National Probation Service: Martin Curran, Assistant Chief Officer, National Probation Service, Leicestershire & Rutland Area Address: 2 St. John Street, Leicester, LE1 3BE E.mail Tel 0116 251 6008

Leicestershire Constabulary: Chris Tew, Detective Superintendent, Leicestershire Constabulary Address: Specialist Crime investigation Dept. Leicestershire Constabulary HQ Enderby, Leicestershire LE19 2BX E.mail Tel 0116 222 2222

HM Prison Service: Hilary Fielder, Area Resettlement Co-ordinator Address: East Midlands Area Office, Empriss House, Unit C Harcourt Way Meridian Business Park Leicester, LE19 1WP E.mail Tel 0116 281 4000

MAPPA Unit: Bob Petrie, MAPPA Manager Address: Leicestershire Constabulary HQ Enderby, Leicester, LE19 2BX E.mail Tel 0116 222 2222 Ext. 5293

For Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland “WORKING TOGETHER TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC”

All general pictures featured in this report have been used to give a pictorial representation of the work of the MAPPA in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. No person shown in street scenes or pictured commercial or council buildings are connected with the MAPPA.

Making our communities safer and reducing re-offending is our highest priority and one of our biggest challenges. That is why the work undertaken through these multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) is so important. The supervision and management of sexual and violent offenders who pose the highest risk of serious harm, whether in the community or in custody, is complex and challenging; and is an aspect of public service where the public rightly expects all reasonable action to be taken.

Although we have made significant progress in the last five years with the development of MAPPA across England and Wales, the review this year of a number of tragic incidents where people have been murdered or seriously injured reminded us of the importance of reviewing performance, improving practice and learning lessons. It is vital that these tasks are undertaken by the probation, police and prison services, as well as by those other agencies that contribute to the assessment and management of offenders. The publication of MAPPA Business Plans by each Area in this year’s annual reports offers a helpful and necessary programme of local development and review and must lead to enhanced practice. It will be essential that this progress is transparent and shared with local communities.

In addition to this, however, it is important that no opportunity is missed to consider other measures that will further enhance public safety. That is why we are undertaking the Child Sex Offender Review, to look at how a particular group of offenders, who provoke anxiety for many, are best managed in the community. The review is consulting a wide range of practitioners and key stakeholders including the MAPPA lay advisers, and will report around the end of the year.

Finally, in commending this report to you, I want to take the opportunity to thank all those involved locally in working with sexual and violent offenders, or in ensuring that these arrangements are fit for purpose. Where MAPPA is working well it is based on maintaining high professional standards and effective multi-agency collaboration in the delivery of robust risk management plans. While it is not possible to eliminate risk entirely, where all reasonable action is taken the risk of further serious harm can be reduced to a minimum and fewer victims will be exposed to repeat offending.

Gerry Sutcliffe MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Criminal Justice and Offender Management

A national overview of the development of the MAPPA has been produced by the Responsible Authority National Steering Group (RANSG). To view please visit the website:

p.01 What are the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements? ‘Understanding this challenging work’ MAPPA Manager, Bob Petrie p.05 The Responsible Authority Chief Constable, Matt Baggott Chief Officer, National Probation Service, Leicestershire and Rutland, Heather Munro Area Manager, East Midlands, HM Prison Service, Bob Perry p.08 Review of the MAPPA Strategic Management Board, Chair, Krystyna Findley Key Developments How the MAPPA operate locally The Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel (MAPPP) Multi-agency training and Personnel Changes Case Studies Statistical Information



p.09 p.11 p.29


p.35 p.41


Appendix A - Business Plan 2006 - 07 Appendix B - Memorandum of Understanding Appendix C - Key Personnel in MAPPA

“What are the MAPPA?”

The Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements, or MAPPA, provide a framework for identifying, assessing and managing those offenders in the community whose previous offences and current behaviour suggest that they could pose a risk of harm to others. There are three categories of offenders who fall within the MAPPA:

- All Registered Sex Offenders in the community (MAPPA Category 1)

- All offenders on post-custody licence, or those discharged following a hospital order, from sentences of twelve months or more for a violent offence, an offence against a child, or one of the small number of sexual offences which do not require registration on the Sex Offender Register (MAPPA Category 2)

- Any other offender (i.e. not in either of the above two categories) whose previous offending and current behaviour suggest that he/she may pose a risk of harm to others (MAPPA Category 3)

All MAPPA offenders must be assessed and regularly reviewed with regard to potential risk of harm to others (low, medium, high or very high risk) and, commensurate with that risk assessment, managed within a three tier risk management framework:

- Single agency management (MAPPA Level 1).

- Middle tier inter-agency management (MAPPA Level 2).

- Higher tier multi-agency management via the Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel, or MAPPP, (MAPPA Level 3).

On 1st April 2001, it became a statutory responsibility, jointly, on all Police and Probation Areas of England and Wales, who were designated “The Responsible Authority”, to establish local MAPPA. The implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, on 5th April 2004, included the Prison Service within the Responsible Authority.


There is no doubt in my mind that the introduction of the MAPPA has made a major contribution to the protection of the public.

In establishing and operating the MAPPA, the Responsible Authority was required to seek to involve other key agencies, such as Health, Social Services, Housing and Youth Offending Services. This has been formalised by the 2003 Act, which places a “statutory duty to co-operate” in the operation of the MAPPA on these, and other agencies. This is important since key features of the MAPPA involve the exchange of relevant information, and the pooling of knowledge and expertise between agencies in assessing and managing MAPPA offenders.

The MAPPA in every area must be overseen and managed by a Strategic Management Board (SMB), comprising senior staff of both the Responsible Authority and Duty to Co-operate Agencies. There is also a statutory requirement to recruit two Lay Advisors to sit on the SMB.

‘Understanding this challenging work’
This is the fifth MAPPA Annual Report for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. Its purpose is to explain and illustrate to the local community the way the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements have been working here over the last twelve months.

At time of writing, the MAPPA, nationally, have been subject to much media scrutiny following the reporting of several high profile cases of serious re-offending with tragic consequences for the victims of these crimes and their families.

It is right that lessons are learnt from these cases and that all of us working in this field review our own arrangements. However, my personal view is that some of the criticism of the MAPPA has been rather less than well informed or fair. To generate genuine debate it is important to try and look beyond the tabloid headlines, and keep local people informed by continuing to explain the complexities and results of our work. The annual report is an important part of this process.


Over 900 offenders were subject to the MAPPA in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland during the last twelve months. None of these re-offended in the most serious way.

Since the introduction of the MAPPA five years ago, those of us involved are genuinely excited and proud of the developments that have taken place. But although we strive to manage risk effectively, we cannot eliminate it completely. To quote from one of the recent reports by the Chief Inspector of Probation, “risk management may be a science, but it is an inexact science.” Nonetheless there is no doubt in my mind that the introduction of the MAPPA has made a major contribution to the protection of the public. But it should be remembered that the agencies involved in the operation of the MAPPA must do so within the limits of their lawful authority. That is to say risk management measures used on offenders to protect the public must not only be lawful, but proportionate to the assessed level of risk, and clearly necessary to protect others.

