Restorative Justice Following Sexual Harm

Restorative justice can provide a sense of justice to victim-survivors of sexual harm, but it needs to be specifically designed to meet the needs of individual cases. Aotearoa New Zealand’s Project Restore does just this.

New Zealand’s Ministry of Justice has taken an innovative approach to restorative justice for victims of crime and has supported its development since the late 1990s. Legislation introduced in the early 2000s enabled judges in the New Zealand court system to adjourn cases so that a restorative process could be convened if both the victim and the complainant were agreeable. This mainstream acceptance of restorative justice as an additional layer of justice was a catalyst for the establishment of Project Restore, a community-based provider group, whose founding members represent restorative justice, sexual harm helping agencies and academia, all of whom worked together to develop Project Restore.

Aotearoa New Zealand has been seen as an international leader for restorative justice and equally so in the field of restorative justice addressing cases of sexual violence. The understanding that victim-survivors of sexual harm were typically re-traumatised and re-victimised within the legal system had been gaining momentum for some decades. To meet this emerging need, Project Restore developed a gold-standard restorative process that ensures a survivor has their voice heard and gets to define what ‘justice’ looks like for them. Project Restore’s restorative processes find ways to ensure the victim-survivor is integral to the restorative process so that their justice needs are kept at the centre of court proceedings.

Aotearoa New Zealand’s statistics relating to violence are amongst the highest in the world. The latest New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey (NZCVS) by the Ministry of Justice (2023) found that some 81,000 adults in Aotearoa New Zealand reported they have experienced one or more incidences of sexual assault. Not all these incidences of sexual harm are reported to an investigative authority. The NZCVS estimated that less than 10% of survivor-victims reported sexual violence to the police (Ministry of Justice, 2023).

The costs of sexual violence are extraordinarily high. In 2020 it was estimated that sexual violence cost New Zealand approximately $NZ6.9 billion. This was comprised of $NZ600 million to the State, $NZ5.2 billion to individuals and $NZ1.1 billion to the wider society (Schulze and Hurren, 2021). This includes the tangible costs only; it does not take into account intangible costs, the psychological impacts and negative effects on health for individuals.

Project Restore is a restorative justice provider group specialised in addressing sexual violence in Aotearoa New Zealand’s criminal justice system. The development of Project Restore was inspired by the research of Dr Shirley Jülich (2006), the Restore programme in Arizona (Koss et al., 2003) and the dissatisfaction of victim-survivors pursuing justice in the conventional criminal justice system of Aotearoa New Zealand. Victim-survivors had no voice, were unrepresented by legal counsel, and reported that they felt the legal system further re-traumatised and re-victimised them.

Although Project Restore was officially launched in 2005 as a legal entity, it was preceded by a Restorative Justice Interest Group that met regularly for some twelve months to begin the difficult tasks of establishing a restorative process that would meet the justice needs of victim-survivors. From these early beginnings based in and alongside the Auckland Sexual Abuse HELP organisation and other organisations involved in either responding to sexual violence or supporting the rehabilitation of those who sexually harm, the Restorative Justice Interest Group gathered the expertise of these agencies.

In the early days of Project Restore, there was little money to develop the programme and systems essential for the operation of a community organisation applying for funding and recognition as a professional entity. Project Restore existed from one small grant to another, but at the same time it was developing experience not only of delivering restorative processes but also of establishing a community-based organisation with the capacity to continue developing and growing into the future. After almost 20 years since its launch, Project Restore has developed significant experience in delivering restorative processes that are tailor-made to the cases referred by the New Zealand court system and currently holds contracts with New Zealand’s Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Corrections. It is a national provider for restorative justice following sexual harm and to date is the only accredited agency in Aotearoa New Zealand that can receive referrals from the court system. In recognition that not all victim-survivors of sexual harm report their victimisation to the police, Project Restore has some funding to provide restorative processes to those who refer themselves directly to Project Restore, bypassing a formal report to the police. Currently, we receive approximately 90% of our referrals from the court system or from other sources such as community agencies or from those who self-refer.

Legislation in New Zealand has been in place for some years which allows for a referral to restorative justice provider groups if the offender pleads guilty and both agree to enter into a restorative process. The provider group is responsible for determining if a restorative process should go ahead. Family violence cases are referred to family violence specialist groups, and sexual violence cases are referred to Project Restore. On completion of the restorative process, the provider group provides the court with a report advising the agreed outcomes of the restorative process.

