The document discusses the Restorative Engagement Program established by the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce in Australia. It was created as an alternative to traditional restorative justice programs, which were not practical given the context of abuse allegations against the Australian Defence Force. The Program allows victims to tell their stories of abuse to senior Defence representatives in a facilitated conference. Over 450 conferences have been held so far. The Program aims to acknowledge harm experienced by victims and drive cultural change within the Defence Force to prevent future abuse.
Managing in the presence of uncertaintyGlen Alleman
Uncertainty is the source of risk. Uncertainty comes in two types, aleatory and epistemic. It is important to understand both and deal with both in distinct ways, in order to produce a credible risk handling strategy.
Slides for an overview lecture explaining how risk management and controls are the route to explaining why information security matters to business. Plus a bonus discussion of why incident handling is no longer optional.
Managing in the presence of uncertaintyGlen Alleman
Uncertainty is the source of risk. Uncertainty comes in two types, aleatory and epistemic. It is important to understand both and deal with both in distinct ways, in order to produce a credible risk handling strategy.
Slides for an overview lecture explaining how risk management and controls are the route to explaining why information security matters to business. Plus a bonus discussion of why incident handling is no longer optional.
PACT's Mekong Partnership for the Environment gave this presentation on whether meaningful public participation in Environmental Impact Assessment is possible in the Mekong Region. Case studies in other countries and domains were looked at.
Sustainable livelihood framework and asset pentagonShawkat Ara Begum
SLF is an effort to conceptualize complexities of livelihoods considering asset pentagon- five types of capital involving in it. This is not an original production. It was developed for study purpose which I thought might be useful for other students to get a quick idea his topic.
What is Risk ? What is Hazard ? What is Exposure ? What is Vulnerability ? What is Sensitivity ? What are the different types of risk analysis method followed in any type of risk assessment works? After going through the presentation one can understand the answer to all the above questions.
Risk Management Process Steps Powerpoint Presentation SlidesSlideTeam
“You can download this product from SlideTeam.net”
Download Risk Management Process Steps PowerPoint Presentation Slides to identify and manage potential business risk. This risk analysis and management PowerPoint complete deck includes content ready slides such as risk management lifecycle, types of risks, risk categories, stakeholder’s management and engagement, risk appetite and tolerance, procedure, risk management plan, risk identification, risk register, risk assessment, risk analysis, risk response plan, risk response matrix, risk control matrix, risk items tracking, tools and practices, risk impact & profitability analysis, risk mitigations strategies, plans, qualitative and quantitative risk analysis, etc. The content given in this Presentation has been researched by our team of experts. All slides are easy to customize. Users can edit these templates as per their requirements. Showcase risk evaluation and analysis techniques with risk response plan PPT Slides. Demonstrate the risk aspect involved in the project using the risk management approach and plan presentation graphics. Our Risk Management Process Steps Powerpoint Presentation Slides come in a fantastic array. They offer a broad canvas of exclusive craftsmanship. https://bit.ly/30Cg1VG
Prezentācija konferencē "Bērnu sociāla iekļaušana kā antisociālas uzvedības novēršanas metode".
Konference tika rīkota projekta "Bērnu antisociālās uzvedības mazināšana: agrīnās prevencijas modeļi” ietvaros.
Projektu finansiāli atbalsta Islande, Lihtenšteina un Norvēģija NVO projektu programmas ietvaros.
NVO projektu programmu tiek finansēta ar Eiropas Ekonomikas zonas finanšu instrumenta un Latvijas valsts finansiālu atbalstu.
Plašāka informācija: ,
http://www.providus.lv/public/27880.html
www.sif.lv
www.eeagrants.org
www.eeagrants.lv
Youth Participation in Development - Summary Presentationyouthindevelopment
A summary presentation prepared for the UN International Year of Youth by Restless Development sharing information and case studies from the 'Youth Participation in Development Guide' which is available at http://www.ygproject.org
Money Laundering in the Art, Collectibles, and Luxury Goods IndustryBrandonRuse1
Money laundering and fraud cases in the rare art and luxury goods industry are increasing as the gap between resources and budgets is being widened by COVID-19.
PACT's Mekong Partnership for the Environment gave this presentation on whether meaningful public participation in Environmental Impact Assessment is possible in the Mekong Region. Case studies in other countries and domains were looked at.
Sustainable livelihood framework and asset pentagonShawkat Ara Begum
SLF is an effort to conceptualize complexities of livelihoods considering asset pentagon- five types of capital involving in it. This is not an original production. It was developed for study purpose which I thought might be useful for other students to get a quick idea his topic.
What is Risk ? What is Hazard ? What is Exposure ? What is Vulnerability ? What is Sensitivity ? What are the different types of risk analysis method followed in any type of risk assessment works? After going through the presentation one can understand the answer to all the above questions.
Risk Management Process Steps Powerpoint Presentation SlidesSlideTeam
“You can download this product from SlideTeam.net”
Download Risk Management Process Steps PowerPoint Presentation Slides to identify and manage potential business risk. This risk analysis and management PowerPoint complete deck includes content ready slides such as risk management lifecycle, types of risks, risk categories, stakeholder’s management and engagement, risk appetite and tolerance, procedure, risk management plan, risk identification, risk register, risk assessment, risk analysis, risk response plan, risk response matrix, risk control matrix, risk items tracking, tools and practices, risk impact & profitability analysis, risk mitigations strategies, plans, qualitative and quantitative risk analysis, etc. The content given in this Presentation has been researched by our team of experts. All slides are easy to customize. Users can edit these templates as per their requirements. Showcase risk evaluation and analysis techniques with risk response plan PPT Slides. Demonstrate the risk aspect involved in the project using the risk management approach and plan presentation graphics. Our Risk Management Process Steps Powerpoint Presentation Slides come in a fantastic array. They offer a broad canvas of exclusive craftsmanship. https://bit.ly/30Cg1VG
Prezentācija konferencē "Bērnu sociāla iekļaušana kā antisociālas uzvedības novēršanas metode".
Konference tika rīkota projekta "Bērnu antisociālās uzvedības mazināšana: agrīnās prevencijas modeļi” ietvaros.
Projektu finansiāli atbalsta Islande, Lihtenšteina un Norvēģija NVO projektu programmas ietvaros.
NVO projektu programmu tiek finansēta ar Eiropas Ekonomikas zonas finanšu instrumenta un Latvijas valsts finansiālu atbalstu.
Plašāka informācija: ,
http://www.providus.lv/public/27880.html
www.sif.lv
www.eeagrants.org
www.eeagrants.lv
Youth Participation in Development - Summary Presentationyouthindevelopment
A summary presentation prepared for the UN International Year of Youth by Restless Development sharing information and case studies from the 'Youth Participation in Development Guide' which is available at http://www.ygproject.org
Money Laundering in the Art, Collectibles, and Luxury Goods IndustryBrandonRuse1
Money laundering and fraud cases in the rare art and luxury goods industry are increasing as the gap between resources and budgets is being widened by COVID-19.
