Prolific Offenders Unit
Offender ProfileTHE SUBJECT, born 24.11.65, CRO 126639/81D
On the 6
th
February 2004 THE SUBJECT was released from HMP Leyhill, on parole,having been sentenced at Bristol Crown Court on the 7
th
May 2002 to four yearsimprisonment for burglary. Upon his release, THE SUBJECT was immediately takenon by the Prolific Offenders Unit at Bath.THE SUBJECT’S first conviction was at the age of twelve and since then, he has had32 court appearances for which he has been convicted of 93 offences. Many of these offences relate to dwelling burglary. Intelligence states that these offenceswere committed in order to fund a drug addiction that was mostly based on heroin,but also included the use of crack cocaine. This addiction at times was costing THESUBJECT several hundred pounds each day.On the 23
rd
March 2001, THE SUBJECT was released from prison after a sentencerelating to dwelling burglaries. Almost immediately, he resumed his drug addictionthat quickly spiralled out of control. Within a short time of his release, there was adramatic increase in the number of dwelling burglaries in Bath (illustrated by theattached graph). Analysis of these crimes indicate a common M.O in the vastmajority of offences.During the relevant period, 141 intelligence reports (Form 78d) were received,indicating that THE SUBJECT was responsible for most of the burglaries. When thisintelligence was combined with the analysis of the burglary M.O’s, it became possibleto identify offences for which THE SUBJECT was responsible, reasonablyaccurately. Over the following months, until his eventual arrest, it was estimated thatTHE SUBJECT was committing between two and four dwelling burglaries a day.Many of these offences were night-time “creeper” burglaries, often with thehouseholders asleep in the premises.THE SUBJECT would steal cash, jewellery and cash point cards with PIN numbers if he could find them. That same night he would go to a cash-point and withdraw themaximum amount of cash permitted (usually £300). Latterly during this period, hewould also steal the householder’s car, using keys he would find in the premises.It is a conservative estimate that during this period of liberty, THE SUBJECT wasresponsible for the theft of well in excess of £100,000’s worth of property.During the analysis of the burglary M.O’s, it also became obvious that THESUBJECT was very forensically aware. He always covered his shoes, to avoidleaving shoe marks and would wipe surfaces to remove finger marks or biologicalevidence. There were no forensic enquiries available in relation to any of theoffences.
After identifying THE SUBJECT as the most likely suspect for these offences, anumber of operations were set up in order to effect his arrest. This would involve thefollowing methods:i. Targeted patrols.ii. Tasking of C.H.I.S’s (resulting in reward payments).iii. Warrants executed at the addresses of drug dealers/handlers to recover property.iv. Surveillance on THE SUBJECT’S home address.v. Technical enquiries (surveillance on cash points).vi. Forensic examination of recovered STOVECS.vii. Night-time, plain clothes operations.All of these methods were very personnel intensive and resulted in considerablefinancial expenditure by the force. Owing mainly to the fact that THE SUBJECT wasrandom in selecting areas of Bath to commit burglaries, the fact that identifiableproperty was quickly disposed of and the timings of the offences, close surveillancewas difficult. These enquiries were fruitless.In December 2001, another surveillance operation was mounted, incorporating theForce Targeting Team. In total, twenty-five officers were involved. As the result of this operation THE SUBJECT was seen to commit a night-time burglary and wassubsequently arrested.
Case Management
On the 7
th
May 2002, THE SUBJECT was convicted of two dwelling burglaries andwas sentenced to four years imprisonment. During his time in prison, THESUBJECT began to make efforts towards rehabilitation and went on to engage withthe Bath Prolific Offenders Unit.He was accepted on to the Avon and Somerset Prolific Offender Scheme on the 18
th
July 2003. He was visited on a monthly basis by both Eamann DEVLIN ProbationOfficer for E and J Districts and Mike LYNCH of DHI Drug Services. Work wasundertaken to prepare THE SUBJECT for release, including drug testing. The POUwere involved in the Parole Assessment Process. Upon release THE SUBJECT wastaken to a London Clinic and received a NALTRAXONE implant which will last 6months. NALTRAXONE is a chemical implanted underneath the skin whicheffectively blocks the intake of any form of opiate.Owing to his criminal history, THE SUBJECT was extremely anti-police, which wouldoften result in confrontation. On the 28
th
January 2004, a Detective from Bath wasattached to the district Prolific Offenders Unit. Initially, THE SUBJECT refused to
engage with this officer, but through persistent engagement by the officer anddiscussions with the Probation Service, THE SUBJECT has now accepted theofficer’s involvement and freely engages with him. In fact, this is a good example of THE SUBJECT’S whole change of attitude towards figures of authority. He will alsospend time reflecting on his approach to different situations and acceptance of responsibility for his own actions.The NALTRAXONE implant has eliminated THE SUBJECTS use of opiates.Following his release from prison, on one occasion during the first week, THESUBJECT tested positive for crack cocaine in drug tests. However, since thosetests, on six successive occasions, THE SUBJECT has given negative tests.In the first four weeks after his release, there has been no notable increase in thenumber of dwelling burglaries and although 16 intelligence reports on THE SUBJECThave been received, most relate to sightings and the results of drug tests. Nonerelate to offences.If THE SUBJECT continues to engage with the Prolific Offenders Unit and does notrevert to drug addiction, in time, he will be a shining example of what can beachieved by the Unit. Without doubt, THE SUBJECT was a major problem to BathDistrict in relation to dwelling burglaries. Success with him will result in a reduction inhundreds of victims of crime, the prevention of loss of hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of property and the redirection of police resources and funds.
of 00
UK Home Office: ppo dip avon and somerset case study
1,995 Reads
Info and Rating
| Category: | Uncategorized. |
| Rating: | (1 Rating) |
| Upload Date: | 01/24/2008 |
| Copyright: | Attribution Non-commercial |
| Tags: |
Leave a Comment