Issue - decisions

 Matter for Decision:

“Restorative justice” (RJ) is an approach to criminal justice that provides a person who has suffered harm with an opportunity to tell the wrongdoer about the damaging effects of their actions.  Some forms of RJ also give the wronged person a say in what the perpetrator can do to make amends.  This report outlined a proposed RJ scheme for Cambridge based on the ‘neighbourhood resolution panel’ model . This model is one that promotes a high level of community involvement and has been shown in studies to produce high levels of satisfaction for victims, and agencies making referrals and has reduced re-offending in perpetrators. 

The outline scheme proposed here had been developed in partnership with, and has the full support of, the police and other criminal justice system agencies.

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

         I.      Note of the report attached as Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report, which explains the scheme in detail, says what the scheme is intended to achieve, and provides a plan for the implementation of the scheme; and

    II.      Endorse the scheme as outlined in the appendix of the Officer’s report.

Reason for the Decision:

As detailed in the Officer’s report.

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

Not applicable.

Scrutiny Considerations:

The committee received a report from the Safer Community Section Manager regarding restorative justice. The Director of Customer and Community Services informed members that the proposal had drawn heavily on research from a similar scheme in Sheffield. This scheme had been achieving good results and impressive customer satisfaction levels.

Members made the following comments.

             I.      Members were concerned that vulnerable victims might find any suggestions of meeting an offender distressing.

          II.      In response to questions, it was confirmed that participation would be voluntary and that staff would be trained to identifying those cases that would be suitable for this approach.

       III.      Members asked for an assurance that the new service would not be duplicating a service already provided and funding via the mediation service.

      IV.      Concern was expressed over the definition of a neighbourhood. Cambridge is not comparable to Sheffield in terms of size and interventions at a neighbourhood level could be problematic in a small City.

Officers confirmed that it was envisaged that the restorative justice approach would be used to address lifestyle clashes and low level crimes. It would be an additional tool in the neighbourhood dispute resolution toolbox. It would be solution focused and would be useful in no fault disputes, which were subtly different from cases where one party was clearly in the wrong.

Councillor Bick thanked the committee for their comments. He suggested that while this model had something extra to add to existing provision, the boundaries would be recognised to avoid duplication. Partner agencies would be involved in taking the proposal forward.

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations in the report by 6 votes to 0.

The Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health approved the recommendations.

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

N/A