Transferring an educational board game to a multiuser mobile learning game to...Roland Klemke
We designed a multi-user board game about decision processes in a port environment in order to sensitize stakeholders in a value chain about their communicative behaviour. Five players in different roles play three levels of five rounds, taking decisions based on incomplete information. New levels give access to (limited) communication means to foster shared situational awareness. A game master controls rules and scores. The game’s goal is to balance several scores: individual scores and an overall performance score. Decisions taken affect scores either positively or negatively.
To simplify applicability and to provide more realistic situations, we created a computerized version using the ARLearn-platform for mobile games. ARLearn allows designing multi-user process-oriented games binding content, tasks, and interactive questions to game-logic dependencies. This allows players to be physically separated while playing together.
America’s most decorated gymnast, Shannon Miller once said, “At the Olympics, you (are) there to do a job. I feel you should take it seriously. You should be respectful. You are putting on the red-white-and-blue and going out there to perform for your country.” Today as the planet’s foremost sporting event is on we look at what the B2B marketing landscape can imbibe from the spirit of the games.
Following the release of the Report on the Operation and Effectiveness of the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) by Prof. Philip Evans, the WA Government released its Response and the Construction Contracts Amendment Bill 2016 was read for the first and second time on 22 September 2016. Gain a better understanding of the changes and their likely effects with Stephen McComish on enforcing determinations.
this is the scenaro this is a discussion not a paperHSA515 Wee.docxshandicollingwood
this is the scenaro this is a discussion not a paper
HSA515 Week 4 Scenario Script:
Health Care Policy, Law, and Ethics -
Civil Procedures, Practices and Corporate Structure
Slide #
Scene/Interaction
Narration
Slide 1
Scene 1: Exterior Strayer University Building/Classroom
Slide 2
Scene 2
Professor Charles enters classroom and introduces the topics for today’s lesson and begins the lecture.
Prof Charles
: Hello everyone….welcome back to class. Today, we are going to discuss civil procedures, practices, and corporate structure.
Trials, especially jury trials, are vital to fostering the respect of the public in the civil justice system. Trials do not represent the failure of the system. This class is important in understanding the law as it applies to the courtroom. Although many of the procedures leading up to and followed during a trial will be discussed, civil procedures and trial practice are governed by each state’s statutory requirements. Cases on a federal level are governed by federal statutory requirements.
The pleadings of a case are the written statements of fact and law filed with a court by the parties to a lawsuit. The
complaint
is the first pleading in a lawsuit that is filed by the plaintiff. A
demurrer
is a pleading filed by a defendant challenging the legal sufficiency of a complaint. An
answer
to a complaint is a pleading, which admits or denies the specific allegations set forth in the complaint and constitutes a general appearance by a defendant. A
bill of particulars
is a request for a written itemization of the claims, which a defendant can demand from the plaintiff to determine what the details of a claim are. A defendant may also file a cross-compliant and bring other parties into a law suit by the process.
Let’s first discuss the summons and complaint. Who can tell us what a summons and a complaint are?
Casey:
A summon is a service of process on a defendant and a return to the court of that process by the person who served it. In other words, it is when an issue has been called in the courts to come back together. And, Wow, a complaint
is any formal legal document that is issued by the plantiff to hopefully supports a claim against someone or a group.
Donald
: A first pleading filed with the court in a negligence action is the complaint. The complaint identifies the parties to a suit, states a cause of action, and includes a demand for damages. The complaint is filed by the plaintiff and is the first statement of a case by the plaintiff against the defendant.
Prof. Charles
: Absolutely… What specific formalities must be observed in the service of a summons for proper jurisdiction?
Casey
: The formalities dictate the manner in which a summons is to be delivered, the period within which service must be effected, and the geographical limitations which service must be made. Where the service cannot be possible, the action may have to be brought into a different court.
Prof. Charles
: What may the.
Keeping the Peace: Lessons in Community-Police MediationEvan Hoffman
In this webinar, Dr. Hoffman will discuss his involvement re-designing and implementing the Voluntary ADR Program (VADRP) for the Ottawa Police Service and providing conflict resolution skills training to new recruits joining the force.
Running head PHASE 4 – GROUP COLLABORATION 1PHASE 4 - GROUP.docxtoltonkendal
Running head: PHASE 4 – GROUP COLLABORATION 1
PHASE 4 - GROUP COLLABORATION 11
CCJS 495 – Issues in Criminal Justice
Group 2 – Phase 4
Virtual Police Department –
Office of the District Attorney –
State Correctional Facility –
State Department of Parole –
Virtual Private Security Force –
For over a decade, the Very Bad Bike Club (VBBC) has inflicted crime and terror upon Virtual City and its citizens through a wide range of criminal activities, including violent and drug-related offences. Until this point, the Virtual City Police Department has been solitary in its efforts to target the VBBC and its members. Investigations and arrests have been made, but case dismissals and reduced plea bargains resulted in little impact on the club's workings. Coordinated raids have successfully produced multiple convictions, however, evidence suggests imprisoned VBBC members not only maintain contact with outside members, but are continuing illicit activities from within prison.
The VBBC is now comprised of a network of individuals, both inside and out of Virtual City's Criminal Justice System. A concerted, multi-agency collaboration is required to bring the VBBC to justice, for which the Virtual Criminal Justice Alliance has been assembled. To accomplish this, the alliance is focusing on two approaches, (1) the pursuit of the current police investigations and prosecutions, and (2) a strategic plan to work collaboratively to reduce crime in Virtual. Using the influence and resources available to each participating agency, the Virtual Criminal Justice Alliance is tasked with bringing an end to the illicit activities committed by the VBBC.
The success of the Virtual Criminal Justice Alliance is dependent upon each collaborative agency working effectively and efficiently. Part of enacting a successful alliance is through understanding the individual responsibilities of each agency in dealing with this problem. The Virtual Police Department, Office of the District Attorney, State Correctional Facility, State Department of Parole and the Virtual Security force must work both within their traditional roles and simultaneously provide inter-alliance support.
The function and purpose of the police department can vary depending on the mission statement however “crime fighting is the hallmark of the law-enforcement style of policing” (The american, n.d., p 3). Though, in general, the purpose of the police department is to fight crime, there are multiple manners in which this can be accomplished depending on the style of the department as well as the jurisdiction.
In the fight for crime reduction and “in maintaining public order, the police use discretion in preventing disorder from occurring” (The american, n.d., p 3). This may include an “emphasis [on] professional policing” (the american, n.d., p 3) and could “[stress] addressing social problems and neighborhood concerns” (The american, n.d., p 3). In many ways, the police agency attempts ...
BackgroundA significant criminal event may occur at any place ancameroncourtney45
Background
A significant criminal event may occur at any place and at any time. The size of the jurisdiction does not dictate the scope and scale of the incident. It is perfectly possible, even predictable, that investigative needs will be beyond the resources and/or sophistication of a local law enforcement agency. In such cases, one option is to expand the resources available through multiagency collaboration and cooperation (e.g., a task force). However, regardless of who or how many investigative resources are brought to bear on an incident, the parent agency remains responsible for the successful outcome of the criminal investigation.
