Reparation Panel Venues: Restorative Justice in the Community

The town based reparation panels managed within the RJC project tended to take place in much less formal surroundings than its RJS counterpart. Panels, observed across a number of counties within this model, have occurred in community halls, disused youth centres and the offices of the RJC scheme itself.72 _{A panel observed in Birr, County Offaly}

took place in a disused building which had previously been used as a youth club. The offender sat on one side of a table, with the police officer at the head and the community representatives placed at the other side. The RJC facilitator was seated facing the police representative, while I sat in the corner of the room. Within the offices of RJC, panel representatives and participating offenders all entered by way of an intercom system. Those panel discussions observed within the RJC complex were held within a small, informal room. The community representatives, Garda officer and facilitator sat around a table with the offender and discussed both the criminal behaviour and possible opportunities for restorative outcomes including reparation and accountability.

One town based panel observed in Thurles, County Tipperary, was held in a community centre. This location introduced a somewhat different element from the RJS venue and other town based panel venues in that the participants did not sit around a table. In this case, the panel members and participant sat in a circle within the small room. This particular seating arrangement was interesting in that it resembled some aspects of the

71 _{David Karp, ‘Harm and Repair: Observing Restorative Justice in Vermont’ (2001) 18 Justice Quarterly}

727, 732. The Vermont model is similar to the Irish reparation model with adult offenders discussing crimes with community representatives finding ways to repair the harm caused. This model is discussed as part of a wider international perspective on the nature of community participation within restorative models in Chapter 5.

72 _{As of November, 2013 the RJC programme moved location into more modernised premises. No panel}

83

circle sentencing restorative practice commonplace in a number of jurisdictions.73 _Circle

sentencing involves all the stakeholders involved in a criminal event coming together either in a court or community based setting to discuss the crime, reasons for offending and reparation possibilities. There can be a wide variation in circle sentencing processes. These can range from healing and talking circles to community sentencing circles. These models will usually include the victim, offender and community representatives only. There are also community court sentencing circles which involve these same stakeholders but also include conventional justice actors such as lawyers and a presiding judge.74 _{Circle sentencing, as noted by Bazemore and Umbreit, has evolved from}

traditional sanctioning and healing practices of aboriginal Canadian and American Indian peoples, and has been developed extensively within Canadian communities as well as subsequently spreading to the United States.75 _{The ‘circle’ theme is said to be more than}

symbolic due to the fact that all circle members actively participate in deliberating and achieving consensus for a sentencing plan that addresses the needs, hopes and fears of all those participating.76

While this notion of inclusivity during case deliberations is similar in theme to the reparation panel process, other aspects of circle sentencing practice can contrast sharply with the Irish based panel model. For example, while a judge can rely on recommendations evolving out of the circle process in similar fashion to the Irish panels, there is also scope for the judge to preside over proceedings directly.77 _{Further, within}

73 _{Barry Stuart, ‘Circle Sentencing: Turning Swords into Ploughshares’ in Burt Galaway and Joe Hudson}

(eds.), Restorative Justice: International Perspectives (Monsey: Criminal Justice Press, 1996) 194. Circle sentencing has been said to have begun in 1992 in Canada due to some concerns that the conventional criminal justice system was seen to be failing many Aboriginal defendants and their community. Judge Barry Stuart of the Yukon Territorial Court conducted the first case, R v Moses. See Nicholas A. Jones and Rob Nestor, ‘Sentencing Circles in Canada and the Gacaca in Rwanda: A Comparative Analysis’ (2011) 21

International Criminal Justice Review 39, 50.

74 _{Barry Stuart, ‘Circle Sentencing: Turning Swords into Ploughshares’ in Burt Galaway and Joe Hudson}

(eds.), Restorative Justice: International Perspectives (Criminal Justice Press: Monsey, New York: 1996), 194.

75 _{Gordon Bazemore and Mark Umbreit, ‘A Comparison of Four Restorative Conferencing Models’ in Gerry}

Johnstone (ed.), A Restorative Justice Reader (Cullompton: Willan Publishing, 2003) 233.

76 _Ibid.

77 _{The judge, if participating, will however usually take his or her judicial robes off in order to add to the}

84

circle sentencing procedures both prosecuting and defence counsel are always present to discuss the case at hand. Crimes managed within community court sentencing circles will usually be serious in nature and the process is normally not diversionary, with all participating offenders receiving convictions and criminal records after a ‘successful’ circle sentencing outcome.78

Similar principles, however, have arisen within both panel models. For example, the circle sentencing process includes a ‘circle keeper’, rather like a reparation panel manager or chairperson who must ensure the circle’s functioning and help to maintain its integrity.79 _{Both models also share a belief in community representation and inclusive}

dialogue. Stuart further argues that creating a comfortable environment for resolving disputes can be an important factor in procuring a successful restorative outcome and that ‘the arrangement of chairs in a circle, without tables, goes a long way towards creating the impression and the fact that all participants equally share the responsibility to resolve issues raised in the circle’.80 _{Within the community hall observation, the}

general atmosphere was different to the RJS Probation Service location. There was a greater feeling of informality, with the participants seated directly beside one another in the circle. However, there was also an added sense of claustrophobia in the lack of space afforded to each participant. The participating offender in this instance appeared to find it somewhat difficult to discuss the facts of the offence and his own personal background and, while there could have been other reasons for explaining the participant’s reticence, the claustrophobic nature of this particular case observation may arguably have been a relevant factor.

Panel practitioners did appear to strive to create a comfortable environment from which panel discussions could take place. Even within the Probation Service headquarters

representatives who have been observed within panel discussions in ‘civilian’ clothes, which in turn can help to dilute the conventional police officer versus offender dynamic.

78 _{Nicholas A. Jones and Rob Nestor, ‘Sentencing Circles in Canada and the Gacaca in Rwanda: A}

Comparative Analysis’ (2011) 21 International Criminal Justice Review 39.

79 _Ibid.

80 _{Barry Stuart, ‘Circle Sentencing: Turning Swords into Ploughshares’ in Burt Galaway and Joe Hudson}

85

location, while reparation practice here did not include a ‘circle’ configuration of actors as such, panel discussions occurred with all participants afforded equal amounts of discussion time within the meeting itself. This is in contrast to a courtroom based criminal justice process with its intimidating physical settings and, with the exception of a jury and limited public gallery space, a tendency to minimise public participation and prioritise opportunities for criminal justice professionals to dominate the proceedings.81

While reparation panels are similarly ‘hidden’ from general public view, it is submitted that the offender is offered a much greater opportunity to participate within this process and, indeed as will be explained further below, can also participate within the drawing up off their own respective reparative contracts. Thus, the level of informality observed within panel practices and elements of the venues used for case discussions can increase opportunities for restorative dialogue, offender accountability and offender reintegration. The offender is handed the opportunity within a variety of venues to discuss the offending behaviour and possible reasons behind it in an open and informal fashion. They can talk directly to a police representative, sometimes not in uniform, and a community representative volunteer or caseworker and outline personal problems with relationships, debt and substance abuse. This can enable the panel to pinpoint possible rehabilitative strategies, including reparative tasks, which will best focus the offender on attempting to desist from such criminal behaviour.

2.12 The Reparation Panel and Participating Offenders: Profiles, Offending Histories