A Victim-Led Criminal Justice System IARS Conference Proceedings 2014

3rd IARS International Annual Conference
19th -20th November 2014
A victim-led criminal justice system?

Conference Proceedings
2014
Independent Academic Research Studies (IARS)
IARS PUBLICATIONS
14 Dock Offices, Surrey Quays Road, London SE16 2XU, UK
+44(0) 20 7820 0945, contact@iars.org.uk www.iars.org.uk
IARS is a leading, international think-tank with a charitable mission to give everyone a chance to
forge a safer, fairer and more inclusive society. IARS achieves its mission by producing evidencebased solutions to current social problems, sharing best practice and by supporting young people to
shape decision making. IARS is an international expert in restorative justice, human rights and
inclusion, citizenship and user-led research.
IARS vision is a society where everyone is given a choice to actively participate in social problem
solving. The organisation is known for its robust, independent evidence-based approach to solving
current social problems, and is considered to be a pioneer in user-involvement and the application
of user-led research methods.
Published in the UK by IARS Publications
2014 IARS
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
Database right IARS Publications (maker)
First published 2014
ISSN 978-1-907641-31-2
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced , stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of IARS
Publications, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reprographics rights organisation. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside of the scope of the
above should be sent to IARS at the address above.
You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose the same
condition on any acquirer.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Printed and designed in the UK by IARS
Table of Contents
Wednesday 19th November............................................................................................................... 3
1 Keynote Speeches ......................................................................................................................... 3
2 Partner Presentations (Morning) .................................................................................................. 5
Vasso Artinipoulou (EPLO, Greece): Safeguarding victims and empowering professionals:
Restorative Justice in Greece ........................................................................................................ 6
Professor Arthur Hartmann (University for Applied Studies for Public Administration):
Safeguarding victims and empowering professionals: findings from Germany ........................ 11
2 Workshops .................................................................................................................................. 23
Workshop Group 1: Victim Engagement in Criminal Justice Services .......................................... 24
Workshop group 2: Gender & Sexual Violence ............................................................................ 24
4 Partner presentations afternoon ................................................................................................ 25
Dr. Anneke van Hoek and Gert Jan Slump (Restorative Justice Netherlands): Safeguarding
Victims and Empowering Professionals in Restorative Justice: The Dutch Experience .............. 25
Professor Dobrinka Chankova More Justice for Crime Victims in Bulgaria ............................... 31
Thursday 20th November .................................................................................................................. 50
1 Partner Presentations ................................................................................................................. 51
Ben Lyon and Grace Loseby (IARS, UK): Safeguarding Victims and Empowering Professionals in
Restorative Justice: Findings from the UK................................................................................... 51
2 Keynote Speakers ........................................................................................................................ 54
Mike Penning UK Justice Minister (Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims) .................................. 55
Gabrielle Browne (Victim and Independent Advisor for the RJE project): What victims want
from criminal justice and restorative justice .............................................................................. 56
Felicity Gerry, QC Best Practice for Vulnerable Victim-Witnesses ............................................ 56
3 Workshops ................................................................................................................................. 60
Workshop Group 3: The fluidity of Victimhood ............................................................................ 60
Workshop Group 4: Relinquishing Power ..................................................................................... 62
Workshop Group 5: Victims and Criminal Justice Services: Best practice .................................... 62
Workshop Group 6 Human Rights and Restorative Justice .......................................................... 63
Wednesday 19th November

1.
Keynote Speeches
Theo Gavrielides, founder and director of IARS, opened IARS 3rd Annual International Conference: A
victim-led criminal justice system? He began by emphasising the need to find ways of working
within current justice systems and integrating restorative justice in society without losing the focus
on ethos and values. He celebrated the international aspect of the conference and its importance in
promoting strong research and sharing best practices beyond the confines of regional boundaries;
which the days presentations, workshops and publication launches would help facilitate.
Theo noted that certain forthcoming international policy and legislative changes - particularly the EU
Victims Directive - made the conference very timely. He isolated three key concepts; criminal
justice, restorative justice and human rights, acknowledging the difficulty of debating all three but
stressing the importance of doing so for the purpose of creating a better system for victims.
Theo then mentioned the financial situation, which requires working in partnerships and through
cooperation. He celebrated the fact that many organisations are beginning to gain a voice and
expressed his pride at heading a user-led organisation like IARS. He underlined the importance of
community work and the creation of bottom-up initiatives as the only means of achieving true
democracy. That IARS, a small organisation, has partnered with big organisations in Europe
demonstrates the power of partnerships and the possibility of building trust between big and small
organisations.
Theo then mentioned the multilingual aspect of the restorative justice research that was to be
presented and discussed at the conference. Multilingualism is significant because the work is about
local people who should have publications in their own languages. Twenty-five secondary research
reports have been produced around the topic of restorative justice and created a framework for
primary research, involving two hundred and eighty practitioners and over two hundred victims. This
in turn has produced further research and tools to implement the Victims Directive.
Theo underlined the ability of this work to empower the individual directly: by enabling victims and
their families to challenge the system and understand what their rights are. He also directed
3
delegates attention to the professional training courses which are accredited and available online
via the RJ4All website [http://www.rj4all.info/].
Feedback from the project showed that both good intentions and legislative frame-work are in
place, but that there are both national and international barriers and that frame-work is not as
strong as legislation itself. Theo observed that changing entrenched mind-sets is a difficult task and
that this is something that the work and publications have tried to address.
Theo stressed the necessity of thinking about what the timescale is, what the requirements are and
what support is there for the practice: who has the power to make a decision and who needs to be
given the information and does this need to change?
He ended by asking that, over the course of the coming two days of the conference, delegates try to
avoid using labels such as victim and offender, which belie the complexity of individual situations
and can be extremely harmful.
IARS patron, High Court Senior Judge and Surveillance Commissioner George Newman was the
second keynotes speaker. He opened by celebrating the conference as an important step in the
development of the IARS restorative justice project. He contrasted the broad nature of the European
Directive with the real engine work done by IARS and other international restorative justice experts
and practitioners. He stressed that the burden of responsibility for the actual implementation of
endless codes of practice and EU directives currently lies with us: with experts and practitioners. He
spoke briefly about the history of Middle Temple. He ended by underlining social justice as the
central core of restorative justice.
Deputy Head of Unit of the European Commission Directorate General Justice - Procedural and
Criminal Law - Ingrid Bellander-Todino was the third keynotes speaker. She began by emphasising
that strengthening victims rights and ensuring that they have a prioritised role within the system is
an important strategic view of the EU. She expressed her hope that it would be possible to rebalance
the criminal justice system in Europe and stressed that victims rights are at the forefront of this. The
Directive is clear on the fact that victims needs are just as important as offenders needs.
Ingrid underlined the fact that, under the Lisbon treaty, Directives are enforceable. She reported a
strong momentum at the moment which should continue in the new governance of the EU despite
budgetary limits. Ingrid observed that the Directive provides a comprehensive set of
recommendations which apply both before and after proceedings. The victim will be regarded as the
direct victim.
Ingrid noted that the focus is now on proper implementation, which will continue to be a priority
over the course of the next year when the implementation deadline ends. She reminded delegates
that the European Commission has also, in cooperation with member states, produced an
implementation instrument paper. She stressed that the EC believes prevention to be better than
cure and that they will continue to organise expert meetings to help implementation of the Directive
in member states. Annual project funding and operating grants will also be continued.
Ingrid finished by emphasising that individual victims of crime will directly benefit from the effect of
articles in the Directive which are clear and unqualified and that this will be a big step on the road to
creating a victim-led criminal justice system in Europe.
4
Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions in the UK was the final keynotes speaker of the
morning. She emphasised the openness and accountability of the Crown Prosecution Service and its
responsibility for the services provided to the public and victims, highlighting the recent publication
of The Victims Code which sets out the rights of victims in an effort to make the criminal justice
system more responsive and easier to navigate. She also mentioned the victim support training
programmes being rolled out in the Crown Prosecutions new Victim Liaison units, which aim to
increase understanding of what it feels like to be a victim. Responding to a question about how
these new units would be funded, Alison noted that they did not imply the creation of any new
services but only the reconfiguration of existing one, with investment going solely to soft skill
training.
Alison made the crucial point, to which there was much murmured agreement, that it is important
to remind prosecutors that, unlike everyone working in the sector, victims have not chosen to be
involved in the Crown Prosecution Service. She stressed the need to consider their rights; concluding
that there is no excuse not to talk to victims at court
2. Partner Presentations (Morning)
Vasso Artinipoulou (EPLO, Greece): Safeguarding victims and empowering professionals:

Restorative Justice in Greece
Professor Vasso Artinopoulou, of the European Public Law Organisation (EPLO) and Professor of
Criminology at Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences in Athens, Greece presented the
first of the Partners findings. She reported that, even though two years have passed since the
projects initial implementation, it does not feel like the end. It feels more like a stop for the time
being. She discussed the research conducted in Greece, the current state of the restorative justice
system there and how the Victims Directive would apply.
Vasso outlined the projects objective in Greece: as a practical tool and means of raising awareness,
on both legal and social levels as well as a research level.
She raised a question for the European Commission on the subject of funding, asking how The
Victims Directive will be funded?
Vasso also stressed the importance of the media in achieving the projects objectives.
Safeguarding Victims &

Empowering Professionals:
Prof. Vasso Artinopoulou
Profes sor of Crim inology, f. Vice Rector,
Panteion University of Social and Political
Sciences, Athens, Greece. Co-Director of the
Res torative Jus tice for All Ins titute, London, UK
UK, November 2014
Restorative Justice in Europe project
EC Grant Agreement JUST/2011-2012/JPEN/AG/2951
About the European Public Law

Organisation (EPLO)
The EPLO is an international inter-governmental
organization headquartered in Athens, Greece, whose specific
mandate is the creation and dissemination of knowledge in
the area of public law and the promotion of European values
through public law throughout the world. To this effect, the
EPLO organizes and supports technical cooperation, research
and educational activities in Europe and worldwide. The
Organization's Board of Directors comprises its 13 Member
States, the European Commission, the Council of Europe and
63 Universities and institutions from 33 countries. In its 18
years of existence, the EPLO has executed over 180 projects
assisting governments, institutions and civil society
organizations in the fields of justice, human rights,
democratization, public administration and approximation of
national legislation to the EU acquis.
Prof. Vasso Artinopoulou, 2014
Project Objectives for Greece

Contribution to general RJE objectives: literature
review, data collection, evidence-based results and
fieldwork, focusing on the existing material mainly
in Greece.
Produce practical results that will be used by
policy makers and practitioners in Greece and
elsewhere in the EU: contribute to the
development, piloting and implementation of
protocols and guidelines, training materials and
programmes, and best practice guidance for
professionals.

