MAPPA Main Report 2006-7



Page 1

Annual Report 2006-2007

Protecting the public in Kent

MAPPA Main Report 2006-7



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



MAPPA Main Report 2006-7



Page 4

Joint foreword to Kent Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) Annual Report 2006/2007
We are pleased to welcome you to our sixth annual report. Although Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) are still relatively new, the level of co-operation and information sharing that now exists between the police, probation and prison services (collectively known as the Responsible Authority for MAPPA) is extremely impressive and highly co-ordinated. These arrangements cover all known offenders assessed as posing a particular risk to others, both in prison and in the community. MAPPA is not a separately funded organisation, but rather the way the agencies work together in order to maximise public protection. This agreement between police, probation, prisons and other agencies including health, housing, social services, education, Youth Offending Teams, Jobcentre Plus and electronic monitoring providers, to 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 action plans with which to manage violent and sex offenders. Another reason for the success of MAPPA is that these organisations often go beyond their minimum responsibilities and actively participate in the conferences held to manage MAPPA cases.

Ministerial foreword
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. 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 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 sets out a programme of actions which include developing the use of drug treatment for sex offenders and piloting the use of compulsory polygraph testing as a risk management tool, enhancements to the regime operating at Approved Premises, and also a range of actions impacting directly upon the way the MAPPA work. I want to highlight two of them here. Firstly, research tells us that the arrangements are already used successfully to disclose information about dangerous offenders but we think this can be improved upon. MAPPA agencies will be required to consider disclosure in every case. We will pilot a scheme where parents will be able to register a childprotection interest in a named individual with whom they have a personal relationship and who has regular unsupervised access to their child. If that person has convictions for child sex offences and the child is at risk, there will be a presumption that the offences will be disclosed to the parent. Secondly, as MAPPA has developed over the past 6 years, best practice models have been identified 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 consistent approach across Areas and we will be making available £1.2million to support Areas in 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
Chief Officer Kent Probation Area

Michael Fuller
Chief Constable Kent Police

Adrian Smith
Kent Area Manager HM Prison Service
Maria Eagle MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State




MAPPA Main Report 2006-7



Page 6

Across Kent and Medway, the risk posed by sexual and violent offenders is managed through a three-tier system based on the level of risk the offender presents. This system enables resources to be deployed to manage risk in the most efficient and effective manner in order to best protect the public.

Key achievements
During the year 2006/2007, the work of MAPPA has been further strengthened by: • The continued use of the Violent and Sex Offender Register (ViSOR). This database has strengthened the ability of Police to monitor offenders within Kent and share important information with other Forces around the country when necessary The appointment of a dedicated Senior Probation Officer to drive forward the ongoing development of MAPPA within Kent The continued inclusion of a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist at Level 3 Multi Agency Public Protection Panels. This continues to be incredibly beneficial to the MAPPA process and allows the meetings to be fully informed regarding mental health issues The continued use of Police Intelligence Analysts to map offender’s contacts A strengthened Strategic Management Board which includes representation from more key agencies

MAPPA levels and categories
LEVEL 3: Multi Agency Public Protection Panels (MAPPP)
This level is predominantly to manage offenders assessed as posing the highest risk - known as the “critical few”. They are managed by Multi Agency Public Protection Panels (MAPPP) consisting of senior officers from the required agencies working together because of the complexity of the case and/or the unusual resource commitments required. Offenders who pose a low risk may also be managed at this level due to the likelihood of media/public interest.

LEVEL 2: Local Inter-agency Risk Management
This level is used where multi-agency involvement through MAPPPs is required, but where the level of risk is not so great as to require a referral to Level 3.Cases may be referred to Level 2 from Level 3 when, for example, the seriousness of risk or complexity has diminished.

Level of Risk Management
Generally speaking, the higher the assessed level of risk, the higher the level of management required. The level at which a case is managed is dependent upon the nature of the risk and how it can be best managed. 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.

LEVEL 1: Single Agency Risk Management
These are cases in which the risks posed can be managed by one agency without significant involvement from other agencies. These offenders will generally be assessed as posing a low or medium risk of harm. The vast majority of MAPPA cases are managed at this level.



MAPPA Main Report 2006-7



Page 8

How the MAPPA operate locally
During the year April 2006 to March 2007 a total of 205 Level 3 conferences were convened for the 49 very high risk and dangerous offenders. Those offenders that the government describes as the “critical few”. This number includes the offenders already within the MAPPA Arrangements, from 2005/06, who continued to be managed in 2006/07.

