Restorative Justice is not evident in cases of intimate partner violence, but it can take and does take place under certain conditions. Wolthuis and Lünnemann explain about the European research they coordinated in six European countries (Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, the Netherlands and the UK) on context and practicalities of the use of victim-offender mediation in such complex cases. Cases dealing with violence of mainly men against women and where power imbalances often play a role. That means that mediators, referrers and others involved should know about this complexity and the needs of participants. Austria and Finland turned out to have the most experienced working methods. Their models, good practices and challenges are presented as well as the main outcomes of the research. Interviews and focus groups in the countries gave additional insights. It resulted in a guide with minimum standards addressing the different stages of a mediation process with extra attention for safety and empowerment.

Last year the article ‘Episodic memory and interviewing witnesses. What do police interviewers know about this topic?’ (Odinot, Boon & Wolters, 2015, TvC, 57(3), 279-299) was published in this journal. The article describes a study that explored the knowledge of police interviewers about episodic memory. The researchers concluded that police interviewers had insufficient knowledge of episodic memory and that this was related to the lack of psychological terms in the manual of the curriculum of police training. In this article we describe the lack of scientific consensus about episodic memory and the consequences of this for doing research with lists with theses about this subject. Differences between interviewing witnesses and suspects will be discussed. We also question whether it is necessary that police interviewers have thorough knowledge of episodic memory. More important is what knowledge does police need when doing interviews and how are these conducted? Some factors have a negative impact on the quality of those interviews, so we end up with some recommendations for improving the quality of interviews in police practice.

The image that criminal enforcement of organized crime is difficult, is commonly reflected in the media and popular debate. Commentators often argue that organized crime is punished less severely than possible, due to the complexity of the offences, time constraints, and the increased interconnectedness between legal and illegal activities, which creates difficulties to find sufficient evidence to convict offenders. Using data from the Dutch Organized Crime Monitor, this article focuses on the ways in which offenders of organized crime are ‘treated’ by the criminal justice system and on the discrepancies between demanded sanctions and the actual sanctions executed in cases of organized crime.

The author illustrates the complexity of cases mediators are confronted with by using two exemplary cases. Sometimes legal issues deriving from family law, divorce law and criminal law all are disputed at the same time, frustrating and even blocking all parties including their legal counsels who are also part of the conflict-system. When a conflict-system becomes contaminated, often support systems are mobilised. If a mediator wants to play a role in sorting out the process – which is not his fundamental task – it is best to seek co-operation with the legal counsels.

In the Netherlands more and more criminal lawyers recognize the importance of Restorative Justice. The author illustrates this on the basis of several criminal cases in different phases of the criminal process. Under conditions Restorative Justice is of importance for all parties, including the suspect/offender. Criminal lawyers have to find the courage to overcome cold feet, so that they can fully meet the needs and interests of their clients.

Suspects are often much better off when they take responsibility for the harm they caused. They will accept their punishment more easily when also their side of the story is told and listened to. Not only they themselves, also their victim can benefit from this. Even when there is under circumstances no place for mediation in the pre-trial stage, also in the trial-stage people could come closer to each other. The counsel for the defense can play a coaching role in this process, that is not so much guided by classical principles of criminal law but much more by the experiences of the ones involved.

The author first describes the deontological axioma for the role of the defense counsel in the domain of criminal procedure. Since here the most serious charges are brought against a suspect, who may have all his life-perspectives to lose by severe punishments, the duty of the legal counsel is to be as one-sided in the defense of his clients views and interests as possible and as allowed by professional ethics. He is the guardian of the legitimate interests of the suspect in the context of a legal battle in or out of court about the legal truth of what is said to have happened. In view of the ideals of restorative justice (illustrated by references to Nils Christies Conflicts as property) a new set of rules and customs should be developed that can function as a framework of ‘restorative procedural law’. In the context of restorative justice legal counsel of both the suspect and the victim should be expected and able to function much more as ‘restorative coaches’, seeking co-operation and deliberation between all stakeholders. But, should clients – suspects and victims alike – decide against such an approach and want ‘their day in court’ this should also be possible and be realised. The independent courts should always remain the ultimate refuge for those seeking justice.

In this article the author gives insight in the tasks of a lawyer in mediation for minors. In the first part of his contribution he describes the legal framework, giving an overview of all relevant existing national and international legislation on children’s rights. Subsequently he describes the different tasks a lawyer has to attend in all stages of the mediation.

In his contribution the author points out that the right to legal assistance during police interrogations offers a wonderful opportunity to pay attention to the possibility of mediation and to ensure that the interrogating police officer abides Article 51h of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure.

Based on a literature research and program evaluation of the practice of Victim in Focus (Slachtoffer in Beeld) in 2013, two issues are addressed: What are the possible effects of victim offender mediation? Which active mechanisms will cause or contribute to these effects? The authors describe the current context and developments in The Netherlands concerning restorative justice and then describe the effects and possible active mechanisms such as satisfaction, diminishing fear, anger and shame, information and consent, procedural justice, reduction of recidivism, compliance. In a synthesis of active mechanisms they present four domains or mediating factors: from incomprehension to comprehension (cognitive restoration); from unease to ease (emotional restoration); from injustice to justice (moral restoration); from powerless to powerful feelings (restoration of control). The victim offender mediation as a ritual has an impact or is supposed to have an impact on these four domains for both victims and offenders. Within the four domains four activities or interactions within victim offender mediation are presented: creating understanding through inter-subjectivity; expression of fear, trauma and shame; doing justice by excuses/apologies and restorative actions; regaining self control. Further research is needed to validate the model and to get more insight in essential or primary and secondary aspects in the explanation of the impacts of victim offender mediation.