(WK1 Literature rev iew)
Legal framework:
Laws and provisions found in criminal and civil law and

the law for juvenile offenders, top-down approach
In all stages of criminal proceedings throughout formal
and semi-formal practices
As complementary or alternative methods to traditional
procedures of the Greek Justice System
Law 3500/2006 On Confronting Domestic V iolence and other

prov isions (Articles 1 1 to 1 4)
Art. 17 of the Law 3904/2010 on "Rationalization and improvement of
the administration of criminal justice and other provisions, regarding
penal conciliation
Law 31 89/2003 on the "Reform of penal legislation for juv eniles and
other provisions"
Law 3898/2010 on mediation in civ il and commercial matters
Law 4055/2012 art. on judicial mediation in cases of priv ate disputes
Social framework:
Initiatives on local level, bottom-up approach
NGOs have vital role in promoting the practice of RJ

RJ is promoted on academic and research levels
A permanent topic in conferences and workshops (e.g.
International Symposia on Restorative Justice, Skopelos
Island)
Especially school mediation programmes
In practice: organizational, operational and financial

obstacles
Lack of training of competent services, lack of appropriate
structures, lack of guidelines and training materials, lack of
(financial) resources, lack of a wider dialogue on RJ and its
practices
Action Research & New Data

Qualitative research: Victims & Practitioners needs &
expectations
Sample & participants profile:
(a) victims (20 interviews, snowball sampling): range of
ages (24-53) and both sexes, wide range of crimes of
varying severity (crimes against life, physical injuries,
crimes against sexual orientation, against property,
domestic violence and trafficking)
(b) Key-practitioners (10 interviews, based on their formal
or informal involvement in the implementation of RJ
procedures in Greece or their involvement in victims
services): average of 10 years working experience, 1
trained in RJ, 7 implement often a RJ practice.
Interview guide with open-ended questions
Research results
Data analysis: qualitative method of Grounded Theory
Only six of 20 victims responded that they have some
knowledge about RJ, while the other victims said they knew
nothing or this was the first time they heard this term
Needs and expectations of victims in Greece during the CJS and
RJ proceedings:
speed and im m ediacy of the processes

better treatment on behalf of the agencies
recognition and support of v ictims
protection
inform ing the victims
qualified personnel
satisfaction and v indication
ex istence of an institutionally organized civic fram ework
Research results (2)

Only six of the 1 0 professionals had heard about the Directive and knew
enough
Needs and ex pectations of professionals in Greece during the CJS and RJ
proceedings:
educational needs: more specialized knowledge, training in crisis
management, psychology, v ictims and offenders profiles, in the
therapeutic relationship (empathy, trust), RJ (methodology, techniques ,
interv iew guides, code of conduct), seminars/trainings, training
materials, protocols, etc. on the V ictims Directive and RJ .
inform ation and awareness-raising: information about v ocational
rehabilitation of v ictims, about good practices, and generally on
legislative developments and their role
structural needs: legal framework, an institutional sy stem and
structures
operational needs: supervision and personal psychotherapy,
interdisciplinary cooperation and continuous feedback
Workstream 4: Pilot & Implementation

Five training seminars/pilots
During March to May 2014
Trainers: Prof. V. Artinopoulou and Ms. I. Michael, guest
speakers were also invited
Training and capacity building material, and protocols

produced as part of WK3 regarding RJ and the Victims
Directive [translated and adjusted for the Greek audience
(practitioners and victims)]
Participants: over 700 professionals participated, such as
stakeholders, police officers, lawyers, criminologists,
professionals in the field of social care and health,
probation officers, representatives of the Ministry of
Justice etc.
10
Outcomes
Participants were particularly interested in the
Directive and especially the challenge that it creates
to their Services and Organizations
Expressed their questioning about its
implementation, mainly because of financial
difficulties, lack of knowledge and expertise on this
field and the general offender-focused culture of
the Greek Justice System.
Need for safeguards to ensure the effectiveness and
sustainability of procedures
11
Project Outcomes
Gap between theory and practice exist in the case of Greece
Challenges in implementing Victims Directive & RJ:
Organizational challenges: the development of a reliable system, of structures,
networks and services, and their financial support. Sustainability of the structures
and services
Practical challenges: exact definition of v ictim, criteria for referral to RJ practices,
lack of personnel, long waiting list, specialized training, victims consent and
v oluntary accession of offenders in the processes, balancing the rights of v ictims and
offenders, the protection of v ictims, conducting appropriate inquiries, effectiveness
of procedures. Management of the role of judicial and prosecutorial authorities.
Need for ideological change: The importance of a v ictim-oriented new criminal
justice system, a perspective m issing from the Greek legal system. Lack of political
will.
The actual implementation and integration of the Directive and the actual
im plementation of RJ are indeed challenges. A need to develop a broader dialogue
on RJ and its practices
A special legislative committee has already been established - RJE has been
supported by the Greek Ministry of Justice
12
Recommendations
A balanced approach regarding the rights of victims and
offenders
Educational materials, guides, protocols, and brochures for
professionals and victims to be produced
More training seminars and raise awareness of police,
prosecutors, judges and other professionals to be carried out
Supervision programmes for professionals to be established
Organization of national programmes in collaboration with
relevant NGOs, state institutions, academia and other
scientific agencies
Mediation to be promoted as an immediate alternative
Efficient assessment and preparation for offenders and
victims
A central (governmental, semi-governmental, academic or
non-profit) entity to be developed for an integrated and
organized system of RJ
13
Effectiveness of RJE in Greece
RJE prov ide great support to victims and professionals

The paradox in relation to the sy stems treatment of v ictims was addressed
The v ictims rights were highlighted
RJE materials were proven to be good tools for practitioners, policy and
decision makers
RJE materials respect the interests of the v ictims and the offenders
Promotion of multi-agency, cross-sector cooperation among RJ/ v ictim
serv ices and national agencies
Workstream 5: Dissemination - awareness raising and policy
dev elopment
Inform and disseminate the results of the project to:
(a) Local Greek authorities and other stakeholders
(b) Members of the European Group of Public Law
(c) Libraries and other institutions
(d) Dissemination through EPLO activities (i.e. conferences, seminars,
trainings)
RJE project empowered RJ in Greece and gav e im petus to a new
approach for a v ictim-led criminal justice system
10
14
Key project staff

European Public Law Organisation
Prof. Vasso Artinopoulou, Professor of
Criminology, Panteion University
Ms. Iro Michael, PhD student, Panteion

University
Ms Effi Lyristi, LLM, EPLO
15
Restorative Justice in Europe (RJE) Project Resources

http://rj4all.info/content/RJEresources
RJE is funded under EC Grant Agreement JUST/2011-2012/JPEN/AG/2951
15
Professor Arthur Hartmann (University for Applied Studies for Public Administration):
Safeguarding victims and empowering professionals: findings from Germany
Professor Arthur Hartmann of the University for Applied Studies for Public Administration, in
Germany, then shared the findings from Germany. He observed that the safeguards in the EC
directive need more consideration. He stressed that in restorative justice theory and for concepts to
go beyond recommendation 47 in the EU Victims Directive.
11
Restorative Justice in Europe:

Safeguarding Victims and
Empowering Professionals
Findings from Germany
Prof. Dr. Arthur Hartmann
Three topics
1. The European Victims Directive and
German law.
Restorative Justice Theory.
a European Victim Satisfaction Survey.
2
The European Victims Directive and

German Law.
Draft legislation by the Federal Ministry of
Justice in order to comply with the European
Victims Directive.
Restorative Justice is not sufficiently
addressed regarding the safeguards in Art. 12
EUVD.
12
The European Victims Directive and

Restorative Justice Theory
According to recommendation no. 46 EUVD
Restorative Justice Services are for example:
victim-offender mediation,
family group conferencing, and
sentencing circles
Restorative Justice Theory goes beyond this

concept with a graduation of more or less
restorative.
Restorative Justice Typology

According to McCold/Wachtel 2001
Copied from www.iirp.edu
Article 2 - Definition
1.
For the purposes of this Directive the following

definitions shall apply:
(a)'victim' means:
(i) a natural person who has suffered harm, including
physical, mental or emotional harm or economic loss which
was directly caused by a criminal offence;
(ii) family members of a person whose death was directly

caused by a criminal offence and who have suffered harm as
a result of that person's death;
13
Article 2 - Definition
(b)
(c)
(d)
'family members' means the spouse, the person who

is living with the victim in a committed intimate
relationship, in a joint household and on a stable and
continuous basis, the relatives in direct line, the
siblings and the dependants of the victim;
'child' means any person below 18 years of age;
'restorative justice' means any process whereby the
victim and the offender are enabled, if they freely
consent, to participate actively in the resolution of
matters arising from the criminal offence through
the help of an impartial third party;
7
Art. 4: Right to receive information from the

first contact with a competent authority
1. Member States shall ensure that victims are offered the
following information, without unnecessary delay, from
their first contact with a competent authority in order
to enable them to access the rights set out in this
Directive:
(a i)
.
(j) the available restorative justice services;
Art. 12: Right to safeguards in the

context of restorative justice services
1.
(a)
(b)
Member States shall take measures to safeguard the victim

from secondary and repeat victimisation, from intimidation
and from retaliation, to be applied when providing any
restorative justice services. Such measures shall ensure that
victims who choose to participate in restorative justice
processes have access to safe and competent restorative
justice services, subject to at least the following conditions:
the restorative justice services are used only if they are in the
interest of the victim, subject to any safety considerations,
and are based on the victim's free and informed
consent, which may be withdrawn at any time;
before agreeing to participate in the restorative justice
process, the victim is provided with full and unbiased
information about that process and the potential outcomes
as well as information about the procedures for supervising
the implementation of any agreement;
9
14
Conclusions
According to the Victims Directive
victims an offenders are to be involved in the
selecting of an appropriate setting e.g. mediation,
conferencing, or circles;
fully restorative are those providers of
restorative justice services, who can tailor the
setting to the particular needs and wishes of any
individual victim.
Online Victim Satisfaction Survey

Aims:
Giving victims a voice with a satisfaction survey.
Help the Commission and the Member states to evaluation
the implementation of the Directive.
Art. 28 Provision of data and Statistics

Member States shall, by November 16 th 2017 and
every three years thereafter, communicate to the
Commission available data showing how victims
have accessed the rights set out in this Directive.
11
Going online 1/2

Development of an online questionnaire on
the basis of Donabedians quality categories.
Structural-, process, and outcome quality,
Literature analysis and peer review.
Search of institutions providing restorative

justice services in all 28 EU member states.
Questionnaire in: Dutch, English, French, Greek,
Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish, German.
Inviting 711 institutions to participate.

12
15
Going online 2/2

34 restorative justice services agreed to
participate (participation rate 4.8 %, N=711).
30 German
2 Swedisch
1 Belgium
1 British
Sending 1.879 cover letters, links, and TANs.

