Reporting on the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements in Essex
MAPPA Annual Report 2005- 2006

From the Minister: Gerry Sutcliffe

Making our communities safer and reducing re-offending is our highest priority and one of our biggest challenges. That is why the work undertaken through these multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) is so important. The supervision and management of sexual and violent offenders who pose the highest risk of serious harm, whether in the community or in custody, is complex and challenging; and is an aspect of public service where the public rightly expects all reasonable action to be taken. Although we have made significant progress in the last five years with the development of MAPPA across England and Wales, the review this year of a number of tragic incidents where people have been murdered or seriously injured reminded us of the importance of reviewing performance, improving practice and learning lessons. It is vital that these tasks are undertaken by the probation, police and prison services, as well as by those other agencies that contribute to the assessment and management of offenders. The publication of MAPPA Business Plans by each Area in this year's annual reports offers a helpful and necessary programme of local development and review and must lead to enhanced practice. It will be essential that this progress is transparent and shared with local communities. In addition to this, however, it is important that no opportunity is missed to consider other measures that will further enhance public safety. That is why we are undertaking the Child Sex Offender Review, to look at how a particular group of offenders, who provoke anxiety for many, are best managed in the community. The review is consulting a wide range of practitioners and key stakeholders including the MAPPA lay advisers, and will report around the end of the year. Finally, in commending this report to you, I want to take the opportunity to thank all those involved locally in working with sexual and violent offenders, or in ensuring that these arrangements are fit for purpose. Where MAPPA is working well it is based on maintaining high professional standards and effective multi-agency collaboration in the delivery of robust risk management plans. While it is not possible to eliminate risk entirely, where all reasonable action is taken the risk of further serious harm can be reduced to a minimum and fewer victims will be exposed to repeat offending.

Gerry Sutcliffe MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Criminal Justice and Offender Management


Since its inception in 2000, the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) have progressed from strength to strength, delivering their fundamental objective, that of safeguarding the public from the threat posed by sexual and violent offenders in Essex, while focusing on the needs of the victim. Thanks to the close co-operation of the many agencies that form MAPPA in the Essex area, the vast majority of public citizens are largely unaware of the often complex and difficult management of offenders that takes place every day. It is a testament to the skills of the many individuals involved in the MAPPA process that ordinary people have little or no idea of the strict protective measures in place, or that they can go about their business safe in the knowledge that experts are working tirelessly to ensure that any potential threat from such offenders is minimised. The importance of partnership in MAPPA's continuing success cannot be overstated. Under the direction of the police and probation service a whole host of key agencies are now signatories to MAPPA. Each one brings the expertise that is vital in drawing up effective risk management procedures for offenders. As from April this year, the Prison Service became a key player, jointly charged with police and probation in managing arrangements for offenders. To maximise our chances of success, risk management must start in prison, not on release. In the past, whenever an investigation has pinpointed that serious offences could have been prevented, what emerges is that the communication and co-operation between key agencies has been in some way deficient. What MAPPA has meant is that such communication is vastly improved. We are very efficient in the way we support each other in tackling the risk posed by offenders while maintaining the true focus of this process – the victims and their needs. We do not forget that this work is both victim focused and offender driven. The multi-agency arrangements are designed to ensure that the safety of victims or potential victims is paramount. None of us involved in this process would be foolish enough to suggest we can eliminate risk entirely. What we have now is a more comprehensive picture of who is in our community, and crucial information about them; information that didn't exist previously and, perhaps more importantly, was not shared. We can assure people in Essex that we are not soft on offenders. We also want offenders to know they will be dealt with fairly in accordance with the legislation currently in place. Keeping the public informed is something we want to make a priority: assuring the ordinary person in the street, for instance, that the vast majority of sex offences are carried out against victims already known by the offender and not by an opportunist. Making clearer, also, the context in which we are working, and the realities of which all communities need to be aware. Looking to the future, we would like to think that if any serious incidents did occur during the MAPPA process, we could demonstrate that we had done everything within our power to prevent it happening and that it was not down to poor practice. We want everyone in Essex to feel that the safety arrangements we make are sound, make sense, and have their best interests, and those of their families, at the heart of what we do.
Mary Archer Chief Officer of Probation Roger Baker Chief Constable Nigel Smith Governor HMP Chelmsford

4 6 7

What is MAPPA
Sharing the job

Under MAPPA’s wing
Domestic Abuse gets the treatment

The programme for abusers

8 Keeping the victim safe 10 Case: In a prison cell 13 I speak for the public
A lay member speaks

13 Moving offenders away 14 What risk?
The three tiers

16 Case: Abuse, then fury

18 Risk Plans
What’s in them

20 Case: he wouldn’t give

22 Case: Give and take
Moving offenders away from victims

24 Case: four years on 26 Registration 27 MAPPA: the reality 28 Strategic Management
the Business Plan



Making Public Protection work The greater the collaboration between agencies, the more effective is Public Protection. Local arrangements for closer working on difficult cases were developed in Essex during the 1990s.




Making formal arrangements locally In 1997, a police initiative in setting up an agreement to discuss joint arrangements for managing a few specific cases, produced a new, successful working relationship between Probation, Police and Social Services. The first MAPPPs Arrangements for Multi-Agency Public Protection Panels (MAPPPs) were confirmed in 2001, when the Police and Probation Services in Essex signed the first MAPP protocol. They were sooned joined as signatories by the Social Services bodies in the county. Since then, the agencies signed up to play their part in protecting the public include Learning and Social Care, Health, Statutory and Voluntary Housing, Youth Offending Services, and importantly, the Prison Service, which has become a Responsible Authority alongside Probation and the Police. Not just on paper The Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements, now known as MAPPA, are far from a paper protocol. They set out to make co-operation and planning for dangerous offenders both a duty and a regular practicality. Including others who can help Representatives from other non signatory agencies are called in when their contribution will add to protection planning.

