You are on page 1of 19

MAPPA Main Report 2006-7 2/10/07 13:50 Page 1

Annual Report
Protecting the public in Kent
MAPPA Main Report 2006-7 2/10/07 13:50 Page 2

Joint foreword to Kent MAPPA Annual Report 2006/2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Ministerial foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Level of Risk Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Key achievements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
MAPPA levels and categories – pyramid diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
How the MAPPA operate locally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-12
MAPPA Annual Report statistical information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13-14
Comment on Annual Report statistical information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Strategic Management Board (SMB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Kent MAPPA Business Plan 2007/2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Kent MAPPA Business Plan 2006/2007 – progress report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
The role of the Senior Probation Officer for MAPPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Kent & Sussex Prison Service Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
MAPPA and the Forensic Mental Health Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Case study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Kent Probation Area Board and MAPPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
The role of the Lay Advisers and MAPPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
Victim Liaison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
Case study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
The Mentor Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
A Mentor’s perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
The role of the Public Protection Officer on a Basic Command Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
Case study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
The role of the Intelligence Analyst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26-27
Case study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
Violent and Sex Offender Register (ViSOR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
Accommodation for MAPPA Offenders - Approved Premises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29-30
Case study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
Case study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
HOPE and MAPPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
Supporting People and the SMB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31-32
Kent Adult Social Services and MAPPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Case study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

2 3
MAPPA Main Report 2006-7 2/10/07 13:50 Page 4

Joint foreword to Kent Ministerial foreword

Multi-Agency Public Protection These are the sixth MAPPA annual reports, and the first with a foreword by the Ministry of Justice. I
want, first of all, to underline the Government’s continued commitment to these arrangements.
Arrangements (MAPPA) Annual Protecting the public from dangerous offenders is a core aim for the new Department. Just as the
effectiveness of MAPPA locally depends on the quality of working relationships, we will work with the
Report 2006/2007 Home Office, the Police, and others, to develop the best possible framework within which the MAPPA
can operate.

On 13 June, the Government published a Review of the Protection of Children from Sex Offenders. This
We are pleased to welcome you to our sixth annual report. Although Multi-Agency Public Protection
sets out a programme of actions which include developing the use of drug treatment for sex offenders
Arrangements (MAPPA) are still relatively new, the level of co-operation and information sharing that
and piloting the use of compulsory polygraph testing as a risk management tool, enhancements to the
now exists between the police, probation and prison services (collectively known as the Responsible
regime operating at Approved Premises, and also a range of actions impacting directly upon the way
Authority for MAPPA) is extremely impressive and highly co-ordinated.
the MAPPA work. I want to highlight two of them here.

These arrangements cover all known offenders assessed as posing a particular risk to others, both in Firstly, research tells us that the arrangements are already used successfully to disclose information
prison and in the community. MAPPA is not a separately funded organisation, but rather the way the about dangerous offenders but we think this can be improved upon. MAPPA agencies will be required to
agencies work together in order to maximise public protection. consider disclosure in every case. We will pilot a scheme where parents will be able to register a child-
protection interest in a named individual with whom they have a personal relationship and who has
This agreement between police, probation, prisons and other agencies including health, housing, social regular unsupervised access to their child. If that person has convictions for child sex offences and the
services, education, Youth Offending Teams, Jobcentre Plus and electronic monitoring providers, to child is at risk, there will be a presumption that the offences will be disclosed to the parent.
share information and jointly manage high-risk offenders, receives neither additional funding nor extra
personnel. It is the dedication and expertise of staff involved that has resulted in increasingly effective Secondly, as MAPPA has developed over the past 6 years, best practice models have been identified
action plans with which to manage violent and sex offenders. which show that specific roles and approaches are required to ensure it is managed effectively. We are
committed to strengthening MAPPA arrangements and ensuring that robust performance management
is in place. To achieve this, we intend to introduce new national standards, which will ensure a
Another reason for the success of MAPPA is that these organisations often go beyond their minimum
consistent approach across Areas and we will be making available £1.2million to support Areas in
responsibilities and actively participate in the conferences held to manage MAPPA cases.
implementing the standards.

We aim to do everything that can reasonably be done to protect people from known, dangerous
offenders. We know that there is always room for improvement. I commend this annual report to you as
an indication of the commitment, skills and achievements of the professionals, and lay advisers, in
managing and monitoring this essential, often difficult area of business.

Hilary James Michael Fuller Adrian Smith

Chief Officer Chief Constable Kent Area Manager Maria Eagle MP
Kent Probation Area Kent Police HM Prison Service Parliamentary Under Secretary of State


4 5
MAPPA Main Report 2006-7 2/10/07 13:50 Page 6

Introduction Key MAPPA levels and categories

Across Kent and Medway, the risk posed by
sexual and violent offenders is managed
through a three-tier system based on the level
During the year 2006/2007, the work of MAPPA
of risk the offender presents. This system LEVEL 3: Multi Agency Public Protection
has been further strengthened by:
enables resources to be deployed to manage Panels (MAPPP)
risk in the most efficient and effective manner
• The continued use of the Violent and
in order to best protect the public. This level is predominantly to manage offenders
Sex Offender Register (ViSOR). This assessed as posing the highest risk - known as the
database has strengthened the ability “critical few”. They are managed by Multi Agency
of Police to monitor offenders within Public Protection Panels (MAPPP) consisting of
Kent and share important information senior officers from the required agencies working
with other Forces around the country together because of the complexity of the case
when necessary and/or the unusual resource commitments
required. Offenders who pose a low risk may
also be managed at this level due to the
• The appointment of a dedicated Senior likelihood of media/public interest.
Probation Officer to drive forward the
ongoing development of MAPPA within
Kent LEVEL 2: Local Inter-agency
Risk Management
• The continued inclusion of a Consultant
Forensic Psychiatrist at Level 3 Multi This level is used where multi-agency
Agency Public Protection Panels. This involvement through MAPPPs is required,
continues to be incredibly beneficial to but where the level of risk is not so great
as to require a referral to Level 3.Cases
the MAPPA process and allows the
may be referred to Level 2 from Level
meetings to be fully informed regarding 3 when, for example, the seriousness
mental health issues of risk or complexity has diminished.

• The continued use of Police Intelligence LEVEL 1: Single Agency

Analysts to map offender’s contacts
Risk Management
Level of Risk • A strengthened Strategic Management These are cases in which the

Management Board which includes representation from

more key agencies
risks posed can be managed by
one agency without significant
involvement from other
Generally speaking, the higher the assessed agencies. These offenders
will generally be assessed as
level of risk, the higher the level of
posing a low or medium risk
management required. The level at which a of harm. The vast majority
case is managed is dependent upon the nature of MAPPA cases are
of the risk and how it can be best managed. managed at this level.
The risk management structure is based upon
the principle that cases should be managed at
the lowest level consistent with providing a
defensible and effective risk management plan.