73 activated questionnaires, 43 filled.
13
Final Response rate and Results

Table 1: Language of the activated questionnaires (n = 73)
N
German
53
72.6
Swedish
8.2
English
5.5
Dutch
4.1
Portuguese
4.1
Greek
2.7
French
1.4
Polish
1.4
Total
73
100
14
Figure 1: Did you already know of RJ

before participating? (n = 41)
15
16
Table 2: I have been informed

(about) (n = 41)
the voluntariness of the participation
40 (97,6 %)
that I am free to quit at any time
39 (95,1 %)
... that a written agreement only comes

into being if you approve to the
contents
the confidentiality of the contents
40 (97,6 %)
my rights as a victim
37 (90,2 %)
38 (92,7 %)
16
Table 3: Outcomes of the RJ service
N = 41
agree
neither/nor
I found help accomplishing the
21 (51,2 %)
5 (12,2 %)
consequences of the offence.
I was supported and strengthened
28 (68,3 %)
4 (9,8 %)
with regard to my victims rights.
I would refuse a RJ service now.
2 (4,9 %)
6 (14,6 %)
I would recommend others to
32 (78 %)
3 (7,3 %)
participate in a RJ service.
I think that the result is not fair.
2 (4,9 %)
5 (12,2 %)
I feel safe again.
19 (46,3 %) 10 (24,4 %)
The facilitator/mediator did not
31 (75,6 %)
3 (7,3 %)
sufficiently consider my interests.
Overall, I am satisfied with RJ.
31 (75,6 %)
4 (9,8 %)
17
Conclusions and questions 1/2

Institutions offering RJ are not interested as
much in victims satisfaction as they should
be?
Online surveys are not appropriate yet to
examine victims satisfaction?
Our questionnaire was inappropriate e.g. to
long?
18
17
Conclusions and questions 2/2

We want to maintain the survey.
We shortend the questionnaire based on the
collected data.
We invite partners and services to cooperate.
19
Restorative Justice in Europe

Findings from Germany
Thank you for your attention

and patience.
Questions are welcome.
20
Figure 2: Context of the offence

(n = 41)
21
18
Table 2: Damages, in % (n = 41)

Table 2: Damages, in % (n = 41)
materially
physically
emotionally
minor
19.5
34.1
19.5
medium
17.1
24.2
36.6
severe
7.3
14.6
24.4
prefer not to say
22
7.3
4.9
not applicable
34.1
19.5
14.6
Total
100
100
100
22
Figure 3a: Expectations
23
Figure 3b: Expectations
24
19
Table 5: Rating the penal reaction

(n = 41)
Table 5: Rating the penal reaction (n = 41)
way too soft
too soft
4 (9,8 %)
7 (17,1 %)
adequate
26 (63,4 %)
too strong
1 (2,4%)
NA
3 (7,3 %)
25
Image 1: Legal definitions by

comparison
26
The recent legal situation in Germany

and the requirements of the Victims
Directive
27
20
Literature
McCold, Paul; Wachtel, Ted (2001): Restorative Justice Theory Validation.

In: Elmar G.M. Weitekamp and Hans -Jrgen Kerner, Restorative Justice:
Theoretical Foundations. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing, pp. 110 -142.
Wachtel, Ted (2013): Defining Restorative. www.iirp.edu.
35
EU Victims Directive
Art. 2 No. 1 d
Res torative justice:
vol untary;
hel p of a n i mpartial third party
pa rti cipate actively
Laws and Standards in Germany

Section 155a , 3 GCoCP
Aga i nst the explicit will of the vi ctim an
a greement must not be assumed / s upposed.
Section 1 MA
Vol untarily a nd independently
As s istance of one or more independent, neutral
pers ons without decision-making power
Cypher 1.2 VOM Standards
vol untarily
a ctive participation
a ba ndonment of presettings from the l egislation
28
Con. 46
Res torative justice servi ces
Medi ation between
offender a nd vi ctim
Conferences a nd Ci rcles
Section 2 pa r. 4 MA
Thi rd parties can be involved i f a ll parties agree.
VOM Standards
Des igned only for mediation, further participants are
not rul ed out. Concrete regulations for conferences
a nd ci rcles a re missing.
29
21
Art. 12 pa r. 1
Sa feguards
Secondary vi cti misation
Repeat vi ctimisation
Inti midation
Reta liation
Sa fe and competent
res torative justice servi ces
Section 155 b GCoCP

Protection of the personal data of those affected
The mediator ensures, that the parties are
i nvolved in an appropriate and fair manner into
the mediation.
Section 5 MA
Ini tial a nd further training of the mediator,
certified mediator
Cypher 1.2, 5.5 VOM Standards
A repeated vi ctimization is to be prevented.
Cypher 2.1, 4.1 und 4.3 VOM Standards
Requirements to the provider, the qualification of
the mediator, the design of a non-violent dialogue
wi th the aim of a non-violent future.
30
Art. 12 pa r. 1e
confi dentiality
not s ubsequently disclosed,
except with the agreement of
the pa rties or as required by
na ti onal law due to a n
overri ding public i nterest.
Secti on 155b GCoCP

ens uring data protection
Secti on 155b par. 2, 3 GCoCP
duty of the mediators to report relevant
deta ils to the prosecution or court.
Secti on 4 MA
extensive obligation to confidentiality, cl ause
of the ordre public. Ba s ed on that a ri ght to
refus e to give evidence according to section
383 pa r. 1 Cypher. 6 Code of Ci vil Procedure
i n ci vi l cases.
reference to missing ri ght to refuse to give
evi dence for the mediators (in cri minal
ca s es).
34
Art. 12 pa r. 1, a
ba s ed on the vi ctim's free
a nd i nformed consent
Secti on 136 pa r. 1,4, 163a par. 4,2, 155a ,2 GCoCP

l i nk to RJ i n the s ense of s ection 46a GCC. Pol ice,
pros ecutors and courts shall consider i n every
s ta ge of a cri minal procedure, whether a
reconciliation between vi ctim a nd offender is
pos sible and they s hall work towards it i n
a ppropriate ca ses. Against the explicit will of the
vi cti m a reconciliation must not be assumed.
Secti on 2 pa r. 2 und 6 MA
the mediator makes sure that the parties have
understood the principles a nd the procedure of the
mediation procedure, participate voluntarily a nd
ma ke a greements only wi th knowledge of all facts.
Cyphers 1.2, 4.4, 5.2, 5.3 und 5.4 VOM Standards
vol untariness a nd tra nsparency, extensive
i nformation in the preliminary talks, unaffected
deci sion-making
31
22
Art. 12 pa r. 1b
Extens ive information a bout
mediation procedures, the
pos sible consequences and
mea sures to monitor a nd
gua rantee the fulfilment of
a greement
No regulations concerning monitoring and
ful filment of the agreement (section 2 pa r. 6
MA)
Art. 12 pa r. 1c
The offender has
a cknowledged the basic facts
of the ca se;
Section 46a GCC

The Federal Supreme Court (BGH) requires a
confession in cases of (severe) assault and
s exual offences.

Control / monitor the fulfilment of the
a greement

Ba s ic condition is that the offender take
res ponsibility for their behaviour.
32
Art. 12 pa r. 1d
Section 46a GCC
a ny a greement is a rrived at cons ideration of reconciliation and
vol untarily a nd may be taken
compensation between offender and vi ctim
i nto a ccount in a ny further
cri mi nal proceedings;
33
23
3. Workshops
Workshop Group 1: Victim Engagement in Criminal Justice Services

The first speaker of the afternoon was Brian Dowling from Victim Support accompanied by Rosalyn
Hollidge, a victim of an extremely violent sexual assault. Together they presented Rosalyns case and
her experience of Restorative Justice: at no point was she offered the option of a restorative
process, and instead had to seek it out herself; she was turned down multiple times, by the police,
by probation services, all claiming that her personal risk assessment was invalid and that she was not
ready for it. Coming out of this both speakers highlighted the importance of handing the power and
control over to the victim, giving them the options. The other important point to come out of the
discussion was that of safety. Every case is different but Restorative Justice practice always needs to
be safe, and the only way for that to happen is if the victim is in control and fully aware of the risks.
The next speakers were Joanne Edwards and Hazra Patel from the University of Central Lancashire,
whose work attempts to better understand victims services in order to develop best practice. Taken
from a national policing perspective Edward and Hazra argued that we need to pay more attention
to the cases of victims entering the system as offenders. Basing themselves on an extensive case
study, they demonstrated how failure to identify individuals as victims can lead to cycles of reoffending. Through research and a better understanding of victims, they further argued that Police
and Crime Commissioners will be able to develop the safeguards needed to identify victims at first
point of service, and thus break the vicious cycle of crime.
Finally, Charles McClean spoke about the need for information sharing and working in partnership
across communities, with stakeholders from multiple sectors participating in the criminal justice
system. He argued that through this process, and crucially by listening to the needs and views of the
victims, service provision and prevention could be improved. Speaking about a joint vision for
victims rights, Charles argued that the criminal justice system needs to be victim-centred rather
than victim-led.
Workshop group 2: Gender & Sexual Violence

