges appear to have taken the idea on board but others do not appear as enamoured. There might be a more general acceptance of the approach on the part of the Judiciary were it enshrined in statute law.

While there has been a focus on young people, in other countries, there has been an approach to first offenders at adult level. What possibilities are there for the development of the principles of restorative justice? Cautions could be further developed along the lines of the diversion scheme for young offenders at an adult level.

I note from the Secretary General's comments that he sees potential and he concludes his formal statement by saying that the expansion of dedicated restorative justice projects is desirable and talks of the intention to develop further projects as resources allow. I expect a cautious response from any Secretary General but looking at these figures, if someone is in prison it costs €2,000 to the taxpayer and if restorative justice keeps them out of prison, taking into account the State grant to Nenagh and Tallaght, the average is about €2,000 per year. Funding should not be a constraint when developing restorative justice.

We must take into account the probation service's role in this area. The cost to the service is not taken into account in direct funding. Would there be much demand for probation officers? Is this labour intensive for the service and would it need further indirect funding to develop the service if we are to expand the role of restorative justice?

I welcome the Secretary General of the Department, Mr. Donnellan and Mr. Donovan. The probation and welfare service is a good friend to Nenagh and we thank it for its support to our project. The Department has also been most helpful.

Probation and welfare officers are the unsung heroes in this. Does someone else from their regular routine lose out when they are engaged in restorative projects? We are only talking about Nenagh and Tallaght at present but staff must be provided in the probation service because they work with those who will initiate the projects. The probation and welfare service in Limerick worked with Judge Reilly when he called a public meeting asking for help. The service provided the necessary structure and the staff must be in place to support that. I hope the Department will take heed and recognise the real need for the continual resourcing of people.

This will not get any further unless the Judiciary sees its merits. What must the Department do to promote the restorative justice alternative within the criminal justice system? With the good will of the parties so much in evidence this morning, some promotion package to enhance awareness could be put in place in the judiciary supported by the Department. Judge McDonnell in Tallaght and Judge Reilly could be voices in the wilderness if they are not supported and it is not seen as a viable alternative. Not only is it cost effective, it helps people to rebuild lives and could break the cycle of crime if it is caught in time. That has been the case in Nenagh. There are so many benefits we cannot put a cost on. We should investigate this further.

I never heard it said of anyone in Tallaght that he was a voice in the wilderness. Mr. Aylward has taken a particular interest in Tallaght in recent times — I hope that does not affect his career prospects. I am thinking particularly of the decision in respect of the STAY project in Tymon north, in which he took a personal interest. It was appreciated and showed the Department cares. I also pay tribute to the probation and welfare service, with which I do a lot of work.

This whole discussion has been interesting because it has shown a different way and I compliment Deputy Jim O'Keeffe for his initiative in this area. Those of us who have a particular interest because of the pilot projects are strong believers in this work. We have made the point that the roll-out to the rest of the country should be supported. The Tallaght and Nenagh approaches have shown the way and we should take advantage of the knowledge that has been accrued. How do the Department officials see the concept of restorative justice fitting in with the approach to crime and court procedure? Judge McDonnell will be happy to hear his name mentioned so often at a meeting of an Oireachtas committee this morning. It is time to roll the programme out across the rest of the country.

A colleague of mine in Tallaght often makes the point that if we spent more money on good systems and schemes the State would spend less on locking people up. I have occasionally visited people whose families I know in prison. It does have an effect. I do not wish to give the impression of being too liberal but I believe we should lock people up only if we absolutely must and they present a serious danger. I realise this affects victims and I support them but the Tallaght restorative justice programme is a complete success.

It is time the Department and the Minister considered the good value the scheme provides and decided it is time to do more of this work. There will always be prisons and places of detention but I hope we will keep moving and restorative justice is the way to reach a situation where as few as possible are locked up. I hope the Department makes a further commitment to this work.

Providing a statutory underpinning for restorative justice approaches for adult offenders is a classic policy issue on which it would not be appropriate for an official to express a view. If the Oireachtas passed some statutory changes in this area it would become law throughout the land and be available in the legal armoury of defence lawyers and the book or laptop before the judge. It is within the scope of the Oireachtas and of the committee to recommend this policy. I will wait to see whether the committee concludes that is the way to go.

Does Mr. Aylward see any significant impediments to that approach?

It could set the attitude.

It is a policy call so I will be circumspect. When such an action is provided for in law it becomes an instrument which can be deployed in a court. Anything of this nature raises resource issues which several other speakers mentioned. The justice family operates within the historic limitations on public service numbers. The Government, however, approved and the Oireachtas sanctioned, extra funding for the Garda Síochána to expand its footprint, or staff numbers.

We will not comment on that.

We will have 14,000 young men and women in uniform by Christmas.

Mr. Aylward should not be parroting the Minister.

We still operate under a general public service restriction in respect of the rest of our services. Within that our colleagues in the probation service have been repositioning themselves, pulling back from some work they did that others could do, and focusing on activities at the coalface with young people and offenders in the community. I laud my colleagues for that repositioning and for squeezing more out of the resources. There is scope for more programmes and schemes which are supported through the probation service, with voluntary involvement or with people who are not fully indentured public service workers but are supported financially in some way. This may be the key. While it must be part of the legal process of the State and subject to the approval of the courts, there is a role for community involvement in this area and there may be more of an outworking of that philosophy as we roll this out around the country. There is a growing demand for this facility.

The Garda Commissioner and his staff are sympathetic to the idea of extending restorative justice techniques and approaches to adult offenders. They are considering several options in that respect and this process will emerge. This has been a slow-burning policy, as is often the way: funding and staff are diverted to support a pilot programme and the implications of rolling that out nationwide can be significant. We are at the tipping point of proceeding with this. The advice and recommendation of the committee will have a bearing on how the Minister and Government take the matter forward.