Harmful crime
- sharing the job
Dangerous offenders are everywhere – in very small numbers. The undetected, as well as those already convicted of serious offences. We need to manage them and reduce the harm they can do, through a variety of strategies, which must also include increasing public awareness of the way communities can help themselves. Such has been the success of MAPPA – the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements – that agencies in Essex have a much clearer understanding of their own roles, and those of others, in combining to manage the serious offender. Domestic Abusers, Sex Offenders and other violent people are being contained through a meticulous system which enables all agencies to contribute to the management package for each offender. This is small comfort to the public when the comparatively few re-offend. People are understandably horrified, both at the nature of the offence, and at the failure of the authorities to provide complete protection. Logic tells us that there is no system in the world which will provide total safety, but personnel attending the monthly MAPPA

Agencies across the county have a duty to co-operate and to share information, under the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements

Managing risk in hostels
Hostels, known as Approved Premises (APs) form an important part of the MAPPA system for protection, and provide an enhanced level of supervision for certain offenders. This is the safest, most controlled accommodation option available and is significantly safer and more effective than allowing potentially high-risk offenders to disperse into the community, as they could well do. They are not subject to any term of imprisonment. Bed and breakfast, local authority housing, and privately rented flats offer much less secure forms of accommodation.

meetings, in each large Essex town, work extremely hard on individual cases to maximise the amount of protection they provide. 99.4% of Probation supervisees assessed as high-risk do not re-offend. Achieving the public’s complete understanding of the impressive job done through the MAPP Arrangements, but also the realities of the context in which they work, will be a long-term task.

99.4% of Probation supervisees assessed as high-risk do not re-offend
Explaining the job: MAPPA Manager Allan Taplin; MAPPA Lay Member John Downing; a Probation Manager, Alun Gower; Lay Member John Blaize and Asst. Chief Constable Liam Brigginshaw talk to Dave Monk on BBC Essex

APs are not specialist treatment centres for sex offenders. Any offender referred to an AP is assessed for risk before being admitted. Where an offender is subject to MAPPA, the risk assessment takes in the views of other local agencies, so each referral can be subject to other levels of scrutiny before a decision is taken.

Public protection measures in APs include standard curfews, extended curfews on the order of the court, Parole Board, or the AP Manager; stringent internal and external security measures, including CCTV coverage, alarmed exits and restricted window openings; electronic monitoring facilities; regular visits by police public protection officers; on-site drug testing; monitoring and recording of incoming mail; routine observation and recording of residents’ behaviour, and a robust enforcement system, including the facility to initiate fast-track recall to prison.



Under MAPPA’s wing....
another type of crime receives the MAPPA treatment
MAPPA has proved its worth with dangerous offenders. Not automatically included in MAPPA’s oversight, however, were offenders convicted of domestic abuse – a different kind of violence, but lethal nonetheless.
The inclusion of IDAP cases into MAPPA explains the significant overall growth in referrals over the past year. As a result the MAPPA Business Plan includes a review of current practices and resources to ensure continuing protection for victims, and sharp risk management.

Probation’s new Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme (IDAP) requires a full assessment of the risks posed to partners. To do a comprehensive job on this vital piece of work, there is a need for all agencies to take part. It was decided to use the extremely effective Information Exchange process already existing within MAPPA for this purpose. All cases involving the IDAP programme would be drawn into this Level 1 meeting. As with other offenders, a monthly Information Exchange meeting is held in each of the six Probation offices to carry out a full risk assessment on the offender and to identify any specific risks to victims or potential victim. The 'Core' Group attending these meetings: • MAPPA Manager • Local Senior Probation Officer • Police Public Protection Unit Officer • Local Police Domestic Violence Liaison Officer • Probation Woman Safety Officer - represents victim • IDAP Programme Facilitator • Children & Young Persons Service (Social Services) The meetings follow the same format for any other offender referred to the MAPPA process but in this instance the victim issues are brought to the meeting by the Women’s Safety Worker as opposed to the Probation Victim Liaison Officer.

Potential for disaster During the course of the year 213 IDAP offenders were discussed at MAPPA, of which 19 were considered of such significant risk that they were referred to a Local Risk Management Meeting (Level 2). Almost all of the offenders were living in the community, so the potential for further harm to their victims was high. In many cases comprehensive plans had to be put in place to prevent this which included: • Enforcement of a 'restraining order'. • Installation of Police panic alarms. • Contingency plans to remove potential victims to a safe place. • Ensuring adequate child protection measures were in place and/or making Child Protection Referrals to the Children & Young Persons Service. • Continuing liaison between all agencies outside of the regular MAPPA meetings. • Strict enforcement of the terms of the Community Sentence and speedy 'breaching' of offenders for non compliance.

An average of two women every week are killed by their abusers in a domestic setting.

Success can only come if the offender learns to accept responsibility for his use of abusive behaviour, to recognise the intentions behind it, and the impact it has on his partner and family.

Offenders who are responsible for Domestic Violence do it to control a situation, or their partner’s actions, thoughts, or feelings. And it’s part of a pattern, not a one-off accident.
People who stand any chance of changing must get to grips with serious contradictions in their thinking. For the male domestic abuser using instrumental violence against a female, the Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme uses ‘joined-up’ services to deal with the problem, and relies on inter-agency management – MAPPA being a key player – as well as work done with the victims themselves. Women’s Safety Workers keep the victim informed, consult her, assess the risk she faces, and check on her safety. She will eventually decide if her life is safer; if she can ever trust the man again. Much will depend on his progress with IDAP, which will target various factors: his distorted thinking; his emotional awareness; the social skills he lacks, such as assertive behaviour, negotiation and conflict resolution, as well as coping, non-controlling behaviours. He must learn the techniques of stopping and thinking before acting, anticipating stressful events, and using both his own newly developed internal resources, and external networks of support to draw on when in a risky situation.







Making and/or carrying out threats to do something to hurt her; threatening to leave her, commit suicide, report her to welfare; making her drop charges; making her do illegal things



Making her afraid by using looks, actions, gestures; smashing things; destroying her property; abusing pets; displaying weapons.



Preventing her from getting or keeping a job; making her ask for money; giving her an allowance; taking her money; not letting her know about or have access to family income.

Treating her like a servant; making all the big decisions; acting like the “master of the castle”; being the one to define men’s and women’s roles.


Putting her down; making her feel bad about herself; calling her names; making her think she’s crazy; playing mind games; humiliating her; making her feel guilty

Controlling what she does, who she sees and talks to, what she reads, where she goes; limiting her outside involvement; using jealousy to justify actions.

