Case Study: Youth Caution
The offender, a 17 year old boy, drove his mother's new car without permission and crashed into a driving instructor's car. The victim suffered considerable inconvenience and his work was disrupted. The case was referred to the Youth Offending Service who undertook an assessment and decided that the most appropriate outcome was a Caution. Alongside this all parties agreed to participate in an RJ conference. This was subsequently attended by the victim, his wife, the offender and his mother.
It became apparent that the boy was taking the car to a friend to have some minor damage repaired, to please his mother. When police attended her workplace following his arrest, her first thought was that he had died. As the victim and his wife were parents too, they clearly empathised with her.
The victims were asked what what could be done to put right the harm the boy had caused. They replied that the insurance excess was the key impact (other than their time) and the victim's mother paid them there and then. It was clear that the by would be working to pay that off. The victim and his wife had been somewhat cynical about the process beforehand and confirmed that they found the experience positive and beneficial.
Case Study: Adult Conditional Caution
The offender, an 18 year old male, broke into the victim's garage one night on his way home from the pub, having drunk a considerable amount of beer. He broke the garage window, damaged a fence, and left his coat behind. He was chased by a neighbour who was woken by the noise, but not caught. He was arrested the following day, having been identified by possessions in his coat pocket. He had no recollection of events, but accepted responsibility for the damage. At interview, he expressed remorse, offered to pay the victim for the damage, and wanted to apologise.
The conditional caution caseworker visited the victim. He had slept through the break-in, but was awoken by his neighbour in the early hours, which he described as a rather unsettling experience, but was otherwise not harmed emotionally. He did, however, talk about the hassle of getting quotes and organising repairs. He had costed the repairs and gave receipts to the caseworker. He agreed to meet the offender, on the grounds that it would clear the air and may be beneficial to the offender to come face to face with his victim. He said he appreciated being contacted by the caseworker and asked his views.
The case was sent to the CPS with the recommendation for 2 conditions: firstly, financial compensation be paid; and secondly, the offender attend a meeting to apologise in person to the victim. The offender agreed to these conditions. The CPS authorised this recommendation, and decided on a level of compensation that would reflect not just the actual cost of repairs but also some compensation for the trouble caused to the victim.
The offender paid the compensation promptly. A meeting then took place, along the lines of an informal Restorative Justice conference, with the offender, the victim and the offender's mother. The victim's neighbour was invited, but declined as he felt he would get too angry. The meeting started with the offender being asked to explain what happened, as far as his memory would allow. The victim filled in the details, and the offender was shocked to hear what he had done. The victim then described how he and his neighbour had been affected. The offender's mother was invited to say how she felt about it. The offender apologised unreservedly, and said that he would be very careful in future about not drinking to excess. The victim thanked the offender for paying the compensation so promptly. When the victim asked him why he had picked his garage to break into, he was reassured to hear that the offender had not deliberately targeted him. The offender wanted to apologise in person to the neighbour, but it was agreed that in view of the neighbour's antagonism, the victim would pass on his apology to him. The victim ended the meeting by saying that as far as he was concerned, the matter was over and they should all put it behind them, and everyone concurred with this.
Case Study: Conditional Caution
Two young men followed a group of friends out of a village pub, after being told they were there by the girlfriend of one of the offenders. This girlfriend's family had been harassing the victim's family for some time. After some verbal abuse, two of the friends ran off leaving the 15 year old male victim and his 12 year old sister. The 2 offenders tripped up the boy, punched him and took a tobacco tin and some cigars off him which they threw into a field.
The case was referred by CPS for a conditional caution. The offenders accepted responsibility for the assault and were willing to apologise. The offenders accepted cautions with conditions that they pay compensation to the boy of £10 each, and attend a restorative justice conference.
The conference started with the two offenders giving an account of what they did. They both acknowledged that they had acted wrongly and apologised. The victim said how frightened he had been at the time, and how he has been worried for his safety since the assault. His sister also voiced her concerns, and his mother spoke about the harassment from the girlfriend's family. The mother of one of the offenders was present. She had initially been hostile to the process but now she realized that the attack had not been as minor as she had supposed, and she too was worried that the girlfriend had used her son for her own ends. She heard with some sympathy of the harassment, and the two mothers ended up on good terms and with some common understanding of the harm caused.