One of the measures available is to recall offenders on licence where there are sufficient concerns and grounds to do so. The statistical information provided later in the report gives an indication of how often this recall action has been used. Whilst recall is used when it is appropriate and necessary, there is usually a knock-on effect. At some stage in the future the offenders will be released again, and sometimes at the point where their licence period has expired because of the amount of time they have served since being recalled to prison. If this happens, they are not subject to licence conditions and the authorities will have less control over them.

There is also the issue of resources. The protection of the public is the highest priority for all the agencies involved, but it is also true that resources are finite. For example, two of the case studies featured in this report demonstrate the highly effective use of intensive police monitoring. But the facility to provide this level of monitoring is, inevitably, limited and must be prioritised to the highest risk cases. Great care and consideration needs to go into making these kinds of decisions by weighing up all the known facts and risks.

The MAPPA exist because no one agency on its own could manage the complex issues that are generated by some offenders who pose the highest risk. These can be very disturbed people who present multi-faceted problems and who have limited insight into the consequences of their behaviour, either for themselves or others.


We are proud of our track record in an area of work that is both challenging and complex but we are not complacent. Public safety is our top priority and we will continue to do all in our power to protect the public.

As the statistical information contained later in this report shows, over 900 offenders were subject to the MAPPA in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland during the last twelve months. None of them re-offended in the most serious way. In fact, during the last three years, only one offender subject to MAPPA management has committed a very serious further offence.

This is not a simple area of work and the case studies we have included illustrate some of the dilemmas, difficulties and issues faced by MAPPA partner agencies. What the studies also illustrate is the success we have had in working together to overcome them.

We are charged with managing risk, and this risk is sometimes very high. We are proud of our track record but we are not complacent. Public safety is our top priority and we will continue to do all in our power to protect the public.

I hope readers will find this annual report understandable, interesting and, above all, reassuring.

MAPPA Manager Bob Petrie

Bob Petrie MAPPA Manager, Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland Bob Petrie is a Senior Probation Officer who has been seconded to his present post for the past eight years. His career spans more than 30 years with the Probation Service, working in a number of roles, including managing the resettlement team, which dealt with the supervision of offenders following release from prison. His present responsibilities include: - giving advice on the operation of the MAPPA - collating MAPPA statistics - providing consultancy, support and advice to all agencies on the processes and procedures in dealing with high risk cases - chairing MAPPA Level Three meetings (MAPPPs) - processing referrals - inter-agency liaison, and - producing relevant minutes from meetings.


The Responsible Authority
Leicestershire Constabulary

Matt Baggott, Chief Constable

There are few that would disagree that the work undertaken by the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland is vitally important to ensure the protection of the public.

The Leicestershire Constabulary strongly supports the work of MAPPA in undertaking its obligations in dealing with this complex and challenging field of work, which is continually in the public eye as a result of high profile cases.

The strength of MAPPA lies in the local partnerships that exist between the organisations involved in the Responsible Authority, and other partners who also have a vital role to play in the effective management of violent and sexual offenders in the community.

We are continuously learning from our own and others’ experiences and will ensure we have the flexibility to develop our procedures to provide the best possible protection.

We want to manage the criminal behaviour of those who present the greatest risk to fellow citizens with increasing effectiveness. There are few areas so important to public confidence and well-being.

Matt Baggott, Chief Constable


National Probation Service Leicestershire & Rutland

Heather Munro, Chief Officer

As Chief Officer of Leicestershire and Rutland Probation Area I would like to thank all those involved in ensuring our area’s public protection arrangements are working effectively.

Protecting victims and ensuring there are fewer victims is something those of us working in the Criminal Justice System need to have at the forefront of our minds – it’s what we are in business for!

Reducing the likelihood of the most serious offences being committed is paramount and that is what our MAPPA do.

We can never totally eliminate the risk of a serious offence being committed but we can reduce that risk by working together to share information, assess the risk and manage it to the best of our abilities.

I believe wholeheartedly that the arrangements we have in place have meant fewer victims of serious crime in our community and we will take every opportunity to learn about what works, be open about our practices and try to ensure that the public are confident that these arrangements are protecting them.

Heather Munro, Chief Officer


The Responsible Authority
Bob Perry, Area Manager East Midlands,

HM Prison Service

HM Prison Service

The Prison Service recognises that, along with its partners, it has a key role to play in ensuring that the best possible public protection measures are in place. High risk offenders are assessed and prioritised for all appropriate and available interventions during their time in custody and, through the Offender Manager and the MAPPA Manager, prisons share information with MAPPA partner agencies on the progress individual offenders have made.

These interventions are all aimed at reducing the risk that the offender presents to the public when they are eventually released from Prison and will include, dependent on his or her needs and risks, participation in Offending Behaviour Programmes, individual work with the offender, Health (including Mental Health interventions) and educational / work and life skills programmes to equip the individual with some of the skills that they require to make a positive contribution within society.

The involvement of partner agencies during the custodial period of the sentence is vital and the Prison Service has a specific responsibility to ensure that they contribute to the plans for managing MAPPA offenders within the community on their release.

We are committed to providing information to each MAPPA Level 3 or 2 meeting where this information is requested and also, wherever possible, will ensure that a member of staff who is familiar with the offender attends Level 3 meetings in person. In addition to attendance at MAPPA meetings on a case-by-case basis, the Governor of HMP Stocken regularly attends the Level 3 panel meetings as a core panel member. A member of my Area Team also represents the Prison Service on the MAPPA Strategic Management Board.

I am committed to ensuring that the contribution which the Prison Service makes to the overall management of high risk offenders under MAPPA continues to be one of our key priorities.

Bob Perry, Area Manager East Midlands, HM Prison Service


A View From The Chair
Krystyna Findley , Chair MAPPA Strategic Management Board

Any Annual Report, by definition, looks back over the work of the last year. This report also takes a historical view and includes a copy of the Business Plan for the coming year 2006 - 07. The Business Plan sets out the work needed to achieve the best possible outcomes in managing offenders who pose a risk to the public in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. It builds on a very solid foundation created by the commitment and hardwork of all the agencies involved in MAPPA.

A recent independent review into the murder of Mr John Monckton in London concluded that it is not possible to totally eliminate risk but it is reasonable for the public to expect that staff in all agencies are ‘doing the job properly’. I would like to highlight three aspects of our work over the coming months that will help staff in MAPPA ‘do the job properly’.