MAPPA Category 2 – Violent/Other Sex Offender
The offenders in this category are defined as those who have committed an offence within Schedule 15 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) and who receive one or more of the following disposals from the court: • • • • • • 12 months or more imprisonment 12 months or more detention in a young offender institution A sentence of detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure A sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 CJA 2003 A sentence of detention for a period of 12 months or more under section 91 of the Sentencing Act (offenders under 18 convicted of certain serious offences) A sentence of detention under section 228 CJA 2003 A detention and training order of 12 months or more A hospital or guardianship order within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983 (c.20) Found not guilty by a court in England or Wales by reason of insanity Found to be under a disability and to have committed the act charged against him/her

Tasking and Co-ordination Group
This group meets weekly to assess referrals to Level 3 MAPPA to ensure they meet the criteria, and is comprised of: • • • • • Area Manager/MAPPA Strategy and Services Kent Probation Area Senior Probation Officer for MAPPA Kent Probation Area Detective Chief Inspector, Kent Police – Special Investigation Unit (SIU) Kent Police Special Investigation Unit Analysts Police and Probation MAPPA administrators

• • • •

MAPPA Categories
MAPPA Category 1 - Registered Sex Offender
All Registered Sex Offenders (RSOs) are subject to MAPPA. Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 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 sentence for a like offence. RSOs remain subject to MAPPA for the period they are required to register. This is determined by the sentence received for the qualifying offence or by the presence of a civil order attracting a requirement to register, for example a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO). 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 of serious harm has diminished sufficiently, the offender should be de-registered from MAPPA.

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 for a qualifying offence. This category is not retrospective pre 1st April 2001. 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, unless there is no longer a risk of serious harm.

MAPPA Category 3 – Other Offenders
These are offenders who are not included in Categories 1 or 2 but who are considered to pose a risk of causing serious harm to the public or an individual. This category is not defined by specific offences. The identification of these offenders is dependent upon the judgement of, and the risk assessment undertaken by, the agency involved in agreement with the Responsible Authorities (i.e. Police, Probation and Prison Service – see Joint Foreword). To be included in this category an adult offender must be convicted or formally cautioned and juveniles 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.



MAPPA Main Report 2006-7



Page 10

Key measures Which reduce the risk posed by offenders in the community, are: • • • • • • • • • Completion of programmes that address the causes of offending behaviour Controls on behaviour, which are added to licences or orders Recall to prison if licences are breached Intensive supervision by probation offender manager and/or police public protection officer The use of covert police surveillance Contingency plans and rapid response arrangements made with the local police Ensuring offenders receive appropriate mental health care Ensuring offenders are living in suitable accommodation Support networks involving voluntary agencies and sometimes the offender’s family

Managing the risk 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 opportunity to impose restrictive and rigorously enforced conditions. A post-release licence may contain a variety of conditions tailored to manage the risk posed by that individual offender. Kent Probation Area contributes towards this through a range of accredited programmes, including the provision of the Thames Valley Sex Offender Groupwork Programme (TVSOGP), delivered by experienced and specifically trained probation officers and a Forensic Psychologist. The key elements of this work include: • • • • • • • Risk assessment and management 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 and active responsibility for their offending behaviour Addressing a lack of social competence associated with sexual offending Development of effective relapse prevention strategies Individual work and support by the probation offender manager Liaising with the police and other appropriate agencies to gather and share information

Critical to rigorous risk assessment is the collating and sharing of all information. This leads to informed decision making about the management of risk. This is regularly reviewed to ensure that any variation in the offender’s risk status is reflected in a dynamic Risk Management Plan. 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 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

• • • •



MAPPA Main Report 2006-7



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 ‘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. 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 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 safety in Kent.

MAPPA Annual Report statistical information
Required for the reporting period 1st APRIL 2006 - 31st MARCH 2007 1. Category 1 MAPPA offenders: Registered Sex Offenders (RSO) i) The total number of RSOs living in Kent on 31st March 2007. Table showing the RSOs broken down into areas. Total 983 BCU (Basic Command Unit) East Kent Medway Mid Kent North Kent South Kent West Kent 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 RSO 191 186 188 92 191 135

Examples of the agencies involved in MAPPA • • • • • • • • • • • • Kent Probation Area Kent Police Kent and Sussex Area Prisons Kent County Council (Education, Social Services) Medway Council (Housing and Children’s Services) Supporting People Kent Youth Offending Service Medway Youth Offending Service Victim Support Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust Medway Cyrenians Kent Policy and Planning Group & Kent Housing Group

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 and 31st March 2007. (a) (b) (c) 57 1 55

iv) The number of (a) Notification Orders applied for (b) interim Notification Orders granted and (c) full Notification Orders imposed by the courts in Kent between 1st April 2006 and 31st March 2007. (a) (b) (c) 1 0 1

v) The number of Foreign Travel Orders (a) applied for and (b) imposed by the courts in Kent between 1st April 2006 and 31st March 2007. (a) (b) 1 0



MAPPA Main Report 2006-7



Page 14


Category 2 MAPPA offenders: Violent offenders and Other Sex offenders (V&OS)