Project Setting
Acting as a subject matter expert on criminal investigation, you have been asked to assist in the creation of a simulation exercise of a multijurisdictional criminal investigation. Some of the preliminary work has already been completed. Your specific task is to compile the post investigation review document (rubric) to be used by exercise assessors in their evaluation of the quality of the criminal investigation. This is what you know:
A series of 11 random explosions have occurred in an area that traverses two states, and a total of seven counties (five counties in one state and two counties in the other state), embracing a total of nine cities and incorporated towns. The explosions resulted in five deaths, 32 injuries, and significant property damage. In each case, the explosion was detonated remotely. The lead investigative agency is the Virtual, Maryland, Police Department, because the first three explosions occurred within its jurisdiction. VPD has about 100 sworn personnel, including 17 all-purpose detective investigators. It has a certified forensic laboratory for rudimentary analysis, staffed by credentialed civilians. Ultimately, two suspects were identified and apprehended, one adult male and one teenage (minor) male. Statements were made by each, resulting in investigative searches and seizures of forensic evidence. Both subjects eventually confessed to their respective and collective parts in the crimes.
Assessors in the simulation exercise will be debriefing the role players as to their actions; their understanding of the legal basis, purpose, and advantages and disadvantages of their investigative strategies; and the conduct of the investigation. The assessors have already come up with a series of questions for the participants. You have been asked to provide the "model" answer against which the responses of the participants will be graded.
Following are the questions to be posed by the simulation exercise assessors to the investigators:
Investigative Task Force
Assuming that legal authority was not an issue, should this investigation be conducted by VPD personnel or a multijurisdictional task force?
At what point should the potential of establishing an investigative task force be considered?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of an investigative task ...
BackgroundA significant criminal event may occur at any place and .docxmarlinnewton
Background
A significant criminal event may occur at any place and at any time. The size of the jurisdiction does not dictate the scope and scale of the incident. It is perfectly possible, even predictable, that investigative needs will be beyond the resources and/or sophistication of a local law enforcement agency. In such cases, one option is to expand the resources available through multiagency collaboration and cooperation (e.g., a task force). However, regardless of who or how many investigative resources are brought to bear on an incident, the parent agency remains responsible for the successful outcome of the criminal investigation.
Project Setting
Acting as a subject matter expert on criminal investigation, you have been asked to assist in the creation of a simulation exercise of a multijurisdictional criminal investigation. Some of the preliminary work has already been completed. Your specific task is to compile the post investigation review document (rubric) to be used by exercise assessors in their evaluation of the quality of the criminal investigation. This is what you know:
A series of 11 random explosions have occurred in an area that traverses two states, and a total of seven counties (five counties in one state and two counties in the other state), embracing a total of nine cities and incorporated towns. The explosions resulted in five deaths, 32 injuries, and significant property damage. In each case, the explosion was detonated remotely. The lead investigative agency is the Virtual, Maryland, Police Department, because the first three explosions occurred within its jurisdiction. VPD has about 100 sworn personnel, including 17 all-purpose detective investigators. It has a certified forensic laboratory for rudimentary analysis, staffed by credentialed civilians. Ultimately, two suspects were identified and apprehended, one adult male and one teenage (minor) male. Statements were made by each, resulting in investigative searches and seizures of forensic evidence. Both subjects eventually confessed to their respective and collective parts in the crimes.
Assessors in the simulation exercise will be debriefing the role players as to their actions; their understanding of the legal basis, purpose, and advantages and disadvantages of their investigative strategies; and the conduct of the investigation. The assessors have already come up with a series of questions for the participants. You have been asked to provide the "model" answer against which the responses of the participants will be graded.
Following are the questions to be posed by the simulation exercise assessors to the investigators:
Investigative Task Force
Assuming that legal authority was not an issue, should this investigation be conducted by VPD personnel or a multijurisdictional task force?
At what point should the potential of establishing an investigative task force be considered?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of an investigative task force?
Who, or wha.
Brennan, Niamh and Kelly, John [2007] A Study of Whistleblowing Among Trainee...Prof Niamh M. Brennan
Over the last number of years whistleblowers have been gaining prominence. This paper investigates some of the factors that influence the propensity or willingness to blow the whistle among trainee auditors. Three categories of factors are examined: audit firm organisational structures, personal characteristics of whistleblowers and situational variables.
A survey of 240 final year students of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland was undertaken. Trainee auditors (just about to sit their finals) were asked about their confidence in internal and external reporting structures in their firms. Using four scenarios, audit trainees were questioned on their willingness to challenge an audit partner’s inappropriate response to concerns raised during the audit. Finally, audit trainees were asked about the influence of legal protection on their likelihood of whistleblowing.
Results indicate that where firms have adequate formal structures for reporting wrongdoing, trainee auditors are more likely to report wrongdoing and have greater confidence that this will not adversely affect their careers. Training increases this confidence. Trainee auditors also express a willingness to challenge an audit partner’s unsatisfactory response to wrongdoing. Significant differences were found in attitudes depending on whether the reports of wrongdoing were internal or external. The willingness to report wrongdoing externally reduces for older (aged over 25) trainees.
BackgroundA significant criminal event may occur at any place an.docxaman341480
Background
A significant criminal event may occur at any place and at any time. The size of the jurisdiction does not dictate the scope and scale of the incident. It is perfectly possible, even predictable, that investigative needs will be beyond the resources and/or sophistication of a local law enforcement agency. In such cases, one option is to expand the resources available through multiagency collaboration and cooperation (e.g., a task force). However, regardless of who or how many investigative resources are brought to bear on an incident, the parent agency remains responsible for the successful outcome of the criminal investigation.
Project Setting
Acting as a subject matter expert on criminal investigation, you have been asked to assist in the creation of a simulation exercise of a multijurisdictional criminal investigation. Some of the preliminary work has already been completed. Your specific task is to compile the post investigation review document (rubric) to be used by exercise assessors in their evaluation of the quality of the criminal investigation. This is what you know:
A series of 11 random explosions have occurred in an area that traverses two states, and a total of seven counties (five counties in one state and two counties in the other state), embracing a total of nine cities and incorporated towns. The explosions resulted in five deaths, 32 injuries, and significant property damage. In each case, the explosion was detonated remotely. The lead investigative agency is the Virtual, Maryland, Police Department, because the first three explosions occurred within its jurisdiction. VPD has about 100 sworn personnel, including 17 all-purpose detective investigators. It has a certified forensic laboratory for rudimentary analysis, staffed by credentialed civilians. Ultimately, two suspects were identified and apprehended, one adult male and one teenage (minor) male. Statements were made by each, resulting in investigative searches and seizures of forensic evidence. Both subjects eventually confessed to their respective and collective parts in the crimes.
Assessors in the simulation exercise will be debriefing the role players as to their actions; their understanding of the legal basis, purpose, and advantages and disadvantages of their investigative strategies; and the conduct of the investigation. The assessors have already come up with a series of questions for the participants. You have been asked to provide the "model" answer against which the responses of the participants will be graded.
Following are the questions to be posed by the simulation exercise assessors to the investigators:
Investigative Task Force
Assuming that legal authority was not an issue, should this investigation be conducted by VPD personnel or a multijurisdictional task force?
