Criminal Law · Deep dive
Restorative justice — a defence lawyer's perspective
Restorative justice is an alternative way of dealing with crime that focuses on repairing harm rather than just punishing the offender. Used well, it can reshape a sentence and give a victim a voice the courtroom cannot.
Restorative justice (RJ) sits inside our sentencing framework, not outside it. For the right case it can produce a better outcome for both sides — a more meaningful resolution for the victim and a more lenient sentence for the offender. For the wrong case it can do real damage. Knowing the difference is part of the job.
The legal framework
Three statutes do most of the work. The Sentencing Act 2002 (in particular sections 7 to 10) requires the court to take into account whether an RJ process has occurred and what came out of it. The Victims' Rights Act 2002 says victims must be informed of their right to participate in RJ and consulted throughout. The Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 (formerly the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989) puts family group conferences — a form of RJ — at the centre of the youth justice system, often before charges are even laid.
Together these provisions mean RJ is not a fringe option. It is built into how cases are meant to be dealt with, particularly where there is an identifiable victim.
The role of a defence lawyer
Our first job is to advise on whether RJ is appropriate and in the client's best interests. That is a real assessment — not every case suits it, and going in for the wrong reasons can backfire.
If we proceed, we make sure participation is voluntary and that the client is taking genuine responsibility, not performing remorse. We then present the RJ outcomes to the court when it comes to sentence, so the work done in the conference translates into a more favourable result. Throughout, we protect the client's legal rights — particularly if they are feeling pressured into admissions they should not be making.
What RJ can achieve
Used well, RJ delivers things the standard process struggles with.
- Better sentencing outcomes for offenders who show genuine remorse and engage meaningfully
- A voice for the victim in the justice process, often leading to closure that a courtroom cannot provide
- Efficiency gains — some matters resolve outside formal hearings, easing court backlog
- Lower recidivism rates compared with offenders processed through the traditional system
The limitations
RJ is not for every case. Serious offending — sexual violence, murder — generally is not appropriate. There is also a real risk of coercion: an offender may feel pressured to participate to chase a discount rather than because they actually want to address the harm. That is the wrong reason to be in the room.
Lawyers typically do not attend RJ conferences themselves, so the client is on their own at the table. And because RJ is informal by design, outcomes are variable — which can make sentencing harder to predict than it is in a more conventional plea-and-sentence process.
When we recommend it
We recommend RJ when the client genuinely accepts what they did, when the victim is open to participating, and when the case is one where the court will give real weight to the outcome at sentencing. When all three line up, it is one of the most powerful tools available to the defence.
Make an Enquiry
Tell us briefly about your matter and we'll direct your enquiry to the right barrister at Wakatipu Chambers.