You are on page 1of 22




Joint Foreword to Kent MAPPA Annual 2

Report 2003/04

Introduction 3–5

Kent MAPPA and Agencies Working 6–7


Strengthening the MAPPA 8 – 10

A note from the MAPPA Co-ordinators 9

The Strategic Management Board 10

The Duty to Co-operate 11

Other legislative Measures to Strengthen 12

Other Statutory Provisions

The Focus on Victims 13

How MAPPA have Impacted on Victims in 14 - 15


Examples of the Impact Working with a Multi 16 - 17

Agency Public Protection Panel

Case Examples 18 - 19

MAPPA Annual Reports Statistical 20 - 21


Contacts 22

Joint Foreword to Kent MAPPA Annual Report 2003/04

Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements are well established in Kent. Over the last two years
only one offender managed through MAPPA has seriously re-offended. This is, of course, one too
many, but without the professionalism and dedication of everyone involved there could have been
many more.

During the year many individuals and agencies contributed to the process of assessing and managing
potentially dangerous offenders. This was reflected in the diverse range of organisations represented
at our inaugural Kent MAPPA conference in January. We look forward to strengthening their
involvement - working purposefully together is the key to effective public protection. In particular
the statutory participation of HM Prison Service, as a member of the Responsible Authority from
April 2004, will formalise existing excellent working relationships. Next year will also see the
recruitment of two lay members to the Panel.

The over-riding aim of MAPPA is to prevent further victims being created. However, we are always
aware that there are already victims of all the offenders we manage. Their needs are central to the
planning and offender management undertaken through the MAPPP process and in this way we can
provide effective protection and the reassurance that brings.

If you would like to know more a list of contact points is contained at the end of this report.

Michael Fuller Christine Lawrie.

Chief Constable, Kent Police Chief Officer, Kent Probation Area

1. Introduction:

Sexual and violent offences are dreadful crimes that deeply affect the lives of victims and their
families and inspire fear in local communities. Their impact can be profound and long-lasting,
leaving victims feeling unsafe even in their own homes. The Government regards tackling sexual
and violent crimes as one of its highest priorities. Having set up the Multi Agency Public Protection
Arrangements (MAPPA) in 2001 – which provided for the first time a firm statutory basis for the
work police and probation jointly undertake to protect the public from sexual and violent offenders.

Formal collaborative working between Kent Police and Kent Probation Area commenced following
the introduction of the Sex Offender Act 1997. The introduction of MAPPA in 2001 formally
cemented the working relationships between the agencies and since then that relationship has
grown stronger and has consolidated. This is the third and final Kent Multi Agency Public Protection
Arrangements annual report in its current format.

Why? – You might ask!

As of April 1st 2004, Her Majesty’s Prison Service Kent Area joins Kent Probation Area and Kent
Police as members of the Responsible Authority. We look forward to working even more closely
with our prison colleagues to identify and manage those offenders who are being released from
prison and who continue to pose a very high risk of causing harm to members of the public.

During the year 2003 - 2004 the work of MAPPA has been strengthened by the establishment of a
Public Protection team based at Kent Police Headquarters made up of:

• Two Public Protection co-ordinators – one funded by Kent Probation Area and the
other by Kent Police

• One Public Protection police officer – to assist the work of the Kent Multi Agency
Public Protection Panel (MAPPP).

• Detective Chief Inspector – Public and Adult Protection

• Senior Probation Officer / Manager of Kent Probation Area Public Protection Unit and
Chair of Kent MAPPP

This team acts as a central referral point for all cases that come into the MAPPA arena and co-
ordinates and operates Multi Agency Public Protection Panel conferences on offenders assessed
as posing a very high risk of harm.