At what point should the potential of establishing an investigative task force be considered?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of an investigative task force?
Who, ...
Similar to Restorative engagement: A new approach (20)
Remedium is an Australian based online dispute resolution (ODR) platform. The platform is used by both individuals and
business owners to assist with resolution of a variety of disputes.
Remedium provides users with a faster, simpler and more cost-effective dispute resolution experience. The platform is 100% online and cloud based, meaning it can be accessed from anywhere at anytime.
Should Australia sign the Singapore Convention on Mediation?Resolution Institute
Our speakers at this event are Professors Khory McCormick and Rajesh Sharma. They provided unique insights into the Convention and its intended operation, lead a discussion about the consequences of our failure to sign, and suggest solutions.
Should Australia sign the Singapore Convention on Mediation?Resolution Institute
Our speakers at this event are Professors Khory McCormick and Rajesh Sharma. They provided unique insights into the Convention and its intended operation, lead a discussion about the consequences of our failure to sign, and suggest solutions.
The voice of children in family law: The child centred continuum approachResolution Institute
Across the world Family Law jurisdictions are struggling with the same issue. If the International convention on the Rights of the Child acknowledges a child’s right to participate in decisions that affect them (Article 12), how can a family law dispute resolution system (FDR/Mediation) provide an opportunity for that to occur, not just in the nice cases, but in all cases suitable for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)? In 2015 Jon Graham (Sydney, Australia) began an international collaboration with Lorri Yasenik PhD (Calgary, Canada). The goal was to design a model of practice that treated a family law parenting dispute from a systemic viewpoint and as such treat the mediation as a multi-party process. It is not that children are in the room all the time, but it is possible that children are given meaningful involvement. It is not true that children are given the status of decision makers for their parents, but rather provide information about the needs and concerns that they have as a result of the family separation.
In this presentation Jon presents the child centred continuum model, which has become a focus of child informed discussion in Australia, North America, the UK and Asia.
A review of the raft of amendments under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Amendment Act 2018 [NSW] and a discussion about their consequences with Charles Brannen, Robert Riddell and Robert Sundercombe
Latent condition clauses in construction contracts reallocate the risk for latent conditions from the contractor to the principal by a test which assesses conditions actually encountered against a standard of what could reasonably have been foreseen by an experienced contractor at the time of tender. Gordon discusses this test by reference to case examples, and suggests a number of general principles derived from the cases
Speakers Janice McLeay and Paul McLeay examine the dynamic of the support person at mediation and share their approach to help attendees use support persons in mediation to best advantage
Magistrate Colin Kaeser outlines some of the ways in which the landscape of family law may change and discussed how the various players in the family law system, including mediators and family dispute resolution practitioners, can do more.
Dr Serge Loode shares how mediators can create constructive conversations and safe spaces for discussion by encouraging positive conflict behaviours in disputing parties
What is the point of small housing associations.pptxPaul Smith
Given the small scale of housing associations and their relative high cost per home what is the point of them and how do we justify their continued existance
Jennifer Schaus and Associates hosts a complimentary webinar series on The FAR in 2024. Join the webinars on Wednesdays and Fridays at noon, eastern.
Recordings are on YouTube and the company website.
https://www.youtube.com/@jenniferschaus/videos
ZGB - The Role of Generative AI in Government transformation.pdfSaeed Al Dhaheri
This keynote was presented during the the 7th edition of the UAE Hackathon 2024. It highlights the role of AI and Generative AI in addressing government transformation to achieve zero government bureaucracy
Russian anarchist and anti-war movement in the third year of full-scale warAntti Rautiainen
Anarchist group ANA Regensburg hosted my online-presentation on 16th of May 2024, in which I discussed tactics of anti-war activism in Russia, and reasons why the anti-war movement has not been able to make an impact to change the course of events yet. Cases of anarchists repressed for anti-war activities are presented, as well as strategies of support for political prisoners, and modest successes in supporting their struggles.
Thumbnail picture is by MediaZona, you may read their report on anti-war arson attacks in Russia here: https://en.zona.media/article/2022/10/13/burn-map
Links:
Autonomous Action
http://Avtonom.org
Anarchist Black Cross Moscow
http://Avtonom.org/abc
Solidarity Zone
https://t.me/solidarity_zone
Memorial
https://memopzk.org/, https://t.me/pzk_memorial
OVD-Info
https://en.ovdinfo.org/antiwar-ovd-info-guide
RosUznik
https://rosuznik.org/
Uznik Online
http://uznikonline.tilda.ws/
Russian Reader
https://therussianreader.com/
ABC Irkutsk
https://abc38.noblogs.org/
Send mail to prisoners from abroad:
http://Prisonmail.online
YouTube: https://youtu.be/c5nSOdU48O8
Spotify: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/libertarianlifecoach/episodes/Russian-anarchist-and-anti-war-movement-in-the-third-year-of-full-scale-war-e2k8ai4
This session provides a comprehensive overview of the latest updates to the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (commonly known as the Uniform Guidance) outlined in the 2 CFR 200.
With a focus on the 2024 revisions issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), participants will gain insight into the key changes affecting federal grant recipients. The session will delve into critical regulatory updates, providing attendees with the knowledge and tools necessary to navigate and comply with the evolving landscape of federal grant management.
Learning Objectives:
- Understand the rationale behind the 2024 updates to the Uniform Guidance outlined in 2 CFR 200, and their implications for federal grant recipients.
- Identify the key changes and revisions introduced by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the 2024 edition of 2 CFR 200.
- Gain proficiency in applying the updated regulations to ensure compliance with federal grant requirements and avoid potential audit findings.
- Develop strategies for effectively implementing the new guidelines within the grant management processes of their respective organizations, fostering efficiency and accountability in federal grant administration.
PNRR MADRID GREENTECH FOR BROWN NETWORKS NETWORKS MUR_MUSA_TEBALDI.pdf
Restorative engagement: A new approach
1. 1
RESTORATIVE ENGAGEMENT—
A NEW APPROACH TO RESOLUTION
BY
THE HONOURABLE LEN ROBERTS-SMITH RFD,QC , 1
FORMER
i
CHAIR, DEFENCE ABUSE RESPONSE TASKFORCE.
ADDRESS TO THE RESOLUTION INSTITUTE COLLOQIUM,
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA, 16 DECEMBER 2015.
Introduction
“We are at our best when we pause and walk in the shoes of others and reflect on
their experiences acknowledging their pain and then commit to right that wrong”
ii
This is an edited and updated version of a paper presented to The Institute of
Arbitrators & Mediators Australia Conference in Canberra on 3 May 2014.
I propose to talk about the evolution of the Restorative Engagement Program
(“Program”) of the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce (“Taskforce” or “the DART”),
the principles which underpin it, the conduct of the Restorative Engagement
conferences themselves and the results to date. In relation to other aspects of the
Program I will give references to material published by the Taskforce, (and which is
on its website: www.defenceabuseresponse.gov.au) which gives that wider
information.