6 7
MAPPA Main Report 2006-7 2/10/07 13:50 Page 8

How the MAPPA operate locally MAPPA Category 2 – Violent/Other Sex Offender

The offenders in this category are defined as those who have committed an offence within Schedule 15
During the year April 2006 to March 2007 a total of 205 Level 3 conferences were convened for the 49 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) and who receive one or more of the following disposals
very high risk and dangerous offenders. Those offenders that the government describes as the “critical from the court:
few”. This number includes the offenders already within the MAPPA Arrangements, from 2005/06, who
continued to be managed in 2006/07. • 12 months or more imprisonment
• 12 months or more detention in a young offender institution
Tasking and Co-ordination Group • A sentence of detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure
• A sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 CJA 2003
This group meets weekly to assess referrals to Level 3 MAPPA to ensure they meet the criteria, and is • A sentence of detention for a period of 12 months or more under section 91 of the
comprised of: Sentencing Act (offenders under 18 convicted of certain serious offences)
• A sentence of detention under section 228 CJA 2003
• Area Manager/MAPPA Strategy and Services Kent Probation Area
• A detention and training order of 12 months or more
• Senior Probation Officer for MAPPA Kent Probation Area
• A hospital or guardianship order within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983 (c.20)
• Detective Chief Inspector, Kent Police – Special Investigation Unit (SIU)
• Kent Police Special Investigation Unit Analysts • Found not guilty by a court in England or Wales by reason of insanity
• Police and Probation MAPPA administrators • Found to be under a disability and to have committed the act charged against him/her

This category only applies to offenders who are currently subject to statutory supervision/Licence
conditions and who were sentenced after 1st April 2001, or who were at that point serving a sentence
MAPPA Categories for a qualifying offence. This category is not retrospective pre 1st April 2001.

MAPPA Category 1 - Registered Sex Offender Offenders remain in this category until the end of their statutory supervision/Licence for the qualifying
offence. When statutory supervision ends, offenders remain subject to MAPPA under Category 3,
All Registered Sex Offenders (RSOs) are subject to MAPPA. Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003
unless there is no longer a risk of serious harm.
defines registered sex offenders as those offenders having been convicted or cautioned since 1st
September 1997 of a sexual offence listed in Schedule 3 of that Act, or who at that point were serving a
MAPPA Category 3 – Other Offenders
sentence for a like offence.

These are offenders who are not included in Categories 1 or 2 but who are considered to pose a risk of
RSOs remain subject to MAPPA for the period they are required to register. This is determined by the
causing serious harm to the public or an individual. This category is not defined by specific offences.
sentence received for the qualifying offence or by the presence of a civil order attracting a requirement
The identification of these offenders is dependent upon the judgement of, and the risk assessment
to register, for example a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO).
undertaken by, the agency involved in agreement with the Responsible Authorities (i.e. Police, Probation
and Prison Service – see Joint Foreword).
Once the requirement to register expires, the offender should be reviewed under MAPPA. If the offender
still poses a significant risk of serious harm they should be transferred to MAPPA Category 3. If the risk
To be included in this category an adult offender must be convicted or formally cautioned and juveniles
of serious harm has diminished sufficiently, the offender should be de-registered from MAPPA.
must have been reprimanded or warned for an offence that indicates they are capable of causing
serious harm to the public. Also, the Responsible Authorities must have reasonable and identifiable
concerns that the offender may cause serious harm to the public, or a specific individual, in the future.

8 9
MAPPA Main Report 2006-7 2/10/07 13:50 Page 10

Key measures Managing the risk

Which reduce the risk posed by offenders in the community, are: For offenders subject to a community order or post-release licence, there are National Standards
stipulating minimum supervision contact levels and frequency of risk management reviews, plus the
• Completion of programmes that address the causes of offending behaviour opportunity to impose restrictive and rigorously enforced conditions. A post-release licence may contain
• Controls on behaviour, which are added to licences or orders a variety of conditions tailored to manage the risk posed by that individual offender.
• Recall to prison if licences are breached
Kent Probation Area contributes towards this through a range of accredited programmes, including the
• Intensive supervision by probation offender manager and/or police public
provision of the Thames Valley Sex Offender Groupwork Programme (TVSOGP), delivered by
protection officer
experienced and specifically trained probation officers and a Forensic Psychologist.
• The use of covert police surveillance
• Contingency plans and rapid response arrangements made with the local police The key elements of this work include:
• Ensuring offenders receive appropriate mental health care
• Ensuring offenders are living in suitable accommodation • Risk assessment and management
• Support networks involving voluntary agencies and sometimes the offender’s family • Ensuring sex offenders are aware of the damage caused by them to their victims
• Challenging the offender’s denial and minimisation, by encouraging them to take full
Critical to rigorous risk assessment is the collating and sharing of all information. This leads to informed and active responsibility for their offending behaviour
decision making about the management of risk. This is regularly reviewed to ensure that any variation in • Addressing a lack of social competence associated with sexual offending
the offender’s risk status is reflected in a dynamic Risk Management Plan.
• Development of effective relapse prevention strategies
• Individual work and support by the probation offender manager
All partner agencies sign up to the MAPPA protocol, binding them to the sharing of information and
agreeing joint action. The protocol does not allow for the sharing of information with other agencies that • Liaising with the police and other appropriate agencies to gather and share information
have not signed up to it.
In order to achieve these elements, pre-programme assessment and psychometric testing is used to
identify what intervention/treatment is required.
Principles underpinning public protection

There are seven principles:

• To gather and share all the relevant information concerning the offender in a
multi-agency format and enable other agencies to make a risk assessment
• Kent Probation Area, Kent Police and Her Majesty’s Prison Service use nationally
agreed risk assessment tools to assess risk of harm: Offender Assessment
System (OASys) and Risk Matrix 2000
• To hear representations made on the behalf of the victim and take these into account
• To consider human rights/civil liberties and diversity issues
• To take account of Freedom of Information and Data Protection
• To work with the offender to develop internal controls to reduce the risk of re-offending
by including them in accredited and nationally recognised treatment and relapse
prevention programmes
• To implement external controls to manage the risk of harm

10 11
MAPPA Main Report 2006-7 2/10/07 13:50 Page 12

The programme normally includes an initial intensive two-week group therapy ‘Foundation Block’,
followed by semi-intensive therapy two evenings per week for 14 weeks covering ‘Victim Empathy’ and MAPPA Annual Report
‘Life Skills’ and then a further six months of “once a week” Relapse Prevention work. At the end of
treatment a further assessment to evaluate individual risk and change is completed. statistical information
Required for the reporting period 1st APRIL 2006 - 31st MARCH 2007
All of the above relies upon continued good working relationships and effective communication between
the various teams involved. The MAPPA formalises this work and enables full and comprehensive risk
1. Category 1 MAPPA offenders: Registered Sex Offenders (RSO)
management plans to be agreed for those assessed as posing a very high risk to the public.