Across Kent and Medway sexual and violent offenders are risk managed through a two tier system
that clearly identifies the level of risk the offender presents as:-
• KMAPPP - Kent Multi Agency Public Protection Panel - covering Kent and Medway focusing
on those sexual and violent offenders who have been assessed by either probation or the
police as posing a Very High Risk of Harm to named persons or to members of the public.
The panel, as well as comprising operational staff, also has Headquarter representatives
from each of the key agencies Police, Probation and Social Services attending as sitting
members. The cases assessed by this group are generally referred to as the “critical few”
and therefore pose the highest risk. In future this panel will be known as a Level 3 Risk

• LMAPPP - Local Multi Agency Public Protection Panel - with one in each of the police and
probation command areas focusing on those sexual and violent offenders who are assessed
as posing a medium to high risk of harm but who can be managed in the local area without
additional resources. As well as panel meetings, mainly operating monthly, to consider the
majority of offenders resident in their areas, individual risk conferences are run on identified
offenders who require the involvement of more than one or two agencies. In future these
will be known as Level 1 and 2 Panels.

During the year April 2003 to March 2004 a total of 240 K MAPPP’s were convened for a total of 69
very high risk and dangerous offenders. This number reflects the total number of offenders
conferenced and includes those offenders whose MAPPP involvement spans the years 2002/03
and 2003/04.

In the current year there were a total of 74 new referrals of which 54 were accepted as meeting the
Level Three very high risk of harm criteria. This reflects an approximate 25% increase of the
numbers of offenders in Kent and Medway being assessed as posing the highest risk when
compared with the previous year 2002/03.

The break down of cases accepted for the Kent MAPPP is as follows:

• Registered Sex Offenders – 21*

• Violent and Others - 20

• Others - 13**

* Represents a 90.9% increase of Registered Sex Offenders referred

** Represents a 30% increase which has primarily come about through the referral of a number of young offenders

The figures above show that by far the biggest group belongs to the Violent and Other groups which
forms much of the media publicity of highlighting sex offenders. Analysis of the offending patterns of
the Violent and Other group highlights that the majority have perpetrated physical abuse on their
partners or have been involved in perpetrating violence against others including children.

Ongoing analysis of the figures shows that year on year there has been a steady increase in the
numbers of offenders referred to Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA). This
upward trend, in our view, reflects improved awareness and risk assessment skills of staff working
with the offenders and increased collaborative working between the agencies.

The primary task of the Kent MAPPP is to:-

• share information in a multi agency format to enable the panel to assess the level of the risk
of harm posed by the offender;
• identify the nature and imminence of the harm occurring;
• identify potential victims;
• establish a risk management plan to reduce the likelihood of the harm occurring and
• increase Public Protection across Kent and Medway.

The principles underpinning public protection are to:-

• gather and share all the relevant information concerning the offender in a multi-agency
• agencies, primarily Kent Probation Area and Kent Police use nationally agreed risk
assessment tools to assess risk of harm (Offender Assessment System [OASys] and Risk
Matrix 2000)
• listen to and take account of the victims’ views;
• take account of and balance human rights/civil liberties issues;
• 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
• implement external controls to protect identified victims, to monitor the behaviour of the
offender and to act as an early warning system for the risk of harm increasing.

A key ingredient to the successful management for this offender group is the effective
working between, and amongst, the agencies involved.

2. Kent MAPPA and Agencies Working Together

The Kent Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (KMAPPA) ensures agencies work together
to enable a full and comprehensive risk management plan to be agreed on those offenders
assessed as posing a very high risk of harm to the public.

Samples of the agencies involved are:-

• Local Authority and Registered Social Housing Providers

• Health Authority Departments including Primary Care Trusts, Forensic Mental

Health Services, Health Visiting Service and representative of the Mental
Health and Social Care Trusts.

• Social Services Departments – Adult and Child Protection Teams.

• Youth Offender Service and

• Victim Support.

Up to date information from Kent Police forms part of the information collection process to assist the
risk assessment. The following acronym, embedded in the Human Rights Act 2000 reflects the
operation and decision making of the Kent Multi Agency Public Protection Panel:-

J Justified

A Appropriate

P Proportionate

A Auditable

N Necessary

The third year of the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements in Kent and
Medway has seen improved targeting of offenders, ongoing development work
with other agencies and strengthening the MAPPA.