The establishment of the Taskforce was announced by the then Minister for Defence,
the Hon Stephen Smith MP, on 26 November 2012 in response to a report following
a review by the law firm DLA Piper of allegations of abuse in the Australian Defence
Force and the Department of Defence (collectively, “Defence”). Details of the
circumstances leading up to it, the Taskforce’s Terms of Reference and it’s progress
since then, are contained in quarterly reports to the Minister for Defence and to the
Attorney-General tabled in the Federal Parliament
iii
. They are on the Taskforce
website.
iv
The Starting point for the Program was the announcement by the Minister for
Defence on 26 November 2012 that one of the specific outcomes which would be
available to victims of abuse within Defence
v
would be a “Restorative Justice”
process.
vi
However, what that meant was not explained. The promised outcome had
its genesis in a recommendation by DLA Piper that the Government’s response
should include a scheme of restorative justice whereby victims of abuse could meet
with their abuser(s). Realistically, it was clear that was never a practicable prospect.
It was left to the Taskforce to construct a model that would work in this unique
context. Consideration of what that might realistically be, extended over several
2. 2
months. Well, what was the context?
This was not to be another inquiry to make general recommendations. The primary
purpose of the Taskforce was to assess specific complaints of sexual and other forms
of abuse by Defence personnel made prior to 11 April 2011 and, in close consultation
with those complainants, determine appropriate actions in response to those
complaints.
vii
vi
The other outcomes to be provided by the Taskforce were to include:
A referral to counselling under a nationwide Defence Abuse Counselling
Program;
A Reparation Payment of up to $50,000 under a Defence Abuse Reparation
Scheme;
A referral of appropriate matters to police or military justice authorities for
formal criminal investigation and assessment for prosecution; and
Referral to the Chief of the Defence Force (“CDF”) for administrative or
disciplinary action;
Within its first couple of months the Taskforce had received many hundreds of
complaints of abuse and was anticipating the eventual number would exceed
2000.
viii
I should point out that the Taskforce has completed the bulk of its work – almost all
reparation payments have been made (1720 payments totaling more than $66.5
million); 127 complaints (covering 205 cases) have been referred to police; 132 cases
have been referred to the CDF for consideration of disciplinary or administrative
action; 208 complainants are currently undergoing counseling; and 450 Restorative
Engagement conferences have been held to date, with more than 160 still to be held.
Counselling and Restorative Engagement conferences are likely to continue into at
least the early months of 2016.
I return to the position in November 2012.
The notion of “restorative justice” did not seem to sit well in the Taskforce
environment for a number of reasons, including:
• the Taskforce has no investigative powers and was not to conduct hearings nor
make determinations of fact or law.
• in accepting allegations of abuse as sufficiently cogent to qualify for the outcomes
the Taskforce could make available, it was to apply a novel standard, that of
“plausibility”.
ix
An allegation would be accepted as true if it was plausible.
x
• the Taskforce had nothing to do with the Justice System – it was not part of any
court or tribunal process and had nothing to do with sentencing offenders (it was not
even to have any dealings with alleged offenders or abusers).
xi
• many of the complaints of abuse made to the Taskforce involved allegations of
serious sexual assaults, up to and including gang rape. “Restorative Justice”
programs have usually been confined to property or minor offences and sexual or
other serious assaults are generally excluded from them. Beyond these
considerations, many complainants
xii
had never told anyone about the abuse they
3. 3
suffered, before coming to DLA Piper or the Taskforce.
• most complainants were no longer interested in seeing their abuser brought to
account; their concern was with Defence for allowing the abuse to occur and not
supporting them when it did. What almost all of them said they wanted was to have
their personal account of abuse listened to by Defence, accepted as true and be
given acknowledgement that the abuse was wrong and that it should not have
happened. They wanted this so that such things would not happen to others.
A final factor here was the response of the Chiefs of the Army, Navy and Air Force to
meetings which they had separately with women members of the ADF who had been
sexually assaulted at the Australian Defence Force Academy (“ADFA”).
The meetings had been arranged by Ms Elizabeth Broderick, the then Sex
Discrimination Commissioner, in the course of her Review on behalf of the Australian
Human Rights Commission into the Treatment of Women in the ADF.
xiii
Each of those meetings brought together a woman who had suffered sexual abuse at
ADFA, with a Service Chief, who listened to her personal account of what had
happened and the consequences of that for her. These were “one off” meetings, for
the purpose of enlivening the personal awareness of the Service Chiefs.
The meetings had a profound impact on the Service Chiefs, one of them later
describing it publicly as probably the most transformative experience of his life.
xiv
These responses suggested to us that properly facilitated conferences between
Taskforce complainants and senior Defence Representatives could serve to meet two
of the purposes of the Taskforce – giving some appropriate resolution to individual
complainants; and driving cultural change within Defence.
Solution – The Program
The essential features of the Program had been substantially developed by July 2013.
The ‘Restorative Engagement Program Framework’ (“Framework”) was signed on 23
July 2013.
xv
The Framework outlines the background, rationale, principles and
processes that informed the development of the Program. It is underpinned by the
best practice principles and values of restorative practice, conciliation and mediation,
although it is fundamentally different from those ( in particular, because there is no
dispute, there is nothing to conciliate or mediate ). These notably include “to do no
further harm”, confidentiality, safety and privacy.
The Program provides an opportunity for those who have made plausible allegations
of abuse in Defence to take part in a restorative process that allows their personal
account of abuse to be heard, acknowledged and responded to by a senior
representative of Defence. It is a means of directly addressing the harm, and the
consequences of it to complainants.
The Program was developed in consultation with Defence and has the full support of
the CDF, the Secretary of the Department of Defence (SECDEF) and the Chiefs of
Army, Navy and Air Force.
A Restorative Engagement Program Protocol was signed by the Chair of the
Taskforce, CDF and SECDEF in late 2013.
xvi
In October 2013 CDF and SECDEF issued a Joint Directive across the whole of the ADF
and Department of Defence, concerning Defence participation in the Program, (the
CFD/SECDEF Joint Directive).
xvii
I turn to a broad overview of the components and distinguishing characteristics of
4. 4
the Program.
It is necessary first to understand how the Program sits within the work of the
Taskforce.
The primary functional or operational groups within the Taskforce organisation were
structured on the outcomes to be delivered. For example referral of cases to civilian
police agencies for possible criminal investigation was done by the Crime Group,
which consisted of former or still-serving police officers on secondment.
Recommendations to the independent Reparation Payments Assessor were made by
the Reparations Group, which consisted of lawyers and other staff with experience in
criminal injuries or other compensation regimes.
We made a decision at the outset that complainants would not be “passed around”
the Taskforce, but each would have a single point of contact. That work is done by
the Complainant Support Group (CSG) which consists of staff with experience in
counselling and victim support. Initial contact with complainants was with the
Complainant Liaison Team in CSG; once their complaint was assessed by the
Assessment Group as within the Taskforce Terms of Reference and plausible,
complainants were allocated a Case Coordinator in the CSG Case Coordination Team.
That person was then the complainant’s personal contact throughout their time with
the Taskforce.
