UK Home Office: Humberside%20MAPPA%202006%20Report

Mappa report 6/10/06 11:52 Page 1

MAPPA Annual Report 2005-2006
Ministerial foreword by Gerry Sutcliffe MP

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
3
Contents
Introduction..................................................................................................................6
What are the MAPPA (Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements)? ......7
Are all dangerous people covered by the MAPPA?
Are all offenders covered by the MAPPA?
How are those offenders who come under the MAPPA dealt with?
What is a Risk Assessment?
Why aren’t all these offenders very high risk?
How are offenders managed under the MAPPA?
What are Risk Management Plans?
Sexual Offences Prevention Orders
Foreign Travel Orders
Notification Orders
Disclosure
Recall to prison
What about the victims of serious crime?..........................................................12
Who’s Who in MAPPA? .............................................................................................13

The Responsible Authority
The Strategic Management Board
Report by the SMB Chair
Humberside Police
National Probation Service - Humberside
The Prison Service - Yorkshire and Humberside Area
‘Duty to Co-operate’ agencies

What must the “duty to co-operate’ agencies do?
Youth Offending Teams
Jobcentre Plus
Local Housing Authority
Registered Social Landlords
Local Authority Social Services - Councils with Children Services and
Community Care Responsibilities
Local Education Authority
Health Services
Key Progress and Achievements over the last year .........................................25
The coming year - Strengthening the MAPPA....................................................26

Statistics ......................................................................................................................29
Area MAPPA Business Plan 2006-2007 .................................................................31
MAPPA – THE FIRST FIVE YEARS:
A National Overview of the Multi-Agency Public
Protection Arrangements 2001 - 2006 .................................................................36
Strategic Management Board Members..............................................................46
Agency Contact Points .............................................................................................47
5
Introduction
We are pleased to present the fifth annual report on the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements
(MAPPA) in Humberside.
Yet again the year has produced many challenges connected to this area of work and we wish to take
this opportunity to restate our commitment to the MAPPA process. We believe that this process enables
the effective management of risk from offenders and thereby prevents crime and protects victims.
That commitment to MAPPA has been demonstrated locally through our provision of extra resources and
nationally by enabling our staff to participate in, and be exposed to, external initiatives and workgroups
aimed at developing and improving practice.
The increase in local resources has resulted in allocation of extra staffing from across agencies and
the provision of a dedicated work environment for those staff. This has enabled us to reach out to more
of the agencies having contact with high risk offenders resulting in a greater sharing of appropriate
information, resources and expertise. Our statistics show, that this has had a positive effect on our work
to reduce risk from those offenders. An additional consequence of this increased involvement has been
that MAPPA is more able to benefit the wide diversity of communities across Humberside.
In respect of national developments Humberside staff have participated in national working parties to
develop new initiatives and processes and have trailed proposed national documentation. This means
that we are not only able to help shape national policy but we also ensure Humberside remains at the
leading edge of this type of work.
We are pleased to report that the involvement of lay members of the community on the Strategic
Management Board continues and we intend to further develop this aspect of MAPPA in the
forthcoming year. The consistency of membership on the Strategic Management Board has brought
benefits in terms of experience, effectiveness and the ability to plan for the future.
This introduction would not be complete if we did not offer our sincere thanks to all those staff who
work so hard to protect the public. They are to be commended for their skills and dedication.
We believe this report, yet again, contributes to the growing knowledge of, and confidence in, the
MAPPA process, particularly for those who live and work within the communities we serve.
Tim Hollis Stephen Hemming Steve Wagstaffe

Chief Constable Chief Probation Officer HM Prison Service Area Manager
Humberside Police National Probation Service – Humberside Yorkshire and Humberside
6
What are the MAPPA?

Sexual and violent offences are dreadful crimes that deeply affect the lives of victims and their families
and inspire fear in local communities. Their impact can be profound and long-lasting, leaving victims
feeling unsafe even in their own homes. The Government continues to regard protecting the public
from such sexual and violent crimes as one of its highest priorities.
The Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) form the basis of that public protection
through a genuinely multi-agency partnership throughout the 42 Police and Probation Areas of England
and Wales. They developed as formal arrangements out of local initiatives following legislation in 2000*
and are now defined by the Criminal Justice Act (2003) which came into effect on 5th April 2004. New
National guidelines on implementing MAPPA were introduced in April 2004‡ and updated guidelines
are expected during the coming year.
MAPPA contribute significantly towards the integration of the work of a number of criminal justice
agencies together with social care agencies such as health, social services and housing, in order to
reduce serious offending, minimise serious harm to the public and assist in the early detection of
repeat offenders.
Over the period of this review, the police, prison and probation services have had a statutory
responsibility to oversee these arrangements as the “responsible authorities” under the relevant
legislation.
In Humberside we undertake this joint work at two levels, through Local Risk Management Meetings
(LRMMs, see later) and through Multi Agency Public Protection Panels (MAPPP, see later).
The administering of the MAPPA is undertaken by a central team led by a MAPPA Co-ordinator who
work closely with the four Police Risk Management Units based in Hull, Scunthorpe, Grimsby and Market
Weighton, the National Probation Service - Humberside teams based in Hull, Scunthorpe, Grimsby,
Beverley, Goole and Bridlington and colleagues from the local prisons. Of course they could
not carry out their work effectively without co-operation and input from other departments in their
services or from other agencies.
Are all dangerous people covered by the MAPPA?

Currently MAPPA only applies to certain categories of individuals who have already been convicted
of an offence.
Some potentially dangerous people are not known to any local agencies, including police or probation.
Therefore, although the MAPPA represents a significant strengthening of public protection, they cannot
provide absolute protection.
Are all offenders covered by the MAPPA?

Not all offenders are covered by the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements so effective multi-
agency public protection needs to start with the efficient identification of those relevant offenders.
Prompt and accurate identification then allows all agencies to gather and share relevant information and
choose the appropriate risk management strategies.
* Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000.

‡ The MAPPA Guidance (2003) Home Office
7
Three categories of offenders are defined as falling within the remit of MAPPA;
Category 1: Registered sex offenders, i.e. those convicted or cautioned for certain sexual offences who
are required to register with the police.
Category 2: Violent and other sex offenders who generally have received a sentence of imprisonment
of 12 months or more.
Category 3: Other offenders not in either of the above categories but who are considered to
pose a risk of serious harm to the public. The inclusion of these offenders under MAPPA is
based on two considerations. First it must be established that the individual has a
conviction for an offence which indicates they are capable of causing serious harm to the
public. Secondly it must be reasonably considered that they currently may cause serious
harm to the public.
The statistics at the end of this report show the number of offenders in the three categories we have in
Humberside.
How are those offenders who come under the MAPPA dealt with?
When offenders have been dealt with by the courts their assimilation back into the community is usually,
but not always, overseen by the National Probation Service. This may start as soon as the offender leaves
court if they have been made subject to a community penalty such as a Community Order or it may be
delayed until the offender is released from prison if a custodial sentence is given.
At the time an offender passes through the court process an assessment of the risk they present to the
public in general or any individual in particular will usually have been undertaken by the probation
service. If they are given a custodial sentence then that assessment will be reviewed during the time they
are in prison under a shared risk assessment tool OASys*. The review will take into consideration
information from prison and probation staff involved in any work they have undertaken on their
offending behaviour whilst in prison, information from the police, from the probation Victim Liaison
Officers and from the Offender Manager from the “home” probation area, so that when the offender is
released to the community, agencies working with them will have an up to date indication of the risk the
offender poses.
Some offenders who do not come to the official notice of the probation service are assessed by the
police, e.g. Registered Sex Offenders moving into the area, again by using Home Office approved Risk
Assessment Tools.
* Offender Assessment System (OASys) is a Home Office approved National risk assessment tool, electronically based and
accessible to staff of both The Prison Service and The National Probation Service.

Risk Matrix 2000.
8
What is a Risk Assessment?

Risk assessment in our area of work can be considered as calculating how likely an event is to occur and,
if it does, what the likely impact of that event will be, upon whom or what and with what consequences.
The impact we are considering under MAPPA is serious harm to members of the public in general or to
individuals in particular, that is harm that will be life threatening or traumatic and from which recovery,
whether physical or psychological, can be expected to be difficult or impossible.
Using the recognised risk assessment tools of the particular agency, offenders are assessed as presenting
low, medium, high or very high risk of causing harm. In essence these levels of risk are defined as;
Low: there are no significant current indicators of risk of harm
Medium: there are identifiable indicators of harm. The offender has the potential to
cause harm but is unlikely to do so unless there is a change of circumstances.
High: there are identifiable indicators of risk of serious harm. The potential event
could happen at any time and the impact would be serious
Very High: there is an imminent risk of serious harm. The potential event is more likely
than not to happen and the impact would be serious.
The purpose of the MAPPA is to establish arrangements to co-ordinate the effective management
of that risk.
Why aren’t all these offenders very high risk?

Remember, risk is about the likelihood of something happening and the consequences or impact if it
does happen.
As past behaviour is a predictor to future behaviour, all offenders must be considered as presenting some
risk of re-offending and causing harm. However the degree to which they pose a risk and the seriousness
of any consequences of any further offending is something which is considered in the risk assessment
process. Some may be considered as presenting a high risk of re-offending but the consequences of that
behaviour, although perhaps causing nuisance, cost or indeed minor harm to the victim is not serious
harm as we have defined it. Others may have committed a serious offence with tragic consequences, such
as murder or manslaughter, which indicates they have the capacity to cause serious harm but the
likelihood of a repeat of the circumstances in which the offence occurred is low.
The majority of individuals who are assessed as possibly being a risk to others, willingly comply with any
arrangements made to help them overcome problems and issues which led to offending.
Perhaps their risk is to a specific individual and there can now be no contact with that individual. Or it
relates to particular circumstances, which no longer exist. The offender may genuinely want to change
the behaviour which led to their offending and willingly undertakes programmes provided by the prison
or probation services to help them do that. These programs are in the main “cognitive-behavioural
programmes” which have been identified and evaluated as the most effective treatment of both sexual
and violent offenders, looking at the way a person’s thinking and behaviour are connected, and how
changing one can affect the other.
9
How are offenders managed under the MAPPA?

Risk management is defined as harm reduction either through the reduction of the likelihood of a risk
occurring or the reduction of its impact should it occur.
The structure of risk management under MAPPA is intended to enable resources to be deployed to
manage the risks identified in the most efficient and effective manner.
There are three levels of risk management used under the MAPPA. Although generally the higher the
assessed level of risk the higher the level of management required this need not always be the case. The
risk management structure is based on the principal that cases should be managed at the lowest level
consistent with providing a defensible risk management plan.
The three levels are;

Level 1: Ordinary risk management.
This is the level used in cases in which the risks posed by the offender can be managed by an agency
without significant active involvement of other agencies. The majority of cases supervised in the
community by the police or the probation service or the Youth Offending Teams come into this level.
Level 2: Local inter-agency risk management.

This level of management is used where significant active involvement of more than one agency
is required. In Humberside we use the acronym LRMM, for Local Risk Managment Meetings for
this level and LRMMs are held monthly in each of the four Divisions at Scunthorpe, Hull, Grimsby
and Beverley.
Level 3: Multi Agency Public Protection Panels (MAPPPs)

This level deals with those “critical few” cases which are assessed as being a high or very high risk of
causing serious harm; AND
They present risks that can only be managed by a plan which requires co-operation at a senior level
due to the complexities of the case and/or because of the unusual resource commitments required.
Additionally cases which are exceptional because of the high media scrutiny or public interest or
there is a need to ensure public confidence in the criminal justice system is sustained are dealt with
at this level.
MAPPPs are held fortnightly at the National Probation Service - Humberside Headquaters
In Beverley.
The two levels of meetings held under MAPPA result in clear actions which feed into the risk
management plans which lay down specific objectives for the management of the risk the
offender presents.
10
What are Risk Management Plans?