May 2003 Kent Police and Kent Probation Area jointly, successfully
applied for the first Sex Offender Order in the county

July 2003 Kent MAPPA Annual Report published

October 2003 Public Protection team established at Kent Police


December 2003 Meeting with HM Prisons, Kent exploring opportunities in

preparation for them joining Kent Probation Area and Kent
Police as a member of the Responsible Authority for
MAPPA in Kent and identifying appropriate training

January 2004 Kent Multi Agency Public Protection Seminar @ Kent Police
Training College.

February 2004 Article published in the Independent Newspaper focusing

on MAPPA in Kent and Medway.

March 2004 Preparation for multi agency audit of cases assessed and
managed by the Kent MAPPP for the year 2003 – 2004.

March 2004 Ongoing development of the MAPPP data base for

offenders assessed as Very High Risk of Harm and
preparation for the implementation of the national Violent
and Sex Offender Register (ViSOR) in Kent.

3. Strengthening the MAPPA

Information in the previous pages indicates that in Kent we are moving ahead to strengthen the
whole MAPPA process. Indeed the Multi Agency Public Protection conference run in January was
the first of its sort to be held in the county and approximately 130 delegates attended.
Presentations were made by representatives from the National Probation Directorate, the Forensic
Mental Health Services and our own Public Protection team.

Feedback from the day indicated that participants had considerable confidence in the MAPPA and
MAPPP processes but felt that perhaps police and probation were ahead of other organisations in
relation to working together to manage this offender group and as a consequence there is a request
for similar events to be arranged on an annual basis.

Members of the Public Protection team have started linking into other agencies e.g. Strategic
Health Authority and Housing Providers, especially as many have a duty to co-operate with the
MAPPA process.

We are also undertaking a multi agency audit of those managed by KMAPPP (Level 3) process to
measure the effectiveness of our risk management plans.

The national and Kent development of the MAPPA has concentrated on preparing to implement the
MAPPA provisions of the Criminal Justice Act (2003). These provisions came into force on 5th April
2004 and help strengthen the MAPPA by:

(i) Making the Prison Service part of the ‘Responsible Authority’ with police and probation. In
Kent specific training has been identified and is in the process of being prepared for key
prison staff including governing governors.

(ii) Formalising the involvement of other agencies which can make an important contribution to
helping offenders not to re-offend - the Act imposes a ‘Duty to Co-operate’ with the
Responsible Authority MAPPA upon:

‰ Local Authority Housing, Education and Social Services

‰ Health Service bodies
‰ Jobcentres Plus
‰ Youth Offending Teams
‰ Registered Social Landlords which accommodate MAPPA offenders, and
‰ Electronic Monitoring providers

(iii) The appointment by the Home Secretary of two members of the public ‘Lay Advisers’ in
each Area to assist in monitoring the effectiveness of the MAPPA.

When MAPPA was initially set up in Kent the Responsible Authority decided that a multi agency
approach was the most appropriate method for delivering this work. Kent Police and Kent Probation
Area agreed the establishment of a Public Protection team made up of representatives of both

The operational aspect of the team is sited at Kent Police Headquarters and the team is made up
as follows:

Public Protection Manager - Kent Probation Area

Detective Chief Inspector - Kent Police
MAPPA Co –ordinator - Kent Police
MAPPA Co –ordinator - Kent Probation Area
Police Officer - Kent Police Prison Intelligence Unit

All MAPPA referrals come into the team and MAPPP panels are set up as appropriate. Currently
Level 3 KMAPPP’s meet one day a week to share information in a multi agency format, to agree a
risk of harm assessment and to develop a risk management plan.

Below are the comments of the two co-ordinators. Their individual and collective contributions to the
MAPPA process are invaluable. Indeed they are the front line contacts for many people contacting


Our Role
We are two co-ordinators based at the Public Protection Unit, Kent Police Headquarters whose role
it is to co-ordinate the Kent Multi Agency Public Protection Panels. The Co-ordinator is very often
the first point of contact to MAPPA. We play an important role in ensuring that agencies fully
understand the process and procedure for referrals to MAPPA and that the key people are identified
to attend the panels. Good communication and organisational skills are paramount to ensure that
the information flow is maintained at all times as experience has shown that circumstances and
situations can change rapidly and things need to be put in place as quickly as possible to manage
the risk.

