Contents Pages Joint Foreword to Kent MAPPA Annual Report 2003/04 Introduction Kent MAPPA and Agencies Working Together Strengthening the MAPPA A note from the MAPPA Co-ordinators The Strategic Management Board The Duty to Co-operate Other legislative Measures to Strengthen Other Statutory Provisions The Focus on Victims How MAPPA have Impacted on Victims in Kent. Examples of the Impact Working with a Multi Agency Public Protection Panel Case Examples MAPPA Annual Reports Statistical Information Contacts 2 3–5 6–7 8 – 10 9 10 11 12 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 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 Chief Constable, Kent Police

Christine Lawrie.
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 coordinates 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 Panel. 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 Others - 20 - 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 format; 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 programmes; 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:-


Justified Appropriate Proportionate Auditable 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 Kent MAPPA Annual Report published Public Protection Headquarters team established at Kent Police

July 2003 October 2003 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 requirements. Kent Multi Agency Public Protection Seminar @ Kent Police Training College. Article published in the Independent Newspaper focusing on MAPPA in Kent and Medway. Preparation for multi agency audit of cases assessed and managed by the Kent MAPPP for the year 2003 – 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.

January 2004

February 2004

March 2004

March 2004


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. 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 organisations.


The operational aspect of the team is sited at Kent Police Headquarters and the team is made up as follows: Public Protection Manager Detective Chief Inspector MAPPA Co –ordinator MAPPA Co –ordinator Police Officer Kent Probation Area Kent Police Kent Police Kent Probation Area 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 Kent MAPPA.

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 learning. 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 promoted. 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 2005.


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 victimisation; 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 services. 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 offenders. 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.


MAPPA ANNUAL REPORTS STATISTICAL INFORMATION 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: Question 1. Category 1 MAPPA offenders: Registered Sex Offenders (RSOs) 780 * i) The number of RSOs living in your Area on 31st March 2004. 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 number of offenders

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


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.


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, (v)- V&O and (vi)- OO above) have been managed through the MAPPP (level 3) between 1st April 2003 and 31st March 2004. RSO V&O OO 21 20 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? Were returned to custody for a breach of a restraining order or sex offender order? Were charged with a serious sexual or violent offence?

a) b) c)

9 0 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.

Summary:* 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
Rob Verity,
Assistant Chief Officer. Rob.Verity@kentprobation.gsx.gov.uk

Chaucer House, Knightrider Street. Maidstone

01622 350820

Maurice O’Reilly
Senior Probation Officer/Manager Public Protection Unit Maurice.O’Reilly@kentprobation.gsx.gov.uk

56-58 College Road Maidstone. ME16 6SJ

01622 687521

Kent Police
Greg Barry Detective Superintendent

Kent Police Headquarters, Sutton Road, Maidstone

01622 654560

Nora Chandler Detective Chief Inspector Adult and Public Protection

Kent Police Headquarters, Sutton Road, Maidstone

01622 654005

Jackie Sampson and Sara Field
Joint Co-ordinating Team Co-ordinators Public Protection Unit @kentprobation.gsx.gov.uk

Joint Co-ordinating Team, Kent Police Headquarters, Sutton Road, Maidstone

01622 654 741 – 654 742