The offenders gave the victim the compensation. The victim said that the tobacco tin had been a gift and had great sentimental value, so the 2 offenders promised that they would return to the field the following weekend and search for it. Everyone agreed that the assault had been instigated by the girlfriend and should not have happened. The offenders assured the victim and his family that they had nothing to fear from them. The offenders again apologised and they all shook hands
Case study: CONNECT restorative justice project.
John, a physically active young artist, was knocked off his motorbike by a young criminal in a stolen car. He asked for RJ because he said he did not want all his pain and injury to be in vain and thought that the offender should face him, listen to the consequences of his action and address his behaviour to avoid this happening again. At first the offender, Mark, was unwilling to meet John, but after a number of meetings where a restorative facilitator worked with Mark to help him understand the impact of crime on victims, Mark wrote a very genuine letter of apology, offering to meet John to apologise in person. The face to face meeting took place, and both participants felt it had been worthwhile. Afterwards a previously sceptical prison officer said that he believed the likelihood of Mark re-offending had dropped significantly.
Case study: Restorative Community Conferencing.
A group of shopkeepers were outraged by the behaviour, over a long period of time, of a group of youths who congregated in their shopping centre. The police were called on numerous occasions; some youths were arrested and taken to court, others were cautioned, but the nuisance only worsened. Local police officers negotiated with the shopkeepers, some of the young people involved and the Youth Service, and organised a restorative community conference to address the effects of the youths' behaviour and find solutions. The conference, attended by some thirty people, took the best part of a day, and ended in agreement on a code of behaviour that the young people undertook to enforce themselves. It also involved the Youth Service organising extra activities for local young people. The behaviour of the young people in the shopping centre was much improved, and police call-outs much reduced. The shopkeepers were satisfied that their complaints had been taken seriously; the young people felt they had been treated fairly and their needs considered.
The offender, a 17 year old boy, drove his mother's new car without permission and crashed into a driving instructor's car. The victim suffered considerable inconvenience and his work was disrupted. The case was referred to the Youth Offending Service who undertook an assessment and decided that the most appropriate outcome was a Caution. Alongside this all parties agreed to participate in an RJ conference. This was subsequently attended by the victim, his wife, the offender and his mother.
It became apparent that the boy was taking the car to a friend to have some minor damage repaired, to please his mother. When police attended her workplace following his arrest, her first thought was that he had died. As the victim and his wife were parents too, they clearly empathised with her.
The victims were asked what what could be done to put right the harm the boy had caused. They replied that the insurance excess was the key impact (other than their time) and the victim's mother paid them there and then. It was clear that the by would be working to pay that off. The victim and his wife had been somewhat cynical about the process beforehand and confirmed that they found the experience positive and beneficial.
Case Study: Adult Conditional Caution
The offender, an 18 year old male, broke into the victim's garage one night on his way home from the pub, having drunk a considerable amount of beer. He broke the garage window, damaged a fence, and left his coat behind. He was chased by a neighbour who was woken by the noise, but not caught. He was arrested the following day, having been identified by possessions in his coat pocket. He had no recollection of events, but accepted responsibility for the damage. At interview, he expressed remorse, offered to pay the victim for the damage, and wanted to apologise.
The conditional caution caseworker visited the victim. He had slept through the break-in, but was awoken by his neighbour in the early hours, which he described as a rather unsettling experience, but was otherwise not harmed emotionally. He did, however, talk about the hassle of getting quotes and organising repairs. He had costed the repairs and gave receipts to the caseworker. He agreed to meet the offender, on the grounds that it would clear the air and may be beneficial to the offender to come face to face with his victim. He said he appreciated being contacted by the caseworker and asked his views.
The case was sent to the CPS with the recommendation for 2 conditions: firstly, financial compensation be paid; and secondly, the offender attend a meeting to apologise in person to the victim. The offender agreed to these conditions. The CPS authorised this recommendation, and decided on a level of compensation that would reflect not just the actual cost of repairs but also some compensation for the trouble caused to the victim.