- First, following a review of our current arrangements, we have committed additional resources to the work of MAPPA. This will assist us in continuing to develop arrangements which are ‘fit for purpose’. - Secondly, as part of our commitment to continuous improvement, the Strategic Management Board (SMB) has approved a quality management framework. In practice this means collecting data and evidence so that the SMB has the means to know that we are doing what we say we are doing. - Thirdly, an expanded programme of staff training is intended to publicise the work of MAPPA in each member agency, and also to equip practitioners to play a full part in the multi - agency management of difficult cases.

We are very aware of the level of public concern about sexual and violent offenders. We believe that only when the public is well informed about the set of arrangements which are in place to protect them, can communities have more confidence in the work that goes largely unseen. We are keen to develop a dialogue with communities in order to improve public understanding and to provide reassurance about the very good work that takes place with the most difficult offenders.

I am immensely proud of MAPPA in this area, of the way that agencies work together and of the individual commitment and work of the staff on the front line – thank you. Krystyna Findley, Chair, MAPPA Strategic Management Board NB With effect from 25/9/06 Assistant Chief Constable, Chris Eyre has assumed responsibility as Chair of the MAPPA SMB.

Key Developments during the last twelve months

The past twelve months has been a period of continued development for the MAPPA in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, during which time we have worked to achieve key objectives contained within our first Business Plan.

For the forthcoming year, it is now a requirement that all areas of the country produce and work to such a plan. The MAPPA Business Plan for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland for 2006/7 is included in this report as Appendix A.

Key developments during this reporting year have included:

- Whilst our multi-agency funding arrangements with regard to the MAPPA have been confirmed and will continue, Leicestershire Constabulary and the Leicestershire and Rutland Probation Area have agreed additional funding to recruit additional administrative support for the management of information within and between agencies.

- A review of Police procedures for conducting MAPPA Level 2 meetings and for the management of low and medium risk Registered Sex Offenders by local Area, (Basic Command Units - BCUs) is currently underway and new, revised procedures will be implemented over the next few months.

- The induction process for our two Lay Advisors is now almost complete. Part of their brief is to be reassured that their local MAPPA is maintaining high standards in its work. Their role as Lay Advisors is being reviewed to create more scope for them to observe and monitor the quality of the operational procedures of the MAPPA.

- We are currently discussing with local Education Authorities ways of involving them more fully with our procedures to share information.

- Formal links have been established between the MAPPA and the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board, including the introduction of a new chapter in the local Safeguarding Procedures, which clarifies links between the two processes.


- Similar links have been consolidated with the Local Criminal Justice Board, which is chaired by the Chief Officer of Probation.

- A review of the procedures and processes of our MAPPA Level 3 (MAPPP) meetings has been undertaken and improvements implemented. Lay Advisor Caroline Hall “I have been particularly interested in the role of Approved Premises in the supervision of offenders released from prison on licence. Many people need to be closely monitored and the Approved Premises play a key role in public protection and supervision work. I have visited two Approved Premises and felt very reassured by the working practices that operate there, and the calibre of the staff whose whole approach is to protect our communities. Recall to prison is a very prompt response when an offender is viewed as becoming a threat.”

- In accordance with objectives contained within our Business Plan, three working sub-groups have been established and, are initially reporting to the MAPPA Operational Management Group and then to the Strategic Management Board (SMB).

These are: 1. The Quality Assurance Group, which is in the process of developing and implementing ways of monitoring, reviewing and improving the quality of the MAPPA working procedures.

2. The Communications Group, which is developing a strategy to improve the way we communicate about MAPPA to the local media and community.

3. The Training Group, which is involved in developing a strategy to provide differential levels of awareness and training to staff of all local relevant agencies, depending on their level of involvement with the MAPPA.

Lay Advisor Caroline Roberts “This year has been informative and eventful as the supervision of dangerous offenders in the community has attracted national and local media attention. I look forward to the further development of Lay Advisor responsibilities that will enable us to play a more robust and active role in this important work.”


The way the MAPPA operate locally

The multi-agency approach to public protection is now well established in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. This dates back to the establishment of our Public Protection Panel in 1998, a body which evolved into the Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel (MAPPP) in 2001, and the subsequent national development of the wider Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) framework.

The funding agencies are: Leicestershire Constabulary, National Probation Service, Leicestershire and Rutland Area, HM Prison Service – East Midlands Region, Leicester City Council, Leicestershire County Council, Rutland County Council, Melton, Rutland and Harborough PCT (representing all the PCTs in the area).

What follows is a brief overview of the way the MAPPA operate within Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland followed by some real, but anonymous case studies. The first two of these recount developments in cases which were featured in last year’s Annual Report, whilst the second two are new cases.

The three agencies, which have the statutory responsibility to operate the MAPPA, are the Police, the Probation Service and the Prison Service. These three agencies comprise the The Prison Service joined our local MAPPP in 2000, before it became a statutory responsibility for it to do so. Because of this local historical legacy, which pre-dated the statutory requirement to develop the MAPPA, the posts of MAPPA Manager and Administrator are paid for by contributions from all the agencies involved. “Responsible Authority”.


Leicestershire Constabulary

Leicestershire Constabulary, along with all other Police Forces in England and Wales, has a statutory responsibility to administer the Sex Offenders Register. All relevant information on Registered Sex Offenders is stored on the ViSOR database.

KEY: Explanation of risk assessment approaches
The ViSOR database - the Violent and Sexual Offenders’ Register - has been designed to

The Police, locally, formally assess all sex offenders when they are initially required to register – this is either within three days of a caution or conviction of an offence which results in a community penalty, or within three days of release from prison.

include all offenders who fall within the MAPPA. It is currently employed by the Police only, but is expected to be rolled out to the Probation Service during the next 18 months.

The initial risk assessment is carried out by officers from the Sex and Dangerous Offenders Unit. This procedure involves:

RM2000 is the shorthand version for Risk Matrix 2000, a risk assessment tool developed over many years. This assessment tool

- A home visit to the offender to confirm his/her home address. - Contact with professionals from other agencies who may have a current or recent involvement with the case e.g. Probation. - Contact with the original arresting officer wherever feasible. - The use of the RM 2000 risk assessment tool.

looks at key features of an offender’s background, which have proved to have a significant statistical link to the likelihood of re-offending. The RM 2000 is used by every Police Force in England and Wales and by specialist Probation units to assess sex offenders.


The way the MAPPA
Leicestershire Constabulary

KEY: Explanation of risk assessment approaches
RISK ASSESSMENT & MANAGEMENT PANEL (RAMP) Offenders supervised by the Probation Service and assessed as high risk will normally be subject to a Probation convened MAPPA Level 2 meeting. In Leicestershire and Rutland, these are known as Risk Assessment and Management Panels (RAMPs).

Depending on the risk assessment: - Low and medium risk sex offenders are managed by the BCUs (Basic Command Units) i.e. by officers working in the offenders’ home areas as part of their normal policing duties. In Leicestershire the command units are known as Areas of which there are four : North, East, West and Central.

