The bottom line: New research shows that restorative justice does not need face to face meetings to support accountability and victim recovery, particularly for people affected by trauma. Shuttle mediation can widen access to justice by offering safer and more psychologically manageable routes for participation without undermining core restorative principles. For mental health informed practice and public policy, the findings point towards flexible trauma aware models rather than rigid one size fits all approaches.
For many victims of crime, the idea of sitting in the same room as the person who harmed them is simply too distressing. Yet restorative justice has long been built around face to face dialogue, with policymakers often treating direct meetings as the gold standard for healing and accountability. New research suggests that this assumption may need rethinking, especially as alternative approaches quietly shape justice practice across the UK. The findings were published in Criminology & Criminal Justice.
Commenting on this, Elika Dadsetan-Foley, EdD, executive director of Enroot, said: “Restorative justice is not defined by physical proximity; it is defined by the quality of accountability, voice, and human recognition that a process makes possible.”
Restorative justice aims to repair harm by allowing victims and offenders to communicate about the impact of an offence and what might help move forward. In practice, however, victim participation in face to face meetings is often low. Emotional readiness, safety concerns, and lack of support frequently prevent direct encounters, leaving many cases excluded from restorative processes altogether.
Dr Leslie Dobson, a clinical and forensic psychologist, said rigid expectations can undermine recovery. “From a psychological perspective, that assumption can be both inaccurate and potentially harmful. Trauma does not respond well to rigid models or rigid treatment providers. What promotes healing for one person may be destabilising for another.”
The study examines shuttle mediation, a method in which victims and offenders do not meet but exchange messages through a trained facilitator. Communication can take place through letters, recorded messages, or written exchanges, allowing each side to engage at a pace that feels safer and more controlled. This approach is already widely used in the UK, particularly when victims decline direct contact.
Dadsetan-Foley noted that indirect formats can still uphold the foundations of restorative justice. “What matters most is not whether people sit in the same room necessarily, and instead, whether the process allows harm to be named, responsibility to be taken, and dignity to be restored.”
Evidence reviewed in the research shows that shuttle mediation can still support accountability and reflection. Offenders are given structured opportunities to hear about the consequences of their actions, while victims can express harm and ask questions without facing the emotional pressure of direct confrontation. For some participants, this distance may actually make honest communication easier.
Dobson echoed this from a clinical perspective: “In some cases, the emotional intensity of direct confrontation can actually derail accountability by triggering defensiveness or shutdown. A mediated process can reduce those barriers and allow for more thoughtful engagement.”
The findings also highlight limits. Victims often report lower satisfaction with shuttle mediation than with direct meetings, partly due to delays and the absence of non verbal cues. Without being physically present, emotional connection can feel muted, and misunderstandings may take longer to resolve. Outcomes appear to depend heavily on the skill of facilitators who interpret messages and preserve their meaning.
Addressing these limits, Dadsetan-Foley said: “Indirect processes do have limits. Without careful facilitation, they can lose emotional resonance or feel incomplete for some participants.”
The research places these findings in a broader social context shaped by digital communication. During the pandemic, justice systems were forced to move away from in person meetings, accelerating interest in remote and indirect approaches. Even as restrictions have lifted, many people now expect flexibility rather than a single model of engagement.
Importantly, the study does not argue that shuttle mediation should replace face to face restorative justice. Instead, it suggests that excluding indirect methods risks denying support to victims who would otherwise opt out entirely. In some cases, shuttle mediation may be the only realistic path to participation.
Dobson emphasised the need for choice in practice: “This reinforces an essential point that restorative justice should be individualised, not generally prescribed. Ethical, trauma-informed practice means offering multiple pathways rather than a single ‘correct’ model.”
The study calls for more rigorous research to assess when shuttle mediation works best and how it can be improved. Key questions include how cases should be screened, how many exchanges are needed for meaningful outcomes, and how practitioners can balance neutrality with care.