Working together in this way, staff from different agencies make an invaluable contribution to public
i) The total number of RSOs living in Kent on 31st March 2007. Table showing the RSOs
safety in Kent. broken down into areas.
Total 983

BCU (Basic Command Unit) RSO

East Kent 191
Medway 186
Mid Kent 188
North Kent 92
South Kent 191
West Kent 135

a) The number of RSOs per 100'000 head of population.

RSO Per 100k 62
ii) The number of sex offenders having a registration requirement who were either cautioned
or convicted for breaches of the requirement, between 1st April 2006 and 31st March 2007.

Total 58

Examples of the agencies involved in MAPPA 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 Kent between 1st April 2006
• Kent Probation Area and 31st March 2007.
• Kent Police (a) (b) (c)
• Kent and Sussex Area Prisons 57 1 55
• Kent County Council (Education, Social Services)
• Medway Council (Housing and Children’s Services) iv) The number of (a) Notification Orders applied for (b) interim Notification Orders granted and
• Supporting People
(c) full Notification Orders imposed by the courts in Kent between 1st April 2006 and 31st
March 2007.
• Kent Youth Offending Service
(a) (b) (c)
• Medway Youth Offending Service
• Victim Support 1 0 1
• Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust v) The number of Foreign Travel Orders (a) applied for and (b) imposed by the courts in Kent
• Medway Cyrenians between 1st April 2006 and 31st March 2007.
• Kent Policy and Planning Group & Kent Housing Group (a) (b)
1 0

12 13
MAPPA Main Report 2006-7 2/10/07 13:50 Page 14

2. Category 2 MAPPA offenders: Violent offenders and Other Sex offenders (V&OS)
Comment on MAPPA Annual
vi) The number of violent and other sex offenders (as defined by Section 327 (3), (4) and (5) of
the Criminal Justice Act (2003)) living in Kent between 1st April 2006 and 31st March 2007. Report statistical information
The total number of Registered Sex Offenders living in Kent has increased slightly on last years figure.
Total 449 The main reason for the increase is due to the improved detection, prosecution and conviction of those
responsible for these offences.
3. Category 3 MAPPA offenders: Other Offenders (OthO)
There has been a sharp rise in the figure for the number of Category 3 MAPPA offenders living in the
vii) The number of ‘other offenders’ (as defined by Section 325 (2)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act county. This change is thought to be due to the increased knowledge that comes from the training
(2003)) between 1st April 2006 and 31st March 2007. delivered in relation to MAPPA, which in turn has led to better identification and referral of Category 3
Total 82 offenders to the MAPPA process.

4. Offenders managed though Level 3 MAPPA (Countywide) & Level 2 MAPPA The number of Level 2 and Level 3 offenders charged with a serious sexual or violent offence has
(local inter-agency management) increased from last years figure. One of the main reasons for the increase is due to a change in the
way the figure is calculated. Last year only offenders subject to Probation supervision at the time they
were charged were included in the calculation, whereas this year any offender managed at either Level
viii) Identify how many MAPPA offenders in each of the three Categories (i.e. (1)- RSOs,
2 or 3 who is charged with a relevant offence is included, regardless of whether they were under
(2)- V&O and (3)- OthO above) have been managed through the MAPPP (level 3) and through
Probation supervision at the time.
local inter-agency risk management (level 2) between 1st April 2006 and 31st March 2007.
Tracy Gain
Cat.1 (RSO) Cat.2 (Violent) Cat.3 (Other) MAPPA Administrator
Level 2 179 250 75
Level 3 25 17 7

Strategic Management Board

ix) Of the cases managed at levels 3 or 2 (i.e. (viii)) between 1st April 2006 and 31st March
The Strategic Management Board has continued to develop its membership to promote the
2007, how many, whilst managed at that level:
effectiveness of the multi-agency arrangements, and has further strengthened its relationships with the
Kent and Medway Safeguarding Children's Boards, with each board sharing at least three individual
(a) Were returned to custody for a breach of licence? members.
(b) Were returned to custody for a breach of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO)?
(c) Were charged with a serious sexual or violent offence? We have commissioned an audit of the local MAPPA Level 2 panels to identify best practice and
promote consistency across Kent and Medway.
(a) (b) (c)
In accordance with the Strategic Plan, we have developed a process for conducting Serious Case
Level 2 30 6 2
Reviews, which focuses on learning and improvement.
Level 3 7 1 3
We continue to use our Lay Advisers at a strategic level, where they are full members of the Strategic
Management Board.

Alan Dowie
Chair, Kent Strategic Management Board

14 15
MAPPA Main Report 2006-7 2/10/07 13:50 Page 16

Kent MAPPA Business Plan Progress against MAPPA

2007/08 Business Plan 2006/07
Key aims of the Business Plan 2007-08 MAPPA developments

• Ensured compliance with current legislation and national Government guidance, in particular by
identifying and formalising ways in which the Responsible Authority and Duty to Co-Operate
agencies will work together

• Ensured the effective direction of key business and performance by reviewing and developing
MAPPA development strategy the role of the Strategic Management Board and its structure

• Established a process for conducting Serious Case Reviews

• To develop and improve MAPPA in line
with new national guidance. • The Responsible Authority and its agencies are awaiting Government guidance to be able to
agree key performance measures and to be able to review and revise polices and procedures
Monitoring and evaluating strategy
Monitoring and evaluation
• To maintain and improve performance
• The Strategic Management Board receives quarterly information aligned to the annual reporting
monitoring to better demonstrate
requirements in order to gain an overview of performance and to identify necessary changes
effectiveness and identify best practice.
• The Strategic Management Board is able to identify strengths and areas in need of improvement
Communication and strategic partnerships through a system of monitoring and reporting from Serious Further Offence reviews and Serious
strategy Case Reviews

• To improve public confidence through Communication and strategic partnerships

the promotion of greater understanding
• Links have been formalised with both the Kent and Medway Children’s Safeguarding Boards
• Formal links have been made with mental health services across Kent and Medway
Training needs • The links between MAPPA and Priority and Persistent Offender initiatives have been reviewed

• To develop a comprehensive training • Latest information and statistics continue to be conveyed to the public via the publication of an
strategy for staff of all agencies annual report
involved with MAPPA.
Training needs

• An induction programme for Kent’s two MAPPA Lay Advisers has been completed and a
structure put in place to support any further training as required