An organisational perspective
We have seen a significant improvement since the commencement of MAPPA in the way agencies
work together, in particular, the information sharing. It is clear that agencies are now happier to
disclose information, and have a better understanding of each other’s roles and responsibilities.
The decisions made at the Panels depend on all of us pulling together at a crucial time and this
clearly makes a difference in terms of public protection and in getting things done.

Our personal perspective

As individuals with our own families we are now more aware of the risks in our community and what
can be done to minimise that risk. We have also become aware of the issues for victims and their
families and how they are affected by the offences being committed. It is reassuring to know that
the MAPPA is there to consider the victims feelings when considering each case and are taking the
necessary action required to try and ensure that they and the general public are protected from
these potentially dangerous persons.

Jackie Sampson and Sara Field

Strategic Management Board

Overseeing and managing MAPPA in Kent is the responsibility of the Strategic Management Board.
The effective working of the Board is key to the success of the Kent MAPPA process – please see
the comments of the Chair below:

The Strategic Management Board

The Strategic Management Board (SMB) is the group which steers and audits the MAPPA process.

The SMB meets quarterly, and consists of representatives at senior level from the Police,
Probation, Prisons, Youth Justice, Social Services (Kent and Medway) and Victim Support. It is
chaired by the Assistant Chief Officer (External Services) of Kent Probation Area.

In the past year the SMB has agreed the protocol covering expectations of partner organisations
and standards and guidance for KMAPP's. It has also undertaken case reviews and encouraged

In the year ahead it plans to include lay members and agree standards and guidance for LMAPP's.

The SMB acknowledges the hard work and dedication of the Public Protection Team, and of the
other professionals who have contributed to MAPPS over the year.

In Kent we are looking forward to working more closely with our colleagues in prisons
especially as members of the Responsible Authority. Prison staff clearly possess a lot of
information about those offenders they are releasing into the community which when shared
will in turn assist and enhance the risk assessment and risk management process

4. The duty to co-operate

Work on the “duty to co-operate” has been taken forward by two separate and complementary
initiatives. First, in many areas the duty to co-operate formalises what has already begun to be
established as good practice. The statutory basis of the duty will help ensure a more consistent
engagement of all these agencies across England and Wales. In Kent a number of meetings and
training events are being planned to ensure duty to co-operate agencies have the right information;
have an awareness of MAPPA across the county and to ensure that the correct protocols are in
place to compliment the sharing of information Secondly, the relevant Central Government
Departments and the Welsh Assembly have been involved in developing the Guidance which the
Home Secretary issued on the duty to co-operate. The reform of the way in which child protection
is organised, following the public inquiry into the tragic death of Victoria Climbie, will reinforce the
importance of effective joint working between different agencies which the MAPPA has itself

The introduction of an element of public scrutiny of this often complex and sensitive area of public
protection through the appointment of two Lay Advisers in each Area, has been carefully and
successfully trialled and evaluated. As Home Office Minister Paul Goggins said:

“Lay Advisers will play a vital role…We are committed to giving them not only an insight into
how this work is carried out but, more importantly, an opportunity to question what is being
done and why.”

In Kent we look forward to introducing Lay Advisers into our MAPPA structure and are
planning to recruit two as soon as we can during the forthcoming year.

This form of scrutiny will clearly make the MAPPA and MAPPP processes more accountable
and will assist in informing the public of its work.

The appointment for Lay Advisers for Kent and Medway will be co-ordinated by the
Home Office. As the appointment process is national exercise, the Home Office has
decided that it will be undertaken Region by Region.

The South East Regional roll out will be between the months November 2004 to February

5. Other legislative measures to strengthen other statutory provisions

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 will be implemented from 1st May 2004 along with measures to
introduce new sentences for dangerous offenders which will keep them in custody until they no
longer pose a serious risk of harm to the public.

In March 2004 Kent Police arranged a number of multi agency training days as an introduction to
the new Act.