Making light of the abuse and not taking her concerns about it seriously; saying the abuse didn’t happen; shifting responsibility for abusing behaviour; saying she caused it.

The Duluth Power and Control Wheel:

Making her feel guilty about the children; using the children to relay messages; using visitation to harass her; threatening to take the children away.




a graphic illustration used in IDAP

Under MAPPA’s wing....
another type of crime receives the MAPPA treatment....

Keeping the victim safe

Domestic Abuse is a regular killer.
Women’s Safety Workers are required by Probation’s Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme to keep in touch with the victim and keep her informed of progress. They consult her, assess the risk she faces, and check on her safety. Police Domestic Violence Liaison Officers have an equally important part to play, both in ensuring the woman’s safety and in implementing MAPPA decisions. Probation’s Victim Contact Unit represents the victim’s views in non-domestic violence cases. All come under the MAPPA aegis.

Offering emotional and practical support to traumatised victims takes patience, tact, and clarity of purpose. Tentative Apart from the women they can immediately help, there are those in danger to whom Women’s Safety Workers offer assistance, gently, patiently, for months before getting a tentative response, or, as in the case of Rosalind, a sudden emergency call. Frightened Aged 38, Rosalind had experienced serious domestic violence since her early 20s. A high-powered business woman with countless injunctions and hospital visits behind her, she felt shame at being able to manage people at work, but not her own life. After a year of occasional secret telephone contacts, her WSW received a frightened call requesting immediate help. Serious violence had occurred again. Three hours of talking resulted in admittance to a Refuge. Even this was not sufficient to hold the woman: she was back at home soon afterwards. The job continues of building up the victim’s selfesteem sufficiently that she can make good decisions for herself. Information WSWs maintain contact with some of the people who have been moved out-of-county by the Police Domestic Violence Liaison Officers. One such woman uses her worker as the only source of good information about her seriously dangerous ex-partner, currently on the Probation programme. Important joint work Close work with the Police has been fruitful, both in ensuring a woman’s safety, and in feeding important information to those working directly with the offender. Equally important are contributions from a WSW at a Multi-Agency Public Protection meeting during the planning process for managing a dangerous abuser.


Trust A Women’s Safety Worker needs the commitment and compassion which makes her trusted by the women who find it difficult to share their pain with anyone. Dee Wood, who was in at the beginning of this initiative in Essex, spends many an hour either on the phone or in person helping women to face the issues which could lead to greater safety. In the short time she has been doing this job there

are women not only in the county, but living elsewhere in the UK or abroad who owe their new-found autonomy and safety to her hard work. Care needed “We help these people to know they can regain some control in their lives,” says Dee. “Even then, we have to be careful for the victim: in asserting control, she can be in more danger – when her partner notices the difference, and doesn’t like it. Safety planning is a must.”

Hours of work Unstinting dedication to the job, long hours: (“When people are relying on you for immediate assistance, you can’t say I'll do that next week,” says Dee) – along with their contribution to preventing re-offending, make WSWs vital contributors to MAPPA. “Sharing of information and making the necessary plans together is plain common sense,” says Dee.



In a prison cell, because his attitude caused concern...

He became infatuated with his victim following a casual meeting. After that, he wouldn’t leave her alone. He started to stalk her, staying close to her, phoning her, and his continuous, frightening harassment was not prevented by a short prison sentence, or a Restraining Order. He used every opportunity to get in touch with her. What would he do next? Following further offences, he was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment. However, he’d been remanded in custody for a while, so his release date was due only two months later. A short

Licence period – four months – would follow his release. The case was referred to a MAPPA Level 2 meeting (Local Risk Management). The Probation Offender Manager knew he still posed a risk: he had no concerns for his victim and was still fixated. MAPPA decides The victim was represented at the LRMM by the Probation Victim Contact Unit. They requested that MAPPA ensure that there were conditions inserted into his Licence of non-contact, and an Exclusion Zone, to prohibit his entering the area in which she lived. Such provisions

would boost the existing court Restraining Order, which remains in place indefinitely. In addition, the Police agreed to install a panic alarm. ....and further... MAPPA also decided that he should be accommodated at Probation Approved Premises, so his movements could be monitored. The plan included a nighttime curfew and reporting back to the Premises at two-hourly intervals: he would have no time to try to visit the area where his victim lived. Questions over attitude: recall Only four weeks after his release, his


Fixated on his victim, he posed a continuing threat

Offender Manager could see that he was depressed as a result of the stringent controls in place. He also appeared to be blaming the victim, harbouring continued resentment towards her. Risk had therefore increased. Probation recalled him to prison. MAPPA ready to react again He was released on the date his Licence would have expired, had he remained at large. In view of the recall, his Licence period was extended by three months. The same restraints were agreed at the MAPPA planning meeting.

Changes However, this time, his attitude toward his victim appeared to have changed dramatically. He spoke of how he now wished to move on, get on with his life. He successfully completed the remaining licence period without mishap, and has relocated far away from his victim. The Restraining Order still exists, and MAPPA will respond again if it is ever necessary.

Text harassment is against the law.
Save the messages; do not reply to them, and report it to the police. Phone companies can also offer help, so contact yours to discuss and to ask for a new number.


“In Essex, sharing vital information took place before MAPPA came into being. The arrangements we have made since MAPPA’s inception, however, have contributed more than the public will ever know to their safety.”
Eric Aryee Assistant Chief Officer, Probation Chair of MAPPA Strategic Management Board

“Over the last year MAPPA has contributed significantly to the identification of many children at risk, and the development of effective child protection plans for them.We take our responsibility to contribute to the MAPPA processes very seriously.”
Sue Hadley Head of Child Protection and Safeguarding Essex County Council

“It is good to work with professionals who are resolved to protect the public and work with victims. We are adding to the MAPPA resource to ensure that each Basic Command Unit has a Monitoring Officer to work as a team with the Probation Offender Manager.”
Bob Chatterton Detective Chief Inspector - Intelligence Essex Police


I speak for the public in Essex.....
The public is represented on MAPPA’s Strategic Management Board. Two lay members speak up for Essex when decisions are made at the highest level. One of them, John Downing, talks about the job.....

