1. 1 “Emotional Justice beyond the Courts?: Facilitating participant satisfaction and emotional understanding within English Neignborhood Justice Panels (NJP’s).” Dr Max Lowenstein

2. NJP FUNCTION RJ global parties & processes can include: “1. Indirect dialogue; 2. Facilitated dialogue between victims and offenders; 3. Facilitated dialogue between victims, offenders, supporters and government officials; 4. Facilitated dialogue between victims, offenders, supporters, government officials and community members; 5. Directed dialogue between victims, offenders and other parties; 6. Arbitrated dialogue between victims, offenders and other parties.” 2

3. NJP HISTORY Introduction in NZ Courts System (juvenile/adults) in 1980s. Thames Valley Police (UK) initiatives with victims and offenders in mid-1990s. RJC charity established to support, guide, promote RJ solutions in late-1990s. Dorset NJP programme starts in 2011. Law catching up in 2013/2014! 3

4. NJP PROCESS Local low level crime & anti-social behaviours, voluntary, 18 yrs +. Guilt accepted and remorse/harm either acknowledged or unacknowledged. Positive consensual resolution between offender and victim (apology or agreement which includes: actions, education – behavioural changes). Associated emotions? (Think of 3…) 4

5. NJP PROCESS Script to discuss harm impacts includes: 1) Incident/offence - What happened, how it made you feel? Offender/victim views? 2) Views of Supporters – parents/ guardians, friends etc. 3) Views of Offender and Victims mediated to find positive outcomes (ways forward). 4) Reintegration and Refreshments 5

6. METHOD Literature Review: 1) inaccurate mapping of NJP provision nationally, 2) limited qualitative data on decision making processes and participant impacts, esp. long term) 3) indication of relevant RP’s to pose Dorset NJP exit survey 2013/15 (satisfaction/engagement rates are high) 6

7. METHOD Qualitative interviews (Kvale) with 8 facilitators to gather perceptions on: A) Information gathering B) Facilitator/mediator qualities C) Remorse (genuine apologies) D) Guidance and training needs 7

8. DATA Sample: 8 Facilitators/Mediators, (to come: 8 victims, 8 offenders) 24 max. A) Information gathering: (RP’s) Adequate information on NJP meeting? (relevant guidance, clear and consistent explanation, effective application) Yes (8) with all RP’s spontaneously mentioned 8

9. DATA B) Facilitator/mediator qualities: (RP’s) Qualities/competencies for NJP meetings? (participant respect, fair/balanced process, open/clear communication, harm recognition and understanding, effective time/space management) 9

10. DATA C) Remorse (genuine apologies): (no RP’s) Impact of apology on participants (verbal/non-verbal)? Genuine remorse means? 10

11. DATA D) Guidance and training needs: (RP’s) Extent of satisfaction with guidance/training? Changes/improvements for future best practice? (comparison to police diversion and court resolution via sentencing) 11

12. CONCLUSIONS 1) NJP toolkit / guidance to aid NJP script and training development. 2) Future expansion/integration – ensuring CJS complementarity. 3) Comparisons to other developed community resolution models, i.e.) Wanganui, NZ & MS across the EU. 12

13. 13 THANK YOU FOR LISTENING! QUESTIONS AND YOUR VIEWS.