Carolyn Hoyle

In contrast to traditional cautions, restorative cautioning aims to encourage the offender to take responsibility for repairing the harm caused by their offence. A restorative caution is a meeting facilitated by a trained police off icer, based around a stru ctu red dialogue about the off ...

In Debating Restorative Justice, the first volume of the series 'Debating Law', author Carolyn Hoyle argues that communities and the state should be more restorative in responding to harms caused by crimes, anti-social behavior, and other incivilities. She supports the exclusive use of restorative justice for many non-serious offenses, and she favors approaches that, by integrating restorative and retributive philosophies, take restorative practices into the 'deep end' of criminal justice. While acknowledging that restorative justice appears to have much to offer in terms of criminal justice reform, author Chris Cunneen offers a different account, contending that the theoretical cogency of restorative ideas is limited by their lack of a coherent analysis of social and political power. He goes on to argue that after several decades of experimentation, restorative justice has not produced significant change in the criminal justice system, and that the attempt to establ...

This Article undertakes a comparative analysis of the UN definition of trafficking (Art 3, Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children) and definitions of trafficking enacted in the domestic law of many state parties to the Protocol. The article identifies significant discrepancies between international and domestic definitions of trafficking and considers possible explanations for the gaps between the international and domestic law definitions.

The two pilot projects reported here aimed to improve communications between victims and criminal justice agencies. The purpose of the 'One Stop Shop' was to keep victims informed about progress in selected cases, while the aim of 'Victim Statements' was to give victims a chance to describe the impact of the crime upon them. The evaluation examined: the reasons why

ABSTRACT In this article we discuss findings from a small scoping study into the experiences of victims of trafficking and those who work with them. We use testimonies from our interviews to examine issues of choice, slavery and escape. We challenge some of the current language and terminology in the literature on trafficking and call for a more nuanced appreciation of the relationship between agency and victimization.

ABSTRACT This article exposes methodological barriers we encountered in a small research project on women trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation and our attempts, drawing on feminist and emergent methods, to resolve them. It critically assesses the role of institutional gatekeepers and the practical challenges faced in obtaining data directly from trafficking victims. Such difficulties, it suggests, spring at least in part from lingering disagreements within the feminist academic, legal, and advocacy communities regarding the nature, extent and definition of trafficking. They also reveal concerns from policy makers and practitioners over the relevance and utility of academic research. While feminist researchers have focused on building trust with vulnerable research participants, there has been far less discussion about how to persuade institutional elites to cooperate. Our experiences in this project, we suggest, reveal limitations in the emphasis on reflexivity in feminist methods, and point to the need for more strategic engagement with policy-makers about the utility of academic research in general.

This article explores the neglected question of why victims of domestic violence call the police, and how useful the police response is to them. We found that many women do not seek criminal sanctions because sanctions are unlikely to help to end the violence. This calls into question the value, to victims, of mandatory arrest policies which require prosecution decisions to be based on evidential concerns alone. These policies are based (naively, we argue) on assumptions about the interests of victims. Policies which give effect to victim preferences are also naive in ignoring the circumstances which shape victim preferences. We therefore argue for an approach which would empower victims to make choices which are less coerced (by their circumstances) than is usual at present. Elements of this approach can be found in the practices of some domestic violence units. What is the point of making it a crime for men to assault their female partners and ex-partners?1 The question may seem provocative and the answer obvious. However, it is not self-evident that domestic assault should be treated the same as, for instance, non-domestic assault. For while the two types of assault are legally identical, they are sociologically distinct. The fact of the domestic relationship, and its different nature to that of, for instance, neighbour relationships means that not only is the aetiology of domestic assault different to that of other violent crime, but the response of victims will often be different too.