Risk management plans lay down specific objectives for the management of the risk the offender
presents. Responsibilities and tasks are clearly defined and firm timetables established, i.e. who does
what by when. The plan needs to be able to deal with changing circumstances of the case and should
also integrate what are described as internal and external restraints on the offender.
Internal restraints are the offender’s self-management, often learned through participation in offender
behaviour programmes.
External restraints can take the form of conditions placed on the offender to do or not do some specific
activity. Some of these controls are set in place at the start of our work with an offender in the
community eg. requirements can be attached to a Community Order by the court committing the
offender to attend a programme, see a psychiatrist or engage in work to address their drug or alcohol
abuse. Prior to an offender coming out of prison on a “license”, conditions can be attached to that
license laying down certain activities the offender must or must not do, places they must not go or
contacts they must not make.
Other external restraints are;
Sexual Offences Prevention Orders

Sexual Offences Protection Orders can be taken out at any time where it can be proved that the
subject has been convicted of certain sex offences and there is reasonable cause to believe that the
Order is necessary to protect the public from serious harm from the offender.
Foreign Travel Orders

A foreign travel order bans those who have been convicted of a sexual offence against a child under
16 from travelling abroad in certain circumstances. An order if granted can ban an offender from
travelling to a specific country (or countries) anywhere in the world, or anywhere in the world
except to a specified country, or if necessary, from travelling abroad at all.
Notification Orders
Notification Orders can be applied for when a person resident in this country is known to have been
convicted of a sexual offence overseas which, if it had been committed in this country, would have
required them to register with the police. Such an order then requires that the offender does
register with police and they can then be supervised and monitored by the police in this country.
Disclosure
There may, exceptionally, be some cases where management of an offender’s risk in the community
cannot be carried out without the disclosure of some information to a third party outside of the
usual MAPPA agencies. This may be, for example, where an employer, voluntary group organiser or
church leader has a position of responsibility or control over the offender and other people who
may be at serious risk from the offender. Disclosure to them of certain information about the
offender may be the only way to manage that risk. Wherever possible the situation would be
discussed with the offender and voluntary disclosure encouraged, with probation and/or police
supporting them in this. Great caution is exercised when making such a disclosure and it is seen as
an exceptional measure as the disclosure may be to individual members of the public. If such a
course of action is required it is always as part of a risk management plan, which has been agreed at
either of the two highest levels of MAPPA management, ie. LRMMs or MAPPPs.
Recall to prison
An ultimate external restraint for offenders who are subject to supervision under “licence”
following their release from prison should they break their licence conditions or it is felt the risk
they present is becoming unmanageable in the community can be the revocation of that licence
and a recall to prison.
11
What about the victims of serious crime?

The probation service has a statutory responsibility to contact all victims of sexual and violent crime
where the perpetrator has been sentenced to 12 months or more in prison*. In our area we have 3
specialist Victim Liaison Officers in the probation service covering the two geographic areas North and
South of the Humber.
The duties of those officers are to;
• Make contact with relevant victims
• Consult the victim about the release arrangements for the offender and make the victim’s views
known to the probation Offender Manager, the local MAPPA co-ordinator, the prisoner
authorities and, where relevant, the parole board;
• Make recommendations about licence conditions or other aspects of the offenders release;
• Advise probation colleagues and the MAPPA co-ordinator about any victim concerns relevant to
the management of the individual offender;
• Keep victims informed about any significant developments during sentence or after release,
including notification of release dates and any additional measures being taken to increase
their safety.
Naturally, it is up to victims to decide whether they wish to take up the offer of contact with the
probation service and, if they do, how much and at what stages. The duration of contact with individual
victims can last for several years.
The probation service does not offer specialised counselling in regard to the physical and emotional
effects the crime may have had on the victim, this is left to organisations better able to deliver this e.g.
Social Services –Children Services, Victim Support and NCH the children’s’ charity.
Therefore, although the primary focus of the MAPPA is properly placed upon the risk and behaviour of
the offender as you can see from the above, the victims’ concerns are considered and reflected in risk
assessments and risk management plans under the MAPPA.
*Criminal Justice and Court Services Act (2000) sect 69.
12
Who’s Who in MAPPA?

The Responsible Authority
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 charges the Police, the National Probation Service and the Prison
Service with responsibility for establishing the MAPPA and refer to the three services as
“The Responsible Authority”.
The Strategic Management Board (SMB)

The duties and obligations of the Responsible Authority are discharged through the Strategic
Management Board. The current membership of the Humberside SMB is given at the end of this report.
The broad brief of the SMB is to;
“Keep the arrangements (i.e. the MAPPA) established by it under review with a view to
monitoring their effectiveness and making any changes to them that appear necessary
or expedient.”
Overarching these activities is the role the SMB has to shape the MAPPA framework within the area. This
involves determining the role and representation of different agencies within the framework. It also
includes brokering the protocols and memoranda of understanding which formalise those roles.
While some margin of discretion in defining the role is left with Area, the following core features are
common to all SMBs:
(i) monitoring (on at least a quarterly basis) and evaluating the operation of the MAPPA,
particularly that of the MAPPPs;
(ii) establishing connections which support effective operational work with other public protection
arrangements, such as Area Child Protection Committees/Safeguarding Children Boards, Local
Crime and Disorder Partnerships and local Criminal Justice Boards;
(iii) preparing and publishing the Annual Report and promoting the work of the MAPPA in the Area;
(iv) planning the longer-term development of the MAPPA in the light of regular (at least annual)
reviews of the arrangements, and with respect to legislative and wider criminal justice changes;
and,
(v) identifying and planning how to meet common training and developmental needs of those
working in the MAPPA.
13
Report of the Strategic Management Board

This has been a busy year for all agencies involved in Multi-Agency Public Protection
Arrangements as this year has seen an increase in the number of cases referred to Panels at
both Level 2 and Level 3 requiring a significant amount of additional work. Staff from all
agencies have responded to this challenge and once again, I would like to take this
opportunity to thank all the individual staff within the three statutory agencies, Prison,
Probation and Police and those from the “duty to co-operate” agencies who work with
us, at times, beyond the call of duty, to try and make Humberside a safer area in which
to live and work.
This year has seen a significant amount of media attention at both a national and local level
in terms of the management of offenders who pose a high risk to the public. Despite the
focus this places on the work we do it would be wrong of me on behalf of the agencies
involved in the Strategic Management Board to give an assurance that these risks can be
wholly eliminated. However I can confirm that the Board continues to commit to the
challenge of enabling all statutory and voluntary agencies who work with offenders to
act in partnership with the local communities to ensure that these risks can be minimised.
Angela Montgomery
Chair
Humberside Area Strategic Management Board
Humberside Police
A fundamental objective of any Police Service is the prevention and detection of crime. Humberside
Police’s contribution to the MAPPA process helps the service work towards meeting that objective by
ensuring public safety and the prevention and detection of crimes of a serious sexual or violent nature.
Dedicated Risk Management Officers attached to the Family Protection Team in each of its four Divisions
focus on public protection and the management of high risk offenders in the community. They carry out
risk assessments on Registered Sex Offenders using a Home Office approved procedure (Risk Matrix 2000)
and then develop plans to manage that risk drawing in co-operation of other agencies through the
MAPPA process as appropriate. Risk Management Officers are core members of the meetings held under
the MAPPA and act as the conduit for the flow of information and required actions between MAPPA and
colleagues in polce operational and intelligence units.
The police are the lead agency in Humberside for ViSOR (The Violent and Sex Offender Register), the
computerised database providing a national oversight of offenders subject to MAPPA.
Humberside police jointly resource the post of MAPPA Co-ordinator and have provided and equipped the
premises for the MAPPA team. They have seconded a Detective Sergeant to that Team.
The local Operational Superintendents are regular members of meetings held under MAPPA and chair
the Local Risk Management Meetings in the absence of the MAPPA Co-ordinator.
The Detective Chief Superintendent responsible for the MAPPA jointly chairs Level 3 MAPPPs.
National Probation Service - Humberside
The National Probation service – Humberside’s contribution to the workings of MAPPA is wide-ranging. It
starts with the initial risk assessment of offenders who come before the courts for sexual or violent
offences. The risk assessment process uses a Home Office approved procedure called the Offender
Assessment System (OASys). The service then supervises and manages any such offenders placed on
community orders, including action to return offenders to court if they fail to comply.
As is perhaps to be expected the majority of offenders MAPPA works with have been sentenced to
imprisonment for their offences and the probation Offender Manager picks up the case at that point and
carries out pre-release work with those prisoners and then has responsibility for their supervision and
management on licence following release. Again this would include requesting a revocation of the
licence and a recall to prison if the offender failed to comply with their licence or the risk they presented
became unmanageable in the community.
14
In carrying out their responsibilities, probation Offender Managers always notify MAPPA of the fact the
offender is in our area and refer appropriate cases to one of the 2 levels of multi agency meeting under
MAPPA where a significant input is required from other agencies in achieving the risk management plan.
Those officers would then attend any meeting called under MAPPA in regard to the offender.
National Probation Service - Humberside delivers specialist accredited programmes to address sexual and
violent offending behaviour, including a nationally recognised Sex Offender Treatment Programme,
Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme and an Anger Management Programme.
The probation service manages two Approved Premises in Humberside for offenders who need an
enhanced level of supervision.
As well as its work with offenders the probation service also has a statutory responsibility to contact all
victims of sexual and violent crime where the perpetrator has been sentenced to 12 months or more in
prison*. In our area we have 3 specialist Victim Liaison Officers in the probation service covering the two
geographical areas north and south of the Humber.
The Victim Liaison Officers are core members of the meetings held under MAPPA and advise agencies
about and victim concerns relevant to the management of the individual offender.
The National Probation Service - Humberside has seconded a Senior Probation Officer to the post of
MAPPA Co-ordinator and 2 Probation Officers to the MAPPA Team.
The Prison Service - Yorkshire and Humberside Area
The Prison Service plays an important role in protecting the public by keeping offenders in custody;
helping them to address the causes of their offending behaviour; and by undertaking other work to
assist their successful resettlement back into the community.
There are four prisons within the Humberside Area, HMP Hull, HMP Everthorpe, HMP Wolds and HMP
Full Sutton. Of course offenders from this area are also held in other prisons nationwide and are released
to Humberside from them.
The main focus of the Prison Service’s contribution to MAPPA is at an operational level and a number of
measures are being put in place locally across the prison estate to ensure that this will be effective and
result in:
• Prompt identification of MAPPA offenders so that their details can be used in sentence planning
arrangements, including interventions to manage and reduce risk
• Regular monitoring of the behaviour of those assessed as presenting the highest risk, and
sharing information with police and probation colleagues.
• All relevant risk management information being provided to multi agency meetings which help
plan an offender’s release and where appropriate attendance at those meetings by relevant
prison staff.
• At least three months notification to police and probation of the expected release dates of those
offenders who have been released to the multi-agency protection panel (MAPPP), and at least six
weeks notification of those being managed at level 2 risk meetings (LRMMs).
• Timely notification of changes to release dates.
• Consultation with Police and Probation and/or the MAPPP, for MAPPA offenders who are being
risk assessed for early release under the Home Detention Curfew Scheme; suitability for open
prison conditions; and for release on temporary licence.
* Criminal Justice and Court Services Act (2000) sect 69.
15
Case Study 1
Mr A was serving a custodial sentence for an Whilst being fully aware of the risk the
offence against a woman who he had met offender posed to her on his release the victim
casually but with whom he had no close did not feel she should be forced to move out
relationship. During the commissioning of the of her home. Police therefore fitted her home
offence the offender attacked the front door with an alarm system, assisted with ensuring
of the victim’s home with a weapon and made the premises were secure and ensured that
threats against her. He apparently described to local policing teams were aware of her
the victim how he would kill her. The Police situation. Mindful of the victim’s wishes,
attended and removed him from the victim’s representatives from the local housing
address; all the while he continued to make the authority and from a housing authority out of
threats to the victim and to police officers, at our area nevertheless liaised to locate an
one point detailing how he was going to address the victim could be quickly moved to as
sexually assault a female Police Officer who a temporary measure should this be needed.
was part of the arresting team. The offender was released, reported to the
Throughout his custodial sentence the Probation Approved Premises and initially
offender’s behaviour had been erratic. He had appeared of good behaviour. Police and
spent long periods of self inflicted isolation in probation officers nevertheless monitored his
the prison’s Separation & Care Unit. He had behaviour and maintained close contact with
also been placed there on occasion in response the victim.
to fears for staff safety. He had made threats Two weeks after release his behaviour began to
against female members of staff and as his deteriorate and a drug test proved that he had
release date approached he increasingly voiced returned to heroin abuse. The probation
threats to the victim upon his release detailing Offender Manager immediately initiated recall
where and when it would happen and the to prison and the offender was returned to
weapons he would use. custody. Prison staff, again working closely with
It was decided that the risk this man presented MAPPA colleagues completed an up to date
on release needed managing at Level 3, Public Risk of Harm Assessment and based on this and
Protection Panel level because of the level of his previous history a referral to a Dangerous &
resources likely to be required, the possible Severe Personality Disorder Unit (DSPD) at a
disclosures which would be necessary and secure hospital was made.
perhaps a need for close monitoring by the Staff from the unit were able to assess the
police. As the offenders release date offender and found him suitable for transfer
approached a Multi Agency Public Protection under the Mental Health Act.
Panel (MAPPP) was held to discuss how he
The offender was successfully transferred to a
would be managed in the community.
high secure hospital under the Mental Health
Working with the probation Offender Act 23 days before his prison sentence expired
Manager, members of the MAPPP requested and will now remain there until it is assessed
and supported the inclusion of strict conditions that the risk he poses is reduced such that it is
attached to the offender’s licence with the manageable in a community setting
understanding that any contravention of those
To date the offender has not given up his
conditions would be dealt with promptly. These
attempts to terrorise his victim, making threats
included requirements that he reside in
and trying to write letters to her but of course
Probation Service Approved Premises, that he
these are not allowed out of the confines of
refrain from drug misuse, and that whilst in the
the hospital. The victim of his offences has
Probation Approved Premises he would be
made the decision to move and start afresh
subject to drug tests. Additionally he was
and the Local Housing Authorities have assisted
instructed not to seek any contact with his
her in that.
victim nor go within an exclusion zone around
his victim’s home.
16
“Duty to co-operate” agencies

