Restorative justice for adult offenders in South Australia: judicial perspectives and insights

ABSTRACT

Restorative justice seeks to address harms arising from criminal conduct, with a focus that extends beyond punishment. While Australia has embraced restorative justice practices for young and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander offenders, programs for adult offenders have been comparatively slow to progress. Despite the reliance on judicial officers as the primary referral mechanism, there is limited research examining their views of restorative justice, particularly in the context of adult offenders. This paper presents the findings from a survey and interviews with judicial officers in one Australian jurisdiction: South Australia. There was clear support for restorative justice measures for adult offenders for a broad range of offences. Some concerns were raised with respect to victims’ safety, and the additional time and resources that restorative justice expends. Overall, the study found that the judicial officers who participated would welcome the introduction of a restorative justice program for adult offenders. With this support, and the potential benefits of restorative justice for victims, offenders, and the community, South Australia should consider extending its restorative justice offerings to adult offenders.

KEYWORDS:

• Restorative justice
• adult offenders
• referral
• victims of crime
• community

Introduction

Restorative justice (RJ) is a form of relational justice that serves the needs of victims of crime, offenders, and communities, and which departs from more punitive responses (Braithwaite, 2020; Larsen, 2014). RJ seeks to proactively address the consequences of criminal behaviour, repair attendant harms, and promote offender accountability (Braithwaite, 2004; Williams, 2012; Zehr, 2014), and encompasses a broad range of practices, including family group conferencing, victim-offender mediation, community panels, restorative cautioning, and circle sentencing (Haines & O’Mahony, 2006; Halsey et al., 2015; Maxwell & Hayes, 2006; Suzuki & Wood, 2017; Yeong & Moore, 2020). Programs can vary considerably (Daly, 2004; Haines & O’Mahony, 2006), but are guided by similar principles and aims. These typically include encouraging offenders to take responsibility for their actions, helping them to modify future behaviours, and restoring victims, relationships, and communities (Gerkin et al., 2017; Halsey et al., 2015; Hayes, 2005; Rodriguez, 2007; Stephens, 2007; Zehr & Mika, 2003). Programs generally bring together the offender, victim/s, their supporters, and a convener/facilitator, to discuss the offence, to understand the impact on the victim/s and wider community, and to promote offender accountability and healing (Bidois, 2016; Daly & Marchetti, 2012). Victims are given the opportunity to share how the offence has affected them and ask the offender any questions, while the offender may discuss the circumstances that led to the offence (Daly & Marchetti, 2012). The RJ process typically concludes with an outcome agreement, which may incorporate an apology, restitution, community work, and/or a commitment by the offender to engage in services and programs to address their needs and to help prevent reoffending (Bolitho, 2015; Daly & Marchetti, 2012; Richards et al., 2017).

This paper focuses on Australia, where RJ first gained momentum in 1991 as an alternative to mainstream criminal justice practices for young offenders (Williams, 2012). RJ programs for young offenders are now operational in every Australian jurisdiction (Daly & Marchetti, 2012; Weatherburn & Macadam, 2013), and studies have generally reported favourable results (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW], 1998; Suzuki & Wood, 2018). In 1999, RJ initiatives designed to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) adult offenders were first implemented in South Australia, and expanded quickly (Daly & Marchetti, 2012; Fitzgerald, 2008; Weatherburn & Macadam, 2013). These programs strive to deliver a culturally appropriate process, reduce barriers between ATSI communities and the courts, increase awareness of the impact of offending on ATSI communities to which offenders may belong, reduce overrepresentation of ATSI offenders in the criminal justice system, and address recidivism by ATSI offenders.¹ The programs are designed as informal and culturally specific interventions, to better support ATSI victims and offenders, and to encourage the involvement of ATSI communities. As part of the process, Aboriginal Elders may offer culturally appropriate sentencing recommendations to a presiding Magistrate (Daly & Marchetti, 2012).

While RJ programs for young and ATSI adult offenders have become embedded across Australia, programs for non-ATSI adult offenders have been much slower to develop (Halsey et al., 2015; Sewak et al., 2019). There is currently² only one RJ program for non-ATSI adult offenders,³ and two combined programs for all offenders (young and adult)⁴ operational in Australia. South Australia is one jurisdiction that does not offer RJ for non-ATSI adult offenders. This paper reports the findings of a study which sought the perspectives of judicial officers in South Australia regarding the prospective use and benefits of RJ for adult offenders. The paper first provides an overview of key literature and issues with respect to RJ. The study scope and focus are then set out, followed by a summary of the key results. The findings are discussed in detail, and the conclusion notes a number of policy and operational implications, along with recommendations for future research.

Literature review

Restorative justice practices draw from dispute resolution traditions that have existed for centuries (Bazemore & Umbreit, 2001; Liebmann, 2007; Shen, 2016). Modern RJ emerged in the context of victim-offender mediation for young offenders in Canada in 1974 (Braithwaite, 1999a; Liebmann, 2007; Maglione, 2022). The program brought together the victim, offender, and a mediator, and functioned as a sentencing alternative with a focus on material reparation for the victim (Braithwaite, 1999a; Liebmann, 2007; Maglione, 2022). Similar programs spread throughout Canada and the United States (US) as advocates sought alternative ways to deal with conflict and harm, amid a growing awareness that punitive sanctions can be ineffective and costly (Braithwaite, 1999a; Liebmann, 2007; Maglione, 2022). In the 1980s, Canada introduced a circle sentencing program based on ancient healing practices of Canadian Indigenous peoples (Bazemore & Umbreit, 2001; Strang, 2001). Circle sentencing meetings comprise victims, offenders, and supporters for both parties (with the two communities coming together in a circle), and the focus is to address symbolic and emotional reparation, rather than material recompense (Braithwaite, 1999a; Maglione, 2022). In 1996, a circle sentencing pilot program was implemented in the US state of Minnesota (Bazemore & Umbreit, 2001). During the 1980s and 1990s, RJ programs were typically small scale, and operated at the periphery of the criminal justice system (Braithwaite, 1999a; Maglione, 2022).

In New Zealand and Australia, RJ processes have been incorporated into criminal justice outcomes that are bound by and codified into legislation (Halsey et al., 2015; Strang, 2001). In 1989, New Zealand established its first legislated RJ program under the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (Daly & Marchetti, 2012; Strang et al., 2013). Family Group Conferencing was modelled from traditional Māori dispute resolution practices (Bazemore & Umbreit, 2001; Braithwaite, 1999a). It was initially developed as a diversionary program for young offenders, in response to dissatisfaction with the conventional justice system, and the perceived inability of existing processes to address the needs of victims of crime (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2001; Liebmann, 2007; Sewak et al., 2019; Suzuki & Hayes, 2016; Williams, 2012). The young offender is required to admit to an offence, after which they and their family are invited to participate in a conference with the victim and their supporters. A key aim is to educate young offenders about the consequences of their actions, and participants are encouraged to agree ways to repair relevant harm/s (Bazemore & Umbreit, 2001; Braithwaite, 1999b; Liebmann, 2007). In 1991, the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW) piloted its own RJ program for young offenders, adopting similar features to the New Zealand model (Williams, 2012). South Australia was the first Australian jurisdiction to enact a legislated RJ program for young offenders, in 1994 (Daly & Marchetti, 2012).