• A training strategy has been developed which has led to the delivery of both Risk of Harm and
Care Planning Approach training to probation staff and general MAPPA training to health staff

16 17
MAPPA Main Report 2006-7 2/10/07 13:51 Page 18

The role of the Senior Probation Kent & Sussex Prison Service
Officer for MAPPA Area
the offenders regarded as the “critical few” in In the last year prisons have been operating in
Kent, representing the highest level of a challenging environment, managing a
imminent and significant risk of harm. The great considerable programme of change whilst
benefit of working closely with the Detective responding to the pressures arising from the
Chief Inspector is the wide range of experience increase in the prison population. Staff working
and expertise both roles bring. The different in our prisons have remained deeply committed
perspectives of the criminal justice process, to ensuring that appropriate consideration is
with the senior detective’s wide experience of given to public safety both during the period of
investigating and prosecuting serious sexual custody and at the point of return to the
and violent offenders and the SPOs extensive community and this has been foremost in our
knowledge of managing and rehabilitating thinking, as we have sought to manage those
convicted offenders creates a unique pressures. Indeed, these pressures serve to
opportunity to understand, challenge and reinforce the importance of maintaining robust
manage risk to a level never seen before in systems to manage risk.
public service. At the conclusion of each panel
agreement will be reached by all the agencies Our procedures are regularly reviewed by
that have a duty to co-operate to expedite national and local teams to ensure that we use
effective and focussed risk management plans. all available risk information when planning
The past year has seen changes in the role of participated in a lengthy treatment programme,
offenders sentences, enabling us to provide
the Senior Probation Officer for MAPPA in that we were able to ensure that the specialist
Other responsibilities of the SPO include: both a programme of activities likely to reduce
it is now a specific position focussing solely on treatment facilitators attended. This meant that
risk and appropriate management strategies to
MAPPA responsibilities, rather than a wider set • An overview of the Level 2 they were able to interpret his progress and
ensure that public safety is not compromised.
of public protection issues. The role arrangements (which are currently advise on issues under discussion. The
We have been particularly vigilant to ensure
incorporates working alongside the Detective undergoing a review to further refine contribution of these staff helped inform a
consistency across the county) that our partners in MAPPA are consulted at
Chief Inspector with responsibility for Public tactical approach to implementing release
key decision making points in the resettlement
Protection. • Presentations to senior professional plans agreed through the MAPPP.
bodies and Kent magistrates process, and have enjoyed close relationships,
which have enhanced the risk assessment
This shift in focus has been underpinned by the • Preparations for training programmes We ensure that we have systems in place in
to newly-qualified officers and other process in the period leading up to release.
expertise and professionalism of the previous order to maintain high standards in this
Chairs, who have provided a model of agencies important area of work, which include ensuring
• Integration with public protection Prisons within the area have contributed to
excellence since MAPPAs inception. These that we learn lessons from any investigations,
measures undertaken by Kent prisons strengthening release plans through
developments continue to reflect both the reports or inquiries which impact upon this area
• Liaison with social services over the contributing to MAPPA meetings. The
increasing responsibility involved in overseeing of work.
strengthening of child safeguarding information that we are able to share results
these arrangements in Kent and the
measures from considerable contact and familiarity with
importance with which Kent Police and Kent Laura Hird
individual offenders, which means we are often
Probation Area view this area of joint work. Kent & Sussex Area Risk Management
The principle of continuous improvement in able to contribute in a unique way to the
Co-ordinator, HM Prison Service
order to maximise public protection is seen arrangements. We aim to ensure that our
The Senior Probation Officer co-chairs the
by Kent MAPPA to be the ultimate aim. representative at these meetings is familiar with
Level 3 multi-agency panels with the Detective
the case under discussion, for example, in the
Chief Inspector for Public Protection. These
Jane Knight case of one particular sex offender who had
panels take place every week, the purpose of
which is to gather and update information on SPO for MAPPA, Kent Probation Area

18 19
MAPPA Main Report 2006-7 2/10/07 13:51 Page 20

MAPPA and the Forensic Mental Mental health services have an important role in contributing to the risk assessment and management
of mentally disordered offenders and mental health input can assist in formulating more accurate and
more effective risk assessment, aiding risk management. Therefore engagement of mental health
Health Services services in MAPPA is viewed as an important aspect of health professionals’ working practices by the
Health Trust and the future participation in the process by such professionals will continue to be
The Kent Forensic Psychiatry Service and responsibilities and limitations placed on each encouraged and closely monitored.
Public Protection Unit have continued to work agency, allowing for more effective and efficient
in close liaison within the MAPPA arena. I have working, leading to improved risk management Dr Heather Simmons
continued to regularly attend Level 3 MAPPPs strategies. Locum Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, Kent Forensic Psychiatry Service
on a weekly basis, in my capacity as Sitting
Member of the Level 3 Multi-Agency Public Through my role I have actively participated in
Protection Panel and have been acting in this external events, having presented at the
role since October 2005. I attend all initial Level National MAPPA Conference in London in May
3 MAPPPs and attend subsequent follow up
MAPPPs where there are significant mental
2006, together with my MAPPA Co-Chair
colleagues and from that event I was asked to Kent Probation Board and MAPPA
health issues. This has amounted to an speak on mental health input into MAPPA at
As the lead member for public protection for the Kent Probation Board it is my responsibility, along with
attendance of between half to one full day a the West Midlands Annual MAPPA Conference
my colleagues, to ensure that the governance arrangements surrounding this crucial area are robust
week. in Birmingham, in November 2006.
and effective (from a probation perspective).
During this time I have given advice regarding One major issue that has been highlighted is In the course of undertaking my role I have attended a range of MAPPA meetings, including MAPPPs at
issues pertaining to mental health services the intermittent attendance at Level 2 and Level 3, which deal with those individuals whom we refer to as the ‘critical few’. In effect, these are the
within the Kent and Medway NHS and Social Level 3 MAPPPs from secondary mental health members of our society who present the greatest risk.
Care Partnership Trust, given advice on services. As this has been viewed as
In basic terms the MAPPA process, particularly at Level 3, involves representatives from the Probation
specific mental disorders, liaised with other unsatisfactory in light of the “duty to co-
Service, the Police and HM Prison Service meeting on a regular basis to discuss and act on the
psychiatric services and assisted in discussions operate” guidelines, the Chief Executive of the
behaviour of an offender whom they deem to be of sufficiently high risk to cause concern. Other
pertaining to the risk that offenders pose, Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care
organisations are also involved, where appropriate, such as accommodation providers and health
arranging for psychiatric risk assessments to Partnership Trust, organised four mandatory
professionals to name but two.
take place as deemed appropriate. training events for consultant psychiatrists and
senior mental health managers in early 2007, On a strategic level the MAPPA process has provided very real benefits in relation to the forging of
This close liaison has also allowed for the where I, together with MAPPA colleagues, closer working relationships with our partner agencies to the benefit of local communities. Such benefits
Health Services and Criminal Justice Services presented issues around public protection, include a greatly enhanced degree of information sharing which has improved exponentially over the
to learn more about each others working raising awareness of MAPPA and the role of last decade to the stage where today such high-risk offenders appear on everybody’s radar and are
practices, in terms of the respective roles, mental health in this process. managed accordingly.