Fiona Landon opened up workshop 2 with her presentation on the specificities of using Restorative
Justice in cases of Domestic Violence. Basing herself on the work of her own organisation, Project
Restore in New Zealand, and research carried out with victims of Domestic Violence, she listed a
number of issues: the need for balanced partiality and neutrality; having to overcome denial or
minimisation by victims; or building up trust between the victim and the community when often this
has broken down as a result of the offence. But she also highlighted more practical challenges: the
lack of fully trained and experienced practitioners to work with cases of DV, a lacuna which Restore
attempts to fill by assigning teams of practitioners to each case; and the difficulty of operating
outside the traditional criminal justice system. Finally Landon likened the Restorative Justice process
to a spectrum which stretches from Justice to Therapy and reminded the audience that cases of
Domestic Violence more often than not tend towards the therapeutic end of that spectrum.
The next speakers were Victor Merino and Raquel Vano researchers at EPOGENDER, Spain. They
presented the findings of research they have been carrying out on European Protection Orders
24
(EPO), namely the transfer and mutual recognition across EU borders of: prohibition to enter in the
same place as the victim, to be in contact with the victim, or to approach the victim; and in particular
its use in cases of Gender Violence. Their research focuses on the effectiveness of these measures
and their application within the various member states. It is clear that there is currently an
unprecedentedly beneficial legislative context for questions of Gender Violence, with more
directives, more tools to enforce them, more data being collected, as well as the signing of the
Convention of Istanbul, the first European wide convention against Gender Violence. However
serious issues still remain, European countries only have a few months left to apply the legislative
changes which the EPO Directive demands, however Victor and Raquel reported that an
overwhelming majority of countries had not taken any steps towards this as of yet. Furthermore the
complexity and diversity of the various EU countries legal systems make it extremely hard to monitor
the progress made, while affording an effective smoke screen for slow implementation.
Finally, Professor Clare McGlynn from Durham University took the floor and presented her paper on
Kaleidoscopic Justice. The key question here was how do survivors of sexual violence define and
understand Justice. What does it mean to them? Basing herself on interviews carried out with
victims of Gender Violence, Clares central argument was that these womens definition varied
hugely from the traditional Criminal Justice Systems (CJS) definition of the concept. Whereas the CJS
work with a linear definition in which Justice follows a clear trajectory from incident, to
prosecution, to trial, ending in the best of cases with punishment, victims of Gender Violence
reported a more Kaleidoscopic definition. In this case the perception of Justice has no clear
beginning and no end. Justice to these women felt instead like a continually shifting pattern, a lived
experience which changes over time. It incorporated a much wider range of topics too: prevention,
education, rehabilitation, pointing to a concept of Justice which goes beyond the narrow,
individualistic depiction of justice as retribution. Instead it highlights an understanding of Justice as
something which would stop the offence from happening to someone else. As such punishment of
the offender was deemed less important that restoring the victims dignity by making the offender
understand the pain he had caused, and crucially having the offence and the guilt of the offender,
acknowledged by society.
4. Partner presentations afternoon
Dr. Anneke van Hoek and Gert Jan Slump (Restorative Justice Netherlands): Safeguarding
Victims and Empowering Professionals in Restorative Justice: The Dutch Experience
Presenting the findings from the Netherlands, Dr Anneke van Hoek and Gert Jan Slump from
Restorative Justice Netherlands touched highlighted various interesting points in their presentation.
They spoke of the need for a one-stop-shop to improve the accessibility of Restorative Justice and
the need for more inclusion of victims in the development of RJ policy. They also highlighted the
different levels of victims needs: emotional, safety, security, financial and information. They ended
their presentation by asking; what is the best way to implement the Victims Directive?
25
A Victim-led criminal justice system

Addressing the paradox
Safeguarding Victims & Empowering Professionals in

Restorative Justice: The Dutch Experience"
Anneke van Hoek
Gert Jan Slump
Activities in The Netherlands
WS 1
Review of existing Dutch literature
WS 2
New data: interviews, quantitative survey, case study
WS 3/4
Development, piloting and implementation of:

- Best practice guidance, protocols and guidelines (IARS)
- Face to face training workshops & materials (tailored to NL)
- Separate interactive Dutch E-training (RJN)
- Pan-European Five step implementation plan (RJN)
- Organisational Maturity Grid Restorative Practices (RJN)
WS 5
Dissemination: social media, monthly updates,

presentations, > 40 meetings, 2 national seminars,
3 international conferences, publications in journals etc.
26
What do victims need?
Emotional needs: recognition, restoration, apology, support

Need for information about: CJS, role, offender related information,
prevention, healing process
Practical needs: paperwork, procedures, medical, crisis
management, transport
Financial needs: compensation, insurance, financial procedures
Need for safety and security: immediate, prevention of repeat and
secondary revictimization
Specific needs related to CJS: respectful treatment, care and
attention, access, speed and timeliness, legal position and
assistance, fairness in process and outcome
(a.o. Ten Boom & Kuypers, 2008)
Conclusions WS 1 literature (1)
Not sufficient insight in victims need for RJ

RJ in prisons: 4 level restoration (offender, network, victim, society)
Often only first two levels addressed
RJ in prisons: knowledge and experience takes it to next level
Victim led practices merge easily with restorative practices
Conclusions WS 1 literature (2)

Four movements, four victim images (Pemberton 2012)
Victim Support:
practical and emotional needs
Victims Rights:
strong legal position
Rest. Justice:
restoration, reconciliation, participation
Womens movement:
empowerment of minorities
Academic discussion is ideological and not always solid empirical
27
New findings (1) victim satisfaction
Match specific needs in relation to CJS and basic needs (tailoring)

Do not think or act for the victim but listen and inter-act with victim
(inclusion)
Needs assessment and sensitivity for victims needs crucial
Balancing rights of victims with rights of offenders: limitations of CJS
and legal framework
Some needs may be better met by (additional/replacing) RJ procedures
New findings (2) Victims and RJ

Criteria
Voluntary participation
Safety while participating
Accessibility (one stop shop)
Offender taking responsibility vs presuming innocence
Objective, clear and full information
Independent and neutral mediator
Well trained RJ professionals and gatekeepers
Active participation / voicing
New findings (3) RJ & implementation
Vulnerable victims: no exclusion beforehand but tailored to specific

needs and risk assessment in preparation by mediator
Interest of the victim leading and not interest of the professional
(prevent instrumentalization of victims)
Easy and equal access: referral criteria should meet with victims needs
Systematic information by judicial professionals, probation and victim
support (51h Sv)
Lack of (public) information despite legal basis
Voluntary participation: make voluntariness explicit in communication
with and referral of victims
28
New findings (4) implementing

European Victims Directive
Five Step Plan
Step 1
Ensure that all required national legislation is in place
Step 2
Ensure that all required national policy is in place

(victim policy & RJ policy)
Step 3
Ensure that legislation and victim & RJ policy is enforced

by CJS organizations
Step 4
Ensure that all national victim and RJ services meet

criteria set in Directive
Step 5
Stimulate multi-agency cooperation between national

victim and RJ services and judicial organizations
(protocols and practice)
Maturity Grid Restorative Practices

Judicial organizations (self assessment)
Face to face training and E training

& lessons learned
Adapted face to face training material worked very well

E training successful when interaction between participants is
stimulated and active participation is demanded
Mix of face to face / offline and online educational activities
Incentives, fee, certification and intermediate deadlines
E training was useful as additional module for advanced learning
Attention to participants that have been secondary victimized

themselves during face to face and E training (follow up support)_
29
E training
Critical reflections
and recommendations for the future
Implementation of Victims Directive in NL:

legislation and policy framework nearly ready, good practice; first pilots for RJ within CJS
Need for a change of culture:
changing patriarchal attitudes, prevent instrumentalization of victims, access for all
Professional development:
continuous and tailored education needed for professional workers in CJS
Cross national learning: learn and inspire. Our contribution: two pan-European tools
From ideological blindness to evidence based practice and practice based evidence
The ideal is not a victim led CJS but a well-balanced system in which the interests and
rights of both victims and offenders are safeguarded
Disseminating .
30
Dutch providers of RJ: a panel discussion
Thank you for your attention

Anneke van Hoek
Gert Jan Slump
anneke.vanhoek@gmail.com
gertjanslump@xs4all.nl
www.restorativejustice.nl
Rest_Justice_NL
Professor Dobrinka Chankova: More Justice for Crime Victims in Bulgaria

Rounding off the partner presentations for the day, Professor Dobrinka Chankova started her
presentation by telling the audience how important RJ was for Bulgaria, and that although RJ
operates very much in the shadow of the law, and victims generally tend to be forgotten within the
criminal justice system, there is currently a movement towards a better understanding of RJ and the
place of the victim. However, she also pointed out that there was still a lot of work to do in order to
sufficiently raise awareness for RJ and ultimately allow more victims to benefit from the
implementation for the Victims Directive.
31
MORE JUSTICE FOR

CRIME VICTIMS IN
BULGARIA
Prof. Dr. Dobrinka Chankova
1
THE BULGARIAN PROJECT
A part of "Restorative Justice in Europe:

Safeguarding Victims and Empowering
Professionals (RJE) project
Main purpose - to explore victims-related
theory, practices, services and policies in
Bulgaria, including the state of play of
restorative justice
To support the successful national
implementation of Directive 2012/29/EU
2
THE CRIME VICTIMS STATUS IN

BULGARIAN LAW AND PRACTICE
For a long time, crime victims were the forgotten

party in the Bulgarian criminal justice system.
They were totally neglected and marginalized, while
the attention fell exclusively on the offender.
Protection of the procedural rights of the
perpetrators of crime was even enhanced by the
Bulgarian legislator and judicial practice.
However, the rights of crime victims were not
equally protected.
3
32

Fortunately, recently the victims of crime in

Bulgaria seem to be receiving increased
attention from governmental institutions, NGOs,
academia, etc.
The victims have been rediscovered and
recognized.
From an "invisible" object of social reality and
criminal proceedings, often isolated from their
own case, they have become a more noticeable
figure in law, political strategies and media.
4

One of the greatest recent achievements was

the Criminal Procedure Code 2005.
The Code regulated for the first time the
procedural status of the injured party in a
separate chapter.
The injured party enjoys specific rights both
in the pre-trial and court proceedings.

Most of these rights can be exercised in full

during the court proceedings when the
injured party can be constituted as:
private prosecutor,
private complainant or
civil claimant.
In summary the injured party currently enjoys
a relatively high status in the criminal
proceedings; s/he is no longer merely a
witness.
33
SUPPORT AND FINANCIAL

COMPENSATION FOR CRIME VICTIMS
ACT 2006
The objective of this Act is to recognise and

guarantee the rights and lawful interests of
crime victims, according to the European and
international standards.
It provides for various types of support such
as psychological, legal, medical, etc., as well
as financial compensation from the state,
although rather limited.
7
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN
BULGARIA
Lately Restorative justice (RJ), one of the most

attractive modern policies in criminal justice
worldwide and a recognized instrument for crime
victims protection, has finally received some
attention in Bulgaria.
Mediation Act 2004
A much praised achievement of this act is Article
3, paragraph 2, which provides for mediation in
criminal matters, as envisaged in the Criminal
Procedure Code.
8
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN
BULGARIA
However, Criminal Procedure Code 2005 did not provide

for any cases where mediation could be applied and left
this issue to subsequent amendments /not a fact of law
yet/.
Nevertheless, the current legislation leaves room for the
application of restorative justice methods in relation to
the so called complainants crimes where the criminal
proceedings are instituted upon the victims initiative.
Restorative practices are also applied in juvenile cases,
in prisons, in community matters, although on a limited
scale.
9
34
ACTIVITIES IN RJ FIELD
Developed proposals de lege ferenda and submitted by

academia and NGOs to the Ministry of Justice and
Parliament
Trainings of mediators, judges, prosecutors and other
professionals
Special courses in alternative dispute resolution,
restorative justice and mediation in criminal matters in
universities
Sociological surveys - restorative justice enjoys wide
support among criminal justice practitioners and the
society at large
10
REVIEW OF THE AVAILABLE BULGARIAN