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. Total 3. Category 3 MAPPA offenders: Other Offenders (OthO) 449

Comment on MAPPA Annual Report statistical information
The total number of Registered Sex Offenders living in Kent has increased slightly on last years figure. The main reason for the increase is due to the improved detection, prosecution and conviction of those responsible for these offences. There has been a sharp rise in the figure for the number of Category 3 MAPPA offenders living in the county. This change is thought to be due to the increased knowledge that comes from the training delivered in relation to MAPPA, which in turn has led to better identification and referral of Category 3 offenders to the MAPPA process. The number of Level 2 and Level 3 offenders charged with a serious sexual or violent offence has 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 2 or 3 who is charged with a relevant offence is included, regardless of whether they were under Probation supervision at the time. Tracy Gain MAPPA Administrator

vii) The number of ‘other offenders’ (as defined by Section 325 (2)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act (2003)) between 1st April 2006 and 31st March 2007. Total 82 4. Offenders managed though Level 3 MAPPA (Countywide) & Level 2 MAPPA (local inter-agency management)

viii) Identify how many 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 2006 and 31st March 2007. Cat.1 (RSO) Level 2 Level 3 179 25 Cat.2 (Violent) 250 17 Cat.3 (Other) 75 7

Strategic Management Board
ix) Of the cases managed at levels 3 or 2 (i.e. (viii)) between 1st April 2006 and 31st March 2007, how many, whilst managed at that level: (a) Were returned to custody for a breach of licence? (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? (a) 30 7 (b) 6 1 (c) 2 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 The Strategic Management Board has continued to develop its membership to promote the 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 members. We have commissioned an audit of the local MAPPA Level 2 panels to identify best practice and promote consistency across Kent and Medway. In accordance with the Strategic Plan, we have developed a process for conducting Serious Case Reviews, which focuses on learning and improvement.

Level 2 Level 3



MAPPA Main Report 2006-7



Page 16

Kent MAPPA Business Plan 2007/08
Key aims of the Business Plan 2007-08

Progress against MAPPA Business Plan 2006/07
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 the role of the Strategic Management Board and its structure Established a process for conducting Serious Case Reviews 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

• MAPPA development strategy • To develop and improve MAPPA in line with new national guidance. • •

Monitoring and evaluating strategy Monitoring and evaluation • To maintain and improve performance monitoring to better demonstrate effectiveness and identify best practice. • • Communication and strategic partnerships strategy • To improve public confidence through the promotion of greater understanding of MAPPA. The Strategic Management Board receives quarterly information aligned to the annual reporting requirements in order to gain an overview of performance and to identify necessary changes The Strategic Management Board is able to identify strengths and areas in need of improvement through a system of monitoring and reporting from Serious Further Offence reviews and Serious Case Reviews

Communication and strategic partnerships • • 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 The links between MAPPA and Priority and Persistent Offender initiatives have been reviewed Latest information and statistics continue to be conveyed to the public via the publication of an annual report

Training needs • To develop a comprehensive training strategy for staff of all agencies 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



MAPPA Main Report 2006-7



Page 18

The role of the Senior Probation Officer for MAPPA
the offenders regarded as the “critical few” in Kent, representing the highest level of imminent and significant risk of harm. The great benefit of working closely with the Detective Chief Inspector is the wide range of experience and expertise both roles bring. The different perspectives of the criminal justice process, with the senior detective’s wide experience of investigating and prosecuting serious sexual and violent offenders and the SPOs extensive knowledge of managing and rehabilitating convicted offenders creates a unique opportunity to understand, challenge and manage risk to a level never seen before in public service. At the conclusion of each panel agreement will be reached by all the agencies that have a duty to co-operate to expedite effective and focussed risk management plans. Other responsibilities of the SPO include: • An overview of the Level 2 arrangements (which are currently undergoing a review to further refine consistency across the county) Presentations to senior professional bodies and Kent magistrates Preparations for training programmes to newly-qualified officers and other agencies Integration with public protection measures undertaken by Kent prisons Liaison with social services over the strengthening of child safeguarding measures

Kent & Sussex Prison Service Area
In the last year prisons have been operating in a challenging environment, managing a considerable programme of change whilst responding to the pressures arising from the increase in the prison population. Staff working in our prisons have remained deeply committed to ensuring that appropriate consideration is given to public safety both during the period of custody and at the point of return to the community and this has been foremost in our thinking, as we have sought to manage those pressures. Indeed, these pressures serve to reinforce the importance of maintaining robust systems to manage risk. Our procedures are regularly reviewed by national and local teams to ensure that we use all available risk information when planning offenders sentences, enabling us to provide both a programme of activities likely to reduce risk and appropriate management strategies to ensure that public safety is not compromised. We have been particularly vigilant to ensure that our partners in MAPPA are consulted at key decision making points in the resettlement process, and have enjoyed close relationships, which have enhanced the risk assessment process in the period leading up to release. Prisons within the area have contributed to strengthening release plans through contributing to MAPPA meetings. The information that we are able to share results from considerable contact and familiarity with individual offenders, which means we are often able to contribute in a unique way to the arrangements. We aim to ensure that our representative at these meetings is familiar with the case under discussion, for example, in the case of one particular sex offender who had