The offender paid the compensation promptly. A meeting then took place, along the lines of an informal Restorative Justice conference, with the offender, the victim and the offender's mother. The victim's neighbour was invited, but declined as he felt he would get too angry. The meeting started with the offender being asked to explain what happened, as far as his memory would allow. The victim filled in the details, and the offender was shocked to hear what he had done. The victim then described how he and his neighbour had been affected. The offender's mother was invited to say how she felt about it. The offender apologised unreservedly, and said that he would be very careful in future about not drinking to excess. The victim thanked the offender for paying the compensation so promptly. When the victim asked him why he had picked his garage to break into, he was reassured to hear that the offender had not deliberately targeted him. The offender wanted to apologise in person to the neighbour, but it was agreed that in view of the neighbour's antagonism, the victim would pass on his apology to him. The victim ended the meeting by saying that as far as he was concerned, the matter was over and they should all put it behind them, and everyone concurred with this.
Case Study: Conditional Caution
Two young men followed a group of friends out of a village pub, after being told they were there by the girlfriend of one of the offenders. This girlfriend's family had been harassing the victim's family for some time. After some verbal abuse, two of the friends ran off leaving the 15 year old male victim and his 12 year old sister. The 2 offenders tripped up the boy, punched him and took a tobacco tin and some cigars off him which they threw into a field.
The case was referred by CPS for a conditional caution. The offenders accepted responsibility for the assault and were willing to apologise. The offenders accepted cautions with conditions that they pay compensation to the boy of £10 each, and attend a restorative justice conference.
The conference started with the two offenders giving an account of what they did. They both acknowledged that they had acted wrongly and apologised. The victim said how frightened he had been at the time, and how he has been worried for his safety since the assault. His sister also voiced her concerns, and his mother spoke about the harassment from the girlfriend's family. The mother of one of the offenders was present. She had initially been hostile to the process but now she realized that the attack had not been as minor as she had supposed, and she too was worried that the girlfriend had used her son for her own ends. She heard with some sympathy of the harassment, and the two mothers ended up on good terms and with some common understanding of the harm caused.
The offenders gave the victim the compensation. The victim said that the tobacco tin had been a gift and had great sentimental value, so the 2 offenders promised that they would return to the field the following weekend and search for it. Everyone agreed that the assault had been instigated by the girlfriend and should not have happened. The offenders assured the victim and his family that they had nothing to fear from them. The offenders again apologised and they all shook hands
Case study: CONNECT restorative justice project.
John, a physically active young artist, was knocked off his motorbike by a young criminal in a stolen car. He asked for RJ because he said he did not want all his pain and injury to be in vain and thought that the offender should face him, listen to the consequences of his action and address his behaviour to avoid this happening again. At first the offender, Mark, was unwilling to meet John, but after a number of meetings where a restorative facilitator worked with Mark to help him understand the impact of crime on victims, Mark wrote a very genuine letter of apology, offering to meet John to apologise in person. The face to face meeting took place, and both participants felt it had been worthwhile. Afterwards a previously sceptical prison officer said that he believed the likelihood of Mark re-offending had dropped significantly.
Case study: Restorative Community Conferencing.
A group of shopkeepers were outraged by the behaviour, over a long period of time, of a group of youths who congregated in their shopping centre. The police were called on numerous occasions; some youths were arrested and taken to court, others were cautioned, but the nuisance only worsened. Local police officers negotiated with the shopkeepers, some of the young people involved and the Youth Service, and organised a restorative community conference to address the effects of the youths' behaviour and find solutions. The conference, attended by some thirty people, took the best part of a day, and ended in agreement on a code of behaviour that the young people undertook to enforce themselves. It also involved the Youth Service organising extra activities for local young people. The behaviour of the young people in the shopping centre was much improved, and police call-outs much reduced. The shopkeepers were satisfied that their complaints had been taken seriously; the young people felt they had been treated fairly and their needs considered.