Case Study of Offender J Public protection is of paramount importance to not only the Probation Service but also to our partners
in the Police and the Prison Service. The commitment demonstrated by the main stakeholders through
Offender J, a high-risk dangerous offender, has been managed effectively at MAPPA Level 2. In April 2006 he was
MAPPA illustrates how seriously all parties involved regard this issue. The supervision of high-risk
convicted for reckless arson and received a Community Order with a condition to receive mental health treatment.
He made threats to burn down a local accommodation provider, stating that voices were telling him to kill people. offenders is not by any means easy, nor is it failsafe. However, I firmly believe that MAPPA is one of
the resounding success stories of our criminal justice system.
In June Offender J made threats to kill his mental health social worker. A few days later he was evicted from his home
and took an overdose. In July he was sectioned under the conditions of the Mental Health Act, admitted to hospital and
later discharged. It has enabled those experts and professionals who deal with such offenders everyday to not only
provide an unparalleled level of protection to the public for as long as is necessary, but to do so in an
The day before a Level 2 MAPPA meeting was held, Offender J made threats to set fire to himself. He was later
arrested for breaching his order and an application was successfully made for revocation of the order. Offender J was environment which gives the offender every opportunity to rehabilitate, and so hopefully become a safer
re-sentenced to two years imprisonment, but he appealed and was re-sentenced to 10 days custody. and more productive member of society in the future.

Three days after another Level 2 MAPPA was held, Offender J was arrested for criminal damage and making threats
to kill council staff. He was remanded in custody. A psychiatrist recommended an Interim Hospital Order. In December Paul Sweeny
he was sentenced and transferred to a secure hospital in London. He has since attempted to attack staff and take Kent Probation Board Member
his own life.

20 21
MAPPA Main Report 2006-7 2/10/07 13:51 Page 22

The role of the Lay Advisers Victim Liaison Case Study of Offender G

In the autumn of 2005 Offender G was serving a four-

and MAPPA Since the Victims' Unit was set up in 2001 in

response to the statutory duty imposed upon
year sentence for reckless arson. She had set fire to
her ex-partner’s property with the intention of killing
him. Offender G, who suffered from mental health
Lay Advisers – what on earth do they do? Two years after our appointment, we still hear this at National the Probation Service, Kent's Victim Liaison and alcohol-related problems, had previously been
released on Licence, but was recalled in July 2005
Conferences, Strategic Management Board, Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel meetings (MAPPPs) Officers continue to make contact with the after making threats to burn down a relative’s house.
and during induction visits. Everyone with whom we come into contact is kind, helpful, supportive and victims of sexual and violent crime, where the Throughout her sentence she made threats to harm
informative and the role appears to be evolving of its own accord. offender/s are sentenced to 12 months or more her victim and his family and also threatened
probation staff.
in custody. The Victims Unit also take up a
During the last year, we have attended Lay Adviser conferences, Level 2 and 3 MAPPPs, Serious Case small number of discretionary cases where it is A Level 3 MAPPP was convened prior to her release
Reviews, visited Approved Premises and Prisons and these have all contributed to the learning curve in December 2005, at which plans were laid by
recognised there may be a significant risk of
representatives from Probation, the Prison Service,
and brought an understanding to us about the crucial roles which are undertaken by all those involved harm to the victim of the offence. The VLO will Kent Police, the Police from the county where the
in the MAPPA process. liaise with probation offender managers and offence took place and the Victim Liaison Officer.
Offender G was recalled to prison on the day she
through them the prisons, police public was released, due to her failure to report to
Whilst we are volunteers and give freely of our time, some expenses are inevitable, in Kent, this is protection officers and local housing officers. probation.
sourced by the Probation Service. The Prison Service alternates with Probation and Police in the
In May 2006 a Level 3 MAPPP was attended by the
provision of venues for holding the Strategic Management Board meetings and this has proved to be of Victims are offered contact by telephone or Fire Service in order for them to plan for the
benefit in financial terms for the Responsible Authorities, in accessibility for some attendees and as an face-to-face meetings within 56 days of protection of the victim and his family before
induction tool for the Lay Advisers. The issue of funding the Lay Adviser role centrally is yet to be sentence and the VLO can often learn more Offender G’s release. A psychiatric assessment
concluded that Offender G would require monitoring
resolved. about the offender's past and present by a Forensic Community Mental Health Team. She
behaviour than was initially known. This is was also diagnosed as suffering from an untreatable
We attended the National Lay Adviser Conference in February this year and were able to share ideas personality disorder.
especially valuable in dealing with the victims
and experiences with a wide number of representatives from every area of the MAPPA field. Probably of domestic abuse. Parole was denied in August 2006 and Offender G
the most valuable part of the programme was the workshops which were held, covering Child Sex was released without a Licence. The focus of the
Offender Review, Serious Case Reviews and Victim Awareness. We are looking forward to the MAPPP work was to ensure the safety of the victim
The work of the Unit focuses, in the main, in and his family, the family that had moved into the
summation of ideas put forward by delegates so that we may share them with our fellow Strategic keeping the victim's informed at key stages of property where the offence had taken place,
Management Board members. the offender's sentence and ensuring that the probation staff and premises and the community into
which Offender G was moving. Kent Police continued
victim's views are heard at these points. to visit her and monitor her progress.
Our warm appreciation and respect go to all those people who work so hard in the area of Public
Protection in Kent. The Victim Liaison Officers bring essential In January 2007 the case was referred back to Level
2 management and has been maintained at this level.
information to the MAPPA and are often the Offender G has not re-offended.
Janet White and Jacquie Corbyn representative in attendance with the most up
Lay Advisers for Kent to date information on the victim/s. This is
especially true when the offender is serving a
longer sentence.

In Kent there are VLOs still working with

families of murder victims, even though the
offence took place over 10 years ago.

