Handbook on Restorative justice programmes

HANDBOOK ON RESTORATIVE JUSTICE PROGRAMMES

---

75
obtained, when an agreement cannot be arrived at, when one of the par-
ties decides to withdraw from the process, or when an offender fails to
comply with the terms of a mediated agreement). As well, crime victims
may serve as de facto gatekeepers by refusing to participate in sessions
with certain types of offenders. 
Experience has shown that it is particularly important to develop data-
sharing protocols with criminal justice agencies to facilitate the identifica-
tion of potential cases and participants. There are frequently problems
relating to the non-disclosure of victim details and offenders details (par-
ticularly when they are children and youth). This can impede the success
of a programme, the frequency of referrals and the quality of collaboration
between agencies.
59
These issues ought to be clarified as much as possible
as the programme is being developed and inter-agency agreements are
being negotiated.
60
There may be considerable variation in the selection criteria used across
jurisdictions for the same type of restorative process. For example, eligibil-
ity for and admission to VOM may range from those in which courts or
intake departments refer only first offenders, to those programmes in which
crime victims themselves make a direct request for mediation to programme
staff. It is important to develop a procedure for assessing the suitability and
risks for each case that is being considered for a restorative process.
Many jurisdictions also require that the offender voluntarily participate in
restorative justice programmes. And, although offenders are generally
required to admit responsibility for their actions, this admission is gener-
ally not equated to a finding of guilt as in a criminal court. In some cases,
e.g. family group conferencing, it may be sufficient at the time of the refer-
ral to the programme for the offender to “not deny responsibility”. On the
other hand, programmes that offer interventions at the sentencing or post-
sentencing stages (e.g. circle sentencing) are generally only available to those
offenders who were found guilty or have entered a guilty plea. Furthermore,
as was mentioned previously, the Basic Principles (para. 8) states that, in itself,
the participation of the offender in a restorative process should not be used as
evidence of admission of guilt in subsequent legal proceedings.