RJ programs, their aims and expected benefits, are guided by and situated within a number of theoretical positions, with reintegrative shaming the framework with which RJ is most commonly associated (Braithwaite, 2020; Daly & Marchetti, 2012; Shapland et al., 2006; Williams, 2012). Reintegrative shaming consolidates and builds upon a combination of sociological theories, including control theory, subcultural theory, differential association, strain theory, and labelling theory (Braithwaite, 1989). Fundamental to the reintegrative shaming process is to enable and ensure that offenders are held to account for their actions, while also helping to reintegrate them into society. Shaming without reintegration risks stigmatising offenders – mainstream criminal punishment typically embodies stigmatic shaming, as there are few gestures of forgiveness, and limited efforts to reintegrate offenders (Braithwaite, 1989). Reintegrative shaming embraces the offender’s actual and potential support network – family, friends, and their community – whose shaming is followed by acceptance and associated efforts to reintegrate them into the community (Braithwaite, 1989). Reintegrative shaming has been influential in shaping RJ programs across Australia, with the focus on bringing together the parties and communities that have been affected by the offending, and which are integral to the reintegration of the offender (Daly & Marchetti, 2012; Weatherburn & Macadam, 2013; Williams, 2012).

Reintegrative shaming explicitly describes the types of cases/offences that are suitable for referral for RJ intervention: the offence should be a ‘predatory crime’, there must be a victim, and a social consensus that the act should be deemed a criminal offence (Braithwaite, 1989, p. 14). Offences that risk no harm, or which have no immediate or obvious victim should not be referred, as this can be ineffective, risk net-widening, and leave offenders unsure of the harm they caused or how to make amends (Bazemore & Umbreit, 2001; Braithwaite, 1989, 1999b; Haines & O’Mahony, 2006; Suzuki & Wood, 2017). O’Mahony and Doak’s (2004) study of a restorative-cautioning program for young offenders in Northern Ireland found evidence of net-widening. The program was used for very young offenders and minor offences, which would have previously been dealt with informally and outside of the criminal justice system (O’Mahony & Doak, 2004). A British program for adult offenders also experienced net-widening, with some cases receiving higher levels of intervention than they would have otherwise received (Braithwaite, 2002). O’Mahony and Doak (2004) found that referrals must be closely monitored to ensure the types of offenders and offences are suitable for RJ to reduce the risk of net-widening effects.

Another concern relates to victim engagement and low levels of victim participation (Earle et al., 2002; Haines & O’Mahony, 2006; Liebmann, 2007; Rosenblatt & Adamson, 2023). Active involvement in RJ can help with a victim’s emotional recovery, increase their sense of procedural fairness, and reduce fear, anger and, in some cases, symptoms of post-traumatic stress syndrome (Lawler et al., 2023; van Camp & de Mesmaecker, 2014). Most victims who participate in RJ have a positive experience and value the opportunity to express their views and discuss the ramifications of the offence to their offender. Haines and O’Mahony’s (2006) study of the Northern Ireland Thames Valley initiative for young offenders found that nearly all victims who attended the program were satisfied with the conference process: 71% of victims felt better after the conference, and 60% said the conference ‘helped to put the offence behind them’ (Haines & O’Mahony, 2006, p. 114). Lawler et al. (2023) evaluated an RJ program in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) in the context of young and adult offenders convicted of domestic and family violence and sexual violence offences, and found that victims felt supported, experienced increased feelings of safety, regained a sense of control, felt they were able to say what they wanted, and had a better understanding of the offence.

Despite the potential benefits for victims, studies consistently find low rates of victim participation in RJ (Daly, 2004; Rosenblatt & Adamson, 2023). Earle et al. (2002) study of Youth Justice Referral Orders in England and Wales found that only 13% of victims attended a meeting. The Thames Valley Police initiative in Northern Ireland reported only 14% of victims participated (Haines & O’Mahony, 2006). Bolitho (2015) examined a NSW victim-offender conferencing program for adult offenders convicted of serious offences and found that 8% of referrals resulted in a face-to-face conference between the victim and offender (Bolitho, 2015). There are many reasons for victim non-attendance/participation. Suzuki and Wood (2017) noted that insufficient time is typically given to the RJ process, and judicial officers can actively discourage victim participation. Marder (2020) reported that police facilitators may fail to invite victims to avoid delays in the process. Moore (2022) found that victims fear re-victimisation, or that they will not be taken seriously. Rosenblatt and Adamson (2023) similarly note that victims fear meeting their offender, and suggest that victim non-attendance can also be due to a belief that the offender will be insincere, or that the offence was too trivial. Lawler et al. (2023) found that some victims declined to participate due to the long delays associated with allocating the matter to a convener and wanting to move on with their lives.

Victims’ interest in participating in RJ generally decreases where the impact of the offence is minor, and victims are less likely to feel like RJ has helped them when the offence is less serious (Moore, 2022; O’Mahony & Doak, 2004; Shapland et al., 2006). Haines and O’Mahony (2006) explain that low levels of victim engagement limits the capacity for reparation and reintegration. RJ is an opportunity for victims to be heard, and to rebuild relationships between victims and offenders, and advocates argue that this is best achieved when victims and offenders actively participate (Stephens, 2007). Alternatively, Rosenblatt and Adamson (2023) contend that victim attendance is not always desirable. It is possible to help offenders to understand the harm caused in the victim’s absence, and having an open and meaningful dialogue with offenders (particularly with young offenders) can be better achieved without the victim present.

There is debate within RJ literature that some serious offences are inappropriate for RJ measures – particularly sexual and family violence, and homicide offences. Sewak et al. (2019) note some compelling reasons why homicide offences are typically excluded from RJ practice. For example, where RJ operates as a diversion or pre-sentencing program, it may support the notion that homicide offences will be treated less seriously. In addition, there may be an imbalance of interests between victims and offenders. Victims may have a passive role, be used as a tool to educate offenders, or help divert them away from the criminal justice system. Despite concerns about the appropriateness of RJ for homicide offenders, the family of victims, and offenders, have expressed satisfaction after engagement with RJ. Booth (2003) examined a victim-offender conferencing program in NSW for adult homicide offenders: offenders welcomed the opportunity to accept accountability for the harm caused and apologise to the family victims. Family victims reported beneficial effects from talking to the offender about their grief and how the offence has affected their lives. Victims of crime do not have a specific role within mainstream criminal justice, and their justice needs are often left unaddressed. The NSW victim-offender conferencing program enabled active engagement by victims, offenders, and the community and provided an opportunity to start to address harms in a safe and supported environment (Booth, 2003).