The Sexual Offences Act overhauls the many antiquated sexual offences and closes loopholes in
the law. It strengthens the law on rape and on sex offences against children. It introduces new
offences of ‘sexual grooming’ and extends the protection from exploitation in prostitution or
pornography to children up to the age of 18. For the first time, it will be an offence to buy sexual
services from a child below this age, targeting those who abuse children in this way.

The Sexual Offences Act also strengthens the sex offenders register, which has proved a valuable
means by which the police can monitor convicted sex offenders within their area, and introduces
new civil orders to help prevent further offences from being committed.

Kent Police and Kent Probation Area staff are working together to identify those sex offenders who
continue to pose a risk of harm to the public. As a result of this we are expecting to see an increase
in the numbers of applications being made to the Courts for Sexual Offences Prevention Orders
and Risk of Harm Orders which have been introduced as sentences by the above Act.

6. The focus on Victims

In addition to all this work to tackle offenders, the Government has rightly placed much greater
emphasis upon meeting the needs of victims. In Kent we attempt to include the victim’s views in all
Kent MAPPP cases. These views significantly influence the risk management decisions of the Kent
MAPPP and inform how the offender will be managed and what actions are required to minimise
the risk of further harm to identified people.

The victims of sexual offending are identified as a priority group within the National Victims and
Witnesses Strategy. This strategy which was published in July 2003, aims to improve support and
protection for victims and witnesses by:

• reducing the adverse effects of crime on victims and witnesses, and preventing secondary
• encouraging more victims and witnesses to come forward; and
• by offering more options to victims and witnesses, including alternatives to attendance at court.

These initiatives will help toward another key Government target, that of improving public
confidence in the criminal justice system.

The Government is underpinning this work in its Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill which is
currently going through Parliament. It will create a new independent post of Commissioner for
Victims and Witnesses to be a champion/voice for all victims of crime and a new statutory Victims’
Code of Practice (to be implemented in April 2005) which will build on the existing Victims’ Charter
and set out specific responsibilities that each criminal justice service agency and Victim Support
must provide to victims.

How MAPPA have impacted on Victims

Feedback received from victims of serious sexual, physical and psychological crimes with regard to
MAPPA, has been, in the main, positive.

Victims are pleased that such a meeting is undertaken; it indicates that other professional bodies
acknowledge the seriousness of the offences committed against them and recognises that these
are dangerous offenders.

Victims need their views and concerns to be heard in this broader forum and welcome the fact that
they have an advocate in the form of a Victim Liaison Officer. Victims acknowledge that the purpose
of the MAPPA is to set in place strategies to protect not only the individual but the public in general
and often information disclosed by a victim makes a valuable contribution towards developing plans
for the risk management of an offender.

Victims of ‘serious crimes against the person’ (children and adults) would accept that these
arrangements do go some way towards protecting them. However, victims would also say that
setting in place MAPPA is fine for the period of the offender’s licence but once the licence period
has expired the responsibility falls back to the victim to take out private injunctions which often feels
like further victimisation.

MAPPA set in place restrictions and support networks for offenders and enable the development of
plans for managing high risk offenders: victims often have to get on with their lives with little or no
support and left with an unbearable legacy by the offender which, many would say, feels like a life
sentence. Victims of these serious offences will be dealing with the impact for the rest of their lives.

Christine Massey / Victim Liaison Officer / 2 June 2004

7. Examples of the impact working with a Multi Agency Public Protection Panel

The MAPPP process has had a direct impact upon the work I undertake as a case manager
with those offenders assessed as high/very high risk. One of the most significant
improvements is the fact that the MAPPP process allows the sharing of relevant information
between agencies. It is often the case that information is gleaned from a MAPPP which I, as
a case manager (Probation worker) would have had no previous knowledge of and indeed
any other means of finding out. Gaining all significant information about a particular
offender has allowed a much improved understanding of a particular case which, in turn has
improved risk assessment and ultimately the management of that risk. As each service has
become more ‘comfortable’ with the MAPPP process and the sharing of information I have
also noticed a significant improvement in the way in which we ‘work together’. For example,
MAPPP’s often lead to pieces of work which involve two or more agencies, such as
undertaking a joint prison visit. This in my view has lead to overall improved communication
between all agencies, particularly between the Probation Service and the Police. This has
led (from my perspective) to a better understanding of the roles and workings of specific

A further personal benefit I have gained from the MAPPPP process is by learning from other
agencies. In particular I have been able to give consideration to and learn how other
agencies assess risk. In practice I am of the view that this has led to an improvement in my
knowledge of risk and risk management.