LANGUAGE LITERATURE ABOUT CRIME
VICTIMS
The review emphasized that victimology, the

study of victimization and crime victims, are
relatively new domains of knowledge in
Bulgaria.
They have been developed predominantly as
a part of criminology during the last decades.
However, a good amount of literature had
already been published mainly in RJ field.
11
PROJECT SURVEYS
According to the second work stream of the RJE

project, the Institute of Conflict Resolution has
done fieldwork to explore the current state of
affairs and prospects for crime victims
protection and restorative justice, as well as the
application of Victims' Directive
Surveys were conducted among crime victims,
professionals from the criminal justice system,
service providers working with victims, and
practitioners applying restorative practices
12
35
CRIME VICTIMS SURVEY
Total of 10 victims of different crimes were

interviewed in-depth through a semistructured questionnaire
Five of the victims had participated in
restorative processes, mostly VOM, the rest
have been duly informed
Adult men and women who have suffered
damage from different complainants crimes
with regard to which the acting legislation
allows VOM
13
Are you familiar with the

Bulgarian/international law concerning
victim protection?
Alarming picture
Half of the crime victims do not have almost
any knowledge about the legal and other
types of protection
The rest of the respondents have only limited
knowledge
Ergo - not enough information and education
about crime victims rights
14
Do you think that good policies for

victims exist in Bulgaria?
Most of the respondents (6) answer in a

negative way.
The rest give rather ambivalent answers
pointing out some good intentions declared
and their poor implementation.
The negative evaluation of the existing policy
for crime victims is more than evident.
15
36
Do you think that good practices

towards victims exist in Bulgaria?
Great dissatisfaction with the victims

protection practices.
Six respondents claim that victims are totally
or considerably neglected.
Two find the existing practices not efficient.
Only one respondent is fully satisfied with the
dissemination of VOM, while one respondent
says he has no info.
16
What do you want from

restorative justice?
active participation
pecuniary compensation (financial or in-kind,
according to their needs)
apology
moral satisfaction of being heard and
understood
short and time-saving procedures
17
What do you want from

support and good opportunities for restoration

of relationships and social bonds
correction of the offender
taking responsibility not to commit the act
again
restoration of their sense of security etc.
Remarkably, rarely victims express revenge
and expect severe penal sanctions. This is
indicative of the victims evolution and of their
new needs.
18
37
What do you think are the best and

safest ways to implement restorative
justice?
The victims interviewed insist that RJ should

be statutory. For this purpose the Criminal
Procedure Code has to be amended.
While RJ is still a novelty for the conservative
continental law system, it should be
introduced step by step, starting with petty
crimes and first time offenders, and juveniles;
after relevant assessments, its application
should be expanded.
19

justice?
The presence of a lawyer is still considered

essential for protection of the parties rights
and supervision of the CJS authorities.
Voluntariness, informed consent and
confidentiality are seen as a conditio sine qua
non.
Opinions are expressed that the introduction
of RJ should follow the established models in
the European and other countries in order to
avoid mistakes.
20
What are the best ways for

enforcing the Victims Directive?
The new Directive is warmly received by almost all

interviewed victims although some of them heard of
it for the first time.
They see a good stimulus for improving and
expanding services for crime victims.
The respondents are unanimous that it should be
transposed in the national law as soon as possible.
The Directive should be broadly popularized through
information campaigns, mass-media etc., and has to
be fully implemented.
21
38
What is necessary to raise the

general victim awareness about RJ
options?
Most victims see a potential in making CJS

authorities and lawyers more pro-active in
informing the parties concerned about RJ and its
opportunities.
Some think that professionals should be legally
obliged to spread this knowledge.
The second option are direct information
campaigns dedicated to RJ and the Victims
Directive.
Next come books, articles, the Internet, different
fora, education in universities, schools etc.
22
What do you think about the RJ

services in which you have
participated ?
As it has already been mentioned, only 5

victims have undergone RJ procedures.
They all are positive and satisfied although in
a somewhat nuanced way.
Two respondents express 100% satisfaction,
two 90%, and one 50%.
23
Would you recommend RJ to

other victims?
Regardless of their diverse personal

experience, 8 of interviewed victims will
definitely recommend RJ to other victims.
Two will act according to the peculiarities of
the particular case, but they remain positive.
24
39
PROFESSIONALS SURVEY
In compliance with the work plan of the

project, 5 focus group discussions took place.
The focus groups included the following
sample groups:
prosecutors
investigating policemen
practitioners, applying RJ
representatives of specialized NGOs
academics.
25
PROFESSIONALS SURVEY
Each focus group consisted of 4 members

who responded to an inquiry in writing.
There was a preliminary selection of the
participants according to their competence
about RJ and victims issue, and their
personal experience.
26
What do you want/expect from

The prosecutors focus group gives the most

detailed answers. From RJ they expect:
protection of victims rights
speedy proceedings
reducing the CJSs overload
victims satisfaction (material and moral)
positive influence on the offender with
educative and corrective effect
therapeutic effect on the victim and offender,
etc.
40
27
What do you want/expect

from restorative justice?
The investigating policemen emphasise on

rehabilitation and apology, restoration of a
sense of security and cost effectiveness of
the process.
Practitioners expect RJ to return the conflicts
back to their proper owners and to involve
them in seeking an appropriate decision.
28
What do you want/expect from

NGOs representatives underline that RJ helps

raising the quality of life, restoring the
relationships between the parties involved and
putting the focus on victims.
The academics, reconfirming the answers
already given, state that hey expect active public
involvement for helping victims restore physically
and mentally and reintegrate into society.
All focus groups understand rightly the ideology
of RJ and consider it as a part of global justice.
29

justice?
According to the prosecutors, substantial and procedural

laws should explicitly regulate RJ.
Safeguards for equal treatment and access to services
are required.
RJ should be applied in due course and with maximum
speed and should ensure fast restoration of the harm
inflicted.
Special attention has to be paid to juvenile delinquency.
RJ should be applied only once, towards first time
offenders and juveniles who have committed petty
crimes.
30
41

justice?
The policemen insist on following the models

applied abroad.
The practitioners emphasize on training of all
applying RJ practices to avoid misuse and
dissatisfaction.
The NGOs representatives consider
voluntariness and informed consent as
particularly important. RJ should be applied in
symbiosis with CJS.
The academics insist on introducing RJ in
schools and universities.
31
What are the best ways for enforcing

the Victims Directive?
The prosecutors consider transposing the

Directive and establishing mechanisms for its
implementation including seminars for
professionals a conditio sine qua non.
They recommend that the national legislation
provides for more rights for victims since the
Directive establishes only the minimum
standards.
Brochures for victims would be of great help.
32
What are the best ways for enforcing

the Victims Directive?
According to the police representatives, full

harmonisation of domestic legislation with the Directive
and other European legal acts is a prerequisite for
observing the European standards.
According to the practitioners, soft-law acts are just as
important as is high-ranking legislation.
The NGOs put the accent on education.
The academics require specific measures to be
undertaken: free services for crime victims should be
offered by the public sector (police) or in co-operation
with NGOs, risk assessment needs to be done, etc.
33
42
How can victims be made better

aware of their restorative justice
options?
According to the prosecutors and policemen, the victims

have no or have only a fragmented idea about RJ. That
is why a broad-scale information campaign is needed
urgently. They recommend the use of Internet resources,
TV and radio broadcasting, specialised training.
A normative obligation for and education of law
enforcement authorities to familiarize victims with RJ is
necessary, also according to the practitioners and
NGOs.
The academics consider popularizing success stories
and introducing RJ in the universities an schools
curricula to be a good instrument.
34
Will practitioners in different

institutions be interested in
workshops/training on RJ?
All focus groups are strongly in favour as

such training is missing in their education so
far.
35
Will key professionals find training materials,

protocols, guidelines & best practice guidance
useful when applying RJ in different contexts,
services & agencies?
Again, the focus groups are unanimously

positive.
The policemen find such materials obligatory.
The academics think that these manuals
should be detailed and should not contain
only general directions.
36
43
What tools do professionals working

with victims need to create better
safeguards for victims?
The prosecutors need detailed legislation,

working schemes, education and financing.
The policemen find good networking between
different institutions and NGOs essential.
For practitioners and NGOs, the team work is
of ultimate importance.
According to the academics, the effective
services and individualized approach to
different victims are of great significance.
37
What do restorative justice practitioners need in

order to implement restorative justice safely and
according to the Victims Directive?
In summary the answers point to:

adequate legislative framework
detailed information
specialized training, both in theory and
practice
good cooperation between institutions
trust and social support
financing
38
What are the key challenges for

criminal justice agencies in
implementing restorative justice?
The interviewees indicates as main challenges

the following:
overcoming stereotypes and the
conservatism inherent to the justice system
lack of stability (in some cases) of final acts
novelty of the RJ idea for the continental law
system
lack of sufficient information about RJ
providers
shift of focus from the offender to the victim,
etc.
39
44
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF PILOTING

TRAINING MATERIALS IN BULGARIA
The piloting was organized through face-to-face

training in June 2014 in Sofia and Blagoevgrad,
with participants from other cities - more than 40
people in total.
The training methods and materials were well
received by a largely diverse audience students, lawyers, practitioners from the criminal
justice system, NGO activists, mediators etc.
However, the training package which was
originally written in English had to be adapted to
the Bulgarian context.
40
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF PILOTING

TRAINING MATERIALS IN BULGARIA
The Faculty of Law and History at the SouthWest University hosted the large-scale and
most successful training on 19 June 2014.
Trainings were also organized on 16 June
2014 at Sofia Bar Association and on 17
June 2014.
The participants were also happy to receive
certificates of attendance that IARS managed
to accredit through Continuing Professional
Development (CPD) status.
41
EVALUATION OF TRAINING
From a total of 40 evaluation forms returned back, it can

be concluded that the vast majority, more than 90% of
the participants, agree or strongly agree that the course
has helped them to understand clearly the Victims'
Directive and its RJ-related articles.
The learning programme is evaluated as easy to access
and navigate, the course materials are coherent and well
developed, the programme delivery methods effectively
enable studying the Victims Directive, the course is
important for the participants professional development
and has challenged them intellectually.
42
45
EVALUATION OF TRAINING
Almost all expect to apply the knowledge

gained from the course, enabling them to
perform their job better.
Remarkably, 97% say that the information
received will help to collaborate better with
victim-related service providers, and 100%
claim that they would recommend this course
to others.
43
INFORMATION CAMPAIGN
The information campaign Restorative

justice in the interest of the victim and the
offender was served as a tool for
dissemination, policy development and
awareness raising (work stream 5).
It was launched at an early stage of RJE and
is still on-going, with the aim to continue after
the project ends.
44
INFORMATION CAMPAIGN
All activities throughout the duration of the project

and theirs results were largely announced in public
through the internet, the media, at conferences and
face-to-face meetings.
Many publications in scientific journals and
newsletters, presentations during national and
international events, updating websites, radio
broadcasting, various celebrations and happenings,
more than 40 meetings with professionals, policy
makers and academics, distribution of brochures
and leaflets, etc.
45
46
REFLECTING ON THE OVERALL FINDINGS