Lay advisers to the Essex MAPPA Strategic Management Board were formally appointed in June of 2005 and so a full year has passed upon which we can reflect, and review our progress.

At the Strategic Management Board.... John Downing (left)

In truth, coming into the MAPPA process as “outsiders”, we were both apprehensive about the levels of co-operation needed between the Police, Probation, Prison Services and a host of other agencies for the Public Protection Arrangements to be effective. We can, however, confidently report that the co-operation between every agency is extremely strong and we believe that the success of Essex MAPPA is largely down to this. Apart from the quarterly SMB meetings, we have also been attending Information Exchange meetings at local Probation Offices. It is gratifying to observe detailed offender management plans being put together in such a professional and consistent way, with everyone working hard to prevent re-offending and give full and continued support to victims.

I was pleased to be invited by the SMB onto a working group earlier this year which had been given the task of developing the Essex MAPPA business plan for 2006/07. Hopefully my previous business expertise was of some use to the group. Our final plan has recently been adopted by the SMB and we now have a strong strategy for ensuring that we can grow and adapt for the foreseeable future.

It would be wrong for us to miss this opportunity to thank the MAPPA Manager Allan Taplin and his team for all their hard work and dedication over the last year……a job very well done.



What Risk?
A three-tier system used countrywide ensures that the most dangerous offenders receive the greatest degree of scrutiny and oversight, and that other less serious offenders are correctly filtered out. There were 713 MAPPA referrals this year: a 65% increase on the previous year. Domestic Abusers account for a good part of this additional work. Of the 713 referrals, 636 of them remained at Level 1 – the lowest risk. 64 were at Level 2, and 13 at the highest level. Increasing numbers demonstrate the cumulative nature of these statistics: MAPPA will still be managing many of last year’s cases, as well as those who have recently been caught and convicted.

3 2 1
by nt e d m rre ge a fe an -re M re e sk nd ng Ri r a cha n e e th ag ls n, es. an leve l 1 tio c M ve rma sour ase f risk Le nfo re y C e i y: I cy b g or of n w an eg at ge age vie ch C n l re Ex sk Ri cha dua er on i Ex divi und at t orm in ep f K In to


sk Ri

M l l e ve ma isk sua rang con ns R u s io un ide ing cis W eet . De el. M sis lev Level 3: ba gh the ‘Critical Few’ hi

: ry m f r nc n a a go ge s o ge o t te a el a ed e a Ca an ev of n d

3 uir ng rt. s’ el req urci uppo eed v Le ent eso y s ‘n

g in .

t or pp su ive ncy. t ac e , e Ag ble . th a g ne st rn in n o if nce 2 uir a A o el req re th APP ny c ev ent o y M is a :L Local Risk Management ry em f m y b re o eg ag es o erl the t Meeting: Level 2 Ca an rc art if M u u ly isk R k reso d q ent s Ri d we qu Chaired by the MAPPA Manager, they are always attended by the key an vie fre agencies, alongside all other organisations having contact with the Re ore m case, including victims officers from either Probation or the Police.

The vast majority of cases remain at Level 1: Information Exchange
Probation brings cases due for release from prison or convicted by the courts and made subject to community supervision; the Prison Service identifies ‘relevant offenders’ on reception, or those who are scheduled for release. The Police hold the Sex Offender Register. Other agencies aware of cases bring them also. Decisions will be made about the level of risk and whether more than one agency is needed to manage it. If there is risk causing concern, the case will be dealt with as Level 2, or, in the case of the critical few, a Level 3 Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel Meeting will be convened.

9 out of 10 offenders referred to MAPPA stay at this lowest level of risk


Abuse, then cold fury
Domestic Abuse takes different forms: all with the aim of controlling a partner


After his partner made allegations of serious sexual and physical assault, he went for broke.
While awaiting trial for the assaults, and already subject to the court’s bail conditions not to return to the family home, he went there, piled up clothes, furniture and other items near the window and set fire to them.

needed to deal with. In the months before his release, MAPPA held a number of meetings, at Level 2.
Concerns raised

during the day would prevent a hurried visit to Essex.
Threat of further prison

No-one was hurt, but the fire caused extensive damage to both his property and that of his neighbours on both sides.
Not on register

His partner had mental health problems and his daughter was living with foster parents. Social Services raised concerns at the MAPPA meeting about contact with the daughter on release from prison: he had told his case manager that he hoped to live with his child.
Potential targets

He was escorted to the Approved Premises on release, by Probation staff, who explained the plan and conditions he was facing. Should he not comply, a return to prison was likely. Given the extended licence period, until 2012, this could mean a long time in prison.

When he appeared in Crown Court on the Arson charges, he was sentenced to four years, with an extended licence of 6 years. The original charges of sexual and common assault against his partner were left to lie on file. This meant that he could not be placed on the Sex Offender Register.
No parole

The main risk would be to his previous partner. He had offended against her on at least three occasions. Also at risk was the child, and most probably, her carers too.
Keeping him away

At first, he appeared very compliant. Two months later, however, he did not return to the hostel on time. Probation applied for his licence to be revoked.
Protection set up

He became eligible to apply for parole 18 months later, given the long period he’d been in prison awaiting trial for Arson. Parole was refused, however. He was due out in six months, even so, which led his Probation Offender Manager to refer his case immediately to MAPPA Information Exchange, and thereafter to a Level 2 Local Risk Management meeting. There were a number of issues they

Finding him a placement at Probation Approved premises out of the area, to prevent any contact with his partner or the child, was the first priority. Licence conditions were planned to prevent him from having any direct or indirect contact with either of them. An exclusion zone around where they lived was also important.
Police agree disclosure

Although his partner had relocated while he was in prison, and it was unlikely he knew where she was, steps were immediately taken to protect her, and her daughter. The Probation Victim Liaison Officer and Divisional Police Domestic Violence Officer made contact, and agreed a protection plan with her.
Recall to prison

Disclosure of his photo to the foster parents was agreed by the Police: they needed to be able to recognise him, just in case.
No time to visit

Finally, a night-time curfew and a requirement to report back to the Approved Premises every two hours

The police were tasked with finding and arresting him. Within hours, he was found at a relative’s address. He said he panicked when he realised he was late for his return. He was arrested and returned to prison, where he currently remains.