Typically, in the time leading up to a referral to the Program, the Case Coordinator
would have canvassed a number of things with the complainant. They would include
an explanation of the purpose of Restorative Engagement conferences; the
complainant’s capacity to present their story and needs in a conference in a way that
is safe for them; clarifying with the complainant what they wish to achieve;
managing the complainant’s expectations (unrealistic expectations may be
counterproductive) and whether participation in a conference might cause the
complainant further harm.
The importance of this for the Program, is that by the time a complainant is referred
to the Restorative Engagement Group for a Restorative Engagement conference, he
or she will have had the personal support of, and contact with, their Case
Coordinator, for weeks if not months. The complainant would generally have
received a reparation payment and may even have been referred to an external
contracted service provider for counselling. I am informed that at recent feedback
forums conducted by the Taskforce for Facilitators and Defence representatives, one
overwhelming theme from the former was how well-prepared complainants had
been for their conference, having been through other Taskforce outcomes and
through having a Case Coordinator as their sole point of contact.
As I have mentioned, decisions on reparation payments were made by an
independent Reparation Payments Assessor.
xviii
Restorative Engagement conferences therefore do not involve any discussion about
reparation payments – although the payments were made by the Taskforce out of
the Defence budget, those decisions were made outside and independently of
Defence.
There were some initial issues that had to be worked around.
First was the concern that participation in a Restorative Engagement conference
might preclude a complainant taking legal action against Defence (or the
Commonwealth) or otherwise talking about the abuse. That concern was dealt with
5. 5
from the outset by a decision that there would be no requirement on a complainant
to waive their legal rights nor to sign any confidentiality agreement that would
prevent them talking about the abuse they suffered.
Next was a concern by Defence and the Commonwealth that apologies to individual
complainants might subsequently be sought to be relied on in legal proceedings, as
admissions of liability.
Complainants in the Program undertake that they will not seek to use any apology
extended to them by the Defence Representative, as an admission of liability.
Participants are not to make or keep notes of what occurs in a conference. The only
record (and that is minimal) is kept by the Facilitator. Participants are required to
sign an agreement to keep what happens in a conference confidential.
Given these assurances, Defence Representatives are able to take part and respond
freely to the complainants’ accounts.
One other issue was initially seen as problematic. Defence personnel are subject to
legally binding directives imposing mandatory reporting requirements especially
about alleged sexual offences and unacceptable behaviour. Generally if they become
aware of such an allegation they are obliged to report it or take other appropriate
action.
xix
The concern was that Defence Representatives to whom a complainant disclosed an
account of abuse not previously known to Defence, would be obligated to report it,
irrespective of the wishes of the complainant.
This concern was obviated by the CDF/SECDEF Joint Directive, Clause 41 of which
directs that
“...existing requirements in Defence Instructions (DI), Directives, and policies or
manuals which would undermine the intent of the Program do not apply to Defence
Representatives...”
The Program is predicated on the application of trauma-informed care principles.
These are safety (physical and emotional); trustworthiness (clarity, consistency and
interpersonal boundaries); choice (maximising the complainant’s choice and
control); collaboration (maximising collaboration and sharing of power) and
empowerment (self-determination by the complainant).
It is critical that complainants be consulted about their wishes and offered as much
choice as possible.
The Program was delivered in two stages - Phase 1 was conducted in November and
December 2013. It involved the most senior Defence Leaders, including CDF, the Vice
Chief of the Defence Force and the Chiefs of Army, Navy and Air Force. Between
them, they personally took part in 14 conferences. Each conference typically lasted
about two and a half hours. An evaluation was done and that informed the further
development of the Program for Phase 2, which is currently still under way.
The Taskforce contracted experienced legal, conciliation, arbitration and mediation
practitioners to be Facilitators for Phase 2. Whilst training and experience in those
areas is helpful, they are not sufficient. The knowledge and skills required are those
of facilitating meaningful interactions in the context of intense human experiences,
such as abuse, trauma, betrayal and grief. Candidates had to undergo a two-day
induction and assessment qualifying them for accreditation to take part in the
Program as Facilitators. Their continued accreditation depends on their ability to
6. 6
conduct conferences in accordance with the “Restorative Engagement Program
Facilitator Handbook”, which sets out the Taskforce’s requirements in detail.
To date the program has involved more than 350 senior Defence representatives
ranging from 3 star (Lieutenant General) equivalent to Colonel equivalent, from
Army, Navy, Air Force and the Public Service, of whom more than 240 have already
taken part in a Restorative Engagement conference.
Each had to be personally approved by their Service Chief or SECDEF, as the case
may be.
Defence personnel approved to take part in the Program were required to attend a
one-day Defence Representative Preparation Session conducted jointly by the
Taskforce and Defence.
xx
Their names were then included in a pool from which
Defence could nominate representatives for particular conferences when requested
by the Taskforce. Defence nominates three names. The Taskforce (through a Case
Coordinator) consults with the complainant on which Defence Representative is to
be selected. It is for the complainant to choose whether or not the Defence
Representative will wear uniform; the default position is that they will, because they
are representing Defence. Thus far, only 20% of complainants have opted for the
Defence representative not to wear uniform.
The Taskforce designates a Facilitator for the conference and makes a
recommendation to the Chair (or his delegate) that approval be given for the
conference to proceed.
Logistical and administrative arrangements for the conference are made by the
Taskforce Restorative Engagement Group and the Defence Liaison Unit, in
conjunction with Defence.
The Facilitator is required to (separately) prepare the complainant (and their support
person if they choose to have one) and the Taskforce Defence Representative at
least a week before the conference.
Many complainants to date have chosen to have a support person with them. They
are encouraged to choose a support person who has a personal relationship with
them and knows about the abuse and its impact and ongoing implications for them.
We found that a support person may often be someone who has only recently been
told by the complainant of the abuse they suffered – in some instances after the
complainant has come to the Taskforce. The Taskforce is very conscious that in these
circumstances the support person him or herself may be experiencing vicarious
trauma or high emotion. This of course must be sensitively managed.
In the experience of the Taskforce, support persons enhance the process by
providing emotional, physical and practical support to complainants before, during
and after the conference. They are not there in an advocacy role, but may speak and
they frequently bring another dimension to the consequences of the abuse.
To summarise, critical features of the conference are that -
• the underlying principle is “do no further harm”;
• the complainant’s account of the abuse and the harm experienced is
accepted and is not in dispute;
• the Defence Representative is a true representative – he or she is authorised
by the CDF or SECDEF to speak on behalf of Defence;
7. 7
• Defence accepts that the abuse was wrong, and that they have a
responsibility to respond (i.e, Defence is accountable);
• the focus is on the complainant’s needs – the primary aim is to provide a
beneficial experience for the complainant;
• the conference is the outcome (although the complainant and Defence
Representative may agree on further action to be taken by Defence);
• the complainant is not required to waive their right to take any legal or other
action;
• there is no discussion about money;
• the complainant is not required to sign any confidentiality agreement which
would prevent them talking about the abuse they suffered;
• confidentiality of the complainant is absolute;
• what occurs in the conference itself is confidential to those present, and the
Taskforce.
