Dr. Annemieke Wolthuis presented on a project examining the use of restorative justice in cases of domestic violence. The project involved interviews and focus groups across several European countries. Key findings included that victims and offenders generally felt safe when restorative justice was properly prepared for and facilitated. However, restorative justice in these cases requires extensive knowledge of domestic violence dynamics, thorough risk assessment, and focus on empowering victims and upholding social norms. The project resulted in guidance for practitioners on providing restorative justice in domestic violence cases while prioritizing victim safety and empowerment.

1. Restorative justice &
domestic violence, a security
issue?
Dr Annemieke Wolthuis
Vice-chair
European Forum for
Restorative Justice
Final Conference Margin Project
Budapest, 4 April 2017

2. ‘to liberate the oppressed and the
oppressor both’

3. Structure
1. European Forum for Restorative Justice/EFRJ
2. Restorative Justice & domestic violence project
•Back ground
•Methodology
•Outcomes
•Safety and security
•The guide
•Conclusions & discussion

4. • Founded in 2000, based in Leuven (Belgium)
• Assists and supports the establishment and
development of victim-offender mediation and other
restorative justice practices in Europe
• Network of practitioners, researchers and policy
makers interested in RJ
• More than 250 members (individuals & organisations)
• Member of the Criminal Justice Platform Europe (CJPE)
1. The EFRJ

5. • (Research) projects
• Information sharing (Newsflash, Newsletter,
www.euforumrj.org, social media, teaching courses
database)
• Influencing European policy making
• Up coming events:
 1 June 2017 Berlin – AGM and seminar on access to
RJ
 4-7 July 2017 Barcelona – CJPE Summer Courses
 24-28 July 2017 Como – EFRJ Summer School
Activities of the EFRJ

6. Most important international texts
on RJ
•Council of Europe - Recommendation No. R (99) 19
concerning mediation in penal matters (1999)
•United Nations ECOSOC Resolution 2002/12 on basic
principles on the use of restorative justice programmes in
criminal matters
• Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards
on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime
•No prohibition on the use of RJ in IPV cases, emphasis on
victim protection

7. 2. Definitions
•Coercive control (intimate terrorism); intimate
terrorism refers to recurrent, escalating violent acts
in combination with the exercise of power and
control: the victim is isolated and lives in
permanent fear
•Situational couple violence is more often incidental
and situational problems like alcohol problems,
unemployment, or a serious life event (Johnson,
2006)
•Restorative Justice; VOM, conferencing

8. Methodology
1. Document study & literature research
2. Interviews (6 victims/6 offenders)
3. Focus groups in countries
4. European Expert meetings (2)
5. Local pilots
Outcomes:
2 comparative reports
Practitioner’s Guide
Final seminar

9. Project Aims
•Restorative Justice in Cases of Domestic Violence, Best
practice examples between increasing mutual
understanding and awareness of specific protection needs
(JUST/2013/JPEN/AG/5487)
•to generate relevant knowledge on RJ practices
•to identify criteria for offering RJ to victims of IPV so
that they can benefit to the max extent and in
accordance with the EU Victims Dir 2012
•to set standards to guarantee quality of the
implementation of RJ practices

10. 2. Restorative Justice and
Domestic violence
Coordination: Netherlands - Verwey-Jonker Institute (VJI)
Partners:
• Austria - Institute of Conflict Research (IKF) & Institute for the
Sociology of Law and Criminology (IRKS)
• Denmark - Nat Organisation of Women’s Shelters (LOKK)
• Finland - Department of Criminal Policy of the Ministry of
Justice (MJF)
• Greece - Eur Public Law Organization (EPLO)
• UK – IARS International Institute
• EFRJ
Fin. support: EC, D-G Justice, Directorate B: Criminal Justice &
national Ministries of Denmark, Austria & NL

11. Main questions
1. What are the relevant RJ practices and policies
concerning IPV in different European countries?
2. Can RJ be useful in case of IPV & under what
circumstances? What do victims of IPV need?
3. Can RJ be offered in every stage of the criminal
procedure (before, during and/or after)?
4. Can networking with regard to IPV be stimulated
to support sustainable implementation of RJ in IPV
cases?

12. Current status
•International rules & regulations
Not consistent: some open, some reluctant, some
restrictive (CEDAW, Victim Dir 2012, Istanbul
Convention)
•National legislations: differs, but most countries
allow it, exceptions like Spain
•Practice; differs too, examples in our report on
Austria, Finland, Greece, UK, Denmark and NL

13. Role play during expertmeeting

14. Some outcomes interviews
•Victims & offenders satisfied
•Victims and offenders feel safe
•Preparatory meeting important
•Often attention for the future, not so much
to the history of the violence
•Not always an agreement is made
•Safety victims after VOM hardly an issue
•Needs expressed for follow up

15. Security and safety
VOM, 3 aspects important:
1. is there room for an open dialogue and do victims
feel safe?
2. is there mainly discussion about the
consequences of the violence or broader about the
dynamics of the relationship, violations of norms
and looking for solutions?
3. is the mediation ended with an agreement?

16. Safety
Important that the parties can say what they
want to say
The interviews showed that:
• Women appreciated to have a real dialogue
with their partner or ex
• They mainly felt save, this was related to a
solid preparation, with attention for risks and
ways to prevent those

17. Security
Needs to be provided by:
•the government – laws, finances
•justice chain – knowledge & structure:
judges, public prosecutors, police, lawyers,
mediators
•community – awareness
•Cooperation crucial

18. Guiding Principles
•Knowledge about the complexity of IPV; difference
between intimate terrorism and situational violence.
•Look at historical & social context
•Clear affirmation of the norm
•Preparation of the meeting: face-to-face meeting
with victim and offender separately
•Essential in assessing the risks of re-victimization &
issues of safety, empowering and taking responsibility

19. Practitioner’s Guide
•Victim Directive & human rights as a basis
•Minimum standards concerning: safety, training,
the process
•Process: offer, preparation, exchange & follow-
up
•IPV knowledge central
•risk assessment
•co-mediation
•sharing experiences

20. Risk assessment in guide
Parties should not feel coerced and victim
should not feel endangered
• care for risks
• continuous process
• risk assessment tools
• risks of children
• written assessments recommended

21. Conclusions
• RJ in DV cases not evident, but possible if well
embedded & implemented
•6 countries with very different systems
•All do work with RJ in DV/IPV cases
•Different practices & roles probation, police, judicial
authorities
•Safety & security
•Research: information, preparation & cooperation
crucial; need for more guidance
•Work in progress > let’s discuss & improve

22. info@annemiekewolthuis.nl
European Forum for Restorative Justice
Website: www.euforumrj.org
E-mail: info@euforumrj.org
Tel: +32.466.209.112
Skype: euforumrj
Thank you for your
attention!