OF THE BULGARIAN PROJECT
Although currently there is a rather

comprehensive legal framework for crime
victims protection in Bulgaria, many of its
aspects could be criticized.
The acting legislation is not perfect, and is
not properly and fully applied.
There are not enough efficient procedural
mechanisms for the full implementation of the
stipulated rights.
46

There are problems with the existing infrastructure and

co-ordination between different agencies working in the
field.
Presently, there are very few specialized governmental
structures working in this area.
NGOs domination
There seems to be a "gap" between the declared good
objectives and the low level of their implementation.
That is why public discontent is increasing and the risk of
raising punitive populism is more than evident.
47

Lack of proper RJ provisions in the legislation

is also a great problem.
It is highly unacceptable that RJ is practiced
in the shadow of the law and is a function of
the initiatives of progressive practitioners.
There are enough studies, elaborated bills,
trained and motivated professionals.
What is missing is a good will from the state
institutions.
48
47

Although the Bulgarian government claims that it

is trying to observe the European standards,
paradoxically, crime victims are not the new
icon of our penal policy yet.
So, Bulgarian criminal justice system is definitely
not victim-led.
But it should be it is possible and desired,
according to the research and surveys results.
Implementing the Directive, fostering vigorously
victims rights and RJE deliverables could
accelerate this process.
49
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BULGARIAN POLICY MAKERS

FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VICTIMS DIRECTIVE RJ
PROVISIONS IN BULGARIA
Bulgarian policy makers need to wake up

and adopt a modern criminal policy, including
RJ.
So far RJ potential is not properly
understood, that it is why it is not a priority for
the government.
This should also explain why it remains
underdeveloped and marginalized in the
country.
50

However, the decision makers should act

now, as the Directive has to be transposed by
16 November 2015.
Crime victims do deserve more and better
justice.
RJ should not be confronted with the existing
CJS, a symbiosis with this system would be
more efficient and productive.
A special focus should be put on vulnerable
victims.
51
48

During the piloting and implementation

phase, particular attention should be paid to
the distribution of knowledge among RJ and
victim services providers and professionals
in order to achieve compliance of their
practices with the European standards.
52

Relevant documentation such as protocols

and guidelines, training materials and best
practice guides should be adopted on a
national level and disseminated without delay
as they are much needed.
The RJE project deliverables are a great
source in this regard.
Large-scale information campaigns about the
Victims Directive should start immediately.
53

Financial, administrative and organizational

support from the State is also essential.
Regular university training and continuing
education of the criminal justice professionals
and victim support practitioners about the
principles, values, benefits etc. of RJ is a
must.
However, to establish a more restorative and
victim-friendly climate in the country, we have
to start as early as in schools.
54
49

Co-operation on national and international

level should be intensified through by
establishing networks, study visits, organizing
conferences, exchanging information, etc.
In summary, a lot remains to be done for
the full implementation of the Victims
Directive RJ provisions and minimum
standards for victim protection in
Bulgaria.
55
Thank you for your kind attention!!!
Time for questions

chankova@yahoo.com
56
50
Thursday 20th November

1. Partner Presentations
Ben Lyon and Grace Loseby (IARS, UK): Safeguarding Victims and Empowering
Professionals in Restorative Justice: Findings from the UK
Representing the final partner country and lead in this project, Ben Lyon and Grace Loseby from IARS
presented the findings for the UK. Overall they found that there was an understanding of how the
Victims Directive could build capacity for the successful implementation of RJ. However, they also
noted realising The Directive in practice was still problematic, noting that the only way to guarantee
its successful implementation was to directly empower and inform victims of their rights.
Safeguarding Victims and Empowering Professionals in
Restorative Justice : Findings from the UK
Ben Lyon a nd Grace Loseby, IARS
RJE is funded under EC Grant Agreement JUST/2011-2012/JPEN/AG/2951
The Victim Directive

DIRECTIVE
2012/29/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND OF THE COUNCIL of 25 October 2012
Lisbon Treaty 2008 Articl e 82 (2.b)
51
The most important task is to change the culture..
.it seems to me that this cultural change will also involve the adoption
by those bodies responsible for the governance of the police, the
prosecution and the judiciary of their own responsibility for ensuring
that the rights of victims are properly observed. This is not only a
question of bringing about a major cultural change, but there should be
regular evaluation of what has been achieved by the bodies responsible
for the governance of the police, prosecutors and judges.
Note:
Lord J Thomas (now Lord Chief Justice) Court of Appeal of England and Wales, Then - Deputy Head of Criminal Justice in England and Wales,
President of European Network of Councils for the Judiciary 2008-2010
Research Findings
For the victims, restorative justice practices must be
victim-led and safeguarded.
Most of the offenders said that if they had undergone
restorative justice they would want to do it to
understand the impact of their offence on the victim.
There is consensus among experts that almost no
information on the Directives implications is provided
while most agencies are unaware of its existence.
Findings
Current excellent existing practice

Ambivalence, re need for compliance
Uncertainty, re status, provision, language
Training and supervision (Article 12)
Victim Empowerment
52
Victim Empowerment
Empowerment
Rights
Enforcement
Understanding
Article 12
Right to safeguards in the context of restorative justice services
Member States shall take measures to safeguard the victim from secondary and repeat victimisation, from
intimidation and from retaliation, to be applied when providing any restorative justice services. Such measures
shall ensure that victims who choose to participate in restorative justice processes have access to safe and
competent restorative justice services, subject to at least the following conditions:
(a) the restorative justice services are used only if they are in the interest of the victim, subject to any safety
considerations, and are based on the victim's free and informed consent, which may be withdrawn at any time;
(b) before agreeing to participate in the restorative justice process, the victim is provided with full and unbiased
information about that process and the potential outcomes as well as information about the procedures for
supervising the implementation of any agreement;
(c) the offender has acknowledged the basic facts of the case;
(d) any agreement is arrived at voluntarily and may be taken into account in any further criminal proceedings;
(e) discussions in restorative justice processes that are not conducted in public are confidential and are not
subsequently disclosed, except with the agreement of the parties or as required by national law due to an
overriding public interest.
Member States shall facilitate the referral of cases, as appropriate to restorative justice services, including through
the establishment of procedures or guidelines on the conditions for such referral.
Indications for Compliance
In the interests of the victim

Full and unbiased information
Free and informed consent
Acknowledgement of responsibility
Confidentiality
Assessment (Article 22)
Training (Article 25)
8
53
Conclusions
Victims - informed and empowered
Accountability an auditable record
Independent inspection systems
Independence - from the executive
Transparency - in funding & provision
The
The Current
Current Reality?
Reality?
II feel
feel so
so very
very sorry
sorry for
for these
these families.
families. They
They
make
make these
these statements
statements thinking
thinking they
they are
are
going
going to
to make
make aa difference,
difference, but
but they
they make
make
no
difference
at
all.
Someone
should
no difference at all. Someone should tell
tell
them
them
18
18
54
2. Keynote Speakers
Mike Penning UK Justice Minister (Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims)

Opening his talk with a brief overview of his background in policing and counter-terrorism, as well as
his extensive career as a firefighter, the Minister then proceeded to introduce the topic of his
discussion with the question: What is a victim? He argued that the label is one which some people
may not feel comfortable with, and as such we should be aware of its use.
Minister Penning went on to state that there were positive things to come out of Europe, and the
Victims Directive was one of them. Despite his declared Eurosceptic position, he continued by
saying that the UK needed to get behind these positive outcomes, and that being wary of Europe
and its diktats simply meant being selective with what we choose to implement in the UK.
However, he claimed that we needed something fit for purpose and having to comply with targets is
not the way to do this, we cant be pushing RJ on victims for the sake of filling a quota. He promised
that Victims Commissioner would ensure that this does not happen.
Questions from the floor opened with a question from a representative of the probation officers
union, who wanted to know how a pro-victim change in culture was actually going to come about
considering that currently the money flows towards the offender, not the victim. And as such there
is limited scope for the practical application of this rhetoric of change. The Minister, keeping his
answer short, responded that although we are not there yet, we are certainly going in the right
direction.
Deborah Coles from Inquest, then picked up on the Ministers original question of definition of the
term victim, and reacted by saying that families of victims, and in particular families of victims who
died in the care of the state, are also victims, and yet are completely ignored.
An exchange of views then ensued when Felicity Gerry QC requested concrete answers as to how
exactly the Minister suggested that the Victims Directive and the change in culture it implies would
be implemented? In response the Minister mentioned that adherence to the Directive would
necessitate a change in domestic law, and therefore a long process of consultation and review.
Reacting to this, Felicity responded by stating that the information and the toolkits were already
55
there, and suggested therefore that the government was showing hesitancy to implement the
Directive1. Minister Penning responded by saying that she was nave in thinking that such a change
in legislation would come so easily.
Gabrielle Browne (Victim and Independent Advisor for the RJE project): What victims
want from criminal justice and restorative justice
Speaking as a victim of a serious sexual assault as well as an independent RJ advisor, Gabrielle based
her talk around her experience of being trained as an RJ practitioner within an unnamed MOJ
approved organisation. She explained that the programme she had participated in violated the
Directive in multiple ways, highlighting cases of RJ being denied to victims, the use of proxies
without the consent of the victim, and overall the complete lack of adequate training she received.
Highlighting all these issues she returned to the main focus of her presentation, what victims wanted
from the criminal justice system and restorative justice: to be listened to, to be safe from revictimisation within the criminal justice system, or RJ, and that the very positive advances in the
Directive need to matched by their delivery.
Felicity Gerry, QC Best Practice for Vulnerable Victim-Witnesses

Felicity Gerry began by noting that vulnerability had been one of the recurrent topics and a key area
of concern over the course of both days of this conference. In response to this she directed
delegates attention to The Advocates Gateway [http://www.theadvocatesgateway.org/], which
seeks to address vulnerability in the Criminal Justice system by providing free access to practical,
evidence-based guidance on the issue of vulnerable witnesses and defendants. Felicity then
proceeded to the paper she had prepared, which is included in its entirety below:
A short paper for the 3rd IARS International Annual Conference: A victim-led criminal justice
system? By Felicity Gerry QC2
Further comments about this debate can be found Felicity Gerry QCs blog post for the Huffington Post at:
<http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/felicity-gerry/victim-led-justice_b_6228664.html>
2
Felicity Gerry QC was appointed Queens Counsel in 2014 after 20 years at the criminal Bar in England and Wales. She has been
recognised in the Legal 500 as a Fearless and effective advocate and Tenacious in court and An expert in the field of sex offences and
in Chambers and Partners as A vastly experienced advocate noted for her expertise in serious sexual offences, homicides and complex
frauds. Commentators note her bold style of advocacy and her skill in dealing with young and vulnerable defendants. At the independent
Bar, Felicity has prosecuted and defended in numerous cases involving major, serious and complex crime, often with an international
element. This has included cross-jurisdictional rape, murder by foreign nationals involving evidence obtained from abroad, conspiracy to
import illegal immigrants and international fraud. Her significant trial and appellate experience has also led to an expertise in online
offending in the context of online abuse and exploitation, money laundering and online fraud. She has, for example, used data and metadata
as evidence in criminal cases. She is co-author of The Sexual Offences Handbook that sets out all the English law, practice and procedure
from 1957 to date in this difficult field of law and has a dedicated chapter on indecent images and obscene publications. She regularly
publishes in the broadsheet and legal press as well as peer reviewed papers and is on the Management Committee for The Advocates
1
56
Vulnerable witnesses dignity and respect.3