Offences labelled ‘gendered violence’ – such as sexual and family violence – are also often prohibited from RJ programs, although programs are slowly expanding. For example, gendered violence cases are now eligible within RJ programs in New Zealand (Stubbs, 2009), United Kingdom (Gavin et al., 2024), United States (Barocas et al., 2024), South Australia (Curtis-Fawley & Daly, 2005), Queensland (Curtis-Fawley & Daly, 2005; Jeffries et al., 2021), and the ACT (Lawler et al., 2023). There are a number of compelling critiques against the use of RJ for gendered violence, with a key concern being the inherent power imbalance between offender and victim, which can lead to re-traumatisation and/or re-victimisation during the RJ process (Gavin et al., 2024). Jeffries et al. (2021) and Stubbs (2009) note that offenders can be highly manipulative. They may exploit the informal RJ process, take the opportunity to victim blame, minimise their accountability, and/or replicate their dominance and control over their victims. Even if an apology is forthcoming, it may be voiced as a tactic rather than a genuine attempt to take responsibility. Other concerns include the RJ process being viewed as a soft option, and that outcomes are too lenient for serious offending involving gendered violence (Curtis-Fawley & Daly, 2005).

Notwithstanding these concerns, Gavin et al. (2024), Lawler et al. (2023), and Jeffries et al. (2021) propose that RJ can be preferable to traditional criminal justice for victims of gendered violence. The informal and flexible nature of RJ is better able to empower victims, give them a voice, and cater to their specific needs (Jeffries et al., 2021). Where the offence can be disempowering, RJ can help victims to regain agency and control (Gavin et al., 2024). RJ can also support the rehabilitation of offenders through targeted interventions, and RJ programs produce more positive outcomes than mainstream criminal justice processes – for victims and offenders (Bouffard et al., 2017; Stephens, 2007). With respect to domestic and family violence (DFV), Barocas et al. (2024) argue that it is a community concern as the widespread physical and mental health effects are felt across communities and can cause additional resourcing issues for social support agencies and law enforcement. RJ can facilitate community engagement, with respect to specific offenders, and more broadly.

Curtis-Fawley and Daly (2005) explored the views of victim advocates regarding RJ for gendered violence. Their Australian study comprised four sub-studies, which included interviews with victim advocates and with women working in policy and government positions, an archival analysis of sexual offence cases, and an in-depth analysis of 15 sexual assault and domestic violence conferences (Curtis-Fawley & Daly, 2005). All victim advocates spoke negatively about standard practices in the criminal justice system, but supported the criminal justice system as the best avenue for addressing gendered violence. Victim advocates with the more limited exposure to RJ held more negative views, or believed the initiative was only suitable for young offenders and minor offences. Those with more experience of RJ were more likely to articulate the potential benefits, such as giving victims a voice, a chance to be heard and start to address power imbalances. Victim advocates held differing views about where RJ is best placed within the criminal justice system. When operating as an alternative form of justice, RJ was more likely to be viewed as a softer option, and less capable of dealing with serious crimes, such as gendered violence. This compares with the operation of RJ within the criminal justice process, where the system retains the power to sanction offenders. Curtis-Fawley and Daly (2005) concluded that RJ can be most effective when integrated into the criminal justice framework, providing victims and offenders with a forum that is legally and emotionally significant. In a more recent UK study, exploring the views of RJ practitioners and experts regarding its use in sexual violence cases, Gavin et al. (2024) reported similar findings. All participants supported the use of RJ for cases involving sexual violence, if the program is victim-led and operates within a criminal justice process. Respondents did express concerns about power imbalances and the risks of re-victimisation and re-traumatisation, noting that advanced facilitator training is essential to ensure delivery of a safe, effective, and trauma-informed program.

A large body of research has examined RJ across a number of jurisdictions, with studies exploring the benefits and risks, costs, effects on recidivism, and the impact of de/institutionalisation on offenders (Bolitho, 2015; Braithwaite, 1998; Daly & Marchetti, 2012; Dzur & Olson, 2004; Fitzgerald, 2008; Gerkin et al., 2017; Halsey et al., 2015; Hayes, 2005; Jeffries et al., 2021; Larsen, 2014; Latimer et al., 2005; Richards et al., 2017; Sherman et al., 2000; Weatherburn & Macadam, 2013). Research has also analysed differences between adult and young offenders, with respect to their offending behaviours, risk profiles, situational/environmental factors, and the efficacy of different types of criminal justice responses (Latimer et al., 2005; Richards, 2011; Strang et al., 2013). Such considerations underpin the development and analysis of RJ.

The origins and evolution of RJ is centred on young offenders, and it has become a significant part of youth justice policies internationally. Research on the effectiveness of RJ programs for young offenders consistently demonstrate positive results (Bazemore & Umbreit, 2001; Bergseth & Bouffard, 2007, 2012; Bouffard et al., 2017; Buchanan, 2020; Crawford & Newburn, 2002; Daly, 2004; Earle et al., 2002; Haines & O’Mahony, 2006; Hayes & Daly, 2004; O’Mahony & Doak, 2004; Prichard, 2007; Rodriguez, 2007). Richards (2011, p. 6) contends that the criminal justice system treats young offenders differently, when compared with adults, largely due to the inexperience and immaturity of young people, and their greater ‘propensity to desist from crime’. Halsey et al. (2015) suggest that RJ programs are directed towards young offenders because of a spike in criminal offending in late adolescence, and because young offenders typically engage in less serious crimes. It is common for offending behaviour to begin and peak during a person’s late teenage years and early twenties (Braithwaite, 1989; Evans, 2017).

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), in 2020–2021, 82% of recorded offenders were over the age of 20 years (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2021). If this percentage is typical, RJ programs limited to young offenders can only support a relatively small proportion of the overall offending population. Rodriguez (2007) and Halsey et al. (2015) suggest that the focus on young offenders reflects the RJ emphasis on rehabilitation, which is more in line with the welfare philosophy of youth justice systems, compared to a typically more retributive orientation of criminal justice processes for adult offenders. However, this does not diminish the potential value of RJ programs for adult offenders. Halsey et al. (2015) conducted observations and evaluations of a South Australian conference-based pilot program for adult offenders, which commenced in 2004. The conference was attended by the offender, victim, their supporters, a police officer, and two facilitators. It focused on the impact of the offence, and sought to repair the harm caused to the victim, and a Magistrate could take the conference into consideration during the sentencing process. The adult offenders were found to effectively articulate apologies, express remorse, accept responsibility for their behaviour, propose how they will repair the harm, and understand how they could prevent future offending (Halsey et al., 2015). Booth (2003) and Bolitho (2015) examined a post-sentence victim-offender mediation program for adult offenders in NSW, with most offenders still serving a prison sentence at the time of the mediation. Any case involving an adult offender is eligible for referral, including serious and violence offences, but the mediation will only proceed if the victim agrees to participate. Both studies found that the program ‘matched the unmet justice needs of each victim’ (Bolitho, 2015, p. 270; Booth, 2003). Participants were satisfied with their experience, and felt they had a deeper sense of justice following the mediation.