- High and very high risk sex offenders will be retained by officers in the Sex and Dangerous Offenders Unit, and managed centrally.

It should be borne in mind that many Registered Sex Offenders will also be subject to supervision by the Probation Service during the early part of their registration period, either, in less serious cases, on Community Orders, or in the majority of cases, on licence following release from prison. In such cases, the two agencies work closely together and will, for example, sometimes conduct joint visits to the offender’s home.

In order to avoid duplication of resources, offenders being managed by both agencies who are assessed as requiring MAPPA Level 2 management will be subject to the Probation Level 2 or Risk Assessment and Management Panel (RAMP) process.


operate locally
ACC Chris Eyre SMB Police Representative As and when Probation supervision terminates, offenders still requiring Level 2 management, will then be managed by the Police Level 2 procedures.

All Registered Sex Offenders who are assessed as very high risk are referred to the Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel (MAPPP).

D Supt Chris Tew Operational Management Group Police Representative

Although the Police have primary responsibility for Registered Sex Offenders, other offenders subject to MAPPA Level 3, or MAPPP management, will also be allocated to officers in the Sex and Dangerous Offenders Unit in order to co-ordinate the Police’s involvement with them as part of a collective multi-agency risk management plan. DCI Chris Redfern MAPPP Police Core Panel member

Leicestershire Constabulary also has other specialist units, which contribute significantly to public protection, notably the Child Abuse Investigation Unit, and the Paedophile Unit, which both have clear and established links with other relevant agencies. DS Jim Sutherland SADO Unit

Paedophile Unit

Sex & Dangerous Offenders Unit

Child Abuse Investigation Unit

Area (BCU) Management of Registered Sex Offenders

The way the MAPPA operate locally
National Probation Service – Leicestershire & Rutland Area

The National Probation Service has a statutory

KEY: Explanation of risk assessment approaches

responsibility to supervise offenders on Community Orders made by the Courts and those on licence following release from prison. As such, at any given time, it will have responsibility for

CRAMS is the Central Records Administration and Management System that stores electronically all case records on offenders being supervised by the Probation Service.

supervising a substantial proportion of offenders who fall within the MAPPA i.e.:

- Those Registered Sex Offenders who are also on Community Orders or on licence following release from prison.

- The overwhelming majority of MAPPA Category 2 offenders – those on licence having served a custodial sentence of twelve months or more for a violent offence (the exceptions being the small number of young offenders subject to supervision on licence to the Youth Offending Service, and those discharged from hospital under the supervision of the Health Service).

- A significant proportion of the MAPPA Category 3 – “other dangerous” – offenders, who do not fit into either of the above categories, but who are nonetheless assessed as high risk.

All relevant information on Probation MAPPA cases is held on CRAMS (Central Records Administration and Management System), although the ViSOR database, specifically designed for MAPPA offenders, will be rolled out nationally to all Probation areas over the next eighteen months.


It is noteworthy that, in keeping with the required national model, the Leicestershire and Rutland Probation Area has recently undergone a process of substantial re-organisation to implement the Offender Manager model – in fact it was the first Probation Area in the country to complete this transition.

Among the accredited programmes delivered are: anger management; the Sex Offender Treatment Programme; and the Domestic Violence Programme. There is also a new, enlarged Criminal Justice Drugs Team, and a unit geared to the identification and management of priority and prolific offenders.

Briefly, the Offender Management process requires an Offender Manager to assume “end to end” responsibility for any offender throughout his or her statutory involvement with the Probation Service.

It should also be noted, in this context, that the Leicestershire and Rutland Area has been consistently one of the highest performing Probation Areas in the country over the last twelve months, having “scored” as the best performing area in two of the last four quarters.

The Offender Manager is responsible for assessment, including risk assessment and review, and for commissioning services and resources appropriate to help with the offender’s rehabilitation and the prevention of further offending. In this way, there is a clearly defined single point of responsibility and “ownership” of an offender’s case, and a much greater degree of consistency and continuity of management.

LRPA - No. 1 in national performance league

The other aspect of this reorganisation is in the availability of treatment providers, including specialist units, which have a very important role to play in risk assessment and management - e.g. the Programmes Team.


KEY: Explanation of risk assessment approaches
OASys – The Offender Assessment System is used by the Probation Service to establish a detailed risk assessment. The assessment procedure includes an individual’s offending history, comprehensive review of an offender’s background and contains a section to assess the potential risk of harm to others.

The way the MAPPA
National Probation Service

The Probation Service, together with the Prison Service, are now required to use the OASys (Offender Assessment System), which has recently been rolled out in electronic form, in the risk assessment of offenders under its supervision. There are also other methods in national use to aid this process, including the OGRS (Offender Group Reconviction Scale) assessment tool.

OGRS – the Offender Group Reconviction Scale assessment tool has been developed to help predict the likelihood of a given offender re-offending. The comprehensive data includes relevant details about the offender’s previous offending history. As well as these methods, the Leicestershire and Rutland Probation Area (LRPA) uses the RM 2000 tool in its work with sex offenders (also used by the Police for risk assessments). The LRPA was one of the first Probation Areas in the country to pilot the use of the polygraph (commonly known as the lie detector) for this group. The LRPA now also employs a dedicated team of one senior and POLYGRAPH – ‘commonly known as the lie detector’ Leicestershire and Rutland was one of the first Probation Areas to use polygraph testing in its work with high risk offenders. The test measures the small changes in an offender’s physical responses, such as their heartbeat, in order to establish if the offender is giving truthful replies to the questions. Although it should be emphasised that Probation’s risk assessments are regularly reviewed – at least quarterly – the substantial majority of Probation-supervised MAPPA offenders remain low or medium risk and are supervised by their individual Probation Officers under single agency management. For those assessed as higher risk, and/or where more than one agency is actively involved in risk management, Probation, locally, employ the RAMP (Risk Assessment and Management Panel) process.

two psychologists to aid with risk assessment and therapeutic treatment processes.

operate locally
Leicestershire & Rutland Area

These Panels are convened and chaired by Senior Probation Officers. All front line operational staff involved with the offender will be invited to the RAMP which will facilitate information exchange, collective risk assessments and agree risk management measures.

Very high risk offenders, for whom the risk is assessed as serious or imminent, are referred to the Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel, or MAPPP.

Leicestershire and Rutland Probation Area has a dedicated Victim Contact Team (VCT), which carries out Probation’s statutory responsibility to offer contact and information to the victims of violent or sexual crime. This team has a very high reputation, nationally, for good practice and, in the last twelve months, has been invited to run workshops at two national conferences on its work within our local MAPPA procedures.

The Victim Contact Team is routinely informed of any offender due to be considered at either RAMP or MAPPP meetings. The team will either send a representative, or provide a written report, which will be considered as part of the risk assessment and in the context of deciding upon risk management measures. They also provide feedback to victims, where appropriate.