Risk Management Plans: What’s in them? Who makes them?
There have been hundreds of cases referred to MAPPA since the arrangements were formalised. All will need careful attention, at whatever level of meeting they are dealt with. This case illustrates a simple Risk Management Plan which needs involvement from the two main actors in MAPPA: Police and Probation.
His victim was 13. He was young too, but not that young.
Convicted of a number of less serious offences, he had been supervised by the Youth Offending Team. He then indecently assaulted the young teenager. An aggravating factor was his attempt to interfere with witnesses prior to the court case. He received 12 months Youth Custody. Prior to his release, his case was referred to the lowest level of meeting, the MAPPA Information Exchange. It was decided that this was a case for more than one agency’s involvement, and therefore was at Level 2. The IE members put together the Risk Management Plan, and avoided a referral to a further planning meeting.

Given his new status, Probation would take on his Licence after his release, while the Police would monitor him as a Registered Sex Offender. The plan:
• Probation Victim Contact Unit to liaise with the victim and her parents to discuss suitable Licence conditions, including prevention of contact either directly or indirectly with the victim and her immediate family. • An exclusion zone around the victim’s address and where she attends school • Probation Offender Manager and Police Monitoring Officer to assess suitability of proposed release address. • Offender Manager to remind him of the requirement to register as a Sex Offender at his local police station within 3 days of his release. • Police to undertake a monitoring visit within 14 days of release, and thereafter at monthly intervals for an initial period. • Police and Probation to continue to liaise outside of the Information Exchange process, and also arrange joint monitoring visits.

Many cases are discussed at Level 1 Information Exchange Meetings, and are then treated as a Level 2 at that meeting, with full Multi-Agency Risk Management planning. Essentially a Level 2 case from the beginning, this one will feature as an IE, and not Level 2, in this year’s statistics.


Less of a risk to grandchildren
A retired Maths teacher, aged 66, had been giving private lessons to young girls. He sexually assaulted them, then tried to intimidate them into not acting as witnesses at his trial.
A repeat of previous offences This was not the first time he had offended in this way: something similar happened eight years before. This time he was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, with nine years’ extended supervision on release. He was banned for life from working with children. Preparation Some months before his release, his case was referred to MAPPA, to start the planning process for managing him on his return home. Home checks throw up a problem A first move, to check out his proposed release address, the home he shared with his wife, produced real concerns for many of the MAPPA members. Just as he had minimised his offending, placing the blame on his victims, it was apparent that his wife shared his views. Added to this, she frequently cared for their three young grandchildren who lived nearby, and their father seemed to collude in relation to his own father’s offending. The risk to the children was considered to be too great. Not allowed home Arrangements were made for him to be accommodated on release at Probation Approved Premises, until Social Services could complete their checks on the risk he posed. Family not co-operating Licence conditions prevented him from having any unsupervised contact with children, in addition to specific conditions regarding previous victims. Visits by Police monitoring officers were arranged, as well as periodic surveillance. However, the family hindered and delayed the process, reluctant to co-operate. MAPPA decided that until such times as a full assessment and focussed work was completed, he would not be allowed to return to the family home. He is a risk A subsequent piece of work by the Social Services Department confirmed the fears within MAPPA that he could pose a risk to his grandchildren or any other child he came into contact with. The family were informed that until these areas had been addressed satisfactorily, he could not return home. Continuing oversight He has now moved out of Approved Premises into independent living. Police and Probation both visit him to ensure he remains at his address. He will stay there until the risk he poses appears to have been eliminated or can be properly managed.



Determined to harm her, he would not give up

There are significant re-victimisation issues surrounding many domestic abuse cases. MAPPA must always bear these in mind when planning to manage a perpetrator

The victim was in the early stages of pregnancy. As he assaulted her, he jumped on her tummy, claiming the child wasn’t his.
Previous abuse

Partner with parents

Combined work


As part of the risk management plan, the Police Domestic Violence Liaison Officer was tasked to contact the partner. It was discovered

The ensuing Court Order, for Common Assault, soon threw up more information about the man’s habits. His partner had sustained considerable abuse before eventually reporting it to the police. Probation referred the case to the MAPPA Information Exchange.

He jumped on her tummy, claiming her child wasn’t his
that she had moved back in with her parents. However, their address was near his, and he was fully aware of their location.

MAPP Arrangements came into play: it was decided that Police and Probation would combine to deal with the problem. The Police warned him about his behaviour. Soon afterwards Probation took him back to court, in breach of his order. The court allowed the order to continue.

The meeting heard that his partner had just left him, but was still getting unsolicited telephone calls from him, and was very frightened.

He wasn’t prepared to stop, however. Two months later, he committed a further offence: that of criminal damage to his partner’s property. When arrested, he committed three further offences of assaulting police officers. He was remanded in custody.

Still he tried to harrass his partner, making unsolicited phone calls to her from the prison, until liaison with the prison establishment stopped him phoning. While he was on remand, his partner gave birth to a little boy. He finally appeared in Crown Court four months after his arrest, and was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment. However, he had served time on remand, and was released almost immediately.

He was arrested again as a result of the harrassment of his partner from the prison, and sentenced to a further


28 days. A Restraining Order was made at the same time.
Panic alarms

MAPPA had tasked the Domestic Violence Liaison officer to maintain contact with his partner, keeping her fully aware of what was happening. Arrangements were made for police panic alarms to be fitted both in her property and that of her parents.

He came out of prison, and waited only a day before snatching their son
the police immediately responded. He was arrested close by. The little boy was returned to his mother, uninjured, but distressed.
No evidence for kidnap

months’ in prison. Further charges of kidnapping were discontinued through a lack of evidence. Further work needed He still poses a risk to his partner. MAPPA will keep his case under review, and in view of the imminence of further offences, he will be subject to a Level 3 MAPPP in preparation for his return from prison.

