The concept of introducing victim-offender mediation as a condition within the cautioning process was not overly viewed as a positive step. The majority of victims were not in favor of this, and other criminal justice stakeholders were also divided as to whether this would be beneficial. The motivation behind these responses differed according to the role played within the process, with victims being pessimistic regarding the benefits of this approach, and criminal justice professionals expressing concern with regard to the time consuming nature of these activities. This concern clearly indicates the confusion with regard to conditional cautions, effectively illustrating the conflict between the scheme as a vehicle to implement restorative justice, and the scheme as an additional initiative to streamline the criminal justice system by diverting cases from court. Another example of this conflict was evident when analyzing the communication between the police and victims. There were a range of responses from the police when questioned about the communication between personal and corporate victims, illustrating that communication was facilitated only when the victims were available to be communicated with. This indicates that time constraints were a specific deciding factor with regard to the process, and victims were only given the opportunity to engage in the process if they were available to do so. In order for conditional cautions to become truly restorative, a decision needs to be made to clarify the primary purpose of the scheme, and a stronger framework needs to be developed in order to ensure that conditional cautions are used when appropriate, regardless of the time constraints that are clearly evident within the police service. (Published Abstract)