Of great significance for myself as a Probation worker is that the MAPPP process allows the
management of the presenting risk to be shared. Each agency involved in the case formally
agrees to undertake specific task/s and hold some level of responsibility to ensure that the
risk is managed in the best possible way. In terms of personal responsibility as a case
manager I now feel that I (and the case management unit) am not working in isolation. This
removes some of the ‘burden’ of responsibility and helps me to concentrate on the areas of
work which I as a probation representative have the skills and knowledge base.

Overall for myself as a Probation worker the MAPPP process has enabled me to have
self-confidence in the work that I am undertaking with high risk offenders and belief that all
agencies are working together to the best of our abilities to effectively manage those

Kelly Thomson
Probation Officer –
Medway Case Management Unit.

As a police officer currently working within the Public Protection Unit, based at Medway – it
was very quickly apparent how important it is to encourage and promote a good
multi agency working relationship between the variety of agencies we work with and rely upon,
in relation to the exchanging and sharing of information regarding the potential risks people
pose to the general public and / or specific individuals.
This is also a positive point of the MAPPA as it assists in the free flow of information.

An area which could be seen as a weakness is around the communication to agencies

about the importance to be present at MAPPA meetings – whether they are a statutory body or
from the voluntary sector. The purpose being to ensure all information is held by their agency
and thus enabling a full risk assessment to be made by all the participants of the meetings.

At Medway, the MAPPA process – whether it be level 1, 2 or 3 has assessed the risk of
offenders fairly and in line with the their human rights. It has also greatly helped in the
management and control of the offender’s risk.

No violent offenders have re-offended with violent crimes and likewise for sex offenders.

Sue de Banke
WPC 7955.

2. Case Examples

(a) MT is in his early twenties with a history of violent offending and sexual fantasies ranging from
rape, sexual assaults with young girls to sex with dead people. He was released from Prison after
serving a 4-year sentence for Possession of a Firearm with intent. He was required to reside at an
approved premises that provides 24 hour staff cover.

During his sentence MT continued to issue threats against his partner and Local Authority Social
Workers and as a consequence was assessed as posing a very high risk of harm.

His former partner was moved out of the area prior to his release with the help of various agencies
for her own welfare and protection. There had been a history of domestic violence perpetrated by
the offender and their two children had been removed into care of the local authority.

During his early days of release and settlement at the approved premises it became apparent
through good liaison of agencies that his former partner was in fact visiting him and they had
resumed their relationship.

Within a few days of this information being shared by the approved premises to other agencies
involved, MT fails to return after for curfew at 11pm. Breach action was undertaken and a request
was made to the Sentence Enforcement Unit to revoke his Licence; this was granted.

Police were alerted and through good liaison with another force MT was located at his partner’s
house in another county. He was arrested and returned to prison.

When released from prison he was instructed to reside at other approved premises. This placement
was successful and MT established contact with his partner in a controlled and safe way. He
eventually returns to Kent but fails to keep his appointments with his probation officer. Information
shared within the MAPPP indicates he has started abusing drugs including Crack cocaine and
Heroin. His risk of harm is assessed as increasing and as a consequence of the above factors a
successful application is forwarded to the Sentence Enforcement Unit for his recall to prison.

When released on the third occasion MT continues to reside in Kent without any statutory
supervision. MT does not seem to have learnt from his mistakes as he has since been arrested for
Kidnapping his now ex partner, Driving whilst under the Influence of Alcohol and Unlawful taking of
a motor vehicle.

MT has moved to another area and awaits sentencing for outstanding offences.

Kent MAPPPA has informed the receiving area of the risks MT poses especially if he has formed a
new relationship.