When released from custody, he waited for one day only before he went to his partner’s house and, when she opened the door, holding her baby boy, he snatched the child and ran off. The victim pressed the panic alarm and

A subsequent conviction of Harassment, Breach of a Restraining Order and Common Assault led to a sentence of a further 18



This happened

The MAPP Arrangements provide the opportunity to remove a dangerous offender from the county, in the knowledge that they will be under similar surveillance in another MAPPA area. This reciprocal understanding, ensuring extra protection when needed, must be carefully prepared for. MAPPA personnel will often visit another area, to discuss, explain and help set up the management strategy.

Moving an offender from one county to another to enhance safety: it reduces the risk, shares out the responsibility.


last year:

What happened next?

He was brought to this county because he posed a risk to an individual victim elsewhere. Essex exports offenders to other counties for the same reason.

A man was sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment in 2001 for offences of indecent assault and kidnap of a 17-year-old young woman: a stranger attack which could have been far more serious had it not been for the intervention of the public. He had a previous conviction for a similar offence and was suspected of having committed others that could not be proved. He was still considered to pose a significant risk. A Level III Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel meeting was convened to produce the risk management plan. He posed a serious risk to vulnerable victims in his home area. We agreed transfer of the case to Essex in the overall interest of public protection. He has no ties in any other part of the country and he has a local connection to Essex: his father and son live locally. Meetings were held with the MAPPA representative from the home area, to build up a picture of the offender, and to agree the plan: • A requirement for him to reside where directed. • Licence conditions to prevent him from having access to or working with children. • Curfew conditions. • Regular testing for alcohol consumption. • A requirement for him to register with the local Police as a Registered Sex Offender. • Regular monitoring by the Police Public Protection Unit and monitoring visits by the Police and Probation Case Manager. It was recognised that it would not be possible for him to attend the Thames Valley Sex Offender Groupwork Programme. The short duration of his licence would prevent him from completing it, and there were doubts as to his level of understanding and whether he would be able to fully comprehend it. Instead, the Case Manager was tasked to undertake 'one to one' work in order to give him techniques to prevent him re-offending. Before his period of supervision with the Probation Service came to an end, the Housing Liaison Officer assisted him in finding privately rented accommodation in another area. Nonetheless, before he was allowed to move in, both Police and Probation carried out an assessment as to its suitability. At the end of the statutory period of Probation supervision, he was offered voluntary contact with the Probation Service as a means of re-enforcing the techniques that he had learned to prevent re-offending. Although they are not required to do so after a Licence is completed, serious offenders can and will avail themselves of this extra help. After a period of time, however, he broke off contact with the Probation Service. He will remain on the Sex Offender Register indefinitely and the police will continue to monitor him regularly, bringing the case back to MAPPA if they need to, irrespective of the end of his involvement with Probation.


Still managing a fouryear old case
He was referred to MAPPA in 2002, and still needs regular oversight. Not all cases fit neatly into a time-frame...
Children who are already vulnerable can be easy prey for sex offenders. She was 8 years old, and living in a hotel used for housing homeless families and individuals.
He saw his chance, was nice to her, and invited her into his room to help with his video. He had a similar conviction of indecent assault 15 years previously, the victim being his little sister. A heavy drinker, his alcohol consumption acted as a disinhibitor to offending. This time, he blamed his new victim. “She started it,” he said, claiming the child was older than her years, and that she indicated her interest in him. He went to prison for two years in 2001. On release, his Licence conditions included attendance at the Sex Offender Treatment Programme; dealing with his alcohol misuse; not to work or have unsupervised contact with children and residence as directed by the Probation Service. Having registered as a sex offender with the police, he was subject to monitoring visits. He was reasonably compliant to start with. There were no immediate issues with his behaviour initially. However, within 2 or 3 months staff were not satisfied that he was making efforts to deal with his alcohol problem. After a written warning, Probation recalled him to prison. He appealed the decision to recall twice; the Parole Board refused his appeals and he stayed in prison until last year – which would have been the end of his Licence period. The Parole Board extended it by six months, to allow time for the Probation Service to be involved in his resettlement. During his time in prison, he had completed the Extended Sex Offender Treatment Programme. It demonstrated that he still posed a significant threat to young girls if he became friendly with a family.


This time only two weeks after his release, he started drinking heavily, and was again recalled to prison. On his subsequent release, there could be no more Probation involvement: the Licence period would have finished for good. MAPPA, including Probation, continued its oversight, however, and held a number of Level 2 planning meetings in the build-up to his release. A Local Authority accepted responsibility for the housing issues, and working in conjunction with MAPPA, identified accommodation in a Housing Project. Within weeks of his release, the Police decided to make a limited disclosure to schools in the local vicinity, and to go the the courts for a Sex Offender Prevention Order, which will act in a similar way to Probation’s Licence conditions. He is subject to single agency management now, by way of Police monitoring and Sex Offender Registration. MAPPA will continue its oversight of his case.

How much at risk are our children?
Sex offending is rare. The vast majority of children will not come into contact with anyone wishing to harm them. The likelihood of an offence being committed with a child is overwhelmingly greater within the family – a father, grandfather, uncle, stepparent, for instance. These account for the majority of sex offences before the courts. A family friend can also disarm a young child into feeling safe with them. Offences are committed by someone taking the time and trouble to “groom” the child with gifts and friendship. The case of a child being snatched or pounced upon is fortunately very rare.


The numbers: they continue to register
Numbers accumulate as more offenders appear in court.
Whether for major or minor offending: all must register
Category 1 MAPPA offenders: Registered Sex Offenders (RSOs))

The number of Registered Sex Offenders living in Essex on 31 March 2006

802 49
SW 183, SE 157, E 168, W 110, C 184

The number of RSOs per 100,000 head of population The number of RSOs by BCU: i) South Western, ii) South Eastern, iii) Eastern, iv) Western, v) Central The number of sex offenders having a registration requirement who were either cautioned or convicted for breaches of the requirement, between April 1 2005 and March 31 2006 The number of (a) Sexual Offences Prevention Orders (SOPOs) applied for (b) interim SOPOs granted and (c) full SOPOs imposed by the courts between April 1 2005 and March 31 2006 The number of (a) Notification Orders applied for (b) interim Notification Orders granted and (c) full Notification Orders imposed by the courts between May 1 2005 and March 31 2006 The number of Foreign Travel Orders (a) applied for and (b) imposed by the courts between May 1 2005 and March 31 2006 Category 2: Violent offenders and other sexual offenders (V&OS) The number of violent and other sexual offenders (as defined by Section 327 (3),(4) and (5) of the Criminal Justice Act (2003) living in Essex between April 1 2005 and March 31 2006 Category 3: Other Offenders (OthO) The number of other offenders (as defined by Section 325 (2)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act (2003) living in Essex between April 1 2005 and March 31 2006