Facilitators working in the court system have completed the restorative justice training provided by the Ministry of Justice and can then go on to become accredited to facilitate restorative justice for family violence cases. Restorative justice facilitators before joining Project Restore must be family violence accredited and have at least four years of experience as a restorative justice facilitator. Specialists working with Project Restore come from professional backgrounds, have extensive experience in their professional roles and have completed all qualifications necessary for these roles. In addition, they have experience in the field of sexual violence or family violence. Project Restore conducts extensive in-house training over a six-month period and maintains mentoring and ongoing training through case review meetings, seminars and the like.

The founders’ aims were to develop a model for restorative justice that was suitable to the Aotearoa New Zealand environment. The resulting model, the three-legged stool, is based on a modified model of the generic restorative justice conferencing model used by restorative justice providers in New Zealand since the introduction of restorative justice in the adult criminal justice jurisdiction. Survivor Specialists and Accountability Specialists work independently with victim-survivor and the person responsible prior to bringing them and their supporters together in a restorative process facilitated by a specialist restorative justice facilitator.

Project Restore has developed several restorative processes that include conferencing, one-on-one facilitated meetings and a panel process where a victim survivor is represented by a surrogate victim-survivor. Unlike generic restorative justice models, Project Restore does not work to restore relationships but rather to transform relationships. The aim of restorative justice, typically, is to restore relationships that have been harmed. In the case of abusive relationships, there has been an imbalance of power enabling the abuse. The aim of Project Restore is to transform the relationship so that the victim-survivor can experience a sense of justice and co-exist with the person responsible in any shared community.

The Survivor Specialist works with victim-survivors and the Accountability Specialist works with the person responsible for the sexual harm. They aim to make the process psychologically safe for all parties throughout the preparation period and during the chosen restorative process. Their task is to identify desired outcomes and provide a realistic picture as to what is possible for both parties. They assess readiness and capacity to engage in the process. Further, they educate and inform participants of the dynamics of sexual offending, challenging any distortions, rape myths or other potentially harmful actions and statements by any participant. The Specialist Facilitator’s role is focused on ensuring the ground rules are adhered to and that the values of restorative justice are upheld. They work collaboratively with the other specialists in the team to hold the person who caused harm to account and to ensure the needs of the survivor are driving the process while maintaining balanced impartiality and ensuring a fair process.

The process is not always right for everyone, and it should be noted that Project Restore’s model is essentially a Western model. It is not based on any Te Ao Māori processes. However, the model is sufficiently flexible that Project Restore could work alongside other groups who are aiming to provide culturally appropriate restorative processes using the Project Restore model.

The following case studies highlight the differences between the criminal court, the civil court and restorative justice. The first two cases, Paula and Robert, are taken from Jülich’s (2001) research and the third, Daisy, is a composite case constructed from Project Restore’s files. Paula and Robert are pseudonyms to protect their anonymity and we have their permission to use their stories and words. It should be noted that in Aotearoa New Zealand the burden of proof between the two justice systems, criminal and civil, are different. To be convicted of a crime in the criminal court it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the crime. By contrast in the civil court, the person who brings the action (or their legal representative) must prove their case to the balance of probabilities, that is it is more likely that their version of events is correct (Ministry of Justice, 2021). Each of the following case studies illustrate a different approach to justice, criminal, civil and restorative justice.

Paula had been sexually abused by an uncle throughout her childhood, waiting some 30 years to make a disclosure. Her uncle had told her that, if the police found out, they would all be in big trouble. Paula would end up in an orphanage and he and her father would end up in prison. She became excellent at keeping the secret and grew up with the enormous responsibility of keeping every one safe.

Following Paula’s disclosure her father convened a family meeting in which many members of the family were invited, some of them victims as well. Each of the people present were able to have their say and direct comments to the person who had sexually harmed them. Some he remembered and some he did not. He apologised to Paula’s parents. Paula’s uncle said he would attend counselling but the next day he decided against that and this initiated a complaint to the police.

In the year following her disclosure to family members and a formal complaint to the police, there were many hearings in the District Court. One blurred into another and she had little understanding of their purpose. At one of the court appearances she was told that her uncle would plead not guilty. His lawyer had made application to have the case moved to the High Court where he intended to enter an abuse of process argument — that the case was too old for her uncle to mount an adequate defence. If this argument was not successful, he would plead guilty to save the victim-survivors from a trial. However, the argument was successful, and it resulted in a stay of proceedings. Paula’s uncle was not held accountable. Her family remains fractured and polarised into supporters of the victim-survivor and supporters of the person responsible for the sexual harm. Paula and her family continue to cope with the aftermath of child sexual abuse.

The rights of her uncle appeared to be more important than her rights, not only from the perspective of the criminal justice system but also from the perspective of her uncle’s family. She was still second best.

This is NOT justice.