Participation in a Restorative Engagement conference can be an emotional
experience. The Program requires the Facilitator to debrief the complainant
immediately after the conference and to contact them again 48 hours later to check
on their emotional or psychological health. The Case Coordinator will also contact
the complainant after the conference and can arrange counselling if required.
Complainants commonly speak in terms of a “great burden being lifted “ from them,
of their familial relationships being restored because their family now understands,
and of finally having their abuse acknowledged. Defence representatives are often
extremely affected emotionally.
At recent feedback forums to which I have already referred, Defence representatives
reported how the conferences had touched them personally and explained that once
they had sat with someone who had been abused, and heard their story, it inevitably
impacted on how they engaged with people at work and instilled in them a firm
desire to change Defence culture.
The Program is operating in a very complex environment – and a challenging one,
particularly for Defence.
For many different reasons, including (but not limited to), complainants not
reporting the alleged abuse at the time nor for years afterwards; minimising
descriptions of the abuse when it was reported; lack of forensic evidence; lack of
witnesses; credibility issues because of psychological illness, alcohol or drug
addiction (often the result of the abuse itself) and the absence of documentation,
many if not most of the complainants to the Taskforce would have no prospect of
having their allegations accepted as true in any formal administrative investigation
or judicial process. The application of legal standards of proof (“the balance of
probabilities” or “beyond reasonable doubt”) with the complainant having the onus
of proving the truth of their allegation, would be an insurmountable obstacle.
It was against this background that the Taskforce was required to accept an
allegation of abuse as true, if satisfied on all the material available, that it was
plausible. To put that another way, what it required is that the person making the
assessment and applying the standard of ‘plausibility’, be brought to an actual belief
that the allegation was true.
8. 8
A complainant was not eligible for any outcome from the Taskforce (including
Restorative Engagement) unless their allegation of abuse had been assessed as
within scope of its Terms of Reference and plausible.
The Defence representative goes into a Restorative Engagement conference
accepting the truth of the allegation because it has been assessed by the Taskforce
as plausible.
That assessment of course, is not in any way a legal finding or determination. The
Taskforce is not a statutory body, certainly not a judicial or administrative tribunal
and nor does it have any investigative powers. It is a Ministerial instrument under
the Executive power of the Commonwealth.
xxi
This circumstance immediately raises the potential for apparently conflicting
outcomes from different processes within Defence.
For example, Defence (through the Defence Representative) accepts an allegation of
abuse as true for the purposes of the Taskforce and the Restorative Engagement
Program.
It may be that the same allegation becomes the subject of criminal investigation
xxii
-
which may not even result in a prosecution, because the evidence cannot satisfy the
standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt; or a prosecution may result in an
acquittal, for the same reason.
Likewise, the allegation may be the subject of an administrative inquiry
xxiii
but fail to
be accepted because the evidence available does not satisfy the inquiry that on the
balance of probabilities it is true.
In short, whilst Defence accepts for the purposes of the Taskforce and the
Restorative Engagement Program that an allegation of abuse is true, that may not be
the case under different administrative or legal processes within Defence which
must be conducted in accordance with the legal principles and rules which apply to
them.
Whilst the reasons for these potentially different outcomes are well–established and
rational, complainants who have success in one context do not necessarily readily
understand why the same allegation is not then accepted in another context in
which different standards and legal rules apply.
Of course, that situation is not novel to Defence and the DART – it is not uncommon
for findings to be made in a civil or administrative law (“balance of probabilities”)
forum which are rejected in a criminal law (“proof beyond reasonable doubt”) forum.
xxiv
Insights
As we moved through the experience of Phase 1 and the early part of Phase 2
conferences, some interesting insights began to emerge. The following are not
exhaustive, but are indicative.
• The conference is the outcome. This was always the intent of the Program, but the
examples set out below gave us a greater appreciation of how that was so for
complainants.
• Failed by their Service. The fundamental driver for many, if not most complainants,
was that their Service (Army, Navy or Air Force) which had an obligation to look after
them, failed in that obligation by allowing the abuse to happen and treated them
badly afterwards. They see the ADF (or more particularly their Service) as their
“family” and as having betrayed them.
9. 9
“It’s not the rape” she says....”it hurts, yes, but I can let that go. It’s how the Army
treated me that killed me the most.
They were my family. We were supposed to look out for each other, to watch each
other’s backs. But when push came to shove, they showed me the door. They just
broke my heart”.
xxv
• Fractured Relationship. Complainants invariably said that they joined the ADF
because they aspired to become part of an organisation they admired and respected
and wanted to serve their country. The abuse they suffered not only ruined their
lives, but took those things away from them. Their separation from, or rejection by
the ADF is a cause of lifelong emotional pain and distress. Complainants often
wanted the relationship to be restored and for them to be able to see themselves
(and others see them) as part of the ADF. The Defence Representative is able to give
them that, simply by being there, listening to them, accepting their account and its
consequences and acknowledging that it was wrong and that Defence had failed
them.
• Harm is always individual. Everyone is different. The question is not “How would I
have responded to that” but “what impact did that in fact have on this person?”. It is
the harm done to the particular individual with which we are concerned. To the
extent the conferences enable Defence Representatives to develop a personal
appreciation of this, they contribute to changing culture within Defence.
• Traumatic harm not dependent on nature of trauma. The harm spoken of by
complainants tends to be similar in nature and degree, irrespective of the nature of
the abuse. Severe workplace bullying may cause similar traumatic symptoms in a
complainant as, for example, a particularly serious sexual assault.
• Complainant’s perception frozen in time. A complainant commonly sees things for
years afterwards as they were at the time of the trauma (abuse). In Restorative
Engagement conferences this can present as a fixed belief that “nothing has
changed” combined with a determination to propose specific measures to contribute
to a change in Defence culture. The way in which the Defence Representative
responds to this can be critical. It requires careful preparation, sensitivity and
empathy.
• Telling their story of abuse. Most complainants have never told anyone, even their
families, about the abuse they suffered. Recounting it for the first time to the
Taskforce was invariably difficult and often traumatic in itself. In many instances,
complainants were able to tell their story only piece by piece, over many telephone
conversations with a Complainant Liaison Officer. The fact that they had told their
story to the Taskforce did not mean they would be able to go into a Restorative
Engagement conference and tell the whole story again to the Defence
Representative. The Taskforce understood this and so emphasised the importance of
the Defence Representative being given - and being familiar with – the story of the
complainant’s abuse, before the conference. The conferences to date have
reinforced this understanding. Complainants do not necessarily want (or are able) to
recount the story of their abuse, and many may not even talk about the
consequences of it on their lives – they may just want to talk about how to stop it
happening to others.
Notwithstanding the often extremely serious nature of the abuse suffered and the
devastating impact of it on the lives of complainants, it is noteworthy that what we
10. 10
have not seen is anger or hostility directed towards the individual Defence
Representative.
I would like at this point to let some of the participants in the Program speak for
themselves.
Complainants:
• ...The Experience was huge...a massive part of the healing process. Thank you so
much for the opportunity to tell my story. It is something I have kept buried for many
years, talking about it released a lot of emotional baggage I have had for a long time.