38 (a) 34 (b) 2 (c) 33 (a) 2 (b) 2 (c) 2 (a) 0 (b) 0



Offenders managed through Level 3 (MAPPP) and Level 2 (local inter-agency management) The number of offenders in each of the three categories above: (a) RSOs, (b) violent and other offenders and (c) other offenders, who have been managed through the MAPPP (level 3) and through local inter-agency risk management (level 2) between April 1 2005 and March 31 2006.
Level 3 Level 2

(a) 8 (b) 4 (c) 1

(a) 13 (b) 25 (c) 26

Of the cases managed at Level 2 or 3 between April 1 2005 and March 31 2006, how many, while managed at that level:
Level 3 Level 2

were returned to custody for breach of licence were returned to custody for breach of a restraining order or sex offences prevention order were charged with a serious sexual or violent offence



0 0

0 0


MAPPA: the reality
A third of the working year is devoted to MAPPA case planning
Eighty days were spent planning the management of MAPPA cases this year – a third of the working year. No calculation has been made about the work put in by the agencies, between each MAPPA meeting, to implement the plans they have all agreed for each individual.

No-one at the highest level of risk committed a further serious offence
The Information Exchange process was used for the timely identification of the ‘critical few’ offenders considered to pose a significant and imminent risk to the public on their return to the community from prison. In the main, offenders were referred to IE four to six months prior to release, and subsequently discussed at a full Level 3 MAPPP meeting. The ensuing risk management plan was implemented prior to, and post, release. 13 offenders were discussed at MAPPPs. Some were later recalled for breaching licence conditions – the Probation Service acts swiftly in these cases, and the infringements can be very minor ones. None had committed a further serious offence.

Registrations are up
The number of sex offenders required to register with the Police continues to grow. This year, the figure was 802. When the first MAPPA Annual Report was published, the figure was 365. This is NOT a massive escalation in offending – the numbers accumulate as newly-convicted offenders are added to the register. Many will be subject to the restrictions of registration for the rest of their lives. The Police have a continuing responsibility to monitor these people far beyond the period of their Probation supervision. If they fail to comply with registration requirements, they face up to 5 years’ imprisonment.

The numbers managed at Level 2 are lower
The number of cases discussed at Level 2 (Local Risk Management Meetings) decreased from 84 in 04-05 to only 64 in 05-06. What has become apparent is that a significant number of cases discussed at the first level (Information Exchange) have been given similar priority, and have similar multi-agency risk management plans, to those at level 2. The effect of this is that the statistics do not reflect the significant amount of effort, dedication and allocation of resources that has taken place this year. Whether an individual is discussed at Level 1 Information Exchange, or at Level 2 Local Risk Management meeting, is to a large extent unimportant. The crucial factor is whether or not an appropriate Risk Management Plan is in place and implemented.In Essex, our Information Exchange process meets this objective, and allows far more offenders to be referred to MAPPA than otherwise would be the case. The Essex MAPPA Business Plan for 2006-07 includes reviewing current practices to more accurately reflect the Level 2 status of some cases. The effect of this is that next year’s Annual Report will probably show a significant increase in these Level 2 Local Risk Management cases.

Sex Offences Prevention Orders are up
The number of SOPOs imposed by the courts in Essex was 33 during the year, compared to a previous year’s total of 8. Aimed at preventing sex offenders from doing anything which could trigger their own offending (preventing someone from going to a swimming pool, or places where children congregate, for instance), SOPOs are of significant benefit in safeguarding children. What would normally not be an offence to enter a park, would be so if a SOPO was in place to prevent it, and the offender could face up to 5 year’s imprisonment.

Strategic Management Board - Planning for MAPPA

The role

To evaluate the operation of MAPPA in Essex.

To ensure robust links for information-sharing are established with key agencies and structures (for instance the Area Child Protection Committee) so as to enhance MAPPA’s performance.

To monitor information-sharing processes

To secure appropriate resources which ensure the multi agency public protection arrangements can be delivered to a consistent and high standard.


To review local arrangements to make sure they reflect any wider legislative or criminal justice or public protection developments.

To approve and publish the MAPPA Annual Report and also to confirm a supporting media strategy.

To take forward the development and delivery of a long term MAPPA training strategy in conjunction with the Eastern Region.

The membership
• Assistant Chief Probation Officer • Assistant Chief Constable • Essex Police Director of Intelligence • Senior Officer to represent Social Services (Essex, Southend or Thurrock) • Senior officer to represent YOT (Essex Southend or Thurrock) • Two lay advisors • A representative of the Essex Housing Officers group • The Directors of North Essex Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust and South Essex Partnership Trust (Providers of Mental Health Services) • Senior Manager Essex Job Centre Plus • Prison Governor, HMP Chelmsford • Regional Manager, Essex Victim Support • Two co-opted members representing Essex PCTs • MAPPA Manager

To review cases considered at Level 2 or Level 3 under MAPPA, where a serious further offence takes place. Thereafter to identify the learning and action points to ensure that multi-agency working and the public protection arrangements are continually improved and reviewed.

To review the quality of delivery of MAPPA, ensuring adequate information is available to offenders, service users and the public, taking into account ethnicity, gender, disability, sexuality, class and age.

To review and update the Protocol to ensure that it complies with the national guidance issued periodically by the Home Office.

MAPPA Strategic Business Plan 06-07

Essex Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements are established in accordance with Sections 325-327 Criminal Justice Act 2003, and Section 69 Criminal Justice & Court Services Act 2000 for the purpose of assessing and managing the risks posed by sexual, violent and other dangerous offenders who may cause serious harm to the public, taking particular account of the needs and concerns of victims.