Tracey Conelly
Victim Liaison Officer, Kent Probation Area

22 23
MAPPA Main Report 2006-7 2/10/07 13:51 Page 24

The Mentor A Mentor’s The role of the Public Protection

Unit perspective Officer on a Basic Command Unit
Mentors supporting MAPPA Offenders I see the role of mentor as benefiting all parties
A Basic Command Unit (BCU) is a Police area
involved and believe mentors are of immense within a Police Force. In April of 2006, Kent
During the past year the Mentor Unit has seen use in protecting the public. An example below Police had a major re-organisation and
an increase in the number of requests to shows the kind of outcome that a mentor can consolidated the work force from nine BCUs to
support high-risk offenders in the community, of achieve. six BCU areas. Those areas are North Kent,
100 referrals 10 were MAPPA Offenders. West Kent, Medway, Mid Kent, South Kent and
One of my offenders is a Level 3 MAPPA case East Kent.
The requests are generally to provide who was institutionalised to a large degree,
additional support for the individual, working in having had a history of offending stretching Within each of those areas, teams of Public
close conjunction with the other statutory back over the past twenty plus years. The Protection Officers work in the Special
MAPPA agencies. The mentor will be invited to longest he had stayed out of prison previously Investigation Unit (SIU). Each area will have a
attend the multi-agency meetings, where was approximately four weeks. My role as Detective Inspector, Detective Sergeant,
appropriate, which allows all agencies, mentor was to guide him on day-to-day issues Constables and administration support. Their
especially probation to have more of an insight and to question any statements that he made duties are varied from keeping records of the
into an offender’s lifestyle and to improve the that were derogatory or insulting to others. He Registered Sex Offenders (RSOs) to collating
response to changes in behaviour. and I struck up a good relationship with him and profiling persons subject to the MAPPA
accepting my reprimands when administered. I process, to carrying out actions generated from
Occasionally, because of limited resources, it was part of a team who managed to keep him Case Study of Offender N the Level 2 and Level 3 MAPPPs.
has been impossible to provide a mentor for out of prison for six months - a huge
Offender N is a Level 2 MAPPA case and a registered
every request, but for those officers who have achievement. His licence was due to finish and The Detective Inspector has overall strategic
sex offender. He was convicted of offences against
used the service it is seen to be an extremely he had nowhere to live. He did re-offend and eleven children and was sentenced to seven years responsibility for the effective running of the unit
valued and important service. was recalled to prison, but this was through the imprisonment for multiple indecent assaults. whilst the Detective Sergeant and Constables
commission of a relatively minor offence. My Probation and Police worked closely together to
carry out the day-to-day business. This includes
Below is evidence from an officer regarding a role as mentor to him will be ongoing upon his ensure that on release he had a comprehensive updating and managing information using
Licence in place, which included preventing him ViSOR (Violent and Sex Offender Register),
current difficult female offender, who unusually release from prison.
contacting known sex offenders and from visiting
has two mentors, one male, and one female: specified areas where schools were located. carrying out visits to RSOs homes and ensuring
It is my personal belief that this offender would Probation and Police joint home visits demonstrated the correct policing response is given, to events
to Offender N that the agencies were working closely
“Martin and Lynne are doing a sterling job, have offended in a much more violent and of concern, raised by the general public.
escorting and befriending Mrs. A. She enjoys abusive way if his values had not been
Concerns were raised when Offender N expressed There is an excellent working relationship with
the transportation and I think Martin's humour. challenged regularly. The offence committed
a wish to join the church, as he had met previous
They have also attended the GP surgery with was of a lesser nature than those committed victims at church. Excellent multi-agency work took
the other multi-agencies involved in the day-to-
Mrs. A and will support her in her move to a prior to my involvement. place between Probation, Church of England Child day management of MAPPA subjects. Public
Protection Officers and Police. This resulted in Protection Officers are skilled in the sharing of
Local Authority flat. It is early, however their Offender N signing a contract in which he agreed to
involvement has made supervision a much Martin Barrett abide by strict conditions within the church. information ensuring law on disclosure is upheld,
more productive process.” Mentor, Kent Probation Area however the protection of the public is
It later became apparent that he was forming a paramount.
relationship with a woman who had children. Through
Mags Greenway the work of the MAPPP Offender N was encouraged
to disclose his offences to this woman. As a result The role of the Public Protection Officer on the
Commissioning Services Resource Manager she decided not to continue with the relationship.
BCU continues to develop and the safety of the
Kent Probation Area
When Offender N’s Licence expired in November public remains a priority.
2006 a lengthy joint visit was conducted during
which he was firmly advised how to conduct himself.
Offender N continues to be monitored by the Police Derek Cuff
and has not re-offended. Detective Inspector – Operations Manager
Public Protection, Kent Police

24 25
MAPPA Main Report 2006-7 2/10/07 13:51 Page 26

The role of the Intelligence Case Study of Offender A

Offender A was convicted in May 2005 of Making and Possessing Indecent Images of Children. He was given a five
Analyst year extended sentence (two years custody with a three year extended Licence). He was also required to register
indefinitely on the Sex Offenders Register; was made subject to a 10-year Sexual Offences Prevention Order
(with a number of prohibitions); and was disqualified from working with children for life.
The Analyst role now plays a vital part in the management of persons subject to MAPPA. Detailed
analysis of information, intelligence and data, combined together in a report, timeline or other graphic Before he was released from prison in January 2006, a joint visit was made by Probation and the Police to discuss
housing, Licence conditions, Sex Offender Registration and child protection issues. He was also informed he would
presentation, as illustrated above, can assist and inform the MAPPA process.
be subject to Level 2 MAPPA procedures. On the day of release Offender A was displaying high anxiety leading Police
and Probation staff to jointly ensure that he was registered on the Sex Offenders Register.
Suspect One, who was subject to MAPPA, used chat rooms to target a single mum with two young
Offender A’s wife left him following sentencing, but had given birth to their first child prior to his conviction. Social
sons. By asking ‘innocent’ questions, he was able to identify her vulnerabilities and gained her trust. Services obtained an Interim Care Order in respect of the child, due to the mother’s changing attitude towards
Suspect One then offered to take the family on holiday. At the same time, he contacted a boy aged nine Offender A’s offences.
through the Internet chat rooms where he stated his name was Andy and that he was 11 years old. After
The agencies involved continued to share information throughout a series of Level 2 MAPPP meetings. Offender A
identifying what football team the young boy supported, ‘Andy’ arranged to meet the boy under the was at times obstructive, particularly during discussions about his attempts to have contact with his estranged wife
pretext that he supported the same football club. and child and during his attendance on the Sex Offender Treatment Programme. This behaviour resulted in him being
recalled to prison in November 2006.

Through intelligence gathering, it was identified that Suspect One had sent computer media to Thailand He is currently in custody and his housing association has applied for a repossession order in relation to his
where a known associate, Suspect Two, resided. Both Suspect One and Two were known to have accommodation. An exclusion order is also in place and an ASBO is being sought.
visited Cambodia.