Other studies have suggested that RJ measures for adult offenders have been slow to progress, due to a lack of support from criminal justice professionals (Gerkin et al., 2017; Halsey et al., 2015; Suzuki & Wood, 2017). Braithwaite (1999b) notes that lawyers and judges hold the strongest resistance to RJ. Suzuki and Wood (2017, 2016) and Richards et al. (2017) refer to judicial officers (Judges and Magistrates) as the ‘gatekeepers’ to RJ – without their support ‘there would be no cases to handle’ (Gerkin et al., 2017, p. 3). Suzuki and Wood (2017) argue that judicial officers can have too much control over the RJ process, which can obstruct programs and prevent them from reaching their full potential. The programs examined by Gerkin et al. (2017) and Halsey et al. (2015) both received substantially fewer referrals than expected. Gerkin et al. (2017) examination of a US pilot program for adult offenders, found that the program received only 70 referrals over a two-year period, and only 15 completed the program, despite the jurisdiction processing over 4,000 suitable cases each year. For the South Australian pilot program for adult offenders, any case heard in the Magistrates’ Court was eligible for referral, but all referrals originated from only one Magistrate, and only 12 conferences were successfully completed during the 12-month pilot program (Halsey et al., 2015).

The few studies which sought the views of judicial officers have found support for the use of RJ. Richards et al. (2017, p. 29) examined the views of the NSW Children’s Court Magistrates, and found that RJ measures were overwhelmingly supported for young offenders. Stephens (2007) conducted interviews with Judges working in Toronto, Canada regarding their perspectives on the RJ principles and programs implemented into the criminal justice system. The Judges expressed a number of concerns, including the lack of time, resources, and community involvement, and the risk of net-widening (Stephens, 2007). However, the Judges welcomed the program, agreeing that it enables them to be creative with sentencing conditions and focus on offender rehabilitation. It is worth noting that most Judges were more supportive for the use of RJ with young offenders. Stephens (2007, p. 58) explained that the Judges agreed ‘there was more scope within the youth justice framework for RJ initiatives than the adult system’. Furthermore, Canada’s circle sentencing program was developed by Judges (Bazemore & Umbreit, 2001), and Bidois (2016), a New Zealand Judge, has expressed clear support for RJ initiatives.

There is currently only limited research specifically examining the perspectives and/or understanding of judicial officers, particularly with respect to RJ initiatives for adult offenders. The study from which this paper is derived sought to address this gap, with a focus on the state of South Australia.

Research method

Scope

In 1994, South Australia became the first Australian jurisdiction to implement a legislated RJ program for young offenders (Daly & Marchetti, 2012). Family Group Conferencing is a diversionary program to which young offenders can be referred by police officers after they admit to the commission of a minor offence. Young offenders who participate in the conference, and comply with the outcome plan, are able to avoid formal processing through the courts (Young Offenders Act 1993 (SA)). In 2004, South Australia introduced a pilot RJ program for adult offenders (Halsey et al., 2015). This was akin to the Family Group Conferencing model, with some key differences:

1. Magistrates could refer offenders to the program only after a guilty plea;

2. the program was available for a wider range of offences, including serious offences; and

3. after the conference, offenders returned to court for formal sentencing.

In reviewing the pilot program, Halsey et al. (2015) noted beneficial effects for offenders in terms of reform and rehabilitation. They found that the program could improve the perceptions and experiences of victims of crime, and identified possible wider benefits with respect to public safety. The authors recommended the introduction of a legislated adult RJ program in South Australia, but this recommendation has not been implemented.

The current study canvassed the views and perceptions of judicial officers in South Australia regarding the potential use and value of a legislated RJ program for adult offenders. The study sample was purposive. All judicial officers working within the South Australian Supreme Court, District Court, and Magistrates’ Court were invited to participate. The South Australian Youth Court, Environment, Resources and Development Court, and Civil Tribunals were excluded from the study, given the research focus on RJ initiatives for adult criminal offenders.

Procedure

Ethical approval was provided by the Deakin University Human Ethics Advisory Group: HAE-22-033. Permission was also provided by the Courts Administration Authority of South Australia.

The judicial officers were sent a Plain Language Statement and a link to an online Qualtrics survey. Judicial officers were also invited to be interviewed, if that was their preference. The survey and interviews were framed around comparable question prompts, although the latter allowed for deeper reflection and discussion. Eight judicial officers participated in the study, six completed the survey, and two were interviewed. Table 1 summarises the participants, and the court in which they sit. This is a lower absolute number than hoped for, and reflected the practicalities of engaging with judicial officers and the limited time available for the study’s data collection. However, the sample size compares with previous studies (e.g. Richards et al. (2017) interviewed 12 Magistrates in NSW, and Stephens (2007) interviewed 12 judges in Toronto, Canada). The insights offered are valid and create an excellent starting point from which to refine and develop further research. To prevent inadvertent identification of participants, no additional breakdown of the data is provided.

Table 1. Number of study participants, by court jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction	Cohort	Participants	% of Cohort
Supreme Court	16	2	13%
District Court	23	3	13%
Magistrates Court	40	3	8%
Total	79	8	10%

Research design

The survey and interview questions were guided by findings from previous research (Gerkin et al., 2017; Halsey et al., 2015; Rossner & Bruce, 2018), and principles and processes derived from the reintegrative shaming theoretical framework (Braithwaite, 1989).

Judicial officers were invited to complete the survey at any time. The nine questions included a combination of 3-point Likert scales, open response, multiple choice, and rank order questions. The questions examined judicial perspectives regarding RJ, to identify any specific concerns and particular areas of support for the use of RJ initiatives for adult offenders. In-person interviews were audio recorded, and covered comparable questions to those in the survey. The recordings were transcribed verbatim by the interviewer.