The principal responsibility for protecting the public from sexual and violent offenders continues to rest
with the criminal justice agencies. However, the effectiveness of public protection often depends on
more than just a criminal justice response. It is well known that other agencies play an important role in
helping offenders to resettle and avoid re-offending. For example, research has shown that offenders
with jobs have one-third to one-half lower rates of re-offending than offenders without employment.
Re-offending among offenders who have stable accommodation on release from custody is similarly
lower. The important contribution other agencies can make is also highlighted in cases where offenders
have mental health problems or where they pose a risk of harm to children.
In acknowledgement of the above The Criminal Justice Act 2003 imposed a duty on various organisations
providing public services to co-operate with the MAPPA. Over the last year we have continues to develop
the involvement of what are referred to as “Duty to Co-operate” agencies. These agencies include;
Jobcentre Plus
Local Housing Authority
Registered Social Landlords
Local Education Authority
Local Authority Social Services
Health Services
Enabling the co-operation of all those agencies, which work with MAPPA offenders, is therefore vital.
Placing that co-operation on a statutory basis underpins the good practice that has already developed;
and locates it clearly within the established framework of the MAPPA.
What must the “Duty to Co-operate” agencies do?

The legislation does not define the activities the duty to co-operate involves nor does it require the
agencies on which it is imposed to do anything other than what they are already required to do.
The purposes of co-operation are:
• to co-ordinate the involvement of different agencies in assessing and managing risk
• to enable every agency, which has a legitimate interest, to contribute as fully as its existing
statutory role and functions requires in a way that complements the work of other agencies
Agencies therefore participate through;

• the identification of MAPPA offenders and the agencies with a specific responsibility for, or a
broader interest in, the offender;
• information sharing either specific to that offender or more general advice about an agency’s
role and the type of services it provides. This can helpfully involve advice about how those
services can be accessed and provide a point of contact for other agencies.
• the formal assessment of risk and the contribution each agency can make to the interpretation of
all the relevant information about an offender; and,
• co-ordinating the plans to manage the identified risks so that each agency performs its role in a
way which at best complements the work of other agencies, or at the least does not frustrate or
compromise their work.
17
Case Study 2
Mr B seriously assaulted a female stranger spent in the Approved Premises. The

in the street. That woman’s young child was probation Victim Liaison Officer who was in
present. The offender received 36 months direct contact with the victim from the
imprisonment. Although well known to the point of sentencing provided vital
police and the National Probation Service - information informing the risk
previous offences had resulted in various management plan. A panic alarm would be
community orders - the new offence was installed in the victim's house and she
the most serious the offender had would be given a mobile personal alarm.
perpetrated. The offender, who led a An exclusion zone was made covering the
chaotic lifestyle and often was of no fixed victim’s home address, workplace and her
address, sleeping in the open and regularly children's schools and a no contact
abusing alcohol and drugs, was also well condition was placed on the offender's
known to other local agencies and had release licence. Contact for the offender
previously threatened staff from those with agencies such as housing and
agencies during their dealings with him. employment were arranged at the
The offender was assessed by police and probation office.
probation officers as posing a high risk to All agencies present agreed a need to 'flag'
the victim, the public and people in on their systems the risk the offender posed
authority on release and was referred to to staff, specifically females.
MAPPA at Level 2, the Local Risk Prior to the offender's release a further
Management Meeting (LRMM) three level 3 meeting was held, all the actions
months prior to his release. There were from the previous meeting were carried out
issues in regard to his mental health, his and all present were satisfied that the risk
accommodation and employment/benefit management plan was as comprehensive as
and it was felt that these would again possible. A further action was to ascertain
bring him to a point of conflict with the exact date and time of the offender's
supporting agencies. The risk management release from prison, how long it should
plan proposed by the probation Offender take him to arrive at the Approved Premises
Manager therefore depended on input and and action which would be taken if the
co-operation from agencies such as local offender did not arrive as expected.
authority housing, community mental
Within days of his release the offender
health services and the Job Centre.
behaved violently at the hostel, seriously
Following a lengthy discussion at the LRMM threatening staff and being suspected of
involving all of the agencies represented a again abusing alcohol and drugs. Police
decision was taken that the risk responded immediately to that violent
management plan depended on agencies incident and following the offender’s arrest
providing services or resources which recall to prison was initiated for breach of
needed authorising at a senior his licence conditions and the risk he posed.
management level and the case was
Following recall the offender was detained
referred to a Level 3 Multi Agency Public
in prison for the maximum time possible,
Protection Panel (MAPPP) 2 months prior
but of course again became eligible for
to his release.
release. Further level 3 meetings were held
A comprehensive risk management plan prior to that release and the previous risk
was put in place. It was agreed that a management plan was revisited, found to
probation Approved Premises would be be sound and agreed.
used to accommodate the offender on
release with strict curfew time being
enforced and an application made for
funding for extra staff for security whilst
the offender was there. The local authority
housing representative agreed that they
would investigate obtaining stable,
independent accommodation for the
offender following a satisfactory period
18
Case Study 2
The offender was re-released but soon The Offender Manager responsible for
breached his licence again, this time by the case had developed a working
physically threatening his probation relationship with the offender and the
Offender Manager and refusing to meeting agreed that it would be
comply with the requirements in regard beneficial if that 'relationship'
to accommodation. He was therefore continued, at least for as long as the
recalled for a second time. offender wanted it to. Independent
This robust action appeared to have accommodation was secured by the
some positive effect in regard to the local council housing officer for the
offender’s attitude to his Offender offender. Panic alarms were once again
Manager in particular and those in provided to the victim and the victim
authority from other agencies in was reassured that if she contacted the
general. It was possibly the first time police she would receive an immediate
that firm boundaries in regard to his response.
behaviour had been laid down and the To date, some 12 months after release,
fact that those agencies were actually the offender has not re-offended,
trying to help and support him began to remains in the accommodation
dawn. provided, and has not attempted to
The offender would now be released at approach the victim, despite her having
his “sentence expiry date” without any seen him from a distance in the street
statutory supervision. The risk he on numerous occasions. The police have
presented did not of course end at that not received any intelligence to suggest
time and therefore the management of that the offender is behaving in any
that risk was still undertaken through criminal or anti social way.
MAPPA, although the main
responsibility moved from the National
Probation Service to the police.
19

Local authorities across England and Wales have a statutory duty to establish Youth Offending Teams
(YOTs). YOTs are themselves multi-agency partnerships in which police and probation play an important
role but they are regarded as performing a ‘single agency’ risk assessment and management role. One of
the YOT’s roles is to be responsible for the supervision of young people on community orders, whilst
subject to detention and during their licence period following their release from detention. They have
skilled, specialist staff who can manage risk effectively, whilst also addressing the vulnerability of the
young people themselves.
Most of the young offenders for whom YOTs have responsibility will not, by virtue of the type and
length of sentence they receive fall within MAPPA but with the minority that do present a high risk
YOT managers -who are now core members of the local risk management meetings – will refer
them to MAPPA.
Jobcentre Plus
Jobcentre Plus is an executive agency of the Department for Work and Pensions formed in 2002 when
the Employment Service, which ran Jobcentres, and those parts of the Benefits Agency which provided
services to people of working age through social security offices, were combined.
Jobcentre Plus aims to provide work for those who can, and support for those who cannot, by :
• Helping disadvantaged people into work, as a route out of poverty;
• Providing financial support as a safety net for people of working age while they are out of work;
• Addressing inequalities of opportunity;
• Protecting the integrity of the benefit system; and
• Working with employers and partners to address market failure in the labour market.
All these activities underpin the Department for Work and Pensions’ purpose of promoting “opportunity
and independence for all”.
The priority customers, identified by the agency’s performance target structures, are those at
greatest disadvantage in the labour market. These customers include people with specific disadvantages,
such as ex-offenders, refugees, homeless people, drugs misusers and people without basic skills.
Helping them contributes to wider goals, including cutting crime and re-offending rates.
Freshstart is an initiative that builds on the close working links between Jobcentre Plus and the
Prison Service. Evidence suggests that employment is a key factor in reducing the likelihood of
re-offending. Effective links between Jobcentre Plus and the Prison Service can help to make an
impact by guaranteeing that offenders about to be released are put in touch with Jobcentre Plus
staff at the earliest opportunity. This will be specifically through a work focussed interview where
customers can begin to explore job opportunities and help available through New Deal or other
Jobcentre Plus programmes. For those unable to work, through disability or illness, claims to benefit
can be made.
There may be cases where MAPPA decides there is a need to notify local Jobcentre Plus offices that
restrictions should be placed on an offender’s employment. In those rare cases only the identity of
the offender and the nature of the employment from which the offender should be restricted will
be disclosed to a senior manager and in most cases this would be done with the full knowledge and
permission of the offender who would see the benefit of not being sent for interviews etc where
wider disclosure of their offending may be required.
20
Local Housing Authorities

The provision of accommodation for offenders released from prison presents a continuing challenge for
those working in public protection. Close working ties, through MAPPA, are therefore invaluable in
seeking to place offenders as sensitively and as safely as possible in their local communities.
Local Housing Authorities have two functions that relate to the resettlement of offenders: the allocation
of long-term accommodation and the provision of housing assistance for people who are homeless.
Under homelessness legislation* local housing authorities must ensure that advice and information about
homelessness, and preventing homelessness, is available to everyone in their district free of charge. They
must also ensure that suitable accommodation is available for people who apply to them for housing
assistance where the authority is satisfied that those people are eligible for assistance, have become
homeless through no fault of their own and they fall within a priority need group. This is known as "the
main homelessness duty".
The priority need groups are specified in legislation and include, among others a person who is
vulnerable as a result of time spent in custody.
Clearly, given the importance of accommodation in the resettlement of offenders and hence in the
assessment and management of risk, local authority housing representatives can make an important
contribution to the MAPPA. As indicated above, this will not necessarily mean that they have a specific
duty to accommodate an offender but their advice about accommodation and the procedures by which
it is allocated and the suitability of particular housing stock will provide a valuable contribution.
Registered Social Landlords (RSLs)

Registered Social Landlord (RSL) is the technical name for social landlords that are registered with the
Housing Corporation — most are housing associations, but there are also trusts, co-operatives and
companies. Housing associations are run as businesses but they do not trade for profit. Any surplus is
ploughed back into the organisation to maintain existing homes and to help finance new ones. Housing
associations are now the main providers of new social housing.
Most associations are small and own fewer than 250 homes but the larger ones can own 2,500 plus
homes. Some were founded centuries ago, many trace their origins to the 1960s and over the last decade
many new associations have been formed to manage and develop homes transferred to them by local
authorities.
Not all RSLs provide accommodation for MAPPA offenders, and it is only those which do that are
required to co-operate in the MAPPA. MAPPA locally therefore only engages with those RSLs when they
are giving consideration to accommodating a MAPPA offender or are asked for the provision of general
advice in regard to accommodation.
Local Authority Social Services - Councils with Children Services and

Community Care Responsibilities
There have recently been some amalgamations in regard to how social and community care services are
delivered across our area but the links between the responsibilities of councils with social care
responsibilities and the MAPPA are still mainly in the area of child protection and safeguarding children.
The MAPPA authorities are members of the Local Safeguarding Children Boards and individual
practitioners in police, probation and social services work together to manage the risk posed to children
by particular dangerous offenders.
As legislation which had its roots in the report which followed the Victoria Climbié Inquiry came into
force there was be a greater expectation, indeed a duty, placed on other agencies to have regard to
the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. However Childrens’ Services maintained
their position as principal point of contact in regard to concerns about the welfare of children
Local authorities have a duty, where they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives, or is
found, in their area, is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm, to make such enquiries as they
consider necessary to enable them to decide whether they should take any further action to safeguard or
promote the child’s welfare. A ‘reasonable cause to suspect’ may arise because of the known presence of
a dangerous offender in the area, and local authority staff work with staff from the MAPPA agencies to
manage the risk that person poses to children.
*Housing Act, 1996 and Homelessness Act, 2002

Children Act, 2004.
21
Children who witness violence are of course also clearly at risk of harm themselves, be it physical or
psychological and this now has more statutory recognition* . As MAPPA becomes more involved with
managing the risk posed by perpetrators of domestic violence then co-operation with staff from child
protection agencies will increase as children’s services lean more towards MAPPA for the management of
adult offenders in ways that will, through effective, multi agency risk assessment and management,
reduce the risk of harm such offenders may present to children.
Local Education Authorities (LEA)

Again, whilst there have been changes in how services are delivered across our Area broadly speaking
the role of those departments dealing with education remains four-fold:
• school improvement;
• special educational provision;
• access to education; and,
• strategic management of schools and the local education service.
Their ‘core business’ does not therefore involve them directly with the assessment and management of
MAPPA offenders and their most likely involvement in the MAPPA is in cases which involve, either:
(a) a MAPPA offender aged under 18 and who is referred by the Youth Offending Team to the
MAPPA at either Level 2 or Level 3; or
(b) a case where a MAPPA offender poses risks to young people for whom the LEA has a
responsibility/duty of care which may be affected by the arrangements to manage the risks the
MAPPA offender poses.
The LEA representative on MAPPA provides an insight into the workings of schools and the LEA and has
some knowledge of child protection, information sharing protocols and current arrangements for risk
assessment. The education service, particularly schools, can make a helpful contribution to the work of
MAPPA because:
• Schools are able to provide their pupils with programmes of child protection awareness training.
This training can be re-enforced at times when there is a particular local risk.
• School staff are well placed to be alert and aware regarding activities within the locality that
could provide a threat to pupils.
• In particular situations, and with the authorisation of MAPPA through the Police, schools are in a
position to warn individuals or groups of pupils, parents or staff, regarding possible danger.
• Schools are able to provide a safe environment during the daytime for children and
young people.
• The local school is often the first port of call for parents who want to voice their concern
regarding worrying activities in the area.
• Schools are often able to provide helpful information to assist the work of MAPPPs.
*Adoption and Children Act 2002
22
Case Study 3
Mr C has an extensive history of committing to conceal that he now owned a car. The
sexual offences against young boys. licence condition contraventions and his
Consequently he has received several deceitful behaviour indicated that the risk
custodial sentences, the first being in he presented was not manageable in the
the 1970s. community and he was recalled to prison.
Following a further conviction imposed for The offender then exercised the rights
Making Indecent Photographs of Children available to him under current procedures
(Internet Offences) he was again sentenced and applied for a Parole Board Oral
to imprisonment and was released on Hearing with the intention of again
licence just prior to this reporting period. requesting his release on licence.
Prior to his release a Risk Management Plan A Level 3 Multi Agency Public Protection
was formulated by his probation Offender Panel (MAPPP). was held prior to the
Manager who involved colleagues from hearing at which all professional agencies
other appropriate agencies through a Level expressed their concern in regard to
2 Local Risk Management Meeting. In managing the risk this man presented in
addition to probation supervising him on the community. Acknowledging that the
Licence the offender was also subject to Parole Board has to take in all factors in
close supervision by the police due to his deciding on suitability for release the
being a Registered Sex Offender and the Offender Manager presented a
subject of a Sexual Offending Prevention comprehensive risk management plan
Order (SOPO). which could be implemented in the event
of the offender’s release. The plan placed
A further concern was that despite the
many restrictions on the offender aimed at
offender spending a number of years in
restricting his opportunity to meet with and
prison he had never undertaken any
contact young boys and possessing any
offence focussed work relating to his
means of accessing the internet for either
abusive behaviour. Therefore upon his
communication or to view websites which
release the probation service contracted a
dealt with sexual exploitation of children.
specialist assessment which confirmed he
These restrictions included again residing in
had an entrenched deviant sexual
probation Approved Premises and his being
attraction for young boys. Furthermore he
electronically ‘tagged’. All agencies
demonstrated his distorted thinking by
acknowledged and accepted the part they
stating that he would not harm any of his
had to play in that plan.
victims because they were his “lovers”.
The offender was released but immediately
Five months after his release, during which
showed a disregard for the conditions of his
time he had complied with the conditions
licence. He flouted the hostel rules, failed
of his licence, he was permitted to move
to keep appointments with his probation
from probation Approved Premises to his
Offender Manager and was again found to
own independent accommodation with the
be in possession of computer related
understanding that police and probation
equipment. Within 2 weeks of his re-release
officers would maintain close contact with
his licence was revoked and he was recalled
him until he demonstrated that the risk he
to prison where he
presented was being reduced. As part of
still remains it having been decided that he
that monitoring process probation and
will not be released until the end of his
police officers carried out a joint home
sentence period when again management
visits and on one of these visits found that
under MAPPA will continue.
the offender had computer equipment
which contravened one of his licence
conditions. Police Intelligence also revealed
that he had attempted to deceive the
authorities by falsifying documents in order
23
Health Services
MAPPA’s interaction with health services is as diverse as any adult offender’s contact with the service. It
may be at the primary care level through for example a GP or pharmacist or at the secondary level
through hospitals, consultants, etc. The “duty to co-operate” therefore whilst under the umbrella of a
particular health Trust, operates at those various levels as needs arise.
Clearly there are particular issues about working with health professionals and the sensitivities of
information sharing and co-operation because of the very different relationship they have with
their patients.
However, all the advice and published guidance indicates that clarity about roles and the legal principles
which enable information to be shared in certain circumstances, will avoid misunderstanding and
disagreement. Reference is made to those principles in the section on information sharing in the
MAPPA Guidance.
As with all MAPPA cases the consent of the offender is obtained wherever possible for information to be
sought or passed on. However situations where patient information may be passed on without consent
include* ;
• where serious harm may occur to a third party
• where a doctor believes a patient to be a victim of abuse and the patient is unable to give or
withhold consent
• where, without disclosure a doctor would not be acting in the overall best interests of a child or
young person who is his/her patient and incapable of giving consent
• when, without disclosure the task of preventing, detecting or prosecuting a serious crime by the
police would be prejudiced or delayed
Mental Health Trusts are perhaps the most significant health bodies on whom the duty to co-operate
falls because most instances will involve mentally disordered offenders. However, the duty does apply to
all health bodies and representatives from the various disciplines are core members at meetings held
under MAPPA.
The benefits for the health service for co-operation in MAPPA have been summarised as providing;
• a source of information about patients
• a conduit and framework for joint working
• a useful source of advice on appropriateness and implications of various medical
treatments and interventions
• help in management of risk in complex cases.
*Royal College of Psychiatrists (2000) Good Psychiatric Practice: Confidentiality
24
Key Progress and Achievements over the last year

There has been much work done throughout 2005 – 2006 to consolidate the Strategic Management
Board (SMB) and to build upon existing good practice at the operational level of MAPPA.
During 2005 – 2006 this has included:
• The successful recruitment of one ‘Lay Advisor’ to the MAPPA Strategic Management Board MB. The
role of the Lay Advisor is to challenge the SMB’s scrutiny & oversight of the MAPPA process as a
“critical friend” and to ensure that their review of MAPPA work is rigorous. So far our Lay Advisor
has attended National Lay Advisor training and has conducted ‘fact finding’ visits to MAPPA
practitioners in the field, based at Police, NPS and HMP Hull.
• The Probation Officers attached to MAPPA have led on delivering training in Risk Assessment and
Management and on Working with Sex Offenders to the police and probation services.
• Domestic Violence Awareness training has been rolled out to NPS Humberside staff. There is a proven
link between offenders involved in domestic violence and an escalation in their offending to more
serious violence. Staff trained to identify domestic violence can influence early intervention and
hopefully reduce future violent offending and victims.
• The launch of the Yorkshire & Humberside Reducing Re-offending Action Plan has seen responsible
authorities and duty to co-operate agencies working closer together in their joint aims to meet the
requirements of the pathways to successful resettlement, these being; Accommodation, Education,
Training & Employment, Finance, Benefits & Debt, Drugs & Alcohol, Physical & Mental Health,
Voluntary & Community Sector, Attitudes, Thinking & Behaviour, Children & Families, and Prolific &
other Priority Offenders & Public Protection. There has been much collaborative work between
organisations in the delivery of the action plan.
• The provision of specific accommodation for the Humberside MAPPA Co-ordinator and his multi-
disciplinary team. Ex Police premises have been refurbished at minimal cost to provide sufficient
facilities for the expanding team.
• An invitation from the Parole Board to role-play a Level 3 MAPPP received excellent feedback in July.
The key players from the Police, Probation and Prison Service and Mental Health and Social Services
who had been involved in the Level 3 MAPPP for a high-risk offender, re-enacted the panel in front
of an audience of Parole Board members. The objective was to demonstrate how the MAPPP
meetings are structured and to give an example of the kinds of risk issues raised.
• Humberside was selected to trial the new national MAPPA documentation. The new documentation
standardises the way in which MAPPA information is collected, referrals made and MAPPP
meetings minuted. Contact sheets also improve communication between the different agencies
managing the case.
• The latter part of the year saw connectivity between National Probation Service - Humberside and
HM Prison Service for OASys, the risk management tool. It is still early days and although the benefits
of connectivity are obvious there are still problems of OASys ownership to be ironed out. On the
whole however the fact that access to the OASys risk assessment is instantly available to Probation
and Prison colleagues is entirely positive and will go a long way to ensuring that the MAPPA decision
making process is well informed.
• The Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced new sentencing provisions for offenders considered to
represent a continuing “significant” risk of serious harm to the public. These provisions came into
effect on 4th April 2005 and their underlying ethos is one of public protection; the provisions
separate out sexual and violent offences and give courts the powers to ensure that serious offenders
are not released from prison until their risk is reduced and assessed as manageable in the community.
The decision in regard to “significant” risk of serious harm is one for the court but probation reports
contribute to providing the courts with information to assist in that decision. Other sources of
information may be the defence, prosecution or other specialist reports etc. The Probation Officers
attached to the MAPPA team have undertaken the delivery of training on these sentencing
provisions to the police, prison and probation services and have worked with probation Offender
Managers on preparing such reports for court for the purposes of sentencing for “public protection”.
Sentences for public protection have been given in our area.
25
The coming year - Strengthening the MAPPA

It is good to reflect on the achievements of this year but it is also important to ensure that we plan for
the year ahead. Much progress has been made and is commendable, however there is still much work to
be done. The strategic aims for 2006 – 2007 have been charted more specifically in the Strategic
Management Board’s Business Plan which can be seen to the rear of this report. In summary the aims of
the Business Plan are to:
• To seek resources to bring secondees from HM Prison Service, Police and the Health Service
into the MAPPA Team.
• To implement the new MAPPA guidance due for publication later this year.
• Seek to recruit a further Lay Advisor to the SMB and for all Lay Advisors to undergo further training.
• To move into the MAPPA Co-ordination Team’s new premises in Hull. With all of the team under one
roof, co-ordination and consistency of MAPPA work will be enhanced and communication between
the team much improved. The team now consists of the MAPPA Co-ordinator, a Detective Sergeant,
an administrator and 2 seconded Probation Officers. This can only improve public protection.
• To plan and deliver a Strategic Management Board training event.
• To plan and deliver MAPPA awareness training to the Prolific & other Priority Offender Teams, Youth
Offending Teams and Domestic Violence Teams. This will improve their understanding of the MAPPA
process and improve their referrals of offenders to MAPPA.
• To plan for the change of chairmanship for the Strategic Management Board at the beginning of
2007 –2008.
• To evaluate the impact of the Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection on the MAPPA
process and to develop systems that prevent the continued recurrence of problems found
during the evaluation.
• To maintain public confidence in the work of the MAPPA by ensuring effective communication
of the work we do and that the public’s expectations in respect of MAPPA are informed and
reasonable.
26
What do the Statistics tell us?

The statistical information published in this year's report is again substantially the same as last year’s
with the work being done under MAPPA at level 2 (Local Risk Management Meetings) being included in
addition to level 3 (MAPPPs) as well as the outcome measures from that activity.
The total number of offenders coming under MAPPA this year was 1172 and should be viewed against a
figure of 47653 across the 42 Areas of England and Wales.
There are currently 715 Registered Sex Offenders living in our area against a figure of 645 for the
previous year and 584 for 2003/4. An increase in numbers over last year, and indeed an increase for
forthcoming years is inevitable at this stage because the numbers are cumulative as offenders are
required to register for extended periods of time and currently the number of offenders who are
required to register on conviction is greater than the number whose registration period has come to an
end. The yearly increase of 70 is just over 10% which is above the anticipated national average.
During the reporting period 30 of those Registered Sex Offenders were cautioned or convicted for
breaching the requirements of their registration.
The number of Category 2 offenders, i.e. violent and other sex offenders, recorded as living in this area
in the reporting period is 391. It should be remembered that this is not the number of such offenders
present on any one day but is the number who have lived in the area for any period, however short, at
any time during the year. The recorded figure for last year, 2004/5, had jumped significantly from the
previous year, the appointment of a MAPPA co-ordinator possibly enabling an area wide scrutiny of the
figures last year. This year the figure appears to have settled, being 47 more than last year’s total of 344,
the increase at 13% being in line with the national average.
The number of Category 3 offenders dealt with during the reporting period is 66. This is a significant
increase from last year’s figure of 35. However it was accepted that last years figure was low, falling as it
did from 55 the previous year (2003/4) and the current figure is 5.8% of our Area’s MAPPA caseload
against a national average of 7%. Conflicting influences continue to affect this figure. More focus is now
directed on offences involving domestic violence and often the sentences for offences involving domestic
abuse involve a Community Order with a requirement that the offender participates in a programme of
work aimed at reducing the likelihood of their re-offending in such a way. Such sentences do not at this
time meet the criteria for automatic consideration under MAPPA Category 2, Violent Offenders - a
sentence of at least 12 months imprisonment is required - but nevertheless the offenders behaviour and
attitude can still be such that there is considered to be a current risk of serious harm to their victims -
meeting the criteria for Category 3.
As this report mentions it is important to remember that the majority of offenders who meet the criteria
to be considered under MAPPA pose a risk which can appropriately and adequately be managed by the
police and probation services or the Youth Offending Teams without significant active involvement of
other agencies (Level 1, Ordinary Risk Management), in our area 83% of the MAPPA caseload was
managed in this way.
Where the level of risk or the complexity of the management of risk requires co-ordinated multi-agency
input then the case is referred on to either of the two levels of multi-agency management as appropriate
and again we have included details of the number and categories of those offenders dealt with under
MAPPA at Level 2, Local Risk Management Meetings (LRMMs) and Level 3, Multi Agency Public
Protection Panels (MAPPPs).
Across the area 157 offenders were dealt with at the lower level of multi-agency risk management, Level
2, Local Risk Management Meetings. This figure does not include those offenders who may have been
managed at the higher level 3 at some point and who then have been returned to local jurisdiction. At
13.4% of our total MAPPA caseload (1172) this figure is again lower than the expectation that nationally
cases managed at Level 2 will make up 26% of the total MAPPA caseload. As with the previous year
there is no significant difference in the number of offenders from each Category managed at Level 2,
Local Risk Management Meetings.
In Humberside 34 Offenders were managed by Level 3 Multi Agency Public Protection Panels at some
stage during the reporting period. At 2.9% of the total MAPPA caseload in this area this is again within
the nationally predicted range of 3%. Again there is no significant difference in the number of offenders
from each Category managed at Level 3.
27
Six of the 157 cases managed at Level 2, Local Risk Management, and 10 of the 34 cases managed at
Level 3, Multi Agency Public Protection Panel were returned to custody for breaching the conditions of
their licence; rather revocation of the licence and recall to prison should not be seen as a failure of the
risk management process; it is an indication that those managing the offenders are prepared to take
swift, decisive action when, by re-offending or through their behaviour, an offender indicates that the
risk they present to the public in the community is unacceptable. Following the offender’s return to
prison further work can be undertaken to address that behaviour or other risk management initiatives
can be put in place. There can then be a consideration for further release when the risk presented by the
offender is considered acceptable.
There are in place procedures for the identification, notification and review of cases where offenders
under probation supervision have been charged with committing a Serious Further Offence (SFO). This
SFO notification and review procedure is intended to ensure robust and rigorous scrutiny of SFO cases
and promote strong defensible practice in the management of risk of serious harm. Any failures can be
identified and rectified, but also good practice, not withstanding the commission of a serious further
offence, can be recognised and supported. The trigger factor for this process is the seriousness of the
further offence committed not the level of supervision or risk management being applied so this is not
purely a MAPPA initiative. However scrutiny of these cases should lead to learning and possible changes
in service delivery relevant to all offenders including those managed under MAPPA.
Sexual Offences Prevention Orders are obtained on application to a court. They place restrictions on an
offender to prohibit access to certain places (e.g. schools) and to certain groups of people (e.g. children).
The Order remains in place for a minimum of 5 years. In Humberside 37 Sexual Offences Prevention
Orders were applied for during this review period. Twenty nine full Orders and 9 Interim Orders have
been granted. The discrepancy between the applications made and Orders granted is due to our
counting activities which commenced or were completed during the review period and of course some
applications will have overlapped this period. The orders were made both at point of sentence for a
sexual offence and as stand alone applications when concern has arisen about an offender’s behaviour.
One offender has been taken to court and convicted of breaching the Order and is currently serving a
custodial sentence for that breach.
Notification Orders can be applied for when a person resident in this country is known to have been
convicted of a sexual offence overseas which, if committed in this country, would have required them to
register with the police. Such an Order then requires that the offender does register with police and they
can then be supervised and monitored by the police. One Notification Order was successfully applied for
in our Area during the reporting period.
A Foreign Travel Order bans those who have been convicted of a sexual offence against a child under 16
from travelling abroad in certain circumstances. An order if granted can ban an offender from travelling
to a specific country (or countries) anywhere in the world, or anywhere in the world except to a specified
country, or if necessary, from travelling abroad at all. No such Orders were applied for in our Area during
the reporting period.
The MAPPA does not mean that there will be no risk from offenders supervised in the community.
However it does enable that risk to be managed as robustly as possible. Working with the type of
offenders we do, even the most diligent efforts of practitioners cannot prevent re-offending and serious
harm. However we feel MAPPA continues to represent a significant strengthening of public protection in
Humberside. We believe the statistics again confirm that the development of our work under MAPPA in
the assessment and management of risk is reducing re-offending and thereby significantly preventing
further serious harm by the most serious violent and sexual offenders in our community.
28
Statistics
MAPPA ANNUAL REPORTS STATISTICAL INFORMATION
For the reporting period 1st APRIL 2005 - 31st MARCH 2006 HUMBERSIDE AREA
1. Category 1 MAPPA offenders: Registered Sex Offenders (RSO)

i) The number of RSOs living in ourArea on 31st March 2006.
This is information principally held by the police and is a snapshot of
RSOs on 31/03/06. It does NOT include RSOs in prison. 715
This is split by police Basic Command Units as follows;

Hull 260
Grimsby (North East Lincolnshire) 135
Scunthorpe (North Lincolnshire) 150
East Riding of Yorkshire 170
a) The number of RSOs per 100’000 head of population. 81

ii) The number of sex offenders having a registration requirement who
were either cautioned or convicted for breaches of the requirement, between
1st April 2005 and 31st March 2006. Only those cautions that have actually
taken place and breaches that have been successfully completed during the
reporting period have been counted 30
iii) The number of (a) Sexual Offences Prevention Orders (SOPOs) applied for (b)
interim SOPOs granted and (c) full SOPOs imposed by the courts in our Area
between 1st April 2005 and 31s March 2006 a) 37
b) 9
c) 29
iv) The number of (a) Notification Orders applied for (b) interim Notification
Orders granted and (c) full Notification Orders imposed by the courts in our Area
between 1st April 2005 and 31st March 2006 a) 1
b) 1
c) 1
v) The number of Foreign Travel Orders (a) applied for and (b) imposed by the
courts in our Area between 1st April 2005 and 31st March 2006 a) 0
b) 0
2. Category 2 MAPPA offenders: Violent offenders and Other

Sexual offenders (V&OS)
vi) 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 our Area between 1st April
2005 and 31st March 2006 391
This figure includes only those Category 2 offenders who are living in our Area during
the reporting period. It does NOT include those Category 2 offenders who are still in
custody. It does NOT include any Category 1 offenders.
3. Category 3 MAPPA offenders: Other Offenders (OthO)

vii) The number of ‘other offenders (as defined by Section 325 (2)(b) of the
Criminal Justice Act (2003) between 1st April 2005 and 31st March 2006 66
This figure does NOT include any offenders who are included in either the Category 1 or 2
(i.e. (i) and (vi) above).
29
4. Offenders managed though Level 3 (MAPPP) & Level 2 (local inter-agency

management)
(viii) The number of MAPPA offenders in each of the three Categories (i.e. (1)- RSOs, (2)- V&O and
(3)- OthO above) have been managed through the MAPPP (level 3) and through local inter-agency
risk management (level 2) between 1st April 2005 and 31st March 2006.
Level 2 Level 3
RSO 48 12
V&O 57 8
Other 52 14
The level 2 figure does NOT include those offenders who have been managed at level 3 at any point in
the counting period & meet the criteria set out in the MAPPA Guidance as follows:
(ix) Of the cases managed at levels 2 or 3 (i.e. (viii)) between 1st April 2005 and 31st March 2006 how
many, whilst managed at that level:
Level 2 Level 3
(a) Were returned to custody for a breach of licence? 6 10
(b) Were returned to custody for a breach of a restraining order
or sexual offencesprevention order? 0 1
(c) Were charged with a serious sexual or violent offence? 0 0
Only relates to outcome measures appropriate to the level at which the offender was managed at the
time of their breach/further offence (e.g. if an offender was initially managed at Level 3 but goes on to
commit a serious further offence after they have been moved to Level 2, they are recorded in the ‘Level
2’ column for question (c)
For the purpose of the report a serious sexual and violent offence is one of the following (i.e. the same
offences as those used to used during the review period to trigger reporting in the National Probation
Service as a ‘serious further offence’.
a Murder; b Attempted murder; c Arson (where there is an intent to endanger life); d Manslaughter; e
Rape; f Kidnap/abduction or attempted kidnap/abduction. g Any other very serious violent or very
serious sexual offence, armed robbery (defined as robbery involving a firearm), assault with a deadly
weapon or hostage taking. h Any other violent or sexual offence where the offender/ offence is likely to
attract significant media interest or which raises wider issues of national interest.
New procedures and definitions came into effect on 1st April 2006):
30
Mappa report
MULTI AGENCY PUBLIC PROTECTION ARRANGEMENTS

6/10/06
AREA MAPPA BUSINESS PLAN 2006 - 2007

1. MAPPA DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
11:57
STRATEGIC AIM DELIVERY PLAN MILESTONES RESOURCE OUTCOME

Page 31
Achieve dedicated • Recruit and induct all September 2006 0.5 PSO per Local By April 2007 the
devolved MAPPA MAPPA PSOs Authority Area with Strategic Management
MAPPA
Co-ordination and additional (10 hours) Board to confirm that

• Administration for all June 2006
Administration locally for Hull. There is to be all posts are in place
Level 3 MAPPPs to be 9-5 cover for referrals
to the four Local devolved to the MAPPA and that both Level 2
Authority Areas within PSOs and Level 3 cases are
Annual
Humberside administered at Local

Authority level
31
Engage in the • Promote full September 2006 SPOs in the Risk Implementation of new
consultation process in discussion/ consultation Management Working MAPPA Guidance
Report
respect of the revised in respect of the revised Group

MAPPA Guidance MAPPA Guidance MAPPA Co-ordinator
• Risk Policy to be December 2006
Senior Manager for Risk
revised by Risk Working
Chief Superintendent Implementation of
Party and MAPPA
for MAPPA Revised Risk Policy
Co-ordinator
2005-2006
Training of staff in new

MAPPA Guidance and
revised Risk Policy
Implement the September 2006 The Senior Implementation of the

• Promote full
recommendations of Management Team of recommendations
discussion/consultation
the HMI P/C MAPPA in respect of the each organisation to
Thematic Inspection recommendations to develop an Action Plan
Strategic Management
Board and all member
organisations
Mappa report
6/10/06
11:57
1. MAPPA DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

Page 32
Serious Case Reviews • Probation Service to December 2006 Strategic Management Process for the collection
– ensure that all implement the national Board and collation of Serious
agencies are involved guidance Case Data
in the review of serious • In respect of the duty
cases of other agencies to
review serious cases
(child protection/mental
health) there is an
MAPPA
agreement that this

requires co-ordination
and monitoring in order
for the Strategic
Management Board to
Annual
have an overview of
both the number and
32
category of cases
Report
2005-2006
Mappa report
2. MONITORING AND EVALUATION STRATEGY

6/10/06
Ensure that monitoring • The MAPPA Team to June 2006 MAPPA Team Regular Performance
arrangements to provide the data to the Reports
support the production Strategic Management
11:57
of the MAPPA Annual Board quarterly

Report are in place meetings together with
an analysis of the data
Page 33
Measure attendance at • A target of 75% June 2006 MAPPA Team Regular Performance
MAPPP meetings attendance at Level 2/3 Reports
MAPPA
MAPPP by all agencies
Timescales to be set for • A target of 50% of all June 2006 MAPPA Team Regular Performance
MAPPA Referrals referrals to MAPPA to Reports
be made 4 months prior
Annual
to release
33
Monitoring of police visits • An independent record June 2006 Police Risk Regular Performance
to Sex Offenders kept of all visits Management Team Reports
Report
undertaken to sex
offenders
To develop a policy in • The responsible September 2006 Police Regular Performance

respect of the transfer of Authorities and Health Probation Reports
high risk/MAPPA cases into Trusts together with the
2005-2006
Health
and out of the MAPPA Co-ordinator to
Humberside Strategic develop a Protocol Prisons
Management Board area regarding such transfers
To ensure full commitment • A target of 75% June 2006 Strategic Management Regular Performance
of all agencies to the attendance at Strategic Board Reports
Strategic Management Management Board of
Board named agency
representatives
Mappa report
6/10/06
11:57
3. COMMUNICATION AND STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS STRATEGY

Page 34
The Responsible • Steering Group to be June 2006 Strategic Management Annual Report to be
Authorities withi identified to manage Board produced by 2007
MAPPA to publish th and collate the data to
Annual Report produce the Annual
Report
Senior Manager Risk Improved communication

MAPPA
• Briefings to be December 2006

Improved Chief Superintendent and knowledge.
communications presented to Head
MAPPA
regarding MAPPA Teachers, Councillors
across Humberside and MPs within
Humberside
Annual
• Briefings to LSCBs September 2006 Senior Manager Risk Improved communication
34
Chief Superintendent and knowledge
MAPPA
Report
• Briefings to LCJBs September 2006 Senior Manager Risk Improved communication

Chief Superintendent and knowledge
MAPPA
Appointments of • Recruitment to take September 2006 Responsible Authorities Lay Advisor appointment
2005-2006
additional Lay Advisor place

Mappa report
4. TRAINING STRATEGY
6/10/06
To organise a • Identify a suitable March 2007 Prison Service Three Year Plan agreed by
development day facilitator, dates and Probation Service the Strategic Management
with an outside venue Board
11:57
facilitator for the Annual Objectives agreed

Strategic Management by the MAPPA Team
Board and the MAPPA
Team
Page 35
MAPPA
• MAPPA Co-ordinator to March 2007 MAPPA Co-ordinator Training Programme

Local Induction Training
organise Training Strategic completed
for Lay Advisors
Programme Management Board
Annual
MAPPA Training • Development of a year March 2007 MAPPA Co-ordinator Plan to be produced for
Plan for MAPPA training Training Managers approval by the Strategic
35
for all agencies Management Board
Report
2005-2006
MAPPA – THE FIRST FIVE YEARS:

A National Overview of the Multi-Agency Public
Protection Arrangements 2001 - 2006
Introduction
It is now just over 5 years since the implementation of the Criminal Justice and Courts’ Services Act 2000
that led to the formation of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements, commonly known as
MAPPA. As the national strategic body overseeing the implementation and development of these
arrangements it is important for us to review the progress made, to identify the challenges ahead and
set out the national plans for improvement. It is also an opportunity for the first time to provide a
national commentary on the MAPPA annual statistics and to explain what they are telling us about the
growth and complexity of these arrangements.
Much has been achieved in terms of enhancing public safety in the last 5 years and the arrangements are
rightly described as world leading. Yet we are acutely conscious that a number of serious case reviews
and other reports published this year indicate there is still much to do to ensure that the arrangements
are fit for purpose and apply consistently across England and Wales. Unless those operating these
arrangements ensure that all reasonable action is taken to reduce the harm caused by sexual and violent
offenders they will have failed. While we recognise that it is never possible to eliminate risk entirely the
public are entitled to expect the authorities to do their job properly. Making our communities safer and
reducing re-offending is our highest priority and one of the greatest challenges facing the agencies and
staff involved.
Over the last year all agencies responsible for establishing, maintaining or contributing to these public
protection arrangements have been extremely busy: the probation service, the prison service, the police
service who form the Responsible Authority in each area, plus the range of agencies who have a duty to
co-operate in these arrangements and include health, housing, education, social services, youth
offending teams, Jobcentre Plus, and electronic monitoring services.
In addition to the agencies, each area has this year benefited from the input of lay advisers. These are
people recruited locally but appointed by the Secretary of State to offer key support to the strategic
management of the MAPPA process. Their role is essentially to ask often fundamental questions of senior
practitioners and bring a community perspective to a process that could otherwise lose sight of its main
function: to protect members of the public from serious harm. Together, all of those inputting to MAPPA
have ensured that more high risk sexual and violent offenders have been identified and proactively
managed this year than ever before.
36
The National MAPPA Statistics

As the scale and complexity of MAPPA has increased so the analysis of the annual report statistics has
become more important in understanding local and national developments in these arrangements. The
national analysis offered below, based upon reports from the areas, highlights a number of important
trends, particularly in respect of the volume of referrals for multi-agency management at Level 2 and
Level 3 (MAPPP), and the outcomes of that management.
MAPPA Offenders
The number of offenders in the community that come within the remit of MAPPA increased this year, as
anticipated, although the rate of that increase has slowed from last year (13% to 7%) - see Table 1. A
number of factors may have contributed to this slow down. Firstly, the increase of registered sex
offenders (RSOs) is much less than in previous years at just over 3%; secondly, fewer offenders than
expected have been referred into MAPPA under Category 3. (These are those offenders who are neither
registered sex offenders nor currently supervised by the probation service/ youth offending team but do
have a history of physical or sexual violence and are considered by the Responsible Authority to pose a
current risk of serious harm to the public.) The reasons for these variations from expectation are unclear
but the RSO variation may in part be due to a number of areas last year (2004/5) incorporating offenders
who were still in prison and to refinements areas have continued to make to referral procedures and the
management of risk thresholds.
Registered Sex Offenders continue to form by far the largest category – see Table 1.
Table.1 Total number of MAPPA Offenders in the Community

by Category (% Change)
Category 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06
1. Registered Sex Offenders (RSO) 21513 24572 28994 29973

14.22% 18% 3.38%
2. Violent Offenders and other sex offenders 29594 12754* 12662 14317
-56.9% -0.72% 13.07%
3. Other offenders 1802 2166 2936 3363

20.2% 35.55% 14.54%
Totals 52909 39492 44592 47653

-25.36% 12.91% 6.86%
* In 2003/4 the criteria for Violent offenders (Category 2) changed to exclude those offenders held in custody.
37
Chart. 1 Total number of MAPPA Offenders in the Community 2005/6

MAPPA Offenders by Category 2005/06
Category 1
Category 3 Registered Sex
All other offenders Offenders
3363 29973
7% 63%
Category 2
Violent and Non
Registered Sex
Offenders
14317
30%
Registered Sex Offenders

For the first time this year the MAPPA annual reports include a breakdown of the total RSO population
for the basic policing units within each area (see individual area reports). This, together with the density
of RSOs per 100,000 of the population, which ranges from 36/100,000 to 81/100,000 across the 42 Areas
of England and Wales, illustrates the variable distribution of RSOs within the community. There are no
obvious or simple explanations for the distribution of RSOs, which in any case is barely significant
statistically.
MAPPA management levels

It is important to remember that the majority of offenders within MAPPA do not pose a significant risk
of serious harm to the public and can therefore be properly managed through the normal supervision
arrangements provided by the probation service, youth offending teams and by police sex offender
registration This is described as level 1 management and accounts for about 71% of the MAPPA
population. However, for offenders whose risk of serious harm is high or complex and requires active
management by more than one agency, referral to Level 2 or Level 3 (MAPPP) meetings is vital. A case
will generally only qualify for level 3 management where the intervention of senior agency
representatives is required to effect the risk management plan with the authority to release or prioritise
exceptional resources. Chart 2 shows the breakdown of management levels this year.
38
Chart 2 Total number of MAPPA Offenders by Management Level

MAPPA Offenders by Level 2005/06
Level 1
Level 3 “Normal-Agency”
The Critical Few” 33870
1278 71%
3%
Level 2
“Multi-Agency”
12505
26%
This is the second year in which both Level 2 and Level 3 (MAPPP) data has been available and Tables 2
and 3 illustrate the number of offenders now subject to collaborative/ multiagency risk management
(29% of the MAPPA total). For each of these 13,783 offenders agencies will be required to meet on a
number of occasions and to progress actions that reduce the likelihood of re-offending. The tables also
provide a fuller picture of the commitment and resources being provided by the Responsible Authority
and other partner agencies within MAPPA. The Level 3 MAPPP, the highest level of risk management,
continues to focus on the most complex offenders, sometimes referred to as the ‘critical few’, and
involves senior managers within each area.
The use of Level 3 MAPPP has been refined over the last 3 years as part of a concerted effort to ensure
that resources are focused where they can be most effective in enhancing public protection. This year
they have been employed in under 3% of the total MAPPA caseload. At the same time, Level 2 risk
management meetings, which are locally based, have increased in number (12,505) and become the
engine room for MAPPA. Whilst there is an element of focus on level 3, all Areas have recognized the
necessity of ensuring adequate management and administrative support for Level 2; and this is reflected
in Business Plans.
39
Table 2. Breakdown of Level 2 and Level 3 MAPPA Offenders for 2005/6
Category of Offender Level 2 Level 3 Total per Category

(% of MAPPA Total) (% of MAPPA Total) (% of MAPPA Total)
1. Registered Sex 6014 580 6594

Offenders (RSO) 12.62% 1.22% 13.84%
2. Violent offenders 4280 506 4786

and other sex offenders 8.98% 1.06% 10.04%
3. Other offenders 2211 192 2403

4.64% 0.4% 5.04%
Total per Level 12505 1278 13783

26.24% 2.68% 28.92%
Table 3. Offenders referred to Levels 2 and 3 - Comparison

with last year (% Change)
Level 2 Level 3
Category of MAPPA Offender 2004/05 2005/06 2004/05 2005/06
1. Registered Sex Offenders (RSO) 5381 6014 626 580

11.76% -7.35%
2. Violent Offenders and other sex offenders 3615 4280 547 506
18.39% -7.49%
3. Other offenders 2292 2211 305 192

-3.53% -37.05%
Totals 11288 12505 1478 1278

10.78% -13.53%
40
Interventions and Outcomes

Information about the scale and categories of offender is complemented by information on
direct interventions and outcomes for this MAPPA managed group (ie those under Levels 2 and 3). These
measures deal with breaches of licence and court order, with sex offender registration requirements and
related court orders, and with further offending – see tables 4 and 5.
The headline figure is, no doubt, that reflecting the number of offenders who, while managed at levels 2
or 3, are charged with a serious sexual or violent offence. Compared with 2004/5, this year saw a
reduction in the number of serious further offences in this population from 79 (0.6%) to 61 (0.44%) cases
this year. And the biggest impact was where you would want and expect it – with the more intensively
managed Level 3 cases. On the face of it the figures are encouraging but they should be treated with
caution for 2 reasons.
Firstly, we have only collected the data for 2 years; secondly, with such small numbers any change can
trigger a wholly disproportionate, misleading percentage variation. What is apparent, however, is that
the figure is low and whilst any serious re-offending is a matter of great concern, such a low serious re-
offending rate for this particular group of offenders is to be welcomed and supports the view that
MAPPA is making a real contribution to the management of dangerousness in communities.
The data relating to breach of licence and court orders is positive as this reflects an increase in action
taken in level 2 and 3 cases prior to them having opportunity to commit serious further harm; ie to recall
offenders to prison. A similarly encouraging picture emerges from a reading of the data on various sex
offender provisions – see table 5. Action taken to enforce the sex offender registration requirements
through caution and conviction increased by 30% from last year and affected 1295 offenders, 4.3% of
the total registered in the community. There was also considerable use made of the range of new civil
orders available under the Sex Offences Act 2003(sexual offences prevention orders, notification orders,
foreign travel orders). In total 973 orders have been granted this year an increase of 446.
Table 4. Outcome measures: Level 2 and Level 3 activity for 2005/6 (% Change)
Level 2 Level 3 Total of Level 2 & 3
Category of MAPPA Offender 2004/05 2005/06 2004/05 2005/06 2004/05 2005/06
1. Breach of License 1084 1321 222 219 1306 1540

21.86% -1.35% 17.92%
2. Breach of Orders 55 82 18 22 73 104

49.09% 22.22% 42.47%
3. Charged with SFO 47 50 32 11 79 61

6.38% -65.63% -22.78%
41
Table 5. Outcome measures: RSO arrests and Sex Offences Act Civil
Orders 2004/5 and 2005/6 (% Change)
RSO Enforcement Number of Offenders (04/05) Number of Offenders (05/06)
1. Registered Sex 993 1295

Offenders (RSO) charged/cautioned 30.41%
Sex offences Act Orders Number of Orders (04/05) Number of Orders (05/06)
2. Sexual offences prevention 503 933

orders (SOPOs) 85.49%
3. Notification Orders (NOs) granted 22 39

77.27%
4. Foreign Travel Orders (FTOs) granted 1 1

0%
Total Number of Orders 526 973

84.98%
A Year of Challenges
The raw data provided in the national statistics is helpful but necessarily quantitative. In order to get a
better feel for the quality of MAPPA business it is necessary to work with other forms of analysis and,
during the course of this year, a number of inspection reports and a small number of management
reviews of specific cases have been published which have both detailed shortcomings in practice and
highlighted many positive developments in public protection practice.
It is essential that the product of these, and future, reviews and reports shape the development of
MAPPA through central guidance and local practice and it is instructive to set out the lessons learned this
year.
Strengthening Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (Published in October 2005 and available
on www.homeoffi ce.gov.uk/rds/pubsintro1.html)
This research was undertaken by De Montfort University and found evidence of greater effectiveness and
efficiency across MAPPA teams in England and Wales, compared to an earlier review of public protection
arrangements, which had been conducted before the MAPPA legislation was introduced in 2001. It found
that areas were meeting the MAPPA Guidance specification to a large extent.
It also found that the arrangements had been strengthened by the inclusion of the Prison Service within
the Responsible Authority and by the designation of a number of duty-to-cooperate agencies ( a
consequence of the Criminal Justice Act 2003). The MAPPA process facilitated effective contributions by
agencies so that representatives could make operational decisions and develop risk management plans.
The report made a number of recommendations for policy and practice

development which are being taken forward through the revision of the MAPPA
Guidance and the MAPPA business planning process.
42
Managing Sex Offenders in the Community (A joint thematic inspection by Her Majesty’s Inspectorates
of Probation and Police published in November 2005 and available on
http://inspectorates.homeoffi ce.gov.uk/hmiprobation)
This inspection found that there was greater focus by police and probation on improving the assessment
and management of high risk sex offenders which offered the prospect of improved performance.
However it noted a number of deficiencies in relation to MAPPA case management records; police home
visits for registered sex offenders and training for both police and probation staff on assessment and
management of risk of harm.
These deficiencies have been addressed through the National Offender

