Pre-sentence restorative conferencing reduces future court appearances and reoffending severity for adults – findings from Australia
By Dr Stephanie Price, Research Fellow, Sexual Violence Research and Prevention Unit, University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia
Across geographic borders, there are mounting calls to increase the accessibility of restorative justice to enhance justice for people who have experienced harm, and particularly in cases of violent or sexual harm. We’re witnessing growing interest and support from victims and survivors, their supporters and victim-advocacy groups, with momentum from internationally recognised advocates, like Ailbhe Griffith, and cases, like the recent Spanish student in Dublin. Advocates argue that restorative justice provides victims and survivors with an opportunity to face or confront the person who has caused them harm in a safe and supported environment, where they can seek answers that may aid the healing process. Most recently, both Ailbhe and Prof. Marie Keenan from UCD have written in the media imploring the Irish justice system to give victims of sexual violence the opportunity to decide if restorative justice is right for them.
From research spanning more than 30 years, we know that restorative processes can offer victims and survivors greater benefits than adversarial court processes (Nascimento et al., 2023; Sherman et al, 2005; Umbreit, 1998), and specifically in cases of violence and sexual harm (Koss & Achilles, 2008; McMahon et al., 2018; Wager, 2013). But referrals are still lacking in Ireland, with many victims and survivors consequently denied access to these potential benefits (Irish Penal Reform Trust, 2024; Marder, 2019). Recent research from Australia suggests that referring bodies may be reluctant to make referrals for violent or sexual offences over concerns for the safety of victims and survivors (Lawler, 2025). So, let’s look at this risk more closely.
When restorative justice is implemented as intended – providing a safe and supportive environment and process for all participants – research shows it actually reduces reoffending (e.g., Jonas-van Dijk et al., 2020; Shapland et al., 2008), which would enhance victim and survivor safety. Although these examples typically include diversionary programmes or post-sentencing practices, there are a number of countries which primarily offer restorative justice programmes at the pre-sentence stage, including Ireland and Australia. However, its use at the pre-sentencing stage appears more limited in many other countries and, as a result, we know much less about the impacts of these programmes on behaviour change for people who have caused harm. So, a research team from the University of the Sunshine Coast set out to explore pre-sentencing restorative justice, focused on one programme in Queensland, Australia. We wanted to know: Does programme completion have any impact on reoffending?
We examined what kind of effect – if any – restorative conference completion had on future offending behaviours. To do this, we obtained data about cases referred to the Queensland adult restorative conferencing programme over a 12-month period, and looked at those persons’ offending data 10 years prior to referral and up to 2.5 years after their conference or referral.
These data included offence histories, referral details, conference experience feedback, and new offence details, including offence type, severity and time between conference completion and the first new court appearance. Interestingly, most of the referrals to the programme were for violent or sexual offences.
Future offending patterns for the 175 conferenced persons-responsible were compared to those of 153 individuals who had been referred to the conference for similar offences, but had not actually completed one. While referrals were similar in nature, individuals with no previous recorded court appearances were more likely to proceed to a conference than individuals who previously appeared in court. So, this did mean that our two groups were different in make-up. As there was a difference in offence histories between these two groups, we tried to control for this in the tests we ran. While we were not able to look at what influence conference completion had on sentencing decisions, we did find some really interesting outcomes relating to participant satisfaction, outcome agreements and, crucially, the impact on future offending.
Firstly, almost all conferences resulted in an agreement being reached between the person who was harmed and the person-responsible (97%), and almost all these agreements were completed (also 97%!). The conference experience was really well received by all participants, which included the person who was harmed (93% satisfaction rating) and their support person, as well as the person-responsible and their support person.
We found that conference completion did not influence whether or not a person-responsible returned to court, and the nature of the conference experience itself (i.e. whether or not the person responsible was satisfied with the conference) also had no influence on future offending behaviour. However, there were some exciting significant changes in offending behaviours!
We saw reductions in offending behaviours for both groups, but the most thrilling thing we found was these reductions were greater for persons-responsible who completed a pre-sentence conference, than those who did not complete a conference. Most persons-responsible, in both groups, did not return to court during the follow up period (more than 80%), but for those who did return to court there were a lower number of new court appearances for those who did complete a conference AND a greater reduction in the severity of these offences. So, this means completing a conference did not influence whether or not someone would return to court, but it did reduce the number and severity of future offences.