This Business Plan identifies forward planning priorities for action by the Essex MAPPA Strategic Management Board (SMB) aimed at achieving outcomes of:

• Protection of the public, especially victims, children, vulnerable adults and additional 'at risk' persons

• Controlled criminality, and the reduction of crime and re-offending

• Community safety

• Offenders’ awareness of the effects of crime on victims and the public

• Public confidence in the criminal justice system and the public protection activity of agencies

• Compliance with the human rights of victims, offenders and communities

• Services and process compliant with agencies’ diversity principles and policies.

The Essex MAPPA Business Plan has been developed in the light of the practices and procedures that have evolved over recent years and additionally the Strategic Management Board have taken into account the following documents:

The specific aims of the Essex MAPPA Business Plan will be to address the four following areas:

• Managing Sex Offenders in the Community – a Joint Thematic Inspection by HMIP & HMIC.

• Strengthening Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements – Home Office Development & Practice Report 45.

1. 2. 3. 4.

MAPPA Development. Monitoring & Evaluation. Communication & Strategic Partnerships. Training.

• Probation Circular - 88/2005 MAPPA National Business Plans.

MAPPA Development
Delivery Plan Milestones Resource
MAPPA Development Team. (MAPPA Manager, Probation, Police & ‘Safeguards’ Representatives and a Lay Adviser). • Publication of MAPPA National Guidance (Apr/May 2006) • Identify significant changes and present findings to SMB (July 2006) • Implement change as appropriate. • SMB to identify changes in National Guidance and compare with current practice in Essex • SMB to consult with ‘Duty to Co-operate’ Agencies locally.

Strategic Aim

National Guidance reviewed and any necessary changes implemented.

To ensure compliance of Essex Arrangements with the revised National MAPPA Guidance.

To review current MAPPA resources to ensure sufficiency in the light of significant increase in MAPPA referrals.

• Review role, job descriptions & grading of MAPPA Manager & MAPPA Administrators to ensure appropriateness and consistency with other Areas Regionally & Nationally.

• Complete Review (July 2006). • Present to SMB (July 2006). • Implement Changes (September 2006)

Police & Probation

Roles reviewed and recommendations implemented.

• Review the current process of 'Information Exchange' meetings in relation to RSOs & IDAP Cases to ensure appropriateness.

Police & Probation

• Complete review of current practice. (July 2006). • Identify options for change in practice. (July 2006)

Police & Probation

Only High Risks cases are referred to formal arrangements but also to have processes in place to share information on all relevant offenders.

Monitoring and Evaluation
Delivery Plan Milestones Resource
MAPPA Manager Process for data capture in place May 2006 Present to September 2006 Review ongoing SMB

Strategic Aim

Transparent, defensible and accurate information, available for public scrutiny. Quarterly report to be provided to SMB

• To develop a system to enable the SMB to monitor and analyse MAPPA performance through the following key areas: • Analysis of risk management thresholds at Levels 1, 2 & 3 • Attendance and level of co-operation of agencies at Levels 1, 2 & 3 • Diversity profile of offenders at Levels 2 &3 • Performance to be recorded in the Annual Report SMB to feedback to relevant agencies for additional training if necessary

• Establish a system to capture relevant data. • Present to SMB for agreement • Review risk assessment process to establish whether high/very high risk offenders are nominated appropriately. • If nomination process unsatisfactory, develop and implement new system (potential link to training strategy) • Review attendance at MAPPA meetings and, if necessary, identify and invite new attendees

• Draft Terms of Reference for the Performance Review Group.


For the SMB to improve the process for handling serious case reviews and serious further offences through the establishment of a Performance Review Group.

Draft Terms of Reference to be presented to SMB April 2006

Lessons learned to lead to improved public safety. Learning points from Serious Case Reviews to be included in 2006/07 MAPPA Annual Report

Communication and Strategic Partnerships
Delivery Plan Milestones Resource
MAPPA Manager and Probation’s Communications Manager Financial cost JAN 07 SMB meeting On-going Feb/March 07 TBC by Home Office As above Agree distribution audience - Data /information collation - Preparation of Report - Press release - Distribution of Report

Strategic Aim

Increased staff and public understanding about, and confidence in MAPPA.

• The Respnsible Authority for MAPPA, with the SMB and the Lay Advisors, to publish and distribute an Annual Report.

Develop a longer term communication strategy.

• To Target the following Audiences: RAs, DTCs, staff, Legislators, Media, Service Users, and Communities. • To give the following message: Information about the role and workings of MAPPA. How it works, what it does, what you can do as part of it. • To use the following methods: a website, conference, training, articles in ‘own organisations’ newsletters, MP seminars, approach TV/radio with a story to use, leaflets, Annual report.

Draft Communication Strategy to be prepared by March 2007

MAPPA Development Team and Probation's Communication Manager

A multi-agency staff group who are fully aware of the MAPPA methods and that have a professional confidence of their role within it. Increased confidence in the MAPPA processes among communities in Essex.

The SMB to ensure a process is in place to support consistent sharing of guidance and good practice to all staff working within MAPPA.

Regular Public Protection Meetings for staff from relevant agencies to be chaired by a member of the SMB.

In place by July 2006

SMB member + staff from relevant agencies.

Improved public protection through increased professional confidence and consistency amongst staff.

Delivery Plan Milestones Resource
• Consultation with MAPPA practitioners • Reference to the National resource pack

Strategic Aim

Training pack assembled and in place to support local training strategy

To conduct a training needs analysis of the MAPPA arrangements in Essex.

Deliver Essex MAPPA conference

• To plan and organise MAPPA conference to disseminate current developments and promote shared good practice

SMB MAPPA Development Group.

Raise MAPPA awareness. Shared good practice in relation to legislative developments that support MAPPA Training strategy published Include MAPPA training within current joint agency training courses. Deliver an Induction session for new MAPPA practitioners

Develop long term training strategy to deliver appropriate training to existing and new practitioners within the MAPPA arrangements

• Preparation of strategy document • Consultation with MAPPA practitioners • Reference to National resource pack


Allan Taplin, Essex MAPPA Manager 01245 452767 Eric Aryee ACO National Probation Service - Essex Area 01376 501626 John Broughton ACC Essex Police O1245 491491 Sue Hadley Essex Social Care and Learning Services 01245 492211