Dr Stephanie Price is a research assistant for the School of Law and Society and the Sexual Violence Research and Prevention Unit at the University of the Sunshine Coast, as well as the Tasmania Law Reform Institute at the University of Tasmania. She has a PhD (Criminal Justice), Graduate Diploma (Psych) and Bachelor of Social Science (Justice studies) (Hons). Her research interests include restorative justice, sexual violence, policy development and program evaluation.
I’ve been passionate about restorative justice since I first learned about it as a student. I recall watching a short video about a post-sentencing Victim-Offender Mediation program in Newfoundland, where a mother was talking about her experience meeting the man who murdered her daughter and the benefits she gained from this. I was amazed, and an instant advocate. If this program could help this mother find some semblance of closure, and encourage the offender to face up to what he had done, surely the potential was limitless? This was the hook for me.
8 years later, I have submitted my doctoral thesis. In this thesis, I examine the history, development, and implementation of restorative justice policy and practice in the Queensland criminal justice system – for both justice-involved young people and adults. In my thesis I address three research questions: (1) How has restorative justice been implemented in Queensland, and why? (2) How is restorative justice currently being applied? and (3) How can restorative justice practice in Queensland be improved to optimise benefits for all stakeholders? I addressed these questions with three case studies: a historical analysis of primary and secondary source materials, a process evaluation of a youth restorative reintegration pilot program, and a statistical analysis of program and administrative data from the Adult Restorative Justice Conferencing program.
Over the course of my research, it became clear restorative justice isn’t being utilised as well as it could be for adult perpetrators of crime and their victims, particularly when compared to justice-involved youth. Program uptake for adult offenders never really took off in Queensland, and it appears to have plateaued, with consistently low referral rates to the Adult Restorative Justice Conferencing program and limited use of Victim-Offender Mediation in the Mornington Island and Aurukun Restorative Justice Projects.
My research shows policy and practice for adult perpetrators were developed in a very different way to the youth justice conferencing program, with one very clear, very big distinction. Restorative justice is a legislated option to respond to crime committed by young people, but not for adults.1 This is a bit surprising given the first restorative justice program in Queensland (i.e., the Crime Reparation Project) initially accepted referrals for both young people and adults, operating as a mediation scheme under the Dispute Resolution Centres Act 1990 – which is civil legislation designed for neighbourly/interpersonal disputes, just not excluding criminal matters. Over the next 30-years, Queensland would see youth conferencing take-off (that is, comparatively), supported by the inclusion of conferencing in the Juvenile Justice Act 1992. Meanwhile, the adult-focused conferencing project remained relegated to the periphery, averaging somewhere between 150-450 referrals per year – although these numbers were seldom reported.
From my first case study – having examined parliamentary debates, legislative amendments, academic publications and program evaluations, and news media – a clear pattern emerged, that of the response to . . . moral panic! Using youth justice as an example, it was evident that legislation in Queensland was amended shortly after the media and parliament announced that there was a youth crime “crisis” – every time,2 which typically had direct implications or flow on effects for the legislated youth restorative justice conferencing program.