These findings provide further support for the growing calls to increase restorative justice accessibility, suggesting restorative justice programmes should be made available to victims and survivors who want to meet the person who caused them harm, especially in violent and sexual cases. They raise important and timely questions for justice officials about ensuring the best interests of victims and survivors and preventing further harm. Not only can these programmes provide victims and survivors with opportunity to access substantial benefits, they can also benefit people who cause harm and their communities. So, I echo Marie Keenan’s (2025) recent confusion, and ask: why do justice officials continue to deny access to restorative justice programmes, especially when victims or survivors are making the request?
See my recent publication in the International Journal of Restorative Justice for further details: What impact does a pre-sentencing conferencing program have on return-to-court outcomes for adult defendants?
References:
European Forum for Restorative Justice. (n.d.). Ailbhe Griffith. https://www.euforumrj.org/ailbhe-griffith
Irish Penal Reform Trust. (2024, June 14). RJS4C: Restorative justice referrals in 2023 remain below pre-pandemic levels [Press release]. https://www.iprt.ie/latest-news/rjs4c-restorative-justice-referrals-in-2023-remain-below-pre-pandemic-levels/
Jonas-van Dijk, J., Zebel, S., Claessen, J., & Nelen, H. (2020). Victim-offender mediation and reduced reoffending: Gauging the self-selection bias. Crime and Delinquency, 66(6-7), 949-972. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128719854348
Keenan, M. (2025, August 25). Why is the system steering clear of restorative justice for rape victims? Irish Examiner. https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-41690235.html
Koss, M.P., & Achilles, M. (2008). Restorative Justice Responses to Sexual Assault. https://vawnet.org/sites/default/files/materials/files/2016-09/AR_RestorativeJustice.pdf
Lawler, S. (2025). Safety and accountability: Stakeholder referrals to restorative justice for domestic, family and sexual violence. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 707. https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-01/ti707_safety_and_accountability.pdf
Marder, I. (2019). Restorative justice as the new default in Irish criminal justice. Irish Probation Journal, 16. 60-83. https://www.probation.ie/EN/PB/0/6389F92218B5C346802584C10054B7B4/$File/Restorative%20Justice%20as%20the%20New%20Default%20in%20the%20Irish%20Criminal%20Justice%20System.pdf
Marder, I. (2023, May 17). Restorative justice helps everyone – Why is it declining in Ireland? The Journal. https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/restorative-justice-in-ireland-6069200-May2023/
McGlynn, C., Westmarland, N., & Godden, N. (2012). ‘I Just Wanted Him to Hear Me’: Sexual Violence and the Possibilities of Restorative Justice. Journal of Law and Society, 39(2), 213-240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2012.00579.x
Nascimento, A. M., Andrade, J., & Castro Rodrigues, A. (2023). The psychological impact of restorative justice practices on victims of crimes – A systematic review. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 24(3), 1929-1947. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380221082085
Price, S., McKillop, N., Rayment-McHugh, S., & Prenzler, T. (2025). What impact does a pre-sentencing conferencing program have on return-to-court outcomes for adult defendants? The International Journal of Restorative Justice. 1-29. https://doi.org/10.5553/TIJRJ.000229
Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Dignan, J., Edwards, L., Hibbert, J., Howes, M., Johnstone, H., Robinson, G., & Sorsby, A. (2008). Does Restorative Justice Affect Reconviction? The fourth report from the evaluation of three schemes. Ministry of Justice. https://restorativejustice.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/files/Does%20restorative%20justice%20affect%20reconviction.pdf
Sherman, L., Strang, H., Angel, C. M., Woods, D., Barnes, G. C., Bennett, S., & Inkpen, N. (2005). Effects of face-to-face restorative justice on victims of crime in four randomized, controlled trials. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(3), 367-395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-005-8126-y
Umbreit, M. S. (1998). Restorative justice through victim-offender mediation: A multi-site assessment. Western Criminology Review, 1(1), 1-27. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/restorative-justice-through-victim-offender-mediation-multi-site
Wager, N.M. (2013, April 16-28). A scoping review considering the applicability of restorative justice to cases of sexual assault [Conference presentation]. International Psychological Applications Conference and Trends, Madrid, Spain. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263653926_A_SCOPING_REVIEW_CONSIDERING_THE_APPLICABILITY_OF_RESTORATIVE_JUSTICE_TO_CASES_OF_SEXUAL_ASSAUL#fullTextFileContent