[the Defence Representative] was incredible .....Thank you so much for being a part of
this process and guiding me along the way...you have made a huge difference in my
life and I’m sure in many others...
• ...This has given me an opportunity that I would have never got to finally confront
this issue with someone that counts, and that counts more than you could imagine.
Once again I thank you...for this very rare and privileged opportunity to make some
peace with myself and help implement new changes for all the [complainant’s name]
of today that suffer quietly.
• ...Thanks so much for your help with the meeting and [the Defence
Representative]...He is certainly a man who knows what Honour is, and the damage
that can be done when a person’s honour is taken in the way that mine was. Today,
he gave me a little of that back, and to hear his apology on behalf of the [service]
was excellent , and I believe, delivered with the utmost sincerity...and I will add that if
I can be of any help as a former ...who has suffered abuse...I would be honoured to
help in any way. I know firsthand, just how important this program is to those who
have suffered at the hands of others.
Facilitators:
• ...The [Defence Representative] delivered a masterful apology...it was personal,
sincere, acknowledging and validating...The complainant...had incredible insight
using fantastic metaphors for his experience and the impact of this...and the
complainant was “beaming” at the conclusion of the conference.
• To date and without exception, the post-Conference feedback from all participants
has been singularly positive with Complainants reporting immediate therapeutic
benefits and a high level of satisfaction that their concerns have been thoroughly
acknowledged and addressed. Complainants leave the process confident that
broader cultural change within the Defence Forces (sic) is a real possibility as a result
of this enlightened approach.
A Defence Representative:
Defence destroyed this person’s life – all aspects. Marriage, jobs, mental health,
physical health, other relationships. He only needed one champion, and he
got nothing. We owe it to the parents [and] people of Australia to ensure
people who do this are removed from our ranks ( 2013/2209 – Colonel, Army ).
11. 11
A Service Chief:
• I believe the Restorative Engagement Program is immensely powerful.
It provides complainants an opportunity to be heard by today’s and tomorrow’s
senior leaders of the ADF. Having their story listened to and the wrongs
acknowledged is clearly cathartic and an important turning point. For senior Defence
leaders it is a program that brings the darker side of Defence culture into sharp and
stark relief. It reinforces and bolsters resolve to make a difference in ongoing cultural
challenge programs. By picking the right leaders to participate in this program we
are ensuring senior leaders over the next decade or so will carry this experience with
them - it is an experience no participant can forget.
(Vice Admiral Ray Griggs, AO, Chief of Navy and now Vice Chief of the Defence
Force).
ENDNOTES
i
The Honourable Len Roberts-Smith, RFD, QC, former Chair, Defence Abuse Response Taskforce.
former Justice and Judge of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia; former Judge
Advocate General of the Australian Defence Force, with the rank of Major General
ii
The Hon Stuart Robert MP, Federal Member for Fadden, Shadow Minister for Defence Science,
Technology and Personnel, Speech: Apology to people subjected to sexual or other forms of abuse in
Defence. Address to Parliament 26 November 2012.
iii
To the date of this Colloquium, eight Interim Reports have been tabled.
iv
http://www.defenceabusetaskforce.gov.au.
v
The term “Defence” refers to the Department of Defence.
vi
The other outcomes to be provided by the Taskforce were to include:
A referral to counselling under a nationwide Defence Abuse Counselling
Program;
A Reparation Payment of up to $50,000 under a Defence Abuse Reparation
Scheme;
A referral of appropriate matters to police or military justice authorities for
formal criminal investigation and assessment for prosecution; and
Referral to the Chief of the Defence Force for administrative or disciplinary
action;
viii
Defence Abuse Response Taskforce Terms of Reference (i) and (iii), December 2012.
The DLA Piper Review received complaints from approximately 770 complainants by 31 May 2013
(the cut- off date for receiving new complaints) the Taskforce had received approximately 2400
complaints, many raising multiple allegations of abuse.
ix
This was not a standard of proof known to nor which had any application in law.
x
The definition of “plausible” applied by the Taskforce is “having the appearance of reasonableness.”
In making its assessment whether an allegation of abuse was plausible, the Taskforce did not merely
accept the unsubstantiated allegation.
• complaints to the Taskforce were required to be verified by statutory declaration;
• all material (including medical reports or other documentation) provided by the complainant,
together with service, medical or disciplinary records obtained from Defence was reviewed;
xi
• approximately 20% of allegations were rejected following assessment.
A point noted by Rob Hulls, Director, Centre for Innovative Justice, RMIT University, in “Adversarial
Justice: Pure Gold or Fool’s Gold?” at p.8; Broadening Restorative Perspectives: An International
Conference, 18 June June 2013. “What I am especially interested in ....is that only some of the
potential responses listed by the Defence Taskforce contemplate the perpetrator, while, in contrast,
12. 12
most involve a very non-adversarial assumption of responsibility by the institution – whether through
the provision of counselling, reparation payments without waiver of legal rights, or restorative
processes which are likely to see senior defence personnel involved in an independently conducted
conference”.
xii
The Taskforce uses the term “complainant” to describe victims of abuse who have complained to it
about abuse in Defence because that is consistent with its Terms of Reference; many victims of abuse
in Defence have not come forward even now; and many victims do not see themselves as “victims”
but as “survivors”.
xiii
Phase 1 of that work was a Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force
Academy. A Report on Phase 1was tabled in the Federal Parliament on 3 November 2011. The Phase 2
Report of the Commissions Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force was
tabled on 22 August 2012.
xiv
Lieutenant General David Morrison, AO, then Chief of Army.
xv
The Defence Abuse Response Taskforce Restorative Engagement Program Framework of 23 July
2013 appears as Appendix F to the Third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for
Defence, tabled in Parliament on 4 October 2013. A revised version signed on 18 October 2013 is
Appendix F to the Fourth Interim Report
xvi
The Restorative Engagement Program Protocol appears as Annexure E to the Fourth Interim Report
to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence, tabled in Parliament in December 2013.
xvii
Joint Directive by Chief of Defence Force and Secretary, Department of Defence: “Defence
Participation in the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce Restorative Engagement Program “8 October
2013 reproduced at Appendix C to the Fourth Interim Report.
xviii
Ms Robyn Kruk, AM appointed by the Minister for Defence on 30 May 2013.
xix
D1 (G) ADMIN 45-2 The Reporting and Managing of notifiable incidents; D1 (G) ADMIN 67-2 Quick
Assessments; D1 (G) 35-3 Management and Reporting of Unacceptable Behaviour; and D1 (G) PERS
35-4 Reporting and Management of Sexual Misconduct Including Sexual Offences.
xx
10 Preparation Sessions were conducted at various locations around Australia. More than 350
Defence Representatives have qualified for the pool, thus far.
xxi
Section 61 of the Commonwealth Constitution .
xxii
By Defence , under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (C’th) or by a civilian police agency.
xxiii
Under the Defence (inquiry) Regulations 1985, (C’th)
xxiv
Findings by Royal Commissions are a classic example of this.
xxv
Private Veronica Wadley quoted in “Closing Ranks” by Cameron Stewart, The Weekend Australian
Magazine, June 01-02, 2013.