Should the Police Adopt Restorative Practice to Address Institutional Harm?

The past few weeks have seen several stories in the media of failures in policing which have directly impacted victims. Such stories are no longer unusual. Victims and their families frequently use the media as a platform to ensure that their voices and experiences are heard and to hold the police to account. This increase in reported failings in policing and the imperative for such recourse raises questions about how the police can both rebuild trust and public confidence and, at the same time, acknowledge and respond to the harm it has caused to victims and their families. 

Recognising Institutional Betrayal 

It is well established that the response of institutions in the aftermath of a trauma has the potential to cause harm and leave victims and their families feeling betrayed. Indeed, the dependence and trust that the public are compelled to have in the police and its members means that any wrongdoings are felt more profoundly, often compounding experiences of trauma. Such wrongdoings encompass failures to respond, as seen most recently in the claims made by the family of Samantha Jay-Ramsay that their daughter first reported allegations that she was sexually assaulted by Mohammed Al-Fayed a decade earlier than the force initially acknowledged. 

Similarly, they can also include inappropriate responses. Take, for example, the attack in Nottingham in June 2023 which claimed the lives of Ian Coates, Barnaby Webber and Grace O’Malley-Kumar. In an open letter to the Times, Emma, the mother of Barnaby Webber, shares how the graphic messages describing the crime scene and her son’s injuries, shared on a police WhatsApp group, had caused more trauma than they ever could have imagined. 

Likewise, we might only suppose the experiences of the bereaved families following the Wimbledon school crash which killed two eight-year-old girls in July 2023. In late October 2024, the media reported how the decision to re-open the investigation into the incident had come about only after the parents of Nuria Sajjad and Selena Lau had raised concerns about the quality of the police investigation leading to the Crown Prosecution Service’s decision not to prosecute.

There is no doubt that recent years have shown us countless examples of these wrongdoings which have not only broken the public’s trust but also caused significant harm to victims and their families. 

Going Beyond the Victims’ Code

Earlier this year, the long-awaited Code of Practice for Victims of Crime in England and Wales was introduced, detailing a number of victims’ rights including the right to information, the right to receive support and the right to complain if other rights have not been upheld. While such reforms are welcome, we must question whether the right to complain is sufficient to address the impact of institutional harm, and – more significantly – to rebuild trust. 

While victims are entitled to submit their concerns to the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman which independently investigates complaints about UK government departments, there is an expectation that victims complain to the organisation they are unhappy with first. Yet as Emma Webber explains in her letter to The Times, her requests to speak directly with the authors of the WhatsApp posts were repeatedly denied by Nottinghamshire Police. For Emma Webber, what she needed most was for members of this group to hear the pain their messages had caused. In her letter, she goes so far as to say that her intention is not to shame or vilify the authors but to appeal for them to reflect and dig deeper for compassion and care for victims and their families. In short, she asks for their humanity, noting how, for her and her son, this has been denied in the silence which has been initiated by Nottinghamshire Police with their refusal to comment on the content of the WhatsApp group.

The Case for Restorative Practice 

Emma Webber’s appeal to be heard reinforces the need for restorative practice within policing. Restorative practice is frequently used within the criminal justice arena to bring those responsible for causing harm into communication with those they have harmed, to enable opportunities to make amends and find a positive way forward. Adopting such a process within policing could be a powerful addition to the Victims’ Code: firstly, the introduction of the process itself acknowledges the potential for harm; secondly, it makes a commitment to hearing about such incidences; thirdly, it offers opportunities to explore the experiences of victims and their families, rather than simply focusing on investigating what happened in a complaints process; fourthly, it creates a framework for this practice, reducing the propensity for naming and shaming and instead promoting reflection and learning; and finally, and perhaps most importantly, it provides the possibility for trust to be rebuilt and harm repaired, or – at the very least – that those who have been harmed may derive comfort from knowing that something could be different for victims and their families in the future. 

Restorative practice is not intended to replace the process of resolving complaints nor to act as a substitute for investigating alleged failures, in much the same way that it is not intended to circumvent the outcome in the criminal justice arena. Rather, it seeks to facilitate a dialogue which can take place alongside these other processes; to create the space for experiences of harm to be expressed and understood, and where possible, addressed and repaired. 

Given the stories that are emerging in the media, it is necessary to recognise that at times, the institutions designed to serve and protect us have the potential to not only fail in this duty but also cause further harm. Knowing this asks that we go beyond the Victims’ Code to think about how humanity can be embedded within the police force, to allow its members to acknowledge, repair and learn from these experiences. Not only will this create opportunities for victims and their families to be heard, but it may also mean that those responsible for causing harm have the chance to make amends and rebuild trust, and be supported to do so.

The right to humanity is not currently included in the Victims’ Code, but perhaps alongside the right to be respected and the right to be heard, it ought to be. 

© Nicola Lester, 2024, published by RUSI with permission of the author

The views expressed in this Commentary are the author’s, and do not represent those of RUSI or any other institution.

For terms of use, see Website Ts&Cs of Use.

Have an idea for a Commentary you’d like to write for us? Send a short pitch to commentaries@rusi.org and we’ll get back to you if it fits into our research interests. Full guidelines for contributors can be found here.