Legitimising restorative justice to the community – recent research from Northern Ireland

By Dr. Allely Albert, Lecturer in Criminology, Queen’s University Belfast

Within Northern Ireland, community-based restorative justice organisations have become integral and well-known pillars of the local landscape. Community members regularly self-refer to their programmes to receive services and support. Among referrals received from various pathways in 2023, Community Restorative Justice Ireland (CRJI) – an organisation with headquarters in Belfast – received 376 cases through direct referrals from clients and family members, with another 177 cases coming from community-based groups or representatives (CRJI Case Statistics 2023). Such numbers reflect a tacit level of acceptance within the community, indicating that the organisation and restorative practices are perceived to be a legitimate means for resolving conflict.

However, this legitimacy did not come automatically. In the late 1990s, as the organisation sought to establish itself in the post-conflict setting, CRJI encountered significant challenges. Although many of its criticisms are unique to the local context, they also resonate with wider concerns typically levied against restorative practices. This piece outlines the primary critiques faced by the organisation, and the techniques it used to overcome them, in the hopes that these experiences may provide lessons for other organisations facing similar circumstances.

Having interviewed and observed practitioners at CRJI over the course of four years, the following framework uses language from the study to outline the three main critiques faced by the organisation (see Albert 2025):

1. The ‘hug-a-hood’ (or ‘soft option’) critique

Given that local communities in Northern Ireland had become deeply accustomed to punitive methods of justice (particularly in the form of paramilitary punishment violence), many residents were wary of restorative approaches, which they viewed as weak on crime, and preferred retributive forms of justice. Many CRJI practitioners were labelled ‘hug-a-hoods’, disparaged for coddling individuals who had caused harm. Such criticisms mirror broader attacks against restorative justice, which has often been denounced for being ‘soft’ on crime (Zehr 1990, Morris 2002).

CRJI was required to convince local community members that violent or punitive methods of justice were no longer the best way forward, and that restorative approaches should be used instead.

2. The ‘Ra men’ (or ‘unsavoury actor’) critique

This critique condemned CRJI for its foundational origins, which were rooted in dialogue with republican activists, and its employment of former combatants (Auld et al 1997). This unfounded wariness echoes general accusations against restorative justice that stress the potential for vigilantism, unprofessionalism, majoritarian domination, violation of due process, or suspicion of practitioners’ motivations (especially in contexts where practitioners may have been formerly incarcerated or in settings where the organisation is based outside of the formal justice system).

It was necessary for CRJI to demonstrate that it was a respectable and trustworthy organisation, countering attacks that painted the organisation as illegitimate because of individuals’ past associations and generally perceived risks.

3. The ‘touts’ (or ‘snitch’) critique

As part of its development process, CRJI eventually began working with state agencies, which included referrals to and from statutory organisations. These relationships, particularly those with the police, have been contentious for certain members of the community. In part, this backlash relates to the historic political tension between nationalist communities and the police in Northern Ireland, but even setting that aside, many residents still feared that partnership with the police could provoke legal ramifications for those using CRJI’s services (Hogg and Butler 2018). Such concerns align with critiques of restorative organisations that cooperate with state systems – warning that involvement might lead to net-widening, police investigation, prosecution, or otherwise dilute restorative principles and promote carceral logic (Morris 2002).

This required CRJI to legitimise its relationships with the state.

Despite facing these challenges, CRJI has been largely successful in winning over the community and establishing itself as a credible and respected organisation. It did so through three main techniques:

1. Legitimising restorative approaches

CRJI sought to generate community buy-in and consent to shift public sentiment around the concept of restorative justice. Practitioners established restorative principles as part of the community’s normative values by holding meetings with residents, consulting central community figures, training individuals in restorative practices, and developing a community charter that neighbourhoods could sign, affirming their commitment to restorative justice and nonviolence. CRJI also incorporated community members to serve as practitioners, helping create wider ownership amongst the population. The inclusion of former combatants, who held respect with certain portions of the community, offered an organic type of leadership centred of local expertise, knowledge, and credibility. Their endorsement was particularly influential, encouraging those who might otherwise dismiss restorative justice as a soft approach to rethink their stance. Taken together, these efforts – along with time – have helped embed restorative ideology within the local context, reducing reliance on retributive justice and legitimising nonviolent and restorative approaches.

2. Legitimising the organisation

CRJI underwent a process of respectabilisation and professionalisation, demonstrating that the organisation and its practitioners could be trusted by all community members. It developed standardised policies, aligned itself with international frameworks and practices, became accredited by the state, and provided training qualifications for its practitioners. It also hired a diverse array of practitioners, including both ex-combatant and non-combatant community members, generating a sense of neutrality. Ultimately these efforts showcased that CRJI would handle cases in a procedurally fair and just manner. These perceptions were further aided by certification from respected external actors (including academics and restorative leaders) and independent evaluations. Such tactics helped demonstrate to the community that CRJI was a legitimate entity that abided by internationally respected dogma.

3. Legitimising relationships with the state

To overcome negative attitudes regarding its working partnership with state agencies, CRJI attempted to normalise relationships between the community and the state. In this sense, CRJI served as a conduit, helping connect community members to state services, and helping statutory agencies understand the needs of the local community. Credible community leaders and practitioners were key to this long-term process – encouraging residents to use appropriate services, fostering understanding of services, and providing officials with localised advice. As a critical partner, CRJI also held state agencies accountable and provided a means for the community to voice its needs (occasionally even holding mediations between police officers and local residents). Over time, new attitudes and relationships have developed, which have helped transform the community’s perception of CRJI as well as its perception of state agencies, fostering greater democratic participation (Nina 1995) and engendering transformative change.

*It should be acknowledged that for abolitionists, there are inherent dangers in involving the state within restorative systems, and co-option or dilution remain valid concerns, as engagement with the state can perpetuate carceral logic.

So what does this example teach us?

The unique history of CRJI offers lessons for other restorative justice organisations struggling to appeal to the community. First, it shows us that restorative groups must legitimise restorative approaches. This can be done through community consultation and engagement, ensuring that the community consents to such practices. Organic leaders with lived experience who represent the diversity of the community can be influential within these processes. Second, it demonstrates that groups must establish organisational legitimacy and respectability. This can be achieved by adhering to internationally recognised frameworks, creating regulative policies, employing qualified practitioners, and obtaining independent verification. Third, it illustrates that organisations working alongside state services must legitimise those partnerships. By using long-term strategies aimed at building relationships between communities and state agencies, mutual understanding and access can be cultivated, especially through the use of credible leaders. Organisations also have a duty to hold the state accountable to the community. Overall, these practical techniques offer strategies that may help restorative organisations overcome community criticisms, promoting credible, accessible, and legitimate justice services.

Academic article: Albert, A. (2025) ‘Hug-a-hoods’, ‘Ra Men’ and ‘Touts’: Legitimizing Restorative Justice to the Community in Northern Ireland, The British Journal of Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azaf048.

For further reading: Aside from criticism within the community, CRJI also faced many challenges posed by the state. To learn more see Topping et al 2025, McEvoy and Albert 2020, McEvoy and Eriksson 2007.