The past year has seen changes in the role of the Senior Probation Officer for MAPPA in that it is now a specific position focussing solely on MAPPA responsibilities, rather than a wider set of public protection issues. The role incorporates working alongside the Detective Chief Inspector with responsibility for Public Protection. This shift in focus has been underpinned by the expertise and professionalism of the previous Chairs, who have provided a model of excellence since MAPPAs inception. These developments continue to reflect both the increasing responsibility involved in overseeing these arrangements in Kent and the importance with which Kent Police and Kent Probation Area view this area of joint work. The Senior Probation Officer co-chairs the Level 3 multi-agency panels with the Detective Chief Inspector for Public Protection. These panels take place every week, the purpose of which is to gather and update information on

• •

participated in a lengthy treatment programme, we were able to ensure that the specialist treatment facilitators attended. This meant that they were able to interpret his progress and advise on issues under discussion. The contribution of these staff helped inform a tactical approach to implementing release plans agreed through the MAPPP. We ensure that we have systems in place in order to maintain high standards in this important area of work, which include ensuring that we learn lessons from any investigations, reports or inquiries which impact upon this area of work. Laura Hird Kent & Sussex Area Risk Management Co-ordinator, HM Prison Service

• •

The principle of continuous improvement in order to maximise public protection is seen by Kent MAPPA to be the ultimate aim. Jane Knight SPO for MAPPA, Kent Probation Area



MAPPA Main Report 2006-7



Page 20

MAPPA and the Forensic Mental Health Services
The Kent Forensic Psychiatry Service and Public Protection Unit have continued to work in close liaison within the MAPPA arena. I have continued to regularly attend Level 3 MAPPPs on a weekly basis, in my capacity as Sitting Member of the Level 3 Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel and have been acting in this role since October 2005. I attend all initial Level 3 MAPPPs and attend subsequent follow up MAPPPs where there are significant mental health issues. This has amounted to an attendance of between half to one full day a week. During this time I have given advice regarding issues pertaining to mental health services within the Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust, given advice on specific mental disorders, liaised with other psychiatric services and assisted in discussions pertaining to the risk that offenders pose, arranging for psychiatric risk assessments to take place as deemed appropriate. This close liaison has also allowed for the Health Services and Criminal Justice Services to learn more about each others working practices, in terms of the respective roles,
Case Study of Offender J Offender J, a high-risk dangerous offender, has been managed effectively at MAPPA Level 2. In April 2006 he was 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. 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. 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 re-sentenced to two years imprisonment, but he appealed and was re-sentenced to 10 days custody. 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 he was sentenced and transferred to a secure hospital in London. He has since attempted to attack staff and take his own life.

responsibilities and limitations placed on each agency, allowing for more effective and efficient working, leading to improved risk management strategies. Through my role I have actively participated in external events, having presented at the National MAPPA Conference in London in May 2006, together with my MAPPA Co-Chair colleagues and from that event I was asked to speak on mental health input into MAPPA at the West Midlands Annual MAPPA Conference in Birmingham, in November 2006. One major issue that has been highlighted is the intermittent attendance at Level 2 and Level 3 MAPPPs from secondary mental health services. As this has been viewed as unsatisfactory in light of the “duty to cooperate” guidelines, the Chief Executive of the Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust, organised four mandatory training events for consultant psychiatrists and senior mental health managers in early 2007, where I, together with MAPPA colleagues, presented issues around public protection, raising awareness of MAPPA and the role of mental health in this process.

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 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 encouraged and closely monitored. Dr Heather Simmons Locum Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, Kent Forensic Psychiatry Service

Kent Probation Board and MAPPA
As the lead member for public protection for the Kent Probation Board it is my responsibility, along with my colleagues, to ensure that the governance arrangements surrounding this crucial area are robust and effective (from a probation perspective). In the course of undertaking my role I have attended a range of MAPPA meetings, including MAPPPs at Level 3, which deal with those individuals whom we refer to as the ‘critical few’. In effect, these are the members of our society who present the greatest risk. In basic terms the MAPPA process, particularly at Level 3, involves representatives from the Probation Service, the Police and HM Prison Service meeting on a regular basis to discuss and act on the behaviour of an offender whom they deem to be of sufficiently high risk to cause concern. Other organisations are also involved, where appropriate, such as accommodation providers and health professionals to name but two. On a strategic level the MAPPA process has provided very real benefits in relation to the forging of closer working relationships with our partner agencies to the benefit of local communities. Such benefits include a greatly enhanced degree of information sharing which has improved exponentially over the last decade to the stage where today such high-risk offenders appear on everybody’s radar and are managed accordingly. 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 MAPPA illustrates how seriously all parties involved regard this issue. The supervision of high-risk 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. 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 environment which gives the offender every opportunity to rehabilitate, and so hopefully become a safer and more productive member of society in the future. Paul Sweeny Kent Probation Board Member