The way the MAPPA operate locally
Approved Premises

Malcolm Jones LRPA Approved Premises Manager Probation hostels, or Approved Premises as they are now properly if confusingly called, are widely considered by MAPPA managers throughout England and Wales to occupy a central role in the delivery of their objectives. There are 102 such facilities nationwide, and the fact that they feature so prominently in MAPPA core business points to a major if little noticed evolutionary change that has profoundly affected their role and function over recent years.

The two Approved Premises in the Leicestershire and Rutland area have been in the vanguard of this change and so offer a view into an area of modern Probation practice partly obscured by recent controversies, in the national media, about how effectively high risk offenders can be managed in the community.

Kirk Lodge and Howard House, the two premises in question, once occupied a role that befitted their previous description as hostels. Their primary purpose was to meet the accommodation needs of homeless offenders. Their clientele, as Probation called its cases in those days, was usually young, and usually low to medium risk in terms of their potential impact on the communities in which they were located. Reflecting this role, most of their residents were defendants on bail, awaiting trial or sentence for relatively minor offences. It was commonplace therefore to refer to these places as bail hostels; a term in continuing use despite its almost complete irrelevance to the modern mission.

That modern mission is now unambiguously about public protection. It is to accommodate the kind of adult offenders that our Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements were designed to deal with: serious offenders whose past behaviour prompts the greatest concern for public safety, who are judged to need the most intensive and most invasive supervision available this side of the prison gate in order to most safely manage their reintegration back into open society where potential future victims abound.

This is a huge change from past times, and both the public and the media on their behalf, are entitled to ask what exactly is now located in their midst, and just how safely their work is carried out.


Safely accommodating high risk offenders is the modern mission and the key challenge facing what we used to call Probation Hostels - now ‘Approved Premises’.

The two Approved Premises in Leicester are located in very different areas of the city, and these differences are reflected in the risks posed by the offenders respectively accommodated within them. Howard House, which is located fairly centrally in a mainly commercial area, is used strategically to accommodate those who are thought to present the highest risk and the greatest need of intensive oversight. With only eleven beds, it is one of the smallest facilities of its kind in the country but, in recognition of its caseload, it has a much higher staff-offender ratio than its sister facility Kirk Lodge.

Kirk Lodge is located in one of the city’s suburbs. One of the largest Approved Premises in the country, this thirty-two-bed facility, which includes separate provision for female offenders, is used to accommodate those offenders who are thought less likely to pose a danger to the surrounding public or, for that matter, to each other. Kirk Lodge also has a high staff-offender ratio and is the base for the managers and administrative staff who serve the needs of both facilities.

Both premises continue to take bail cases referred by local courts, but these account for as few as ten percent of their caseload. Both take offenders subject to the modern-day equivalent of Probation Orders, but again they are few in number because the risk levels they present tend to be comparatively low, and therefore less of a priority for the scarce and costly resources available. Today, around eighty percent of the caseload is made up of former prisoners; offenders released on licence to serve the final stage of their sentences under supervision in the community.

Many of these offenders have convictions for violent offences, or at the very least pose the risk of causing serious physical or psychological harm to known or unknown people in the community. Some of these have convictions for sex offences; some against adults, some against children.


Approved Premises

Most of Leicestershire’s ‘critical few’ MAPPP managed offenders have at some stage been accommodated at Howard House or Kirk Lodge. In other words, a significant number of the offenders in our Approved Premises are the kind of people most ordinary members of the public would naturally think pose a serious threat to the safety of themselves and their loved ones.

Concern about the management of that threat is the driving force behind the work that goes on in both premises, from the moment a case is first referred and considered for a place, through to when the case is cleared to move on to less restrictive accommodation elsewhere. To understand this it is important first to appreciate that the offer of an Approved Premises place does not secure an earlier release for the prisoner than was already under consideration. All prospective residents have reached the point in their sentences where they are entitled to be released. They could be released to less restrictive and much riskier locations in the community, but Approved Premises offer something uniquely reassuring; the opportunity to subject the offender to the kind of scrutiny they would not get if they left prison under other circumstances.

It is also important to understand that Approved Premises places are not offered gratuitously. Great care is taken to assess whether the risks presented by the individual are manageable, and if so, how and where that management should be carried out. Once a positive decision is taken to accept a case, a risk management plan is drawn up, detailing the kind of restrictions which need to be imposed on the offender’s freedom and the kind of work that needs to be done by and with the offender to minimise the risks and maximise the prospects for their successful rehabilitation.


The management of potential risks to the public is our driving force. Approved Premises should not be regarded as an isolated resource. We are part of an effective criminal justice system that seeks to protect our communities by punishing offenders and reducing re-offending.
This control aspect of the work takes place within an organisational ethos that prioritises the protection of the public. There is a framework of rules which includes the requirement to comply with a night-time curfew. And there is an unambiguous determination to take action to enforce adherence to these rules. So, the offender who fails to keep to the curfew, or visits a prohibited area, or exhibits violence within the premises, or commits some other breach of their prison licence conditions, faces prompt action to effect their recall to prison. Importantly, much of this work is not the sole preserve of Approved Premises staff. Reflecting the ethos of MAPPA, much of the work is conducted in a spirit of partnership unhindered by organisational boundaries that can so easily impede effective risk management practice. The Police, for instance, are routinely provided with crucial intelligence in their fight against crime. They in turn routinely share their knowledge, greatly enhancing our risk assessment and threat management processes. This level of mutual regard and information exchange would have been unthinkable as recently as ten years ago, and it undoubtedly has significant implications on a daily basis for the safety of the public.

Control measures of this kind are balanced by a range of constructive interventions. Each resident, in addition to having an Offender Manager in the community, also has a hostel assigned caseworker. Their joint task is to address the causes of the resident’s previous offending, and identify ways of diverting the offender into necessary treatment and learning opportunities. Some of those opportunities are available in-house through programmes designed to enhance their thinking skills, develop their practical life skills, and challenge their behavioural problems. Some are best accessed elsewhere in the community, and the role of the Approved Premises is to broker the most suitable resources and motivate and monitor the resident’s take up, benefit and compliance. This too can profoundly change the threat the resident originally presented.

We cannot claim that risk management is a precise science but providing supervised accommodation for high risk offenders is entirely preferable to unfettered release. The controversy that occasionally surrounds work of this kind masks this important truth and detracts from public recognition of the sometimes heroic efforts of staff who frequently wring positive outcomes from some of the least promising circumstances imaginable.


The way the MAPPA operate locally
H.M. Prison Service – East Midlands Region
Although the MAPPA are, of course, designed for the assessment and management of offenders within the community, the Prison Service, as the third member of the Responsible Authority, has a key role to play in seeking to rehabilitate, and thereby reduce the risk of, offenders whilst they are serving their custodial sentences, and in helping Police and Probation in planning for the release of MAPPA offenders. Obviously, in this context, clear, consistent communication between prisons holding MAPPA offenders and the area to which they will return on release is vital.