Multi Agency collaboration was a necessity in managing the risk that this male presented. It
proves that even when subjects move from county to county it is essential that Multi Agency
Partnership continue in the management of the ‘Critical Few’.

(b) GT is 43 years of age who was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment for False Imprisonment. This
was reduced on appeal to 18 months. GT possesses a long history of offending which commenced
in 1984. GT has a history of abusing alcohol and while much of his offending is alcohol related he
has convictions for very serious offences including Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, Affray
and Arson with intent to endanger life.

The victim of his most recent offence was a 73 year old woman.

Information from the Victim Liaison Officer indicated that the offender had made contact with the
victim during his prison sentence and continued to make threats against her to be carried out after
his release.

A Kent Multi Agency Public Protection Panel was convened with representatives from Police,
Probation, Social Services, Her Majesty’s Prisons and Health. Information shared at the MAPPP
allowed the offender to be assessed as posing a very high risk of harm and identified the victim as
being of imminent risk of harm after the offender was released from prison.

Actions were immediately taken through the prison to stop the prisoner contacting the victim. GT
was referred for alcohol counseling within the prison but he denies that he has a problem. He
continued to make threats towards the victim following release. Kent MAPPP developed a Public
Protection Risk Management Plan that involved:
• His residence in a Hostel that offered around the clock supervision and monitoring for a
period of up to 3 months.
• As GT continued to pose a very high risk of harm to the victim and because of her
vulnerability the Kent MAPPP requested that information be disclosed to a neighbour of the
victim who was prepared to monitor the situation.

GT, whilst initially hostile to the placement, worked with the staff to address his alcohol abuse, his
attitude towards others, especially the victim and had a successful 3 month placement. A
progressive move to another Hostel was agreed but unfortunately GT resorted to heavy drinking
and his behaviour deteriorated and he threatened female staff. As he had breached his licence
conditions enforcement action was commenced, by Kent Probation Area and he was subsequently
returned to Prison.


Required for the reporting period 1st APRIL 2003 - 31st MARCH 2004

The statistical information you will be required to publish in next year’s report will be the same as this year – but
simplified in respect of the Category 2 MAPPA offenders. We consulted widely about the simplified Category 2
figure and believe it will be much easier to collate and more meaningful.

Type your area name here:

number of
1. Category 1 MAPPA offenders: Registered Sex Offenders (RSOs)

i) The number of RSOs living in your Area on 31st March 2004. 780 *
This is information principally held by the police and is a snapshot of RSOs on 31/3/04. It should NOT include
RSOs in prison.

ia) The number of RSOs per 100'000 head of population. (This figure will be calculated
centrally by NPD) 49

ii) The number of sex offenders having a registration requirement who were either
cautioned or convicted for breaches of the requirement, between 1st April 2003 and 31st
March 2004 9
Only those cautions that have actually taken place and breaches that have been successfully completed during
the reporting period should be counted

iii) The number of full Sex Offender Orders (a) applied for and (b) imposed by the courts a) 3***
in your Area between 1st April 2003 and 31st March 2004. b) 3

iv) The number of interim Sex Offender Orders (a) applied for and (b) imposed by the a) 1***
courts in your Area between 1st April 2003 and 31st March 2004. b) 1

2. Category 2: violent offenders and other sexual offenders.

v) The number of violent and other sexual offenders (as defined by Section 68 (3), (4) and
(5) of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act (2000)) living in your Area between 1st
April 2003 and 31st March 2004 370**

You should include in this figure only those Category 2 offenders who are living in your Area during the reporting
period. You should NOT include, as previously required, those Category 2 offenders who are still in custody. Care
must also be taken NOT to include here any Category 1 offenders.