MAPPA Main Report 2006-7



Page 22

The role of the Lay Advisers and MAPPA
Lay Advisers – what on earth do they do? Two years after our appointment, we still hear this at National Conferences, Strategic Management Board, Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel meetings (MAPPPs) and during induction visits. Everyone with whom we come into contact is kind, helpful, supportive and informative and the role appears to be evolving of its own accord. During the last year, we have attended Lay Adviser conferences, Level 2 and 3 MAPPPs, Serious Case Reviews, visited Approved Premises and Prisons and these have all contributed to the learning curve and brought an understanding to us about the crucial roles which are undertaken by all those involved in the MAPPA process. Whilst we are volunteers and give freely of our time, some expenses are inevitable, in Kent, this is sourced by the Probation Service. The Prison Service alternates with Probation and Police in the provision of venues for holding the Strategic Management Board meetings and this has proved to be of benefit in financial terms for the Responsible Authorities, in accessibility for some attendees and as an induction tool for the Lay Advisers. The issue of funding the Lay Adviser role centrally is yet to be resolved. We attended the National Lay Adviser Conference in February this year and were able to share ideas and experiences with a wide number of representatives from every area of the MAPPA field. Probably the most valuable part of the programme was the workshops which were held, covering Child Sex Offender Review, Serious Case Reviews and Victim Awareness. We are looking forward to the summation of ideas put forward by delegates so that we may share them with our fellow Strategic Management Board members. Our warm appreciation and respect go to all those people who work so hard in the area of Public Protection in Kent. Janet White and Jacquie Corbyn Lay Advisers for Kent

Victim Liaison
Since the Victims' Unit was set up in 2001 in response to the statutory duty imposed upon the Probation Service, Kent's Victim Liaison Officers continue to make contact with the victims of sexual and violent crime, where the offender/s are sentenced to 12 months or more in custody. The Victims Unit also take up a small number of discretionary cases where it is recognised there may be a significant risk of harm to the victim of the offence. The VLO will liaise with probation offender managers and through them the prisons, police public protection officers and local housing officers. Victims are offered contact by telephone or face-to-face meetings within 56 days of sentence and the VLO can often learn more about the offender's past and present behaviour than was initially known. This is especially valuable in dealing with the victims of domestic abuse. The work of the Unit focuses, in the main, in keeping the victim's informed at key stages of the offender's sentence and ensuring that the victim's views are heard at these points. The Victim Liaison Officers bring essential information to the MAPPA and are often the representative in attendance with the most up 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

Case Study of Offender G In the autumn of 2005 Offender G was serving a fouryear 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 and alcohol-related problems, had previously been released on Licence, but was recalled in July 2005 after making threats to burn down a relative’s house. Throughout her sentence she made threats to harm her victim and his family and also threatened probation staff. A Level 3 MAPPP was convened prior to her release in December 2005, at which plans were laid by representatives from Probation, the Prison Service, Kent Police, the Police from the county where the offence took place and the Victim Liaison Officer. Offender G was recalled to prison on the day she was released, due to her failure to report to probation. In May 2006 a Level 3 MAPPP was attended by the Fire Service in order for them to plan for the protection of the victim and his family before Offender G’s release. A psychiatric assessment concluded that Offender G would require monitoring by a Forensic Community Mental Health Team. She was also diagnosed as suffering from an untreatable personality disorder. Parole was denied in August 2006 and Offender G was released without a Licence. The focus of the MAPPP work was to ensure the safety of the victim and his family, the family that had moved into the property where the offence had taken place, probation staff and premises and the community into which Offender G was moving. Kent Police continued to visit her and monitor her progress. In January 2007 the case was referred back to Level 2 management and has been maintained at this level. Offender G has not re-offended.



MAPPA Main Report 2006-7



Page 24

The Mentor Unit
Mentors supporting MAPPA Offenders During the past year the Mentor Unit has seen an increase in the number of requests to support high-risk offenders in the community, of 100 referrals 10 were MAPPA Offenders. The requests are generally to provide additional support for the individual, working in close conjunction with the other statutory MAPPA agencies. The mentor will be invited to attend the multi-agency meetings, where appropriate, which allows all agencies, especially probation to have more of an insight into an offender’s lifestyle and to improve the response to changes in behaviour. Occasionally, because of limited resources, it has been impossible to provide a mentor for every request, but for those officers who have used the service it is seen to be an extremely valued and important service. Below is evidence from an officer regarding a current difficult female offender, who unusually has two mentors, one male, and one female: “Martin and Lynne are doing a sterling job, escorting and befriending Mrs. A. She enjoys the transportation and I think Martin's humour. They have also attended the GP surgery with Mrs. A and will support her in her move to a Local Authority flat. It is early, however their involvement has made supervision a much more productive process.” Mags Greenway Commissioning Services Resource Manager Kent Probation Area

A Mentor’s perspective
I see the role of mentor as benefiting all parties involved and believe mentors are of immense use in protecting the public. An example below shows the kind of outcome that a mentor can achieve. One of my offenders is a Level 3 MAPPA case who was institutionalised to a large degree, having had a history of offending stretching back over the past twenty plus years. The longest he had stayed out of prison previously was approximately four weeks. My role as mentor was to guide him on day-to-day issues and to question any statements that he made that were derogatory or insulting to others. He and I struck up a good relationship with him accepting my reprimands when administered. I was part of a team who managed to keep him out of prison for six months - a huge achievement. His licence was due to finish and he had nowhere to live. He did re-offend and was recalled to prison, but this was through the commission of a relatively minor offence. My role as mentor to him will be ongoing upon his release from prison. It is my personal belief that this offender would have offended in a much more violent and abusive way if his values had not been challenged regularly. The offence committed was of a lesser nature than those committed prior to my involvement. Martin Barrett Mentor, Kent Probation Area

The role of the Public Protection Officer on a Basic Command Unit
A Basic Command Unit (BCU) is a Police area within a Police Force. In April of 2006, Kent Police had a major re-organisation and consolidated the work force from nine BCUs to six BCU areas. Those areas are North Kent, West Kent, Medway, Mid Kent, South Kent and East Kent. Within each of those areas, teams of Public Protection Officers work in the Special Investigation Unit (SIU). Each area will have a Detective Inspector, Detective Sergeant, Constables and administration support. Their duties are varied from keeping records of the Registered Sex Offenders (RSOs) to collating and profiling persons subject to the MAPPA process, to carrying out actions generated from the Level 2 and Level 3 MAPPPs. The Detective Inspector has overall strategic responsibility for the effective running of the unit whilst the Detective Sergeant and Constables carry out the day-to-day business. This includes updating and managing information using ViSOR (Violent and Sex Offender Register), carrying out visits to RSOs homes and ensuring the correct policing response is given, to events of concern, raised by the general public. There is an excellent working relationship with the other multi-agencies involved in the day-today management of MAPPA subjects. Public Protection Officers are skilled in the sharing of information ensuring law on disclosure is upheld, however the protection of the public is paramount. The role of the Public Protection Officer on the BCU continues to develop and the safety of the public remains a priority. Derek Cuff Detective Inspector – Operations Manager Public Protection, Kent Police

Case Study of Offender N Offender N is a Level 2 MAPPA case and a registered sex offender. He was convicted of offences against eleven children and was sentenced to seven years imprisonment for multiple indecent assaults. Probation and Police worked closely together to ensure that on release he had a comprehensive Licence in place, which included preventing him contacting known sex offenders and from visiting specified areas where schools were located. Probation and Police joint home visits demonstrated to Offender N that the agencies were working closely together. Concerns were raised when Offender N expressed a wish to join the church, as he had met previous victims at church. Excellent multi-agency work took place between Probation, Church of England Child Protection Officers and Police. This resulted in Offender N signing a contract in which he agreed to abide by strict conditions within the church. It later became apparent that he was forming a relationship with a woman who had children. Through the work of the MAPPP Offender N was encouraged to disclose his offences to this woman. As a result she decided not to continue with the relationship. When Offender N’s Licence expired in November 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 and has not re-offended.



MAPPA Main Report 2006-7



Page 26

The role of the Intelligence Analyst
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 presentation, as illustrated above, can assist and inform the MAPPA process. Suspect One, who was subject to MAPPA, used chat rooms to target a single mum with two young sons. By asking ‘innocent’ questions, he was able to identify her vulnerabilities and gained her trust. Suspect One then offered to take the family on holiday. At the same time, he contacted a boy aged nine through the Internet chat rooms where he stated his name was Andy and that he was 11 years old. After identifying what football team the young boy supported, ‘Andy’ arranged to meet the boy under the pretext that he supported the same football club. Through intelligence gathering, it was identified that Suspect One had sent computer media to Thailand where a known associate, Suspect Two, resided. Both Suspect One and Two were known to have visited Cambodia.

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 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. 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 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. Offender A’s wife left him following sentencing, but had given birth to their first child prior to his conviction. Social Services obtained an Interim Care Order in respect of the child, due to the mother’s changing attitude towards Offender A’s offences. The agencies involved continued to share information throughout a series of Level 2 MAPPP meetings. Offender A was at times obstructive, particularly during discussions about his attempts to have contact with his estranged wife and child and during his attendance on the Sex Offender Treatment Programme. This behaviour resulted in him being recalled to prison in November 2006. He is currently in custody and his housing association has applied for a repossession order in relation to his accommodation. An exclusion order is also in place and an ASBO is being sought.

Lives Suspect 1 (aka Andy) Visits Visits Sent discs to Cambodia Thailand Disc Computer Link Owns The Lane Kent

A warrant was executed at Suspects One’s address and his computer was seized. Hundreds of emails were identified to show that Suspect One had been grooming families for a number of years. Further investigation was ongoing to identify any victims of sexual abuse, which included liaison with the Child Exploitation Online Protection Unit (CEOP) regarding Suspect Two and the identification of any images found on Suspect One’s computer. Claire Hayes and Christine Potts Intelligence Analysts





Link Family Family

Link Suspect 2 (Sex Offender) Email Email Email

Sent Emails to Single Mum

Sent Email to Siblings


Boy Aged 9 Lives

Age 3

Age 6

5 The Street Northumberland

Rue De Ville Paris France



MAPPA Main Report 2006-7



Page 28

Violent and Sex Offender Register (ViSOR)
ViSOR Supervisor’s role: The role of ViSOR Supervisor was created in preparation for the role out of ViSOR in Kent on the 21st February 2005. The position sits within the Special Investigation Unit at Police Headquarters in Maidstone, reporting to the Head of Public Protection for Kent Police. 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 within ViSOR is accurate, relevant and up to date in accordance with Data Protection and Human Rights legislation. One of the main roles of the ViSOR Supervisor is to provide guidance and where required, tuition and assistance in the use of the system to all of its 85 users, identifying, developing and disseminating best practice policies as appropriate. ViSOR is capable of performing searches across nearly all of its data parameters. This enables the ViSOR Supervisor to respond to requests to interrogate the system in respect of major investigations on behalf of the Force and liaise with investigating officers to provide a more comprehensive investigation. ViSOR has been used on several occasions during the previous two years to assist in attempt abduction, serious sexual assault and rape enquiries. The ViSOR Supervisor maintains a central overview of the quality of records as well as the transfer of records in and out of the force and all records that require merging or archiving in accordance with local policy. ViSOR is being continually enhanced and changes are made to the system approximately every two months. The ViSOR Supervisor participates in a Regional User Group and represents the South East Region at the National Change Management Group to discuss policy, current issues and future enhancements to the system. ViSORs role within MAPPA: 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 that promotes quality intelligence gathering that is available for use within the MAPPA arena. ViSOR provides a chronological history of a subjects history of offending, intelligence gathered, risk assessment and risk management plans that builds a full and robust package that is available to authorised personnel. Dan Noon ViSOR Supervisor, Kent Police

Accommodation for MAPPA offenders
Fleming House Approved Premises and MAPPA in Kent Public Protection function: Fleming House Approved Premises is the only Home Office Approved Premises in the county. Approved Premises aim to enable offender’s successful community resettlement within a supervised environment. 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. In Kent, Fleming House Approved Premises plays a significant and vital role in the ongoing risk assessment and risk management of high/very high-risk offenders for the Area. Fleming House 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 into account victim/s wishes thereby enhancing victim protection. Fleming House Approved Premises provides 24 hour staff cover and accommodation for up to twentyfive adult males subject to Bail, Community Orders and post custody Licence as well as those individuals who are being Released on Temporary Licence (ROTL). The hostel has partial disability access and can accommodate one resident with restricted mobility. Offenders living at Fleming House Approved Premises must adhere to a range of restrictive measures under Hostel Rules including a curfew from 23.00 – 07.30. Failure to do so can be treated as a breach of sentence. Multi-Agency Public Protection Panels: Referrals from Offender Managers both within and out of Kent provide us with the opportunity to engage 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 Manager for each Level 2 and Level 3 MAPPP, Fleming House Approved Premises aims to participate either in person (for Level 3 meetings) or via video link/telephone conferencing (for Level 2 residents/ incoming referrals) where possible.
Case Study of Offender W Offender W is a high-risk violent offender. He was convicted of armed robbery and has a heroin addiction. 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 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 he was wanted. Because of this notification, in August 2006 Heathrow Police contacted the Public Protection Officer in the case to try and ascertain if the person they were holding was Offender W. 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 at large.



MAPPA Main Report 2006-7



Page 30

Risk Management and sentence planning: A Fleming House ‘Risk Management and Sentence Plan’ (RMSP) is completed on all residents and 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 MAPPP. Risk Strategy Action Plans decided upon at the MAPPP inform practice and guide staff in monitoring, recording and sharing information with MAPPA agencies regarding any increase or decrease in the identified risks posed. Partnership working: Over the years, Fleming House Approved Premises has established a close and positive working relationship with Kent Police. Surveillance and monitoring of residents behaviour is integral to our work and any intelligence information is passed on to Public Protection Officers. Police Liaison meetings are held at Fleming House Approved Premises every week and Public Protection Officers from the Maidstone Public Protection Unit attend. At these meetings risk information is shared between Kent Probation Area and Kent Police and formally recorded. Tina Hughes Deputy Manager, Kent Approved Premises

HOPE now receives applications for accommodation for many more high risk and potentially dangerous offenders. The safety of our staff, existing residents and the local community will always be a high a priority in making decisions on accepting high-risk people but the knowledge that we have the backing of the other agencies involved in MAPPA aids the decision making. An invitation to join either a level 2 or 3 MAPPA at an early stage ensures that HOPE staff are involved with all the other agencies in the plans for risk management. Staff are able to feed in information on the suitability of a particular location and on the other residents living in the project. The process ensures that we have all the information we need to be able to work with an individual and to be aware of victim issues and restrictions on movements. Once a person is accommodated with HOPE the local police are aware of their location and can monitor as appropriate. We give and receive regular feedback on their progress and we are involved in decisions on the next stage, which can help us in moving high-risk people on. 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 being aggressive and abusive to Approved Premises staff. He was managed at Level 3 due to concerns that, among 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 release. As a result, MAPPA agencies worked unstintingly to put in place rigorous Licence Conditions including an exclusion 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. 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 Premises. Other independent accommodation providers were approached but all refused to house him. On release in September 2006 Offender C was finally placed with a local accommodation provider and was 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 pleaded guilty and in March 2007 he received a Public Protection Sentence, requiring him to serve twenty-seven months before Parole can be considered.

Jackie Milne Director, HOPE

Supporting People and the Strategic Management Board (MAPPA)
Supporting People membership of the Strategic Management Board reflects the crucial role that supported housing plays in the resettlement and management of high-risk offenders. No single stakeholder in the MAPPA partnership can address the challenges of managing high-risk offenders alone. 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.



MAPPA Main Report 2006-7



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 in the community and assists in the delivery of a range of wider central and local government initiatives: • • • Reducing crime Reducing re – offending Preventing homelessness

Kent Adult Social Services (KASS) and MAPPA
KASS fully recognises the importance of public protection and the proper management of risk through MAPPA. This is acknowledged through our annual business plan. The Director of Operations represents the directorate on the MAPPA Strategic Management Board. KASS has a wide-ranging set of responsibilities to adults over the age of 18. The implications of recent health and social care legislation are for more people with support needs to be living in the community. We have specific responsibilities to safeguard vulnerable adults from abuse and our involvement in the MAPPP process facilitates this. KASS staff attend local MAPPP meetings when they are advised by police or probation that risk issues have been identified for vulnerable adults. In addition where KASS staff become aware, through the adult protection process, of a person who poses a risk to children or vulnerable adults they will liaise 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. Steve Leidecker, Director of Operations Kent Adult Social Services

Whilst Supporting People does not fund work with offenders which fulfils a statutory function, enforces specific requirements of a court order or offers care or therapy, the programme can contribute to helping high-risk offenders access and manage stable accommodation that: • • • Reduces the risk of re – offending and promotes community safety Allows high-risk offenders to engage in regular and intensive programmes of supervision and treatment aimed at reducing their criminal behaviours Allows Police and Probation to monitor and supervise such offenders and thereby improves the management of risk

Ute Vann, Policy & Strategy Officer Supporting People Team

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.



MAPPA Main Report 2006-7



Page 34

Kent Probation Area Alan Dowie Director, Offender Management Jane Knight Senior Probation Officer for MAPPA Jeanette Edgar MAPPA Strategy & Services



Kent Area Office, Chaucer House 01622 350820 25 Knightrider Street Maidstone Kent ME15 6ND Kent Police Headquarters Sutton Road Maidstone Kent ME15 9BZ Medway Probation Office 27-35 New Road Chatham Kent ME4 4QQ Address Kent Area Office 80 Sir Evelyn Road Rochester Kent ME1 3NF 01622 650457

01634 849284

Kent Area Prisons Laura Hird Kent and Sussex Area Risk Management Co-ordinator Martha Blom-Cooper Head of Reducing Re-offending Team Kent Police Lee Catling Detective Superintendent Head of Public Protection and Case Review Paul Fotheringham Detective Chief Inspector Public Protection Unit Emma Chiffey Public Protection Officer, Policy and Procedure Public Protection Unit Sara DeFroand and Tracy Gain MAPPA Administrators Public Protection Unit

Phone 01634 673000

01634 673000

Address Kent Police Headquarters Public Protection Unit Sutton Road Maidstone Kent ME15 9BZ

Phone 01622 690690

01622 690690

01622 690690

01622 690690



MAPPA Main Report 2006-7



Page 36