I came here today, rather than sending my senior colleagues, because I have a personal interest in this programme. There is scope for it within the system and if we can divert people from the treadmill of custody and offending that is positive, even if it applies to only a minority. Everybody we save from that treadmill represents not only a saving for the taxpayer but also for society. We want to mitigate the cost to society and give people a second chance. That is what this programme does. I hope we will be able to move forward with it and bring it nationwide in due course. We will be interested to see what the committee recommends.

Mr. Donnellan

We heard this morning that restorative principles in Ireland are at an early stage. We need to develop a model of restorative justice suitable to our District Court structure. We do not seem to be clear about that and need to investigate and see how it can be embedded in our everyday work. We have a unique opportunity to do this and we in the probation service, with the help of the Department, hope to clarify that in the next few months, taking on board expert international advice. At the international conference in Warsaw in November we will hear the findings of five years research. We will be interested to learn what works and to decide what model we could roll out before we take this nationwide.

While the Children Act 2001 has taken time to get off the ground the concepts of restorative justice are embedded within that Act. I am convinced they could be extended to the adult system where appropriate. The pilot projects have given us valuable information, in Tallaght for example, working with adults and seeing how it works on the ground. The probation and welfare service wants to see how it works with the intermediate and serious offender because that is the category on which we must concentrate our resources.

Ms Michelle Shannon

The Irish Youth Justice Service is quite a new organisation, having been established last December. We have an overarching remit in regard to the delivery of services by all the criminal justice agencies. One of our tasks is to oversee the implementation of the Children Act, one of whose principles is detention as a last resort. We will engage with the various parties involved such as the Courts Service. We will be attempting to promote the idea of alternatives to custody and the greater use of community sanction. Over time we will also evaluate the effectiveness of the various sanctions to see what works and we will target our resources in those areas.

I am encouraged by the official response to the possibility of developing restorative justice. I even detect a sense of enthusiasm which I share. The presentation by the probation and welfare service referred to community service orders. Is that included in the broad umbrella of restorative justice or is it a related issue? Is there scope for further development to the "keep them out of prison" solution?

Mr. O’Donovan

Yes, we do see community service orders linked to restorative justice. It is a way of making a reparation to a community, not necessarily person-to-person, and is appropriate, for example, to issues of criminal damage. Community service will be reviewed. It has been in operation for 20 years. It is significant in saving the equivalent of 350 person years in custody. That is almost half the figure for Mountjoy Prison. There is great potential in community service. There is scope to link it with the internalisation of restorative justice concepts and our corporate culture as a probation and welfare service.

It is not a question of pulling staff away from other duties to deal with restorative justice as it is already part of their duties. The approach is not only what can be done for the offender but for the community. We want to encourage offenders to address the issues and face up to the consequences of their crimes. Part of that is making reparation to the community through community service.

Acting Chairman

Are the numbers of community orders declining or increasing?

Mr. O’Donovan

As is common with the introduction of new legislation, there is a surge, then a plateau and then a decline. Community service orders rose when they were first commenced. In the past several years, the figure has been static. In 2005 1,167 community orders were issued while in previous years it was around the 1,000 mark. There has been a slight rise.

Mr. Horgan

Community service in Ireland, compared to other countries, is used in the actual community. It is not a case where people attend a project but go out and work in the community. It is a community-focussed experience for the offenders. One useful aspect of restorative justice is that it is extremely flexible. In other countries, there are community approaches and aspects to it. There is no reason why there could not be victim module in a community service order, with the agreement of the victim. A report for the court must be prepared on the completion of a community service order. If there were an encounter with a victim, it could be included as part of the report. Community service is restorative and communities have benefited greatly from it. There is further potential in the scheme.

It is clear from this meeting that the involvement of judges is important. Judge Michael Reilly at Nenagh District Court and Judge James Paul McDonnell at Tallaght District Court have taken a lead role in the development of projects in this area. From the evidence given to the committee, other judges seem not to be as enthusiastic. How can the committee recommend that judges take more interest in this area? Should it be through legislation or judicial training?

Those involved in restorative justice groups place an emphasis on partnership and community participation. Does officialdom believe this is a good practice model?

The concept is a good one. The expense of rolling it out in every court as currently structured may be too much. It may need to be simplified or streamlined with other community activities. We may need to tweak it, as was hinted by the director of the probation and welfare service. This is a problem with the drugs courts in that it can be an expensive manpower operation. One must examine if it can be part of the skill pack of every probation officer rather than dedicating people to work solely on it.

While the Department cannot purport to speak on behalf of the Judiciary, the District Court Bench is a strong and independent part of the separate powers of the State. I have a sense that quite a few District Court judges would like to have more options for the offenders that come before them. However, they are incredibly busy men and women with a large volume of cases to be managed. They have to keep the wheels of justice turning. There is everyday evidence of flexibility and imagination by judges in managing and delivering justice. Many of them can be innovative and creative in their approach, much of which is under-reported. Justice is achieved, sometimes in unusual ways and they try to get the right outcome for victim and offender, particular at risk offenders.

The concept of paying one's debt to society strikes some people as old fashioned. Some lean more towards the welfare model that the offender is a victim. I do not and neither does the probation and welfare service. If one incurs a debt to society, it should be discharged as efficiently and as effectively as possible. The restorative justice scheme has scope and potential. If we are pressed further by the Oireachtas to do more in this regard, we will be open to it.

This has been a very good exercise. I compliment Deputy Jim O'Keeffe on his initiative on this matter. I thank the witnesses very much for their assistance.

The next meeting of the committee will deal with matters of EU scrutiny.

The joint committee adjourned at 2.40 p.m. sine die.
Top
Share