Research analysis

Interview transcripts and open-ended survey responses were coded and analysed by a single researcher using a template thematic analysis: an inductive reflexive design (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2022). The analysis was inductive (the dataset being the basis from which the themes were derived, and the purpose was to give voice to participants), but the overall themes were guided by the questions that were asked of the dataset. This approach builds upon comparable studies which have explored experiences and perspectives of justice professionals and other key stakeholders (Richards et al., 2017; Stephens, 2007; Suzuki & Wood, 2017). Drawing from previous studies, key themes were developed from the data, with participant consensus and divergence explored. Example quotations are included within the Results section to illustrate the findings of relevance, with narratives offering opposing viewpoints included where available. Given the differences in the specific approaches, the survey and interview results are presented separately and then discussed collectively.

Limitations

The paper can report only the perspectives of judicial officers who chose to participate. Although 10% of judicial officers took part, the findings are not necessarily representative of the broader judicial cohort in South Australia.

Results

Survey of judicial officers

The survey respondents were asked about RJ programs for cases involving adult offenders. The findings are set out in four sections, covering: the offence types; benefits of RJ; key concerns; and overall support for RJ.

Offence types

Respondents were asked which of four offence categories they perceived would benefit from RJ intervention, with the results illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Perceived effectiveness of restorative justice measures, by offence type (n=6).

Most respondents (67%) perceived RJ to be an effective way to address cases involving family violence, violence crimes, and property crimes. RJ was considered less effective for cases involving sexual offences.

Key benefits of restorative justice

Table 2 provides a list of potential benefits of RJ that respondents were asked to number from 1–9 (with 1 being the most beneficial). An examination of the mean figures indicates that the victims’ opportunity to feel heard, and the offenders’ opportunity to better understand the harms caused, were regarded as the most beneficial aspects of RJ. The least beneficial elements of RJ related to potential community effects.

Table 2. Perceived benefits of restorative justice, ordered from most to least beneficial (n = 6).

Potential Benefits	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Count
Victims: opportunity to feel heard	1.00	5.00	2.67	6
Offenders: opportunity to better understand the harms caused	1.00	5.00	2.83	6
Victims: opportunity to share the harms caused with the offender	1.00	4.00	3.00	6
Offenders: opportunity to show remorse	1.00	6.00	3.50	6
Offenders: opportunity to make amends	1.00	7.00	4.33	6
Victims: opportunity to contribute to an offender’s rehabilitation	4.00	9.00	6.83	6
Community: contribute to offender rehabilitation	3.00	9.00	6.83	6
Community: better understand harms caused to victims	4.00	9.00	7.17	6
Community: better understand offender motivations	6.00	9.00	7.83	6

Within an optional open text comment box associated with this question, one respondent noted an additional potential benefit for judicial officers themselves:

… to gain better insight into the offender and his/her background and better evaluation of effect upon victim and effect of restorative justice on victim. [JO-3]

The benefits of RJ for offenders and victims were further interrogated according to two broad offence categories: crimes against the person, and acquisitive/property crimes. Figure 2 confirms that respondents’ views regarding the benefits for offenders were identical, regardless of the offence category. Overall, five respondents (83%) agreed that offenders should have the opportunity to demonstrate that they take personal responsibility for their actions, and attempt to repair the harm caused. Four respondents (67%) also agreed that offenders should have the opportunity to show remorse/apologise directly to their victims. The respondents’ views regarding the benefit for victims differed slightly according to crime category. For cases involving crimes against the person, four respondents (67%) agreed that victims should have the opportunity to discuss the crime with offenders. Support was higher for acquisitive/property crimes, with five respondents (83%) agreeing. No respondents perceived that victims should not have this opportunity.

Figure 2. Benefits of restorative justice for offenders and victims, by offence category (n = 6).

Key concerns about restorative justice

Within open text questions, respondents were asked to identify any concerns about the use of RJ for adult offenders. Two respondents (33%) specifically noted potential risks to the victims:

Victims rarely wish to participate in restorative justice programs as it risks significantly retraumatising them. [JO-5]

… in my long experience victims never attend them. They don’t want to be re-traumatised, they want to move on with their lives, so they don’t attend. [JO-5]

I would not rule out any particular type of offender or offence provided the victim fully consents and is properly protected. [JO-6]

Two respondents (33%) regarded the RJ process as inappropriate until after the offender has accepted responsibility for the offence, also noting potential risks to victims:

Offenders who have not pleaded guilty but have been found guilty and refuse to accept verdict/finding. The process may be more damaging to the victim in such a circumstance. [JO-3]

No point where the defendant does not accept their guilt (ie they pled guilty and were convicted at trial), or have no genuine remorse. [JO-5]

The same two respondents (33%) were also concerned about the limited time and resources available for RJ processes:

Availability of resources to accommodate restorative justice so all offenders have equal opportunity to access it. [JO-3]

They require a significant amount of time and public money, and so should be used selectively only where there is a real chance of good outcomes … Also, they take 3–4 times longer than a standard sentencing process … [JO-5]

Support for restorative justice

Despite sharing a number of concerns, all respondents indicated they would either support (50%) or maybe support (50%) the use of RJ for adult offenders. Respondents who indicated that they may support RJ, were asked to qualify their view. Support was conditional on the benefit/s and/or availability of the program, the attitude of offenders and victims, and/or an assurance that the program could ensure that the victims’ interests were prioritised:

I would welcome it if it could be implemented in a wide spectrum of cases. [JO-3]

Only where the particular case warrants it. [JO-5]

restorative justice whilst theoretically ‘restorative’, insofar as it has been implemented to date, entirely fails to benefit victims of crime in South Australia. [JO-5]

… I would want to be sure it would be worthwhile. That would depend on the demonstrated attitude of the offender and the attitude of victims. [JO-6]

Judicial officer interviews

The interviewees were also asked about their views regarding RJ for adult offenders. The findings are set out in four sections: offence types; key benefits; key concerns; and overall support.

Offence types

Participants were asked to consider the types of offences they perceived to be appropriate or inappropriate for RJ programs. RJ was regarded as less suitable for serious and violent offences:

The bottom line is, our society says that if you do something really serious like murder someone, or seriously assault someone, and … leave them severely disabled, that is a serious offence, and the consequence is jail. [JO-1]

… where the violence is at the higher end of the scale there’s less scope for the RJ process actually changing much, in terms of the offender. [JO-2]

One participant proposed that RJ is most suitable for inadvertent offences:

The most obvious case I think are almost inadvertent type offences. Like the dangerous driving, cause death by dangerous driving, cause injury by dangerous driving. I think are the most likely to get some benefit from that, and also the most likely to … be a benefit to the victims, the family, to see the story of that person. [JO-2]

There was a reluctance to definitively exclude cases based on the type of offence, and a clear view that that each case should be individually assessed for eligibility to limit the risk of missed opportunities. Although one participant prioritised the potential reform of offenders, the other focused on the potential benefit/s for offenders of understanding the effects of their actions on the victims, particularly for sexual offences:

