Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Restorative Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee narrows restorative‑justice privilege but reports substitute 7–3
Summary
HB 489 would create a limited privilege for restorative‑justice communications; supporters including survivors and practitioners said confidentiality is essential, while prosecutors warned the language remained too broad and flagged Brady/ disclosure concerns. The substitute passed 7–3.
Delegate Hope presented HB 489 with a substitute that defines restorative‑justice practices and identifies privileged communications while preserving mandatory‑reporting exceptions for threats to community safety or child abuse.
Supporters—including restorative‑justice practitioners, victim advocates and criminology researchers—told the committee that confidentiality enables honest participation and safer processes. Survivors’ representatives argued that privilege is necessary to give survivors a voluntary, non‑traumatizing space.
Opponents, including the Virginia Association of Commonwealth’s Attorneys and the Office of the Executive Secretary, expressed concern about broad definitions and the effect on discoverability and Brady obligations. Counsel noted that the substitute narrowed definitions (for example, requiring a restorative-justice facilitator) and preserved several statutory exceptions, but acknowledged some uncertainty about whether Brady/impeachment evidence is sufficiently covered in the text.
The subcommittee reported the substitute 7–3.
What’s next: Because the substitute limits who may be a restorative facilitator and preserves reporting exceptions, supporters said the bill addresses many concerns; prosecutors asked for continued technical fixes before floor consideration.