A review of aggressive courtroom cross-examination of vulnerable victims in England and Wales is
to be launched. Justice Minister Damian Green cited a recent child prostitution case in which one
victim was cross-examined for 12 days by seven defence barristers. He said work would be carried
out over the summer to find ways to curb hostile practices after cases where witnesses were left
"deeply traumatised". Victim Support said the justice system often overlooked the victim. Mr Green
said vulnerable victims currently often faced reliving the "most horrific experience they have ever
had", sometimes for days on end, when cross-examined in court.The growing number of cases
where victims report being left deeply traumatised by aggressive cross-examination from multiple
defence barristers mean that questions must be asked..I have ordered an investigation into how we
might reduce the distress caused to victims without compromising the fundamental right to a fair
trial." BBC News June 2013
The NSPCC has launched a campaign to protect child witnesses in cases where they have alleged they
are the victim of abuse.4 The charity cites examples of advocacy which did not apply expected good
practice and it makes for grim reading. One mother, Erica, says that the barristers for both
prosecution and defence were so insensitive in their questioning that one day in the witness box
destroyed her childrens self-confidence which took years to re-build. Concern has been expressed
that the presiding judge must have taken the view that there was nothing wrong with this and did
not step in. Such examples are being used as part of a campaign to demand better treatment of child
witnesses. The same issues have been raised by a few practitioners for a long time and are now,
finally, being heard by the judiciary. It is vital that witnesses in all proceedings are supported to be
able to give their best evidence.
The suicide of Frances Andrade in February 2013 was a wake-up call for everyone in the criminal
justice system which many perceived had failed her abysmally. Having just finished giving evidence
against Michael Brewer at his criminal trial, whom she accused of abusing her when she was a child,
Frances took an overdose of prescription drugs and died 3 days later. She didnt live to see Brewer
convicted of offences against her. In cross examination, Brewers counsel had put his instructions that
Frances was a liar and a fantasist. She had texted a friend after her ordeal in court saying that the
experience made her feel like she had been raped all over again. Frances had a known history of
mental health problems, and her treatment as a victim of crime is not uncommon. It is also not
necessarily unlawful but is it good practice? Traditionally, witnesses are required to relive their
traumatic experiences in the unfamiliar, very formal and sometimes hostile environment of a court
room. An analysis of the cross examination shows no irrelevant questioning. Arguably the issue there
was the facilities and support but in other cases it is the approach of the whole process.
Courts are also daunting and unfriendly places, where very personal issues, often traumatic to the
individual concerned, are ventilated in a similar way. Advocates and the judiciary in criminal cases
are changing the way they practice to recognise that it is incumbent on a system of justice to protect
Gateway that produces the toolkits for advocacy involving the vulnerable. Since 2013, Felicity has also held a research active post at Charles
Darwin University, Australia, focussing on data and rights, particularly in the context of violence against women and girls and the rule of
law online. She lectures in crime, evidence, torts and practical advocacy and is Chair of the Research and Research Training Committee in
the School of Law at Charles Darwin University. She specialises in vulnerable offenders including women and speaks regularly on gender
equality issues including chairing the G20 televised section of the gender equality summit. She recently published a paper in Computer Law
and Security on the rule of law online and is currently reporting for ILRS of the ABA on the draft Cyber Law for Cambodia.
3
Taken in part from an article by Felicity Gerry QC and Jonathan Wheeler for APIL Magazine.
4
[http://www.nspcc.org.uk/news-and-views/our-campaigns/current-campaigns/young-witnesses/order-in-court_wda102903.html]
57
the vulnerable and disadvantaged. Research as set out by The Advocates Gateway5 has
demonstrated that trials involving vulnerable witnesses and suspects need to be approached in a
developmentally appropriate and effective way by all parties and the judiciary. This applies
throughout the trial in any justice system. Proper presentation of cases involving vulnerable people
involves the provisions of special measures which might include; picture boards for witnesses with
limited communication; or signers for deaf defendants; or pre-recorded video interviews for children
giving evidence.
I prosecuted a recent child rape trial at Lincoln Crown Court which was held to be fair where the child
did not come to court at all.6 Evidence of pre-recorded video and audio was admitted along with
drawings and writings by the child which gave ample scope for comment. The only real issue was
whether mother had put her up to concoct a false story and mother was available for cross
examination. Leave to appeal was refused and the conviction stands largely because there was
ample supporting evidence which demonstrates the need for a quality investigation although this
paper will focus on in-court advocacy.
There is no need to shout. Good prosecutors effectively mother their witnesses through the system
and effective defence advocates can disarm a witness with kindness. Thus balance and fairness is
maintained without loss of dignity or respect.
On a practical level, the use of intermediaries and of pre-recorded oral evidence, for example, can
enable vulnerable witnesses to participate in the hearing in a manner that best meets their needs by
ensuring that the evidence they give is the best evidence achievable. Inconsistencies can be agreed
on paper and the jury can receive proper directions on the law on how to approach statements made
out of court. Training in this area, of both judges and advocates, is vital. If everyone does their job
properly, judges need not intervene at all. Several of us at The Advocates Gateway have pioneered
the sensitive approach to be taken, particularly in cases involving sexual offending. A well prepared
examination in chief or cross examination can effectively challenge the evidence of a witness and
show it to be wrong without the witness having to be bullied or humiliated by the experience. It can
be done with dignity and respect, whether the witness is the alleged victim or the accused.
The approach to such cases needs to be balanced and collaborative. It is not a lawyer bashing
exercise nor is it an opportunity for judges to become autocratic or enter the arena. It really is time to
recognise that people with vulnerabilities and disabilities can be assisted to fully participate in the
trial process without in any way compromising the effectiveness of the advocate.
The old fashioned adversarial approach is based on historic rules of competence Calling evidence
from women and children and other vulnerable witnesses was believed to be inherently dangerous.7
Corroboration was required and judges routinely warned juries that such testimony was unreliable.
The modern approach recognises research that, given the right assistance, witnesses can be
questioned and cross questioned without unnecessary trauma in a balanced way that allows for a
fair hearing for all concerned.
[www.theadvocatesgateway.org]
[http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-20594179]
7
R v Brasier (1779) 1 Leach 199; 169 ER 202
6
58
This has been recognised and is being applied in criminal and family cases and the civil courts will
have to follow suit. Many psychiatrists believe that the stress and trauma of the litigation process
can prolong or exacerbate the psychological symptoms with which witnesses suffer. The justice
system, must be robust to root out the incredible and improper and malicious but it need not be
abusive to those who participate in it.
Interestingly, by November 2015, EU member states will need to have demonstrated that they have
modified their domestic laws to give effect to the Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum
standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime by adopting various means,
combining legislative, administrative and practical measures, and taking into account good practices
in the field of assistance and protection for victims. To begin to understand how this might interest
civil practitioners, it is worth noting that, for the purpose of the directive, a victim is defined as
follows:
a natural person who has suffered harm (including physical, mental or emotional
harm or economic loss) directly caused by a criminal offence regardless of whether
an offender is identified, apprehended, prosecuted or convicted and regardless of the
familial relationship between them (see Recital 19).
family members of the deceased victim, who have suffered harm because of persons
the death directly caused by a criminal offence (paragraph 1(a)(ii)). The criterion
harm should be interpreted in the context of the individual emotional relationship
and/or direct material inter-dependence between the deceased victim and the
relative(s) concerned.
Victims and defendants may be vulnerable. This needs to be recognised and our processes adapted to
accommodate them to deliver a fair result. The Interim Report of the Children and Vulnerable
Witnesses Working Group set up by Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division was published
in August 2014. It draws on the experience of the Advocacy Training Council after a decades
research into the treatment of vulnerable witnesses in criminal cases. There are 20
recommendations, largely taken from the toolkits prepared and published by the Advocates
Gateway. The toolkits demonstrate that a sensitive approach does not inhibit cross examination and
fair trials are perfectly achievable.
A pilot scheme which allows vulnerable witnesss cross-examination to be pre-recorded8 is running in
three crown courts Kingston, Leeds and Liverpool. The judges are vetting the cross-examination
questions before they are put. Subject to a positive evaluation, the Justice Minister has pledge to roll
out the scheme for child witnesses throughout England and Wales.9 In addition, the Ministry of
Justice has announced that by March 2015 it will devise a requirement that publicly funded criminal
advocates undergo specialist vulnerable witness training before being allowed to take on sexual
assault and rape cases.10
Section 28, Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
[https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/354723/commitment-to-victims.pdf]
Ibid
10
59
The approach to vulnerable witnesses requires training for judges and advocates communicating
with children and other vulnerable witnesses, increased support for such witnesses and the more
effective and efficient use of court time. The practical application of the work of the Advocacy
Training Council is already underway in the form of the toolkits prepared by The Advocates Gateway
in both criminal and family proceedings and procedures that recognise the more modern approach
including:
i. Improved practice directions and court rules on special measures for vulnerable witnesses.
ii. Recognising that vulnerable witness can cover suspects as well as witnesses (on either side).
iii. Early consideration on how best to provide for the participation and support of vulnerable
witnesses so that he or she can be supported and assisted to give best evidence.
iv. Recognising vulnerability in order to make provision for such support, special measures or other
assistance they may need to properly and fully participate in the proceedings and to give best
evidence;
Implementation will inevitably be by training although there is concern that the current proposed
QASA will not achieve what is really required in this field, particularly since the judges also need the
training. The slow process of improvement in the criminal courts has been as a result of the efforts of
a few practitioners. The effect of the EU Directive will make that process imperative and those who
are out of step will need to adapt and adapt soon. It is a brave new world and we all need to engage
with and be a part of a future that ensures vulnerable people in justice systems are treated with
dignity and respect.
Felicity concluded by observing how worrying it was that a UK Minister of State for Justice should
stand up, as Mike Penning did earlier in the day, and ask the question what is a victim?, considering
the reams of expert analysis and research on that precise issue that is contained in the very Directive
he was discussing. She also remarked, in response to the topic frequently discussed during this
conference of effecting a culture change, that there is reason to be optimistic: the toolkits are there
and attitudes, at least among lawyers, are changing. A question was asked from the floor, regarding
whether this situation would be improved by more information on criminal justice procedures being
part of school curricula, to which Felicity responded emphatically in the affirmative; commenting
that education could fundamentally do a great deal more than a lawyer will ever be able to do.
3 Workshops
Workshop Group 3: The fluidity of Victimhood