Robert was sexually abused throughout his childhood by his uncle, the same person who had abused Paula, and, with her, he too reported to the police. Despite the stay of proceedings in the criminal justice system he decided to pursue an experience of justice by taking a civil action in the High Court of New Zealand. He explained that ‘in the absence of a sense of justice from the criminal justice system,’ he sought a ‘more symbolic compensation’ for the sexual abuse he had been subjected to by taking a civil action in the New Zealand High Court. Despite his stance some years prior in the criminal case in which he pleaded not guilty, Robert’s uncle admitted the charges and threw himself on the mercy of the court. The case was settled out of court and compensation was agreed by way of a mortgage over his uncle’s matrimonial property. Robert could only benefit on the death of his uncle, but if the abuser were to predecease his wife — Robert’s aunt — she would vacate her family home of more than 40 years.

This is NOT justice either.

Contrast these two cases with Daisy’s experience. Sexually abused by her father throughout her childhood, she was referred to Project Restore by her therapist. The Project Restore team met individually with Daisy, her father, her mother and various family members in preparation for the first of several restorative processes that included two restorative conferences. In the first restorative conference Daisy’s father agreed to enter a treatment programme and his family agreed to support him. It should be noted that Daisy’s therapy and her father’s treatment programme were not provided by Project Restore, but rather by expert community agencies and a private provider.

Project Restore maintained contact with Daisy and her father as part of the on-going monitoring for possible adaptations to the restorative process that might better support Daisy, her father and their family. An initial restorative process was facilitated for Daisy and her mother at which they both agreed to begin repairing their relationship. At the same time pre-conference preparations were undertaken with other family members.

On completion of the offender treatment programme some 18 months later, the second restorative conference was convened. Daisy and other family members told their stories in a forum that minimised the risk of any re-victimisation. Daisy’s father now had the capacity to discuss what had precipitated his offending and to demonstrate understanding of the impacts on all those harmed, including secondary victims (other family members). A profound mutual understanding, that enables the giving and receiving of a sincere apology, can be one of those magic moments of a restorative conference of which so many facilitators speak.

Daisy’s father demonstrated responsibility and accountability for the harm caused by working together with the family to develop protocols around future interactions and on-going relationship building activity between Daisy and her mother. There was discussion also regarding the implementation of the safety plan (relapse prevention) developed in the treatment programme should Daisy’s father have contact with children.

This case took two years from beginning to end. Initial monitoring has indicated that the process was successful. Daisy’s father continues to be committed to the action plans that were developed in the second restorative conference, Daisy and her mother are still working on their relationship and the family remains supportive.

This IS justice.

This could not have been achieved in the conventional criminal justice system. However, it would require a team of specialists who have developed expertise working in the field of restorative justice and sexual violence. If the specialists do not have an in-depth understanding of sexual violence and restorative justice, they could do more harm and re-traumatise the victim-survivor.

From small beginnings almost 20 years ago, today Project Restore is a highly respected organisation in Aotearoa New Zealand and has attracted significant attention from around the world. From a small team it now has a senior management team in place alongside a clinical management team who together manage a number of Facilitation Specialists, Survivor Specialists and Accountability Specialists. Associate Professor Shirley Jülich, Massey University, Kathryn McPhillips, Executive Director of HELP, Jennifer Annan, Senior Survivor Specialist, and Fiona Landon, Senior Facilitator Specialist, are founders of Project Restore and remain active in the organisation today. 

We invite you to read more about Project Restore on our website or email info@projectrestore.nz.

Dr Shirley Jülich is a Trust Board Member of Project Restore. 

Jan Clark is a General Manager of Project Restore. 

Kerri Hurman is a Clinical Manager of Project Restore. 

Lucy Tofield is a Operations Manager of Project Restore. 

Jülich, S.J. (2001). Breaking the silence: restorative justice and child sexual abuse. Phd, Massey University, Albany. Http://hdl.handle.net/10179/2110.

Jülich, S.J. (2006). Views of justice among survivors of historical child sexual abuse: Implications for restorative justice in New Zealand. Theoretical Criminology 10(1):125–138. Https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480606059988.

Koss, M.P., Bachar, K.J. and Hoipkins, C.Q. (2003). Restorative justice for sexual violence: repairing victims, building community, and holding offenders accountable. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 989(1):384–396. Https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2003.tb07320.x.

Ministry of Justice (2021). Learn about the Justice System. Online.

Ministry of Justice (2023). New Zealand Crime & Victims Survey (NZCVS). Cycle 5, How much crime is there in New Zealand?

Schulze, H. and Hurren, K. (2021). Estimate of the total economic costs of sexual violence in New Zealand. Wellington: Business and Economic Research Ltd.