All MAPPA offenders serving custodial sentences will be allocated a community or “home” Probation Officer – or in the cases of Young Offenders, a Youth Offending Service Officer. This member of staff will contribute to the Sentence Planning process, which the prisoner will be subjected to during the course of his or her sentence. The key links in this process will be with seconded Probation staff, who are deployed in all Prison Service establishments and, increasingly, with dedicated Public Protection staff which most establishments have now introduced. The Prison Service is also using the OASys assessment tool, providing a joined-up and more consistent approach to risk assessment with Probation.

MAPPA prisoners’ risk assessments are kept under review throughout their sentences with the aim that all work undertaken contributes to the protection of the public, staff and other prisoners. But the risk assessment process becomes particularly important towards the end of the sentence, when planning for release is taking place. High risk MAPPA offenders will normally be considered by a RAMP or a MAPPP about three months prior to their release date. Since they will be able to make a significant contribution to such meetings, prison staff are either invited to attend or, where this is not feasible, to provide a written report for the Panel’s consideration.

Locally, even before recent legislation conveyed Responsible Authority status upon the Prison Service, links between the East Midlands Prison Service Area and our MAPPA have always been strong. Leicestershire and Rutland was one of the first areas in the country, some five years ago, to recruit a Prison Service representative onto our MAPPP. This direct link has proved invaluable in accessing information and intelligence from prisons and, in a small number of cases, arranging the transfer, prior to release, of offenders serving sentences in other areas of the country to more local establishments. The link ensures the release process is effectively and safely managed.

The Prison Service makes a financial contribution to the joint funding of our MAPPP, and is represented both on the MAPPA Operational Management Group and the Strategic Management Board.

As well as the three agencies which comprise the Responsible Authority, a significant number of others are subject to a statutory “duty to co-operate” with the operation of the MAPPA. What follows is a brief outline of some of the most important contributions from some of these local agencies.

The Youth Offending Service
There are two Youth Offending Services operating locally, one for Young Offenders living within the city of Leicester and one for those resident in Leicestershire and Rutland.

Youth Offending Services are, in their own right, multi-agency organisations and include staff seconded from Probation, the Police, the Health Service and Children and Young People’s Services (newly created agencies which combine the functions of Education and Social Services Departments).

Although YOS deal with relatively small numbers of MAPPA offenders, their contribution is very important.

The Youth Offending Service, nationally, employs its own purposely designed risk assessment tool, ASSET, which is used in all cases that they supervise.

Locally, both YOS have developed their own MAPPA Level 2 Panels, Risk Management Conferences, and have the facility to refer to MAPPP when they feel that this level of management scrutiny is justified.

The YOS are represented on both the MAPPA Operational Management Group and the Strategic Management Board.


The way the MAPPA operate locally
The Health Service

In some areas of the country, there have been difficulties in developing constructive engagement between the MAPPA and local Health Services. This has never been the case in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. Indeed the old Leicestershire Area Health Authority was one of the founding partners and joint funders of the Public Protection Panel, the forerunner of our MAPPP, which, in turn led to the wider Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements.

This strong partnership persists, albeit that the Health share of funding the MAPPP is now provided by the Melton, Rutland and Harborough Primary Care Trust, on behalf of all the PCTs in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. In practice, however, the majority of cases at the operational interface between the Health Service and the MAPPA involve the Leicestershire Partnership Trust’s Forensic Mental Health Service.

Therefore, both the Melton, Rutland and Harborough PCT and the Leicestershire Partnership Trust are represented on the MAPPA Strategic Management Board, whilst the Forensic Mental Health Service’s Manager sits on both the MAPPP and the MAPPA Operational Management Group.

The Forensic Mental Health Service also has the responsibility to manage a small number of mentally disordered offenders within the community and, for this reason, where it is obviously appropriate and logical for them to do so, they will assume lead responsibility for a small number of MAPPA offenders.

In order to accomplish this task, the local services have incorporated MAPPA Level 2 meetings in the form of Risk Concerns Meetings within the overall Care Programme Approach (CPA) procedures.


Local Authority involvementChildren’s & Young Persons’ Services Departments

Recently all three local Social Services Departments have undergone fundamental structural re-organisation, which has resulted in the establishment of three Children’s and Young Persons’ Services Departments for Leicester City, Leicestershire and Rutland respectively.

These departments are now represented on the MAPPA Strategic Management Board, the Operational Management Group, and all provide a “core” panel member, who sits on the MAPPP. All of these roles provide a clear link with, and access to, the local Education Authorities.

A key parallel development has been the launch of the Local Safeguarding Children Board, which has effectively superseded the two previous Area Child Protection Committees. There is a clear imperative to develop close links between LSCBs and local MAPPA, which, in this area, is established and ongoing. This process includes, for example, the publication of clear practice guidance on the work and potential overlap with the MAPPA in the local Safeguarding Procedures, and the development of a MAPPA dimension in the Safeguarding Children Training programme. In this way, the focus on child protection in relevant MAPPA cases can be kept centre stage, and the two sets of procedures can more easily operate in a complementary way.


The way the MAPPA operate locally
Local Authority Housing Providers
As is the case with Health, the integration of Local Authority Housing providers within the MAPPA has not been an easy process in some areas of the country. But again, in this area, we have enjoyed the active and positive co-operation of the Leicester City Housing Department since the inception of our multi-agency approach to public protection.

The City Housing Department, which represents all other social housing providers in this area, was a founder partner member of our Public Protection Panel in 1998, and has retained that level of commitment as the whole MAPPA framework has evolved.

It has always provided a manager to sit on our MAPPP and is represented on both the Operational Management Group and the MAPPA Strategic Management Board.

The department has always taken a holistic view of public protection and its responsibilities to try to provide safe, appropriate accommodation for offenders in order to aid the task of monitoring them effectively and thereby enhancing the protection of the local community.


- Meets monthly - Independent chair - Dedicated admin support - Core panel members - Practitioners invited


PROBATION RAMP - Convened as required - Probation supervised cases only - Chaired by SPO - Practitioners invited - Probation team admin support YOUTH OFFENDING SERVICE Risk Management Conference - Convened as required - YOS supervised cases only - Chaired by manager - Practitioners invited - YOS admin support HEALTH CARE PROGRAMME APPROACH RISK CONCERNS MEETING - Convened as required - Health managed cases only - Chaired by RMO/FHMS - Practitioners invited - Health admin support POLICE RAMP - Convened as required - All other cases - Chaired by Insp. - Practitioners invited - Police area admin support

PROBATION SUPERVISION - Probation cases only - Case Manager supervisors - 3 monthly review YOS SUPERVISION - YOS cases only - Case Manager supervisor LOCAL POLICE AREA MANAGEMENT - Registered Sex Offenders - Nominated Area Case Worker - or SADO unit DC


The Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel – or MAPPP

The Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel, or MAPPP, is the highest tier, MAPPA Level 3 management facility that deals with the small number of offenders – typically between 30 and 40 during any twelve-month period – who are assessed as posing the most serious and imminent risk to others. Any agency can make a referral to the MAPPP, although, unsurprisingly, most cases come from the Probation Service or the Police. However, in order to prevent the MAPPP being swamped with inappropriate referrals, and, consequently, to ensure that all MAPPP cases are given due time and consideration, a strict gate keeping system is employed.