Yet these “crises” have not been supported by police or court data. Rather they are the exaggeration of a handful of extreme cases by Australian media, supported at times by members of opposing political parties. Cases like a motor vehicle theft incident led to the deaths of three people in 2021, the murder of a woman by two teenage boys in North Lakes, Brisbane in 2022, and a violent attack on a security guard Helensvale, Brisbane as recently as August 25, 2023. While these are devastating examples of serious crimes committed by young people, they are not indicative of a larger crises. Youth crime rates tend to fluctuate, higher in some years and lower in others, likely reflecting normal temporal adjustments and changes in population rather than actual increases in offending behaviours. Earlier this year, Mark Ryan, Minister for Police and Corrective Services, announced that the rate of unique young people and adults engaged with the justice system was the “lowest on record” over a 10-year period. So, it seems unlikely that the current apparent peak in youth-perpetrated crime is anything but typical. Regardless, crises like these have triggered legislative amendments, oftentimes not based in evidence – like the revocation of court powers to issue conferencing referrals under the Newman Government in 2012.3
The Mornington Island and Aurukun Restorative Justice Projects are also examples of this notion. Both projects – primarily available to adult perpetrators/defendants – were developed in response to community and government concern about crime rates, alcohol misuse, petrol sniffing and community conflict, which were highlighted in Australian media reports (e.g., Dunlevy, 2008; Nancarrow, 2013). While these concerns may or may not have been exaggerations like that of the youth crime crises, the parallel public outrage and media reporting (i.e., moral panic) were triggers for the development of each program. Unfortunately, evaluations of both projects illustrate significant flaws and limitations with implementation, including the need for greater community participation at all stages of development and implementation (in Aurukun particularly), and – importantly – increased government investment in welfare services to address the underlying criminogenic risk factors stemming from social and welfare disadvantages.4
Looking at the outcomes of these evaluations alongside this pattern of outrage-and-response, it is clear policy and practice should be developed on the back of evidence and in response to actual community need (as identified by the community), rather than simply attempting to pacify the loudest voices. At first glance, it appears that adult perpetrators and their victims would benefit from legislating restorative justice conferencing as an option to respond to crime – increasing referral numbers and program utilisation; however, this may be a simplification.
Using data from the A.C.T. Restorative Justice Unit as an example, legislation alone may not be enough. In comparison to youth conferencing, there is a lack of evidence to inform program development, with few evaluations conducted or published, and limited program data reported. Much more research and transparency around restorative justice for adult perpetrators is essential to improve and develop programs to better meet their needs and those of their victims. Research should explore the mechanisms or functioning of programs for this population, as well as program outcomes. For example, studies into the mechanisms of restorative justice conferencing for young people have identified that putting emotions at the core of conflict resolution can aid engagement for both victims and perpetrators. The use of language by and attitudes of facilitators can influence a young person’s desire and ability to engage, thereby influencing program success or failure in terms of achieving and complying with outcome agreements.5 But this may differ for adults. Using what we do know from youth conferencing in Queensland and program evaluations of the Mornington Island and Aurukun projects, it seems clear that legislation would need to be implemented alongside appropriate incentives for program referrals, such as those utilised in youth conferencing (i.e., police data monitoring) and increased funding of welfare services to address criminogenic risk factors (e.g., alcohol misuse) and attend to the needs of victims (e.g., emotional support or counselling services).
Please see my recent article, Restorative Justice as Diversion for Adult Offenders in Queensland, 1990-2021, for further information.
1 Price, S., Prenzler, T., McKillop, N., & Rayment-McHugh, S. (2022). The evolution of youth justice conferencing in Queensland, 1990-2021. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 34(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2021.1988248; Price, S., Prenzler, T., McKillop, N., & Rayment-McHugh, S. (2023). Restorative justice as diversion for adult offenders in Queensland, 1990-2021. Queensland Review, 29(2). 107-119. https://doi.org/10.1558/qre.23950
2 This is also evident to a lesser extent for adult-perpetrated crime (e.g., acts of domestic and interpersonal violence), but with little impact on restorative justice for adult perpetrators.
3 Price, S., Prenzler, T., McKillop, N., & Rayment-McHugh, S. (2022). The evolution of youth justice conferencing in Queensland, 1990-2021. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 34(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2021.1988248
4 Colmar Brunton. (2014). Mornington Island Restorative Justice Project Evaluation. National Indigenous Australians Agency; Limerick, M. (2017, April). Evaluation of the Aurukun Restorative Justice Project: Final report: Review of outcomes. Queensland Government.
5 Riley, M., & Hayes, H. (2018). Youth restorative justice conferencing: Facilitator’s language – help or hindrance? Contemporary Justice Review, 21(1), 99-113. https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2017.1413358; Suzuki, M., & Yuan, X. (2021). How does restorative justice work? A qualitative metasynthesis. Criminal Justice and Behavior( February). https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854821994622