3. Category 3: Other offenders

vi) The number of ‘other offenders’ (as defined by Section 67 (2)(b) of the Criminal
Justice and Court Services Act (2000)) between 1st April 2003 and 31st March 2004. 15

This figure cannot include any offenders who are included in either the Category 1 or 2 (i.e. (i) and (v) above)

vii) The number of Restraining Orders imposed on any MAPPA offenders by the courts
in your Area between 1st April 2003 and 31st March 2004. 0

This figures should only include orders issued under section 5A of the Sex Offender Act 1997(as amended by the
Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000) and to offenders living in the community

4. MAPPP cases

(viii) Identify how many MAPPA offenders in each of the three Categories (i.e. (i)- RSOs, RSO 21
(v)- V&O and (vi)- OO above) have been managed through the MAPPP (level 3) between V&O 20
1st April 2003 and 31st March 2004. OO 13

This figure is the ‘critical few’. The criteria for referring a case to the MAPPP are defined in MAPPA Guidance as
those in which the offender:
· is assessed under OASys as being a high or very high risk of causing serious harm; AND

· presents risks that can only be managed by a plan which requires close co-operation at a senior level due to the
complexity of the case and/or because of the unusual resource commitments it requires; OR

· although not assessed as a high or very high risk, the case is exceptional because the likelihood of media
scrutiny and/or public interest in the management of the case is very high and there is a need to ensure that public
confidence in the criminal justice system is sustained.

ix) Of the cases managed by the MAPPP (i.e. (viii)) between 1st April 2003 and 31st March
2004 how many, whilst still in the MAPPP:
Were returned to custody for a breach of licence? a) 9
Were returned to custody for a breach of a restraining order or sex offender order? b) 0
Were charged with a serious sexual or violent offence? c) 1****

For these purposes a serious sexual and violent offence is one of the following (i.e. the same offences as used to
trigger reporting in the National Probation Service as a ‘serious further offence’:
Murder’s Attempted murder; Arson (where there is an intent to endanger life); Manslaughter; Rape;
Kidnap/abduction or attempted kidnap/abduction.
Any other very serious violent or very serious sexual offence, armed robbery (defined as robbery involving a
firearm), assault with a deadly weapon or hostage taking.
Any other violent or sexual offence where the offender/ offence are likely to attract significant media interest or
which raises wider issues of national interest.


* 780 registered sex offenders reflect a 6.8% increase in across Kent and Medway. This increase whilst smaller than the
national average reflects the numbers of sex offenders whose period of registration ahs ceased

** The number of Violent and other Sex Offenders reflects a decrease approximately 50%. This has come about because
the Home Office has changed the reporting criteria to reflect the numbers of offenders released from prison and living in
the community.

*** In the past year Kent Police, with the support of Kent Probation Area staff has successfully made application to the
Magistrates Court of a number of Sex Offender Orders. These orders were granted on men who have had history of
sexual offending and who continue to show, by their behaviour, that they remain at risk of re-offending. A Sex Offender
gives more powers to the police to monitor the offender and place restrictions on his movements and behaviour. A
breach of this order can lead to a prison sentence of up to five years.

In one case during the year an offender was released from prison. Within 48 hours of release information was received
which showed his risk of re-offending was increasing. The offender was arrested and was eventually sentenced to 30
months imprisonment.

**** We have to report during the current year there was one very high risk offender who re-offended and sentenced to
54 months imprisonment. The offender resided in accommodation where his movements to and from the premises were
monitored; he was also seen regularly by both Kent Probation staff and Kent Police officers. The offence occurred whilst
he was away from his accommodation. A subsequent review of the case indicated that agencies correctly assessed the
level of risk he posed and undertook all they could to manage the risk.

Kent Probation Area Address Phone
Rob Verity, Chaucer House, 01622 350820
Assistant Chief Officer. Knightrider Street. Maidstone

Maurice O’Reilly 56-58 College Road 01622 687521

Senior Probation Officer/Manager Public Maidstone.
Protection Unit ME16 6SJ

Kent Police Address Phone

Greg Barry Kent Police Headquarters, 01622 654560
Sutton Road,
Detective Superintendent

Nora Chandler Kent Police Headquarters, 01622 654005

Sutton Road,
Detective Chief Inspector
Adult and Public Protection

Jackie Sampson and Sara Field Joint Co-ordinating Team, 01622 654 741 –
Joint Co-ordinating Team Co-ordinators Kent Police Headquarters, 654 742
Public Protection Unit Sutton Road,