The MAPPP meets monthly, usually at County Hall. It adopts a standard agenda, to ensure consistency, and detailed minutes are taken to facilitate an “audit trail” of information provided, issues discussed and decisions taken.

As with MAPPA Level 2 meetings, all front line staff with knowledge of the offender under consideration are invited to attend or to submit reports. Therefore Probation and Police Officers, Social Workers, Community Psychiatric Nurses, Psychiatrists, Psychologists, Prison Service staff and many others will attend MAPPPs when it is appropriate for them to do so.

The criteria for MAPPP referral are:

However, there are two important differences between the MAPPP and MAPPA Level 2 meetings.

- Clear and present risk of serious re-offending likely to cause serious harm to others 1. The MAPPP is chaired by the independent MAPPA Manager, and - A multi-agency approach is likely to add value to assessment or management, and/or 2. All key decisions regarding risk management are taken by “core” Panel Members, i.e. - The case requires unusual, or unusually large, resource allocation to achieve effective management, and/or managers representing all the key partner organisations.

- Re-offending would be likely to cause significant community concern.



This latter point is particularly important since:

- The formulation of risk management measures which, so far as possible, comply with the SMART

- Core Panel members bring a blend of experience and expertise allowing for a comprehensive multi-agency approach.

(Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-limited) format, and

- Setting a review date when the case will be - They have the necessary authority to commit resources or implement actions within their own organisations in contributing to risk management. brought back to the MAPPP to check on progress and revisit the risk posed by the offender in the light of the implementation of the agreed risk management measures. - Not all agencies will have knowledge or contact with the offender under consideration. These representatives bring an important element of balance and objectivity to the proceedings. Cases not, or no longer considered appropriate for MAPPP management when subsequently reviewed, will automatically revert to MAPPA Level 2 management. In cases where the Panel decide that ongoing MAPPP, or MAPPA Level 3 management is required, a formal risk management plan will be agreed and adopted, which will include: The effectiveness of the MAPPP must, in part, of course, be judged on its success in agreeing measures which prevent serious re-offending. Given that the MAPPP deals with very high risk - The identification of a lead agency and key worker, charged with the responsibility of overseeing the implementation of the risk management plan. In particularly complex cases, the Panel may identify a core group of key operational staff who are expected to meet and communicate regularly about particular aspects of the management of the case. Nonetheless, since its inception, initially in the form of the Public Protection Panel, of the 200 plus cases which have been managed at this level, only 5 have subsequently committed a further very serious offence. offenders, the risk of such re-offending can never be completely eliminated.


The Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel – or MAPPP

Another crucial performance indicator of the MAPPP’s effectiveness, however, is the extent to which the front line staff, who are involved in the operational management, find the procedure helpful to them in doing their day-to-day jobs in trying to manage these offenders.

In order to elicit such feedback, the MAPPP annually conducts an anonymous “User Survey” of all staff who have attended Panels in the previous twelve months.

The results of the User Survey have consistently revealed a generally high level of satisfaction. In fact, the survey carried out for 2005 demonstrated an overall satisfaction rating of 82%.

The current membership of the MAPPP can be found in Appendix C.




The Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements for Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland
Multi-Agency Training Personnel Changes

Although the MAPPA Strategic Management Board is committed to developing a more comprehensive training strategy, several interagency training events have been held over the last three years.

The following changes in key personnel in relation to the MAPPA have taken place during the past twelve months.

Andrew Cozens, previously Corporate Director of Leicester City Social Care and Health Department who sat on the Strategic Management Board has

Staff have attended from local Police, Probation, Social Services, Housing, Prisons, Youth Offending Services, Health and Education.

left and joined IdeA as Strategic Advisor for Children, Adults and Heath Services. Andrew has been replaced on the SMB by Andrew Bunyan, Service Manager, Leicester City

These full day events provide:

Council Family Support and Safeguarding Services, Children’s and Young Persons’

- An outline of the MAPPA legislative framework

Services Dept.

Moira Bartlett, previously governor of HMP - An overview of risk assessment and management Stocken, who represented the Prison Service as Core Panel Member on the MAPPP has now - An outline of the way different agencies, locally, contribute to the MAPPA via a series of workshops, and moved to another post within the Prison Service. Moira has been replaced in this capacity by her successor at Stocken, Steve Turner.

- An opportunity to work through case examples, both in single agency and mixed agency groups.

Pat Hobbs, previously Assistant Director of Leicester City Housing Department has now moved to a new post as Service Director with greater responsibilities and has therefore felt it

The feedback on this training has, generally, been very positive. The last event, held in November 2005, revealed an overall satisfaction rating of 92%.

necessary to relinquish her role as Chair of the Operational Management Group. Pat will, however, continue to serve on the SMB.

Pat’s successor as Leicester City Housing Department representative on the Operational Management Group is Martin Clewlow, Housing Manager, Leicester City Council Housing Dept.


Finally, in January of this year, Detective Sergeant Tim Hollis, who managed the Police Sex and Dangerous Offenders Unit from its establishment in 1998, retired.

I come to the unit with experience of a wide variety of Police roles gathered over 28 years service with Leicestershire Constabulary including, most recently, seven years as Detective Sergeant in the Child Protection Unit.

Tim’s successor is DS Jim Sutherland who writes: This new posting is not without challenges “I have recently been appointed as team manager for the Leicestershire Constabulary’s Sex and Dangerous Offenders Unit, to fill the rather large gap left by Tim Hollis who has retired. I am keen to develop the good work of my predecessor in raising awareness and increasing The unit comprises four Detective Constables, involved in managing and monitoring Registered Sex Offenders and identified dangerous offenders, and one member of support staff involved in the administration of the national database ViSOR (Violent Offender and Sex Offender Register). We are fortunate to be co-located with our MAPPA Manager Bob Petrie and his support staff. DS Jim Sutherland, team manager for the Leicestershire Constabulary Sex and Dangerous Offenders Unit the involvement of Police Officers, Police Support staff and Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) at the front line of our work, and to continue to build on the excellent working relationships we have with colleagues in Leicestershire and Rutland Probation Area and other agencies.” particularly at this time when public protection is under the media spotlight.