A warrant was executed at Suspects One’s address and his computer was seized. Hundreds of emails
Lives were identified to show that Suspect One had been grooming families for a number of years. Further
Suspect 1 The Lane investigation was ongoing to identify any victims of sexual abuse, which included liaison with the Child
(aka Andy) Kent
Exploitation Online Protection Unit (CEOP) regarding Suspect Two and the identification of any images
found on Suspect One’s computer.
Visits Link Owns

Sent Claire Hayes and Christine Potts

discs Has
to Intelligence Analysts
Cambodia Thailand Disc Computer

Lives Emailed Link Link


Sent Emails
Link to
Suspect 2 Email Email Email Single Mum
(Sex Offender)

Sent Sons


Boy Age 3 Age 6

Aged 9


Rue De Ville
5 The Street France

26 27
MAPPA Main Report 2006-7 2/10/07 13:51 Page 28

Violent and Sex Offender Accommodation for MAPPA

Register (ViSOR) offenders
Fleming House Approved Premises and MAPPA in Kent
ViSOR Supervisor’s role:
Public Protection function:
The role of ViSOR Supervisor was created in preparation for the role out of ViSOR in Kent on the 21st
Fleming House Approved Premises is the only Home Office Approved Premises in the county. Approved
February 2005. The position sits within the Special Investigation Unit at Police Headquarters in
Premises aim to enable offender’s successful community resettlement within a supervised environment.
Maidstone, reporting to the Head of Public Protection for Kent Police.
Without Approved Premises there would be no facilities, nor the potential for intervention by trained
probation staff, for men and women posing a potential risk to society upon leaving prison.
The ViSOR Supervisor undertakes quality checks of the information held, monitoring the updating and
quality of data and highlighting deficiencies in record completion. It is imperative that information held
In Kent, Fleming House Approved Premises plays a significant and vital role in the ongoing risk
within ViSOR is accurate, relevant and up to date in accordance with Data Protection and Human
assessment and risk management of high/very high-risk offenders for the Area. Fleming House
Rights legislation.
Approved Premises considers referrals for all offence types on the merits of the individual and the need
for public protection. Placement of an offender at Fleming House Approved Premises is required to take
One of the main roles of the ViSOR Supervisor is to provide guidance and where required, tuition and
into account victim/s wishes thereby enhancing victim protection.
assistance in the use of the system to all of its 85 users, identifying, developing and disseminating best
practice policies as appropriate.
Fleming House Approved Premises provides 24 hour staff cover and accommodation for up to twenty-
five adult males subject to Bail, Community Orders and post custody Licence as well as those
ViSOR is capable of performing searches across nearly all of its data parameters. This enables the
individuals who are being Released on Temporary Licence (ROTL). The hostel has partial disability
ViSOR Supervisor to respond to requests to interrogate the system in respect of major investigations on
access and can accommodate one resident with restricted mobility. Offenders living at Fleming House
behalf of the Force and liaise with investigating officers to provide a more comprehensive investigation.
Approved Premises must adhere to a range of restrictive measures under Hostel Rules including a
ViSOR has been used on several occasions during the previous two years to assist in attempt
curfew from 23.00 – 07.30. Failure to do so can be treated as a breach of sentence.
abduction, serious sexual assault and rape enquiries.
Multi-Agency Public Protection Panels:
The ViSOR Supervisor maintains a central overview of the quality of records as well as the transfer of
Referrals from Offender Managers both within and out of Kent provide us with the opportunity to engage
records in and out of the force and all records that require merging or archiving in accordance with local
in the MAPPP process both pre and post release as well as contributing to the overall risk management
plan. Fleming House Approved Premises contributes to all Level 2 and Level 3 MAPPP meetings for
resident offenders. In addition to written progress reports provided by the allocated keyworker/Assistant
ViSOR is being continually enhanced and changes are made to the system approximately every two
Manager for each Level 2 and Level 3 MAPPP, Fleming House Approved Premises aims to participate
months. The ViSOR Supervisor participates in a Regional User Group and represents the South East
either in person (for Level 3 meetings) or via video link/telephone conferencing (for Level 2 residents/
Region at the National Change Management Group to discuss policy, current issues and future
incoming referrals) where possible.
enhancements to the system.

ViSORs role within MAPPA: Case Study of Offender W

Offender W is a high-risk violent offender. He was convicted of armed robbery and has a heroin addiction.
ViSOR supports the MAPPA process by providing up to date, relevant and accurate information and
intelligence to all enquirers. ViSOR is a management tool for Violent, Dangerous and Sex Offenders Offender W was released on licence from prison in March 2006, subject to Level 2 MAPPA. There were no indications
that he would not comply with his Licence, but he failed to keep a probation supervision appointment in April, leading
that promotes quality intelligence gathering that is available for use within the MAPPA arena. to the alert being raised and recall procedures being instigated.

Investigations revealed that he had left the country for Thailand. The ports and airport authorities were notified that
ViSOR provides a chronological history of a subjects history of offending, intelligence gathered, risk
he was wanted. Because of this notification, in August 2006 Heathrow Police contacted the Public Protection Officer
assessment and risk management plans that builds a full and robust package that is available to in the case to try and ascertain if the person they were holding was Offender W.
authorised personnel.
The police shared the passport photo of the man they were holding with his Probation Officer, who identified the
person as Offender W. He was arrested and returned to prison. He had not committed any further offences whilst
Dan Noon at large.
ViSOR Supervisor, Kent Police

28 29
MAPPA Main Report 2006-7 2/10/07 13:51 Page 30

Risk Management and sentence planning:

A Fleming House ‘Risk Management and Sentence Plan’ (RMSP) is completed on all residents and HOPE and MAPPA
includes a plan of what Fleming House will aim to achieve in reducing risk, as well as contingency
measures should risks escalate. Such measures are often made in collaboration with the Police via the HOPE now receives applications for accommodation for many more high risk and potentially dangerous
MAPPP. Risk Strategy Action Plans decided upon at the MAPPP inform practice and guide staff in offenders. The safety of our staff, existing residents and the local community will always be a high a
monitoring, recording and sharing information with MAPPA agencies regarding any increase or priority in making decisions on accepting high-risk people but the knowledge that we have the backing
decrease in the identified risks posed. of the other agencies involved in MAPPA aids the decision making.

Partnership working: An invitation to join either a level 2 or 3 MAPPA at an early stage ensures that HOPE staff are involved
Over the years, Fleming House Approved Premises has established a close and positive working with all the other agencies in the plans for risk management. Staff are able to feed in information on the
relationship with Kent Police. Surveillance and monitoring of residents behaviour is integral to our work suitability of a particular location and on the other residents living in the project. The process ensures
and any intelligence information is passed on to Public Protection Officers. Police Liaison meetings are
that we have all the information we need to be able to work with an individual and to be aware of victim
held at Fleming House Approved Premises every week and Public Protection Officers from the
issues and restrictions on movements. Once a person is accommodated with HOPE the local police are
Maidstone Public Protection Unit attend. At these meetings risk information is shared between Kent
aware of their location and can monitor as appropriate. We give and receive regular feedback on their
Probation Area and Kent Police and formally recorded.
progress and we are involved in decisions on the next stage, which can help us in moving high-risk
Tina Hughes people on.
Deputy Manager, Kent Approved Premises
We are confident that working within the MAPPA process helps us in our work and contributes to the
safety of the public.
Case Study of Offender C

Offender C had initially been convicted of robbery and assault and had been recalled on Licence in December 2005 for Jackie Milne
being aggressive and abusive to Approved Premises staff. He was managed at Level 3 due to concerns that, among Director, HOPE
other things, he would not be prepared to live in a hostel on release and that he would breach his Licence intentionally
in order to be recalled, so that he could complete his sentence and not be subject to probation supervision upon

As a result, MAPPA agencies worked unstintingly to put in place rigorous Licence Conditions including an exclusion
Supporting People and the
zone preventing him from entering the area where his victim lived; measures to protect individuals identified as at
possible risk; and attempted to secure accommodation at an Approved Premises. He was also required to attend a
programme to address his drug misuse.
Strategic Management Board
In preparation for Offender C’s parole hearing, his Probation Offender Manager attempted to secure the required
accommodation. Every avenue was explored, including applying to the Home Office to accept him as a Critical Public
Protection Case who required additional resources. This was refused. Due to his risk to staff, the Approved Premises at
which he had been living was not prepared to accommodate him again, nor were more than twenty other Approved Supporting People membership of the Strategic Management Board reflects the crucial role
Premises. Other independent accommodation providers were approached but all refused to house him.
that supported housing plays in the resettlement and management of high-risk offenders. No
On release in September 2006 Offender C was finally placed with a local accommodation provider and was single stakeholder in the MAPPA partnership can address the challenges of managing high-risk
electronically tagged. By mid-October he was progressing well and had not violated the tag. However, in November
2006 he was recalled to prison for his part in a drug-related robbery committed outside the curfew hours of his tag. He offenders alone.
pleaded guilty and in March 2007 he received a Public Protection Sentence, requiring him to serve twenty-seven
months before Parole can be considered.
Membership of the Strategic Management Board ensures that Supporting People is aware of
local arrangements in effectively managing high-risk offenders and the processes involved.
Sharing information and data with members of the Board allows for improved strategic planning
for support services once high-risk offenders are discharged to living in the community.

30 31
MAPPA Main Report 2006-7 2/10/07 13:51 Page 32

Whilst Supporting People is not a duty to co – operate agency, the programme commissions and funds
housing – related support services, which are an important component of resettling high risk offenders Kent Adult Social Services
in the community and assists in the delivery of a range of wider central and local government initiatives:
• Reducing crime
KASS fully recognises the importance of public protection and the proper management of risk through
• Reducing re – offending MAPPA. This is acknowledged through our annual business plan. The Director of Operations represents
• Preventing homelessness the directorate on the MAPPA Strategic Management Board.

Whilst Supporting People does not fund work with offenders which fulfils a statutory function, enforces KASS has a wide-ranging set of responsibilities to adults over the age of 18. The implications of recent
specific requirements of a court order or offers care or therapy, the programme can contribute to helping health and social care legislation are for more people with support needs to be living in the community.
high-risk offenders access and manage stable accommodation that: We have specific responsibilities to safeguard vulnerable adults from abuse and our involvement in the
MAPPP process facilitates this.
• Reduces the risk of re – offending and promotes community safety
• Allows high-risk offenders to engage in regular and intensive programmes of KASS staff attend local MAPPP meetings when they are advised by police or probation that risk issues
supervision and treatment aimed at reducing their criminal behaviours have been identified for vulnerable adults. In addition where KASS staff become aware, through the
• Allows Police and Probation to monitor and supervise such offenders and adult protection process, of a person who poses a risk to children or vulnerable adults they will liaise
thereby improves the management of risk with the police public protection team. KASS engagement in the MAPPP process aims to manage the
perceived risk to vulnerable adults who may or may not already be known to Social Services.
Ute Vann, Policy & Strategy Officer
Supporting People Team Steve Leidecker, Director of Operations
Kent Adult Social Services

Case Study of Offender M

Offender M was sentenced to a three year Community Order and made subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order
for a number of sexual offences against children.

Police, Probation and Social Services were actively involved in the case and shared information within the MAPPA
arena. Offender M’s son, who was eight years old at the time of the offence, was placed on the Child Protection
Register. Offender M’s wife was then referred to a therapeutic project in order to gain an insight into her husbands
attraction to children and to assist her to protect her son.

Offender M’s offending behaviour and lack of victim empathy was addressed by his attendance on the Sex Offender
Treatment Programme run by Kent Probation Area.

Within MAPPA, Police staff have been actively involved in undertaking joint visits with Probation, single agency visits
and have fully explained the SOPO conditions to Offender M when the potential existed for a minor breach. All the
agencies have worked well together and Offender M has not re-offended.

32 33
MAPPA Main Report 2006-7 2/10/07 13:51 Page 34

Kent Probation Area Address Phone

Alan Dowie Kent Area Office, Chaucer House 01622 350820
Director, Offender Management 25 Knightrider Street Maidstone
Kent ME15 6ND
Jane Knight Kent Police Headquarters 01622 650457
Senior Probation Officer for MAPPA Sutton Road Maidstone
Kent ME15 9BZ
Jeanette Edgar Medway Probation Office 01634 849284
MAPPA Strategy & Services 27-35 New Road Chatham
Kent ME4 4QQ

Kent Area Prisons Address Phone

Laura Hird Kent Area Office 01634 673000
Kent and Sussex Area 80 Sir Evelyn Road
Risk Management Co-ordinator Rochester Kent ME1 3NF
Martha Blom-Cooper 01634 673000
Head of Reducing Re-offending Team

Kent Police Address Phone

Lee Catling Kent Police Headquarters 01622 690690
Detective Superintendent Public Protection Unit
Head of Public Protection Sutton Road
and Case Review Maidstone Kent ME15 9BZ
Paul Fotheringham 01622 690690
Detective Chief Inspector
Public Protection Unit
Emma Chiffey 01622 690690
Public Protection Officer, Policy and Procedure
Public Protection Unit
Sara DeFroand and Tracy Gain 01622 690690
MAPPA Administrators
Public Protection Unit

34 35
MAPPA Main Report 2006-7 2/10/07 13:51 Page 36