… everyone deserves the opportunity to reform … I think there needs to be some sort of sensible, I guess you’d call it triage, or consideration. You don’t just lump everyone in, or take everyone out. There needs to be an assessment … by necessity you must have criteria. [JO-1]

I think it’s commonly said, and I agree, that most sexual offences are just offences of violence, or can be just characterised as that. There might be some which, although violent, the explanation for why it happened isn’t that the person is just inherently violent. There might be some scope for them receiving a better understanding of the effect on the victim, it might actually change their behaviour. But I think it’s a small group. [JO-2]

Key benefits of restorative justice

The opportunity for offender reform was noted as a key benefit of RJ, although the participants considered this from different perspectives. One participant valued the access to support services that RJ affords to offenders:

Unfortunately, you have to commit a crime before you get the opportunity to do the program. So, there’s people out there who are disadvantaged – usually economic disadvantage, but they’re disadvantaged – who don’t have access to the programs because they haven’t committed an offence. But at least it’s a group that we are able to reach, and … it’s not 100% success by any means. But the fact that it’s available to people who might be just at the end of their tether, frustrated, worried, despondent, it’s something to give them an opportunity to change. Gives them something to cling on to. So, I think it’s really beneficial to offenders. [JO-1]

It was also suggested that hearing directly from victims during an RJ conference may increase the likelihood of offender reform:

… I don’t think just going through the process and hearing a prosecutor and a judge say this is terrible because of the effect you’ve had on the victim would mean much to them. If it’s ever going to mean much to them it’s if it comes directly from the victim. It won’t necessarily change them, or all of them, or change them just because they’ve been involved, just heard it once. But over time, it might start to improve their empathy. [JO-2]

Giving victims a voice was considered a key benefit of RJ, including the possibility for closure, and the potential for forgiveness:

But I think giving a victim a voice, an opportunity to be heard, is the key benefit. Because we have the papers saying, ‘Judge hands out lenient penalty to horrible criminal’ … But … it’s about not sentencing in a vacuum. It’s about … taking everything in about the matter, not just those things that are relevant to the offender … But with victims, it’s how it has affected them … So, the victims need to have a voice … [JO-1]

For the victim, I think it is the opportunity to be heard, that’s the main thing… I think it’s primarily that opportunity to voice their grievance directly to the perpetrator … I suspect there’s some … scope for the victim to almost forgive in some cases. I think that it’s just property, it’s just money, and they can see the circumstances of the offender that has stolen or damaged some of their property… it might actually bring some closure, better closure, as well as just the opportunity be heard [JO-2]

Community safety, and greater community awareness were discussed as additional benefits:

… there are people in the community who will function better after they have had some assistance through a restorative justice process. … meet the victim, have a better understanding of what affect it’s had on them, undertake a program, get over the addiction, etc. So, … if you’re eliminating the serious criminals … then the people who are left are hopefully functioning better. So, it’s got to be better for the community. [JO-1]

… I actually think the idea of the community understanding why the crime happened, not just why the offender committed the crime, why it was this particular victim, and understanding more about the effect on the victim, are really important things in a restorative justice process. [JO-2]

Key concerns about restorative justice

RJ programs for adult offenders were viewed as a better use of public resources than some existing provisions, with no notable offender related concerns articulated:

… I think you should try anything and everything you can. … I think you have to give everybody an opportunity to feel better about what happens to them… I have no qualms whatsoever about it. I think it’s a much better use of public resource than some other aspects of public administration. [JO-1]

However, the potential risks to victims were discussed. It was noted that RJ should only be available to appropriate cases, and victims must have the ultimate control to refuse participation:

I think that’s probably better for those who want it. [JO-1]

… It could be damaging to the victim… I think the primary thing is that the victim has to have a complete power of veto over the extent to which they engage in restorative justice. [JO-2]

One participant also expressed concern about the potential for unrealistic expectations:

… judges who preside over Therapeutic Courts, Drug Courts for example, … often think that because that their words will be particularly listened to by the offender, and the offender will turn his or her life around, not realising that as soon as they walk out of court, they are subject to influences and forces much greater than the judge’s few words. It’s really what I said at the outset, you’ve got to be really realistic with what you can achieve with these things. [JO-2]

Limited resources and lengthy timeframes were noted as key concerns:

… budget would always determine what you can do … But generally speaking, … I think there’s some people that would benefit and others that wouldn’t. And you wouldn’t waste your time on them … [JO-1]

There’s another reason though, there’s resources. This is hard work. These are hard conversations to have, and so to start with they need the resources, and they might talk to 100 victims and only get ten who want to do it… and it’s a long process. It takes longer to resolve … The community likes to have matters, quite understandably criminal matters, resolved quickly. [JO-2]

Support for restorative justice

Both interview participants supported the use of RJ for cases involving adult offenders:

… I think it has a very useful place in the criminal justice system. I think it’s worthwhile. [JO-1]

… I support the idea of being open to engaging in the process, in the right case. … It’s really got to start with the representatives of the defendant and the DPP to always ask that question of themselves, ‘might something be achieved in this case’, and then ask the victim. [JO-2]

Discussion

Unlike previous studies, which have suggested that a reluctance to progress RJ measures for adult offenders in Australia reflects a lack of support from criminal justice professionals (Gerkin et al., 2017; Halsey et al., 2015; Suzuki & Wood, 2017), this study found general support among the judicial officers who participated. In particular, RJ was felt to give victims a voice, an opportunity to feel heard, and to share their grievances with their offenders. These findings are similar to Curtis-Fawley and Daly’s (2005) study of victim advocate views, Lawler et al. (2023) interviews with stakeholders in the ACT, Gavin et al. (2024) survey with stakeholders in the United Kingdom, and Stephens (2007) study of judicial officers in Canada. RJ was also regarded as providing an opportunity for offenders to better understand the harms they had caused, and to show remorse. The participants perceived additional benefits for judicial officers themselves including greater insight into offenders and victims. These findings echo those reported by Richards et al. (2017), whose study of judicial officer perspectives in NSW found support for RJ as a mechanism to enable offenders to take greater responsibility for the harm/s they have caused. The potential benefits/effects for victims, the community, or judicial officers themselves, were not addressed by Richards et al. (2017) which may reflect a more typical focus on offenders with respect to RJ measures. Within the current study, judicial officers emphasised different benefits of RJ. Some focused on offender opportunities, while others prioritised benefits for victims. The latter differed according to crime type, with a perception that victims should have more involvement in acquisitive/property crimes than crimes against the person. This aligns with an overall concern about the appropriateness of RJ for some crimes against the person. Jeffries et al. (2021), Stubbs (2009), Curtis-Fawley and Daly (2005), and Booth (2003) note that some inter-personal crimes, such as homicide offences or gendered violence, can be considered unsuitable for RJ intervention, with concerns regarding victim safety, the increased risk of re-victimisation, and the potential for victims to feel pressured to participate. However, evaluations of RJ for serious offences have found positive results for victims and offenders – particularly where cases are managed by specially trained, trauma-informed facilitators (Bolitho, 2015; Booth, 2003; Gavin et al., 2024; Lawler et al., 2023).