Thursdays workshop on the fluidity of Victimhood opened with Giuseppe Maglione from Edinburgh
Napier University. His presentation focused on the definition of Victim and the definition of Offender
both in the Criminal Justice System and in the Restorative Justice tradition, and crucially how these
labels affect the experience of both the Victim and the Offender. Giuseppe posited that Restorative
Justice and Conventional Criminal Justice Systems are both narratives in which the labels Victim
and Offender are subject positions. In other words by assigning these labels we define the way that
person acts, we give them a field in which they can exist, proscribe their behaviour and shape their
identity. In the case of Restorative Justice there is a clearly defined field to which the Victim is
assigned. They are usually seen as an emotional subject, in need of empowerment, seeking
60
communication. The Offender on the other hand is not so clearly defined. The victim movement has
traditionally underpinned Restorative Justice on one hand and the lack of offender advocacy on the
other hand has leads to this imbalance of definitions. Pointing this out Giuseppe explained that as a
result there was very little space in Restorative Justice for the Offender, and that this potentially
presented an area in which the boundaries of Restorative Justice could be further pushed out.
The next presentation was on lived experience. Speaker Deborah Coles first spoke briefly about her
organisation Inquest, a small charity which works with the families of prisoners whove died in state
institutions, helping them navigate the painful process which follows. In keeping with the previous
talk, here too the narrowness of the traditional definition of Victim was called into question,
highlighting the fact that families of victims are consistently excluded from this definition, and more
generally pointing out the dichotomy between deserving and underserving victims, with inmates of
state institutions falling clearly into the latter category. Deborah then gave the floor to Marcia Rigg,
the sister of one such victim, who has been campaigning to find out exactly what happened to her
brother after his death in custody. She spoke of covering up evidence, of the body of her loved one
being withheld, of being ignored, of being gagged, unable to speak of your case right at a time when
you feel such a need to talk, no support and no counselling offered to the families. She highlighted
the expense, the time it took to fight all of this and that most families simply couldnt afford to fight
for the truth. Deborah then finished the presentation condemning the cuts to Legal Aid and
acknowledging the work of families like Marcias who do continue to fight in order to ensure that
other families wont have to go through the same experience.
The last speaker of the workshop was Dr Nicola Graham-Kevan, who presented the findings of her
research about victims and trauma. Her paper explored the impact which previous trauma, such as
childhood experiences of Domestic Violence, and psychological symptoms, in particular a persons
ability to cope with trauma, has on adult victims of violent crime. The study looked at 52 victims
identified from Police, Victim Support of domestic violence databases. Her findings were wide
ranging and extremely interesting touching upon on the possibility that a certain level of previous
trauma may actually make a person more resilient to subsequent trauma, or the that lengthy
exposure to domestic violence during childhood might be a risk factor for future trauma. She also
highlighted the fact that trauma, depending on the past experiences and the psychological make-up
of the victim, can vary widely. In particular it was found that most trauma only manifests itself
61
months after the offence; official psychological support, counselling and trauma diagnosis for victims
of violent crime need to take this into account.
Workshop Group 4: Relinquishing Power

With presentations from Simon Fulford and Lisa Rowles from Khulisa, an organisation specialising in
the delivery of Restorative Justice in the UK and in South Africa, as well as practitioners Dr Evelyn
Zellerer from Peace of the Circle and John McDonald from ProActive Resolutions, this workshop
focused on the need to relinquish power for Restorative Justice to work. Relinquishing personal
power and hierarchies like in the case of Evelyns Peace Circles or the Ubuntu philosophy embraced
by Khulisa, but also more generally to accept the limitations which Restorative Justice faces as a
practice.
With the help of global communications, education, politics and science, we have come a long way
with Restorative Justice in the past 5 years. When it comes to relinquishing power, changing
perspective is fundamental. The future for RJ practice is increasingly hopeful as it is now being
integrated more widely in the criminal justice system. We have made significant progress in the way
in which we interact with each other as human beings. However, it is understood that the state can
only do so much to intervene. Thus, there is now an urgency to raise public awareness, taking into
consideration facts which are usually dismissed such as offenders perhaps being victims themselves.
We must look at the whole picture. Hence, the question mark in the title of the conference offers
the chance for debate: should the criminal justice system be victim-led alone? Or should we try to
engage communities in the process too? This gives insight into the next move; how do we
bureaucratise and safeguard rights without stealing them from the people who own it? For this to
become clear, there needs to be a metaphoric shift; for Restorative Justice to become a lifestyle, not
simply an alternative.
Workshop Group 5: Victims and Criminal Justice Services: Best practice

This workshop highlighted two separate standpoints on restorative justice in South Africa and the
UK. Speaking about best practice in the case of South Africa, Dr Hema Hargovan from the University
of Kwazulu-Natal, explained that restorative justice had developed in her country as a reaction to
the violence and oppression of Apartheid and the need for the country as a whole to overcome this
trauma. Hema highlighted that Restorative Justice initiatives have an important part to play in order
to eradicate political tension and represent a potential bridge between communities and the state.
Restorative Justice in South Africa is different from Eurocentric models in that it is intricately tied up
with the process of democratisation, but also because it reflects traditional Ubuntu philosophy
based on social harmonisation and justice. Ubuntu was used as the basis of the post-apartheid
Constitution, and as such affords RJ enjoys a much more established legal grounding than in Europe.
Speaking about Restorative Justice in the UK, Michael Kearns highlighted the importance of
language in the restorative process, and specifically the weight of the term victim. Preferring the
term survivor, Michaels presentation then focused on the inter-personal violence in cases of
domestic violence and gang related sexual violence pointing out that we often see a blurring
between offenders and survivors and that best practice must take this into account. Furthermore,
Michael argued that the best and most effective RJ practice are built on the right conversation;
gathering the right people and at the right time. Through trust, commitment and engagement in
these conversations, victims can grow to become survivors and then fight as activists to inspire
62
change. Restorative practice must evaluate the victims needs, the offenders needs and the
communitys needs. During this process, however, we must question what is real and not real. Our
reality depends on our perspectives but it is difficult to interpret whether the victim or the offender
is telling the more accurate story; thus, every case is unique and so it is best to always remain
unbiased.
Workshop Group 6 Human Rights and Restorative Justice

Dr Dan Riesel opened this session with a brief yet impactful presentation on Female Genital
Mutilation (FGM), highlighting its prevalence, the geographical areas affected and the multiple
human rights that it violates. As a cultural practice which is deeply embedded the blame for these
acts rests on entire communities, the waters are furthered muddied by the fact that cutters, those
who perform FGM are nearly always victims themselves. This blurring of the lines between offender
and victim, as well as the societal dimension of the practice, was starkly highlighted in the two talks
which followed Dans presentation: Sarian Kamara a victim of FGM as a child in Sierra Leone and
Mamuna Jawo both a victim and a cutter who practiced in Ghana before seeking asylum in the UK.
In such a complex context, Restorative Justice could potentially be part of a holistic approach to
FGM, helping to create a common ground from which to combat the practice.
The next speaker to take the floor was Anne Hayden who spoke about the need to have a victim led
criminal justice system. But beyond this statement Anne argued that we need to re-evaluate the way
society establishes who is a victim by challenging the established stereotypes of both victims and
offenders. The presentation focused on two case studies, one a Mori man who refused to accept
the jurisdiction of the court, the other a man who had been a victim of intimate partner violence.
Finally, Grace Loseby and Ben Lyon wrapped up the workshop with a role play exercise aimed to get
the audience thinking about the application of the Victims Directive in cases of Restorative Justice
practices. Taken from case studies various scenarios were distributed and participants were asked to
apply the principles of the Directive to their case.
63

A Victim-Led Criminal Justice System IARS Conference Proceedings 2014

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

A Victim-Led Criminal Justice System IARS Conference Proceedings 2014

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

3rd IARS International Annual Conference

19th -20th November 2014

A victim-led criminal justice system?

Printed and designed in the UK by IARS

Wednesday 19th November

2. Partner Presentations (Morning)

Vasso Artinipoulou (EPLO, Greece): Safeguarding victims and empowering professionals:

Safeguarding Victims &

About the European Public Law

Prof. Vasso Artinopoulou, 2014

Project Objectives for Greece

Prof. Vasso Artinopoulou, 2014

Restorative Justice in Greece

Laws and provisions found in criminal and civil law and

Law 3500/2006 On Confronting Domestic V iolence and other

Prof. Vasso Artinopoulou, 2014

NGOs have vital role in promoting the practice of RJ

In practice: organizational, operational and financial

Prof. Vasso Artinopoulou, 2014

Action Research & New Data

Prof. Vasso Artinopoulou, 2014

speed and im m ediacy of the processes

Prof. Vasso Artinopoulou, 2014

Research results (2)

Prof. Vasso Artinopoulou, 2014

Workstream 4: Pilot & Implementation

Training and capacity building material, and protocols

Prof. Vasso Artinopoulou, 2014

Prof. Vasso Artinopoulou, 2014

Prof. Vasso Artinopoulou, 2014

Prof. Vasso Artinopoulou, 2014

Effectiveness of RJE in Greece

RJE prov ide great support to victims and professionals

Prof. Vasso Artinopoulou, 2014

Key project staff

Ms. Iro Michael, PhD student, Panteion

Prof. Vasso Artinopoulou, 2014

Restorative Justice in Europe (RJE) Project Resources

RJE is funded under EC Grant Agreement JUST/2011-2012/JPEN/AG/2951

Restorative Justice in Europe:

The European Victims Directive and

The European Victims Directive and

Restorative Justice Theory goes beyond this

Restorative Justice Typology

For the purposes of this Directive the following

(ii) family members of a person whose death was directly

'family members' means the spouse, the person who

Art. 4: Right to receive information from the

Art. 12: Right to safeguards in the

Member States shall take measures to safeguard the victim

Online Victim Satisfaction Survey

Art. 28 Provision of data and Statistics

Going online 1/2

Search of institutions providing restorative

Inviting 711 institutions to participate.

Going online 2/2

Sending 1.879 cover letters, links, and TANs.

Final Response rate and Results

Figure 1: Did you already know of RJ

Table 2: I have been informed

that I am free to quit at any time

... that a written agreement only comes

Table 3: Outcomes of the RJ service