Reframing public inquiries as ‘Procedural Justice’ for victims of institutional child abuse

Towards a hybrid model of justice

Anne-Marie McAlinden, Bronwyn Glynis Naylor

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

As the number of high profile cases of institutional child abuse mounts internationally, and the demands of victims for justice are heard, state responses have ranged from prosecution, apology, and compensation schemes,to truth commissions or public inquiries. Drawing on the examples of Australia and Northern Ireland as two jurisdictions with a recent and ongoing history of statutory inquiries into institutional child abuse, this article utilises the restorative justice paradigm to critically evaluate the strengths and limitations of the inquiry framework in providing ‘justice’ for victims. The article critically explores the normative and pragmatic implications of a hybrid model as a more effective route to procedural justice. It suggests that an appropriately designed restorative pathway may enhance the legitimacy and utility of the public inquiry model for victims chiefly by improving offender accountability and ‘voice’ for victims. The article concludes by offering some thoughts on the broader implications for other jurisdictions in responding to large-scale historical abuses and seeking to come to terms with the legacy of institutional child abuse.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)277-309
Number of pages33
JournalThe Sydney Law Review
Volume33
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 2016

Cite this

@article{98d7c1e449444b928cbbcc89eccd1f57,
title = "Reframing public inquiries as ‘Procedural Justice’ for victims of institutional child abuse: Towards a hybrid model of justice",
abstract = "As the number of high profile cases of institutional child abuse mounts internationally, and the demands of victims for justice are heard, state responses have ranged from prosecution, apology, and compensation schemes,to truth commissions or public inquiries. Drawing on the examples of Australia and Northern Ireland as two jurisdictions with a recent and ongoing history of statutory inquiries into institutional child abuse, this article utilises the restorative justice paradigm to critically evaluate the strengths and limitations of the inquiry framework in providing ‘justice’ for victims. The article critically explores the normative and pragmatic implications of a hybrid model as a more effective route to procedural justice. It suggests that an appropriately designed restorative pathway may enhance the legitimacy and utility of the public inquiry model for victims chiefly by improving offender accountability and ‘voice’ for victims. The article concludes by offering some thoughts on the broader implications for other jurisdictions in responding to large-scale historical abuses and seeking to come to terms with the legacy of institutional child abuse.",
author = "Anne-Marie McAlinden and Naylor, {Bronwyn Glynis}",
year = "2016",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "277--309",
journal = "The Sydney Law Review",
issn = "0082-0512",
publisher = "Sydney Law School",
number = "3",

}

Reframing public inquiries as ‘Procedural Justice’ for victims of institutional child abuse : Towards a hybrid model of justice. / McAlinden, Anne-Marie; Naylor, Bronwyn Glynis.

In: The Sydney Law Review, Vol. 33, No. 3, 2016, p. 277-309.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reframing public inquiries as ‘Procedural Justice’ for victims of institutional child abuse

T2 - Towards a hybrid model of justice

AU - McAlinden, Anne-Marie

AU - Naylor, Bronwyn Glynis

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - As the number of high profile cases of institutional child abuse mounts internationally, and the demands of victims for justice are heard, state responses have ranged from prosecution, apology, and compensation schemes,to truth commissions or public inquiries. Drawing on the examples of Australia and Northern Ireland as two jurisdictions with a recent and ongoing history of statutory inquiries into institutional child abuse, this article utilises the restorative justice paradigm to critically evaluate the strengths and limitations of the inquiry framework in providing ‘justice’ for victims. The article critically explores the normative and pragmatic implications of a hybrid model as a more effective route to procedural justice. It suggests that an appropriately designed restorative pathway may enhance the legitimacy and utility of the public inquiry model for victims chiefly by improving offender accountability and ‘voice’ for victims. The article concludes by offering some thoughts on the broader implications for other jurisdictions in responding to large-scale historical abuses and seeking to come to terms with the legacy of institutional child abuse.

AB - As the number of high profile cases of institutional child abuse mounts internationally, and the demands of victims for justice are heard, state responses have ranged from prosecution, apology, and compensation schemes,to truth commissions or public inquiries. Drawing on the examples of Australia and Northern Ireland as two jurisdictions with a recent and ongoing history of statutory inquiries into institutional child abuse, this article utilises the restorative justice paradigm to critically evaluate the strengths and limitations of the inquiry framework in providing ‘justice’ for victims. The article critically explores the normative and pragmatic implications of a hybrid model as a more effective route to procedural justice. It suggests that an appropriately designed restorative pathway may enhance the legitimacy and utility of the public inquiry model for victims chiefly by improving offender accountability and ‘voice’ for victims. The article concludes by offering some thoughts on the broader implications for other jurisdictions in responding to large-scale historical abuses and seeking to come to terms with the legacy of institutional child abuse.

M3 - Article

VL - 33

SP - 277

EP - 309

JO - The Sydney Law Review

JF - The Sydney Law Review

SN - 0082-0512

IS - 3

ER -