There is some evidence that violent offenders may be responsive to RJ programs (Bidois, 2016; Braithwaite, 2020; Hayes, 2005). The small number of Australian programs currently available for all adult offenders permit a wide range of offences, including murder, armed robbery, and serious sexual assault (Bolitho, 2015; Booth, 2003; Lawler et al., 2023). In the current study, most of the judicial officers regarded RJ as an effective way to address serious offences, including property crimes, violent crimes, and family violence. Some participants were undecided on the details, but none believed RJ to be inappropriate. The Magistrates in Richards et al. (2017) study expressed similar views. Most existing RJ programs exclude sexual offences, although some advocates propose that RJ can be a better alternative to the conventional justice process for victims of sexual crimes (Booth, 2003; Curtis-Fawley & Daly, 2005; Jeffries et al., 2021). While the conventional justice process can be offender-focused, RJ is better able to meet the needs of crime victims (Lawler et al., 2023). RJ enables victims to voice their grievances, discuss how their individual harms may be addressed, and contribute to the outcome agreement (Curtis-Fawley & Daly, 2005; Stubbs, 2009). During RJ conferences, offenders are more likely to offer an apology, express remorse, and accept responsibility, when compared to the conventional justice process (Braithwaite, 2004; Gerkin et al., 2017; Halsey et al., 2015; Hayes, 2005; Rodriguez, 2007; Shapland et al., 2006; Strang et al., 2013; Williams, 2012; Zehr, 2014). In the current study, judicial officers were conscious of the potential benefits that RJ could offer victims of sexual crimes compared with the criminal justice process. Participants were generally reluctant to exclude any type of offence (including sexual offences), noting that program designs should be flexible, and decisions made on a case-by-case basis.

Two respondents in this study emphasised that offenders must accept their guilt and take responsibility for the offence prior to commencing RJ. This is one of the few aspects of RJ about which there is a general consensus among theorists and researchers. Reintegrative shaming asserts that the prior admission of guilt is vital (Braithwaite, 1989). Key studies support this (for example, Bolitho (2015); Gerkin et al. (2017); Shapland et al. (2006); Suzuki and Wood (2017)), and have found that the acceptance of guilt contributes to positive outcomes in RJ conferences. An RJ program in the ACT enables young offenders to be eligible if they do not deny the offence. Lawler et al. (2023) noted that this was controversial among stakeholders, with some declining to refer offenders who had not admitted their guilt. Curiously, previous research has reported difficulties gaining the support of judicial officers regarding this element. Gerkin et al. (2017) study found that judicial officers refused to refer cases where offenders plead guilty, preferring to efficiently process and dismiss these matters through the conventional justice process. However, in the current study judicial officers supported the RJ process only after offenders plead guilty or accept responsibility for the offence.

Offender rehabilitation and reoffending are key concerns for justice professionals, and may contribute to an apparent reluctance to develop RJ programs for adults in Australia (Fitzgerald, 2008; Hayes, 2005; Latimer et al., 2005; Yeong & Moore, 2020). However, only one Magistrate in Richards et al. (2017) study expressed concern about the limited ability of RJ to reduce recidivism, and this did not deter that Magistrate from articulating their support of the RJ program for young offenders. In the current study, no survey respondent cited offender recidivism as a concern. Recidivism was raised during the interviews, but participants were optimistic and suggested that RJ had the potential to change offender behaviour and prevent future offending. The capacity to reduce reoffending was not a key concern for judicial officers, but there may be a risk of overstating the recidivist potential of RJ. With inconclusive evidence of the effects of RJ on crime prevention (Bergseth & Bouffard, 2007, 2012; Hayes, 2005; Hayes & Daly, 2004; Sewak et al., 2019; Shapland et al., 2011), judicial officers may be disappointed if expectations are set higher than RJ programs are able to achieve. Rehabilitation and reducing recidivism are valuable benefits, but the uncertainty of these outcomes risk undermining the more immediate personal gains for victims and offenders, and the potential net benefits to the community. As such, it may prove more beneficial to promote the more salient benefits of RJ, rather than recidivism, to gain the support of judicial officers.

One concern highlighted in the current study reflected the lengthy timeframes that RJ processes require, and the limited court resources available to accommodate this. Participants further noted the time constraints arising from community expectations that cases be processed as quickly and efficiently as possible. These concerns are discussed in previous studies. Gerkin et al. (2017) study confirmed the pressure to deliver fast and effective due process. Richards et al. (2017) cite participants’ concerns regarding limited court resources. The Judges in Stephens (2007) study shared these concerns for the additional time and insufficient resources to effectively operate the program. Lawler et al. (2023) identified significant delays allocating cases due to high demand and insufficient resources, which caused distress for some victims, and led some to decline to participate. Although these issues are valid, RJ inevitably requires additional time and costs. Previous research indicates that RJ is less effective if it is not appropriately resourced (Braithwaite, 2020; Suzuki & Wood, 2017). RJ is generally not more cost effective than conventional justice processes, as it typically operates in addition to the criminal justice process, rather than as an alternative (Weatherburn & Macadam, 2013). However, the potential long-term savings may outweigh any additional short-term costs. For example, if RJ is better able to improve offender reintegration and, perhaps, reduce recidivism, the social and criminal justice savings could be significant (Weatherburn & Macadam, 2013). Yeong and Moore (2020) found that RJ has the potential to reduce incarceration rates by over 50%, and calculated substantial savings on custody costs. Stephens (2007) similarly found that the introduction of RJ in Canada resulted in reduced incarceration rates, as the judicial officers were encouraged to consider alternative sentences where possible. This aspect is seldom identified within RJ research, and may be a valuable consideration for future research to evaluate and quantify possible longer-term savings in time and costs.

