This paper will present the initial findings from the “Multiply” initiative providing free government funded maths courses to those with experience of criminal justice who do not have a Maths GCSE level C/4.

The experiences of the learners will be discussed, do they perceive the courses as just an additional tick box exercise to demonstrate engagement with sentence plans / probation, or has maths been taught in a way which has the power to transform their lives?

Comparisons are made regarding the barriers accessing these vulnerable groups, the impact of the tailored support for those in custodial settings vs. those in the community, as well as the differences stemming from the unique needs of women vs. men who have been criminalised.

Recommendations for the funding and design of future projects are made based on the lessons learned from delivering and evaluating this current provision. Further recommendations are also made for wider government initiatives and programs as to how they will access, maintain engagement with, and secure positive outcomes for, these targeted groups.

Abstract: Compared to traditional criminal justice system, where the victim stands in a marginalised position, Restorative Justice (“RJ” thereafter) is designed as a new approach to respond to crime, which is purported to empower victims to address the impact of a crime, their demands and find solutions together with offenders. This theory first appeared in China within only last three decades and was considered as a ‘foreign import’ by some Chinese academics. Indeed, criminal reconciliation, as a typical RJ practice in China, has been designed as a supportive encounter for victims and offenders to discuss the offence and its implications, which was formally written in the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China 2012. However, its implementation has been criticised for some shortcomings, such as dominance of facilitators and restriction on victims’ voice. Nonetheless, instead of arguing that China should learn a lesson from the Western model of RJ - a victim-centred approach, this paper argues that criminal reconciliation is transformed by Chinese political agenda to a divergent practice. By conducting observations and semi-structured interviews with participants in 15 criminal reconciliation cases, this paper, which stems from my PhD project, presents preliminary findings on what incentives different participants (i.e. facilitators, victims, offenders) have to participate in criminal reconciliation, how reconciliation operates in a Chinese context and what outcomes have reached. In the discussion, this paper argues that the criminal reconciliation, shaped by a political agenda of “maintaining social harmony”, is turned to a settlement-driven practice: both victims and offenders are directed to focus on the issue of compensation; victims’ story-telling and strong confrontation against offenders are considered irrelevant and unhelpful to ‘close a case’.

Despite the continued rise in the use of Restorative Justice (RJ) in criminal justice systems, there are concerns that RJ has been used inappropriately and without necessary precautions, particularly in matters that are arguably not suitable. One of the most highly disputed areas of the wrongful application of RJ are in matters involving sexual abuse (Westermarland, McGlynn and Johnson 2018). This has unfortunately led to instances of re-victimization in some cases and mistrust of RJ’s role in the criminal justice process (McGlynn, Westmarland and Godden 2012: 214; Westermarland, McGlynn and Humphreys 2018: 339). The urgency for these concerns to be addressed increases as several jurisdictions are either considering or in the process of integrating RJ in their justice systems (for example, Northern Ireland launched its Adult Restorative Justice Strategy in 2022). One possible solution is the requirement for certain ‘safeguards’ to be in place before any RJ process can proceed in such matters.

This paper will focus will be on various RJ theories, particularly from its early proponents, in determining if safeguards were a necessary feature and how they should function. In addition to the discussion on the type of safeguards that need to be established, a question arises on whether these safeguards need to have some form of standards to ensure efficacy. John Braithwaite has been a staunch advocate for this, arguing that a strong set of standards in combination with human rights protections will aid in avoiding abuse and exploitation (Braithwaite 2002; Braithwaite and Petitt 1990). Coincidentally, his work greatly influenced the development of RJ in Northern Ireland. This paper will examine this position in greater detail, with due considerations of the arguments for and against the adoption of standards based on legal conventions and formal structures.

List of Sources
Braithwaite, J. (2002) 'Setting Standards for Restorative Justice' Brit J Criminology, 42 563
Braithwaite, J and Pettit, P, Not Just Deserts: A Republican Theory of Criminal Justice (1990) OUP. (Paperback edition 1992)
McGlynn, C., Westmarland, N. and 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.
McGlynn, C., Westmarland, N. and Johnson, K., (2018) 'Under the Radar: The widespread use of 'Out of Court Resolutions' in policing Domestic Violence and Abuse in the United Kingdom.', British Journal of Criminology, 58/1): 1 -- 16.