Management Service Risk of Harm Improvement strategy and the development and
imminent publication of the Police Public Protection Manual.
An Independent Review of a Serious Further Offence case: Damien Hanson and Elliot White published in
February 2006 and available on http://inspectorates.homeoffi ce.gov.uk/hmiprobation)
This was a report by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Probation into the murder of John Monckton and
attempted murder of his wife Homeyra in November 2004 by two men under the supervision of the
London Probation Area. The report identified overall failures and some specific deficiencies in the way
the two cases were managed.
Although neither offender was referred to MAPPA Damien Hanson, who was assessed as presenting a
high risk of serious harm, should have been. Importantly the report has established a number of
principles against which future case management within MAPPA and the National Probation Service will
be judged. Key amongst these is that the public is entitled to expect that the authorities will do their job
properly i.e. to take all reasonable action to keep risk to a minimum.
In response to this report, an action plan was issued to the National Probation
Services to ensure delivery of effective implementation of the report’s five ‘key’
recommendations and 31 practice recommendations.
An Independent Review of a Serious Further Offence case: Anthony Rice published in May 2006 and
available on http://inspectorates.homeoffi ce.gov.uk/hmiprobation)
This report was completed following the murder of Naomi Bryant in August 2005. The independent
review was requested by the Responsible Authority for MAPPA in Hampshire who were concerned by a
number of issues that had contributed to the risk management failure.
The report details principal findings and recommendations for a range of agencies within and outside
MAPPA. Each of which is being taken forward. Importantly it revealed the failure to manage the
offender’s risk of harm to the public was not due to any single act of negligence or deficiency. Rather it
was a cumulative failure of processes and actions throughout his sentence supervision, both in prison and
in the community. This is an essential point to grasp and reinforces the importance of having an
integrated offender management system from start to end of sentence with clear and consistent practice
between the three core MAPPA agencies, prisons, probation and police.
The key recommendation for MAPPA was about maintaining a better balance
between human rights of offenders and protecting the public, and using existing
MAPPA guidance properly. Work is already underway to revise and strengthen
national guidance and improve MAPPA’s foundations by way of the national and
Area MAPPA business plans.
Joint Police/Probation/Prisons Thematic Inspection Report: Putting Risk of Harm Into Context – published
in September 2006 and available on http://inspectorates.homeoffi ce.gov.uk/hmiprobation
This report found that much had been achieved, including that planned interventions were generally
effective in containing offending behaviour. There were also many areas for improvement and the report
makes recommendations for the more consistent use of MAPPA and sharing of MAPPA good practice,
improved risk of harm assessments and sentence planning and greater victim awareness.
It is important to note that the fieldwork to support the inspection concluded in the autumn of 2005,
prior to the launch of the Risk of Harm Improvement Action plan and other actions referred to in this
overview. Nevertheless, the report has been welcomed and will be considered in further detail by the
National Offender Management Service (NOMS) Risk of Harm Improvement Board as well as the
Responsible Authority National Steering Group (RANSG).
43
Actions to develop MAPPA
Effecting change to these public protection arrangements requires concerted action from a range of
agencies and key stakeholders. MAPPA is not an agency but a set of national arrangements that requires
each contributor to ensure that their own agency’s practice is fit for purpose and that the manner of
their collaboration is effective in assessing and managing the risk posed by sexual and violent offenders.
It is important to note that MAPPA has benefited significantly this year from the work undertaken by
individual agencies; work that has a direct bearing on how dangerous offenders are assessed and
managed. This includes the OASys Quality Assurance Programme implemented from July 2005;
implementation of the offender management model from April 2006; the launch of the NOMS Risk of
harm Guidance and Training resource pack June 2006; and the planned roll-out of the Police Public
Protection Manual.
MAPPA will increasingly benefit from the expansion of ViSOR (the Violent and Sex Offenders Register).
ViSOR is an integral part of plans to strengthen public protection through improved risk assessment and
management and will provide electronic support for MAPPA allowing efficient data sharing between
Police, Probation and Prisons. The police have been using ViSOR since April 2005 and the system will be
implemented into the prison and the probation service during 2006/7. For the first time the Responsible
Authorities will be working together on the same I.T system to Reduce Re-offending.
The National MAPPA Business Plan
As the national coordinating body for the Responsible Authority, the RANSG, is tasked with exercising
oversight of MAPPA and ensuring its continued development. To help meet these aims the RANSG
published, in November 2005, a three year National MAPPA Business Plan 2005-8. The plan identifies four
broad areas of MAPPA where significant and consistent improvement is necessary. These include the
following;
MAPPA Development Strategy
• Achieve dedicated MAPPA coordination and administration capacity in all areas during
2006/7 (underway)
• Develop RANSG to include national representation of Duty to cooperate agencies (achieved)
• Revise and publish MAPPA Guidance (by April 2007 – see existing Guidance at:
http://www.probation.homeoffice.gov.uk/output/page30.asp)
Monitoring and Evaluation

• Areas to implement a MAPPA Business Plan for 2006/7 (achieved – see area annual reports)
• Development of multi-agency public protection performance indicators (underway)
• Improve the recording and collation of data (underway)
• Develop guidance for a serious case review process (planned for consultation later this year)
Communication and Strategic Partnerships

• The publication of the MAPPA Annual report (achieved)
• Development of the annual report to improve public understanding and engagement (ongoing)
• National MAPPA conference (achieved – November 2005)
• Develop a national communication strategy (issued in June, but Child Sex Offender
Review may add further impetus)
44
Training
• Delivery of lay adviser national training (delivered but also developing so far)
• National coordinators conference (delivered – May 2006)
• Collate core training material (underway)
• Areas to implement a training strategy for new practitioners, new members of the
strategic management board and for coordinators and administrators (underway)
Areas have been asked to produce annual reports on this model and local business plans are attached to
area annual reports for the first time. Future reports will record the progress that has been achieved.
Conclusion
The introduction of MAPPA enables agencies to work more closely than ever before to exchange
information and manage offenders collaboratively, ensuring that potentially dangerous offenders are
being properly risk assessed and robustly managed in the community. Effective management of high-risk
offenders, as a discipline, is still relatively in its infancy. There is continuous development and the
standards and good practice of tomorrow are likely to be different from today’s, achieved through
experience and research. The challenge therefore is not only to match current practice with what we
know, but also to respond rapidly to new learning.
The Inspectorate helpfully suggests that what they are describing can be better understood as the
identification of stages on a journey rather than a destination reached. Since their introduction in 2001,
the 42 MAPPAs covering England and Wales have travelled a great distance in a short time to establish
the new arrangements. The vital public protection work of MAPPA is undertaken by skilled and
committed staff and everyone engaged in the arrangements acknowledges the need for constant
vigilance and improvement. The journey is not easy, but communities are safer because, as this report
demonstrates, the Responsible Authorities are travelling together in the right direction.
John Scott
Head of the Public Protection and Licensed Release Unit
National Offender Management Service
Terence Grange
Chief Constable of Dyfed Powys Police and ACPO Public Protection Lead
Tony Robson
Her Majesty’s Prison Service
On behalf of the Responsible Authority National Steering Group
45
Strategic Management Board Members

Angela Montgomery Nigel Richardson
Solicitor & Secretary to Humberside Probation Board Director of Children and Young Peoples Services
Senior Manager for Risk Hull City Council
National Probation Service - Humberside Guildhall
21 Flemingate Alfred Gelder Street
BEVERLEY HULL HU1 2AA
East Riding of Yorkshire HU17 0NP 01482 316325
01482 867271 nigel.richardson@hullcc.gov.uk
angela.montgomery@humberside.probation.gsi.gov.uk
Julie Ogley
John Godley
Executive Director of Community Care
MAPPA Co-Ordinator N E Lincs Council
Crime Management Policy Unit Municipal Building
Humberside Police Headquarters Town Hall Square
Priory Road Police Station GRIMSBY DN31 1HU
Kingston upon Hull HU5 5SF 01472 325456
01482 334835 julie.ogley@nelincs.gov.uk
john.godley@humberside.pnn.police.uk
Allison Watson
John Crosse
Head of Operations
Assistant Chief Constable HMP Hull
Humberside Police Headquarters Hedon Road
Priory Road Police Station HULL HU9 5LS
Kingston upon Hull HU5 5SF 01482 282204
0845 6060222 allison.watson@hmps.gsi.gov.uk
john.crosse@humberside.pnn.police.uk
Phil Edwards
Andrew Williams
Head of Offender Management
Director of Children & Family Services HMP Full Sutton
ERY Full Sutton
County Hall YORK YO41 1PS
BEVERLEY 01759 475100
East Riding of Yorkshire phillip.edwards@hmps.gsi.gov.uk
01482 392000
andrew.williams@eastriding.gov.uk
Mr Said Ali
Operational Manager
Richard Stiff
Humber Centre for Forensic Psychiatry
Executive Director of Children’s Services Beverley Road
North Lincolnshire Council Willerby HU10 6XB
Pittwood House 01482 336200
Ashby Road said.ali@humber.nhs.uk
SCUNTHORPE
North Lincolnshire DN16 1AB
01724 296002
richard.stiff@northlincs.gov.uk
46
Agency Contact Points

Humberside Police
Police Headquarters 0845 60 60 222
Priory Road
Kingston–upon-Hull
HU5 5SF
National Probation Service – Humberside

Head Office 01482 867271
21 Flemingate
Beverley
East Yorkshire
HU17 0NP
HM Prison Service
Yorkshire and Humberside Area Office 01937 544500
Marston House
Audby Lane
Wetherb
LS22 7SD
MAPPA Co-ordination Team

c/o Crime Management Policy Unit 01482 334836
Humberside Police Headquarters
Priory Road
Kingston-upon-Hull
HU5 5SF
Victim Support Schemes

Hull 01482 587666
Haltemprice & Holderness 01482 307284
East Yorkshire 01262 401689
Goole and Pocklington 01405 767070
Grimsby and Cleethorpes 01472 250251
Scunthorpe and North East Lincolnshire 01724 871324
National Victim Support Line 0845 30 30 900
47

Much more than documents.

UK Home Office: Humberside%20MAPPA%202006%20Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Description:

Copyright:

Available Formats

UK Home Office: Humberside%20MAPPA%202006%20Report

Uploaded by

Description:

Copyright:

Available Formats

Related titles

Mappa report 6/10/06 11:52 Page 1

Mappa report 6/10/06 11:52 Page 2

MAPPA Annual Report 2005-2006

Ministerial foreword by Gerry Sutcliffe MP

MAPPA Annual Report 2005-2006

What about the victims of serious crime?..........................................................12

Who’s Who in MAPPA? .............................................................................................13

‘Duty to Co-operate’ agencies

Key Progress and Achievements over the last year .........................................25

The coming year - Strengthening the MAPPA....................................................26

MAPPA Annual Report 2005-2006

Tim Hollis Stephen Hemming Steve Wagstaffe

MAPPA Annual Report 2005-2006

What are the MAPPA?

Are all dangerous people covered by the MAPPA?

Are all offenders covered by the MAPPA?

* Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000.

MAPPA Annual Report 2005-2006

MAPPA Annual Report 2005-2006

What is a Risk Assessment?

Why aren’t all these offenders very high risk?

MAPPA Annual Report 2005-2006

How are offenders managed under the MAPPA?

The three levels are;

Level 2: Local inter-agency risk management.

Level 3: Multi Agency Public Protection Panels (MAPPPs)

MAPPA Annual Report 2005-2006

What are Risk Management Plans?

Sexual Offences Prevention Orders

Foreign Travel Orders

MAPPA Annual Report 2005-2006

What about the victims of serious crime?

*Criminal Justice and Court Services Act (2000) sect 69.

MAPPA Annual Report 2005-2006

Who’s Who in MAPPA?

The Strategic Management Board (SMB)

MAPPA Annual Report 2005-2006

Report of the Strategic Management Board

National Probation Service - Humberside

MAPPA Annual Report 2005-2006

The Prison Service - Yorkshire and Humberside Area

* Criminal Justice and Court Services Act (2000) sect 69.

MAPPA Annual Report 2005-2006

MAPPA Annual Report 2005-2006

“Duty to co-operate” agencies

What must the “Duty to Co-operate” agencies do?

Agencies therefore participate through;

MAPPA Annual Report 2005-2006

Mr B seriously assaulted a female stranger spent in the Approved Premises. The

MAPPA Annual Report 2005-2006

MAPPA Annual Report 2005-2006

Youth Offending Teams

MAPPA Annual Report 2005-2006

Local Housing Authorities

Registered Social Landlords (RSLs)

Local Authority Social Services - Councils with Children Services and

*Housing Act, 1996 and Homelessness Act, 2002

MAPPA Annual Report 2005-2006

Local Education Authorities (LEA)

*Adoption and Children Act 2002

MAPPA Annual Report 2005-2006

MAPPA Annual Report 2005-2006

*Royal College of Psychiatrists (2000) Good Psychiatric Practice: Confidentiality

MAPPA Annual Report 2005-2006

Key Progress and Achievements over the last year

MAPPA Annual Report 2005-2006

The coming year - Strengthening the MAPPA