The judicial officers in this study reflected upon their concerns for the safety of victims, the risk of re-victimisation, and the lack of victim participation in conferences. Participants suggested that low victim participation is likely to reflect fear of re-victimisation, a concern that is discussed in previous research (Bolitho, 2015; Gavin et al., 2024; Gerkin et al., 2017; Larsen, 2014; Sewak et al., 2019; Strang, 2001). In the current study, participants shared these concerns, noting their support for RJ was conditional on ensuring the safety and agency of victims. Studies have noted that victims who do participate in RJ conferences are generally more satisfied with the RJ process compared to the conventional justice process (Bolitho, 2015; Halsey et al., 2015; Hayes, 2005; Richards et al., 2017; Suzuki & Wood, 2017), although the potential for re-victimisation is acknowledged. Gerkin et al. (2017) suggest that the risk of re-victimisation is higher if offenders do not plead guilty, or deny responsibility for the harm caused, Sewak et al. (2019) consider the risk of re-victimisation to be higher in sexual offence cases, and Bolitho (2015) notes that serious offences and complex cases may increase the risk of re-victimisation. However, the conventional justice process also risks re-victimisation and typically fails to address the needs of victims (Braithwaite, 2020; Jeffries et al., 2021; Stubbs, 2009). The risks of re-victimisation during RJ conferences may be reduced with appropriate program designs and management, and by ensuring victim and offender participation is entirely voluntary and fully supported (Bolitho, 2015; Suzuki & Wood, 2018).

Judicial officers were concerned that RJ programs must be appropriately managed, and each case carefully assessed for suitability, particularly to ensure that victims are fully empowered by the process, and retain the right to decline participation. Braithwaite (2020), Gavin et al. (2024), and Bolitho (2015) reiterate the importance of properly managing RJ programs. Braithwaite (2020, p. 292) explains that RJ program designs must be based on evidence, and given appropriate time and resources for effective management, and that practitioners must ‘focus on how to repair harm, repair relationships, and meet needs’. A meticulously designed and managed program can optimise offender engagement, improve offender reintegration, and reduce the risk of re-victimisation. Gavin et al. (2024) highlight the importance of a victim-led, trauma-informed process. Bolitho (2015) found that the risk of re-victimisation was minimised in the NSW RJ program, due to the experience and skill of the trained facilitators. Highly proficient management is vital to ensure the effective development and implementation of RJ programs, and to remove further risks to victims.

There are notable benefits associated with community involvement in the RJ process (Braithwaite, 1989; Dzur & Olson, 2004) and reintegrative shaming positions the process of offender reintegration firmly within the community. The development and embedding of interdependent relationships, including family, friends, and the community, can be more effective than traditional court-based criminal outcomes in providing support, helping to reintegrate offenders, and ensuring offender compliance with program requirements (Braithwaite, 1989, 2004, 2020). Community involvement can evolve and function as a community-driven moral compass, and has the potential to act as a general deterrent for offenders and for the wider community (Braithwaite, 1989, 2020). Zehr and Mika (1998, p. 55) argue that community involvement in the RJ process can be empowering, ‘and increase its capacity to recognise and respond to community bases of crime’. Bolitho (2015), Richards et al. (2017), and Rodriguez (2007) contend that, as communities are harmed by criminal conduct, community members should be included as active participants in the RJ process and, in particular, contribute to outcome agreements. A unique feature of RJ is the recognition of offending as a community-wide concern, with those most impacted best placed to address the consequences of offending behaviour (Barocas et al., 2024).

Despite the findings from previous research, and the clear reliance on community support within existing RJ programs, judicial officers in the current study view the potential community effects of RJ as the least important. This includes the community’s opportunity to assist with offender rehabilitation, and to better understand the offenders’ motivations, and the harms caused to victims. These findings may indicate the judicial officers’ dismissal of the potential community contribution to the RJ process, or reflect a lack of understanding of the role of the community and the benefits that can be derived from their participation. It is also possible that the nature of the survey instrument – which asked respondents to number benefits in order of perceived importance – may have revealed a relative rather than an absolute lack of interest. Community benefits may be perceived as less important than offender and victim-related benefits, but this does not necessarily mean that they are not important at all. A subsequent survey may seek to explore perceived benefits in a different way. It is relevant to note that the interview participants did identify community safety and greater community awareness as key benefits of RJ. This variation in responses does appear to reflect the different research methods, with interview participants able to expand upon their own understanding of potential community benefits.

Conclusion

Halsey et al.’s (2015) evaluation of the RJ pilot program for adult offenders in South Australia found that conferences were valued by victims and offenders, and provided participants with opportunities not possible in the conventional justice process. The authors (2015, p. 483) concluded that there is ‘substantive potential for RJ to play a meaningful role in adult contexts’, and recommended the development of a RJ program for adult offenders in South Australia. However, the pilot program did not gain sufficient support and, almost two decades after it commenced, South Australia does not have a RJ program for adult offenders.

The current study contributes to developing literature examining how RJ is perceived by judicial officers. The judicial officers all expressed support for the use of RJ for adult offenders. RJ programs continue to advance in Australia, most notably with the development of ATSI programs which include adult offenders. As a result, judicial officers working in adult jurisdictions may now have more knowledge and understanding of RJ programs. The judicial climate may now be more suitable to re-initiate or extend South Australia’s RJ pilot program for adult offenders. The success of any RJ program depends upon sufficient referral of cases, which requires the support of judicial officers. This study indicates that such support may be available in South Australia. The following program elements, derived from this study and incorporating other relevant research, are most likely to gain the support of judicial officers:

• a victim-focused program that prioritises victims’ safety, gives victims control, and embeds the right to decline participation;

• a program that is available for a wide range of offences, including serious offences;

• a program that is only available after a guilty plea; and

• a program that is well managed, and able to work as time and cost effectively as possible, without reducing its scope or effectiveness.

RJ can offer tangible, immediate and longer-term benefits to victims, offenders, and the community. However, as RJ programs are currently only available in South Australia for cases involving young and ATSI offenders, the potential benefits are not currently available to a notable proportion of offenders or their victims. The opportunity for healing should be equally available to all victims.

It is acknowledged that the limitations of this study mean that the findings cannot be generalised across all judicial officers in South Australia. It is recommended that additional research builds upon this study, to obtain a larger sample of judicial officers, and also to include other criminal justice professionals, such as police officers, the Director of Public Prosecutions, legal representatives, and victim support services. This will enable the development of a wider and deeper understanding of the potential operation, effect/s, and effectiveness of RJ for adult offenders.

Legislation

Children’s Court Act 1992 (QLD)

Crimes (Restorative Justice) Act 2004 (ACT)

Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)

Criminal Procedure Regulation 2017 (NSW)

Dispute Resolution Centres Act 1990 (QLD)

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT)

Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 (VIC)

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)

Sentencing Act 2017 (SA)

Young Offenders Act 1993 (SA)

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.

Notes

1. Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 (VIC); Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT); Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW); Criminal Procedure Regulation 2017 (NSW); Sentencing Act 2017 (SA); Children’s Court Act 1992 (QLD).

2. @ July 2022.

3. Queensland Government (2018); Dispute Resolution Centres Act 1990 (QLD).

4. ACT Government (n.d.); Crimes (Restorative Justice) Act 2004 (ACT); Government of Western Australia (2022); Sentencing Act 1995 (WA).