Although the overwhelming majority of MAPPA offenders are assessed as lower risk, the following, high risk cases have been chosen to demonstrate the complexity of cases managed by the MAPPP, and the ways in which a multi-agency approach can provide the most effective package of risk management measures. These are real cases which have been under MAPPP management during the past twelve months, although, for obvious reasons, all names of the people involved have been changed.

UPDATE ON CATHY’S STORY “No easy answers….” - featured in last year’s Annual Report

Cathy has a history of disturbed and dangerous behaviour, including offences of violence and arson. She has a history of mental health problems, but has consistently been assessed as suffering from a Personality Disorder, rather than any treatable form of mental illness. Although offered continued support by the Mental Health Services, she has refused to co-operate or accept it. Prior to her last prison sentence, she had been living with her sister, who has three children. A risk assessment carried out by Social Services concluded that it would not be safe to allow her to return to her sister’s home. Cathy had been recalled to prison twice, following her initial release on licence. She was finally released in the summer of 2005 having effectively served out all of her licence period in prison. So when Cathy finally left prison, she was no longer subject to Probation supervision or therefore to the potential sanction of recall. However, Cathy was still considered a risk to others and therefore remained subject to MAPPP management.


The revised risk management plan contained the following elements: - The Housing Authorities agreed to offer her another tenancy - She was offered voluntary contact with her ex-Probation Officer - Her case was allocated to the High Risk Outreach Team, which is run and managed by a local voluntary organisation and funded, amongst others, by Probation and the City Council. The team offers support, practical help and additional monitoring for high risk offenders during the transition to independent living. - Her case was flagged up on all Police intelligence systems, and the local Police were briefed as to her history and issues in relation to her management, and measures were put in place to offer protection to her sister and her children. - Cathy was made aware that mental health support remained on offer, and that the prohibition of contact with her sister’s children would be reviewed, subject to her commitment to behave reasonably and to co-operate.

Cathy initially settled back into the community and formed good, constructive working relationships with the members of the High Risk Outreach Team. Her mental health appeared to have stabilised.

But the seemingly good progress was halted when Cathy was subsequently apprehended committing an offence of criminal damage, and was also charged with actual bodily harm committed against a member of Probation staff. She was remanded back to custody, and the court requested new psychiatric reports to assess her suitability for a secure Hospital Order.

In the event, the reports did not recommend a Hospital Order and Cathy received a three year extended sentence of imprisonment for public protection. This means that she will not be automatically released at the half way point, but could serve the full three years if it is not considered safe to release her beforehand.

There are no easy answers to the questions posed by people like Cathy. However, the operation of the MAPPA successfully protected her sister and her children, and hastened her immediate identification and apprehension when she did re-offend.


UPDATE ON MICHAEL’S STORY: “long term vigilance is the key” - featured in last year’s Annual Report

Michael had been identified as a very high risk offender who sought to ingratiate himself into families by earning the trust of the adults involved, enabling him to sexually abuse boys.

As a result the management of his case was overseen by the MAPPP and, following exemplary information sharing by Probation, the Police and Social Services, he was tracked, and his behaviour closely monitored. Parents were warned and, almost certainly, further potential victims were protected.

This pattern of behaviour also gave the Police sufficient evidence to successfully apply to the court for a Sexual Offending Prevention Order, (SOPO) with a requirement prohibiting Michael having unsupervised contact with children under the age of eighteen.

Michael was subsequently given a Community Order for driving whilst disqualified. While being supervised by the Probation Service, officers carried out checks and discovered that he was involved with a new girlfriend who had children.

The Probation Service immediately alerted the Police whose enquiries revealed that he had been seen alone with the daughter of his new partner. He was immediately arrested and charged with breaching the terms of his SOPO.

At the time of writing, Michael remains in custody, awaiting sentence for this breach. The maximum penalty is five years imprisonment.

This case highlights the necessity for long term vigilance by all involved in the management of high risk offenders.


The following two case studies were amongst new business considered by the MAPPP over the past twelve months.

Barry’s case was referred to the MAPPP as he was approaching the end of a seven year prison sentence for indecent assaults on children. All of his previous applications for parole had been refused, but he was approaching the point where he had to be let out of prison on an extended licence period of three years.

Barry had been offending regularly against children for over twenty years, mainly against unknown victims he had targeted in public toilets. He had received several substantial periods of imprisonment in the past.

He was assessed as very high risk and, worryingly, there was a clear escalation of the seriousness in the nature of his assaults against children.

As part of the risk management plan, it was agreed that Barry should be required to reside in an Approved Premises (Probation Hostel) and be made subject to very stringent curfew conditions. Initially, he was not allowed to leave the Approved Premises unescorted.

Eventually Barry was allowed to leave the hostel during the day, but was closely monitored by the Police. Although he did not approach any children, on several occasions, Barry was observed stopping and staring at them.

When his Probation Officer confronted him with this, Barry confessed that he had been thinking of offending and would have done so if any of the children had been alone.

Whilst Barry had not committed an offence, nor attempted to do so, Probation management concluded that his risk could not be successfully contained, and a request was made for his immediate recall to prison. He was recalled.

In the future the MAPPP will look at his case again prior to his future release and put in place whatever measures are possible to protect the public.



Andrew had numerous previous convictions for minor public order offences including motoring and relatively petty dishonesty. He also had a history of contact with the local Mental health Services, and admitted to having a drugs problem.

Andrew’s case was referred to the MAPPP by a Probation MAPPA Level 2 meeting prior to his release from an eighteen month prison sentence for affray and threats to kill. The victim was his mother, with whom he has a turbulent and difficult relationship.

In prison he had also begun to self-harm and had written threatening messages in his own blood. Andrew also claimed to sometimes hear voices in his head telling him to hurt his mother or other, nonspecified people. The prison medical authorities used anti-psychotic medication, so that it was possible to stabilise Andrew. The medical team came to the conclusion that Andrew was suffering from a personality disorder and that much of his behaviour was a way to attract attention, special treatment or achieve any other goal he had in mind through threats to himself or others. Nonetheless, his threats towards his mother in particular, and other people in general, were taken very seriously by all those working with Andrew. Whilst in prison, Andrew also requested help with his drugs problem.

Andrew had been released twice and recalled. He was referred to MAPPP because he was about to be released without being subject to any licence conditions. Prior to his final release, the Probation RAMP (MAPPA Level 2 meeting) had put in place several risk management measures, including:

- An offer to re-house Andrew’s mother which she declined. - The local Police, well aware of the potential risks to his mother, provided protection measures for her within the home. - The City Council Anti-Social Behaviour Unit applied successfully for an interim injunction prohibiting Andrew from entering the geographical area of the city where his mother lives. - The offer of voluntary contact by Probation, despite the fact that he would not be on licence. - The agreement by the City Social Care and Health Department to urgently conduct an assessment re drug abuse and, if possible, seek an appropriate drug rehabilitation placement.


In the event a drug rehabilitation placement was secured for Andrew in another area of the country but this failed due to his self-harming behaviