Principio acusatorio y Ministerio Público

This section describes the impact of national responses to the use of restorative justice. No particular government policy or strategy was mentioned during the fieldwork process; however the spending cuts and austerity measures featured when participants were asked to consider national issues. Local and regional changes perhaps had the most impact in terms of creating opportunities for the force to re-implement restorative justice. Partnership working has developed over the preceding five years and is now more commonplace with links between agencies accepted, normalised and embedded. A county-wide restorative justice steering group was launching at the same time as the re-implementation of restorative approaches across the force. More partner agencies are now either already using or developing their use of restorative justice. This has created an opportunity for the force to start to problem-solve many of the issues previously discussed in Chapter Eight in relation to the practical difficulties of using restorative justice in the criminal justice system.

When restorative justice was first launched across the force in 2008/09 it was part of an overall aim to build a „restorative county‟. This ambition did not quite take off as quickly as it was first anticipated, however by the end of 2013 a county-wide steering group was established and there was a commitment to introduce restorative approaches across many different agencies.

We decided the time was right with the, as I call it, „the partnership landscape‟. What changed? Government‟s obviously set an agenda now and obviously it‟s big on their [partners] agenda because it‟s about putting victims first, giving the victims a voice and that‟s one of the criticisms of the criminal justice system. [IV9]

The national policy agenda has therefore been a key driver for partner agencies to think about the role of restorative justice in relation to their own spheres of practice. As the above quote indicates, this is partly due to the shift towards the agencies in the criminal justice system providing a victim-focused service. The shift towards a partnership approach is also linked to the spending cuts and the need to spend money efficiently. As we have seen throughout Chapters Four and Five restorative justice is heavily touted as a means of reducing reoffending. Other agencies are open to the potential benefits of it too, not just in the criminal justice system but beyond:

188

Pushing RJ within the schools, so again it‟s like catching on. And also it‟s got to be beneficial - when you look at exclusion rates from schools if they can find a new method it makes the school look more successful. [IV2]

The added benefits of restorative justice; decreasing reoffending rates, increasing victim satisfaction rates, making organisation and agencies look more successful are all additional drivers. The excerpt below, although lengthy, explains how these different drivers

(government agendas, having to achieve more with less money, established partnership working) inter-relate. There is also the extra factor that, unlike many other initiatives, those on the ground - those who have witnessed restorative justice in action often have a

passionate belief in its success:

I think push from government, predominantly. Further spending cuts through the spending reviews means we have to look at ways not only look at victims and look at the outcomes ... but also to do it smarter and reduce demand, we‟ve got to do that. A willingness of the partners now to all come on board and work together, so we did have a good partnership ethos and good partnership working but now … RA has been written into their agenda so they‟ve got to comply and there is a willingness now to do it. And then I think sometimes it takes time to turn an oil tanker around, and when you start seeing results and you‟ve got people who were totally against it and then they talk to victims and when you talk to victims who have … gone through the restorative approaches system and what they say is just mind-blowing, it

changes their lives and how they can move on with their lives, so I think there‟s some of that in it as well. [IV9]

There are clear benefits of restorative justice featuring on the government agenda and for partner agencies. Firstly because it sends a clear signal to all officers; having a restorative force as part of a restorative county, combined with a clear steer from top command that is reflected in government polices is valuable as there is recognition that this is not just an organisational fad. Secondly it makes things easier:

I think it‟s easier because we‟ve got government pushing for it, because its brought on board probation, youth offending and they all want a piece of the action. Which is much easier if everybody is willing, or it‟s inevitable for them that they‟ve got to move into that place. [IV7]

A particular way this partnership provides opportunities for the force is that some of the previous, practical realities faced by frontline officers such as running restorative justice alongside a criminal investigation could not be solved by the force alone as it needed other criminal justice agencies to agree on the specific processes that the use of restorative justice should follow. One of the key obstacles raised by officers was the issue in relation to reparation. The following abstract describes how it was only after working in partnership with the Crown Prosecution Services that protocol in relation to reparation could be developed:

I think one of the other issues … which was always a big sticking point was if a cop goes for a restorative approach and the person doesn‟t complete it, can we have two

189

bites of the cherry? Can we then bring them in before the criminal justice system? And we could never get the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] to agree because it‟s like two bites of the cherry; and would then the interview or the cops talking to them [the offender] would it constitute an interview? And then would it be inadmissible under the police and criminal evidence act, PACE? So we sat with [CPS solicitor] for half a day and we thrashed that out and he said „no, I‟m more than happy because it sits outside of PACE that you can bring them in, as a voluntary attender or arrest them, interview them and then we would prosecute them. All being that common sense has to prevail, so if you give them a restorative approach and they said I‟m going to pay £100 back to that person, they paid £90 back and didn‟t pay the last tenner then we wouldn‟t take them to court, but if they didn‟t pay anything back then we would take them to court. Now that‟s a big hurdle to get over when you‟re standing in a classroom full of officers and that‟s the question they are asking because they know they are going to get performance managed, they know their managers are going to ask them. If they can say well „yeah, I did that, it didn‟t work I can take them to court‟ that‟s a big hurdle. [IV9]

This is a significant breakthrough, and opportunity for the force. As the final sentence in the quote above explains, the force had previously been unable to give frontline officers a clear steer. In theory they were able to do restorative justice and victims and offenders could agree on particular reparation but if the offender did not fulfil his or her obligation the officers lacked a clear recourse. We start then to see how solving the practical problems frontline officers faced in the initial restorative justice implementation creates opportunities for its use. This example highlights a local response to a problem; however, the arrangements put in place are built on personal relationships and may not withstand organisational changes or movement. Since this research was conducted the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Schedule 16) has been implemented to allow courts to defer sentencing while restorative justice takes place. Whilst this is a step in the right direction until there is a statutory basis for the use of restorative justice in England and Wales it is likely that barriers between agencies working within the criminal justice system will still occur.

Summary

The chapter examined some of the organisational changes that occurred over the four year period, starting from when restorative justice was first implemented up to, and including, the 2013 re-launch of a „restorative approach‟. Major structural and staffing changes occurred during this time period which created a „window of opportunity‟ (Kingdon, 2003) for successful implementation. The findings highlight the importance of leadership and vision in implementing change and bringing about reform. The transition between leaders is a critical tipping point within an organisation. It is a time where new programmes can be launched and where previous attempts at reform can fail (Skogan, 2008). As discussed in the Chapter Eight resistance to reform often comes from middle managers, however, there are

opportunities to engage middle management in policy reform through participatory involvement (Toch, 2008). Employing middle management as „change agents‟, involving

190 them in the design and implementation of restorative policing, can aid reform (Toch,

2008:60-1). The force‟s use of a „restorative justice steering group‟ comprised mostly of middle management was therefore explored in more detail, particularly with regard to the need for engaging the „right‟ middle managers: not necessarily in terms of their knowledge and experience in relation to restorative justice but their broader skill sets including their „credibility‟ and ability to transmit the idea of restorative justice to frontline officers. It found that there is a distinct need for officers in charge of implementing new policies to ensure that the needs of different commands and particular police functions and roles are consulted and that their specific needs are addressed. The research found that the use of a cross-command working group or „steering group‟ was a key opportunity in both the implementation and the marketing of a new cohesive restorative policy.

The role of police culture has been a cross-cutting theme across all the research findings; this chapter took the analysis further to consider in more detail the cultural shifts that have occurred across the force during this four year period. A key finding was the role of police performance culture; the research covered the period when restorative justice outcomes changed from a non-sanctioned to a sanctioned disposal method. Whilst not assessing the impact of this change the research found that it is wider cultural issues in relation to how outcomes are considered amongst middle managers that are likely to have more impact on frontline officers „doing‟ restorative justice than national crime recording system. However, the change in policy creates an opportunity within the force to consider their performance framework in more detail – the move towards „positive outcomes‟ and the incorporation of new terms and dialogue in informal performance encounters, such as in the daily „morning meetings17‟ between frontline officers and their sergeants has the potential to be a positive opportunity. The chapter also explored how other cultural changes, including the embedding of problem-solving, helped to bring about reform and create new opportunities for the re- implementation of restorative justice across some areas of policing, particularly for neighbourhood commands.

The final section of this chapter explored the impact, or perceived impact, of external policies, government agendas and partner agencies in relation to the force‟s implementation of restorative justice approaches. Having already discussed the specific change in Home Office counting rules with regards to restorative outcomes, the findings suggest that this

17 _{As part of the new Force Operating Model new internal performance/update meeting structures}

were introduced including daily morning meetings and weekly „wash up‟ meetings where sergeants and frontline officers discuss events and outcomes. These meeting provide the opportunity to update line managers with regards to officer‟s workload and also provide the opportunity for informal praise regarding „successful‟ work: previously this would involve detections although the hope was this to be focused towards „positive outcomes‟ to include restorative approaches.

191 does not only create internal opportunities for change but sends a strong message to officers that changes are less localised, and more permanent. The chapter concluded by considering whether the successful implementation of restorative justice can be attributed to individual factors or whether it needed a „perfect storm‟ of events. Findings suggest that just as the initial failure of the implementation of restorative justice can be attributed to many barriers so the opportunities for successful implementation rely on a mix of strong leadership and vision and cultural issues specific to policing. However, this chapter has also considered some of the practical methods this particular force introduced in its aim for successful implementation.

The final chapter will summarise the research findings, return to the literature and assess the implications for practice that these results show.

192

Chapter 10: Summary and concluding thoughts

Introduction

This study set out to explore how restorative justice policy has been accepted,

communicated, understood and implemented at a local level within a police force in England and Wales. This research used one case study of a police force as it attempted to re-

implement restorative justice, following a previously unsuccessful attempt. The micro-level analysis provides a much-needed insight into the potential opportunities for implementation and the barriers and constraints faced by a police force. The study sought to answer three research questions:

1. What are the organisational and individual understandings of restorative justice: how is „restorative justice‟ defined by a police force and understood by its staff? 2. What are the key opportunities with regards to successful restorative justice policy implementation?

3. What are the constraints and limitations when implementing restorative justice policy across a police force?

This concluding chapter will synthesise the main findings of the research, addressing each of the research questions in turn to consider these findings in relation to the literature discussed in Chapters Two, Three and Four. It will discuss the ways in which this research contributes to knowledge and the practical implications of the findings whilst considering some of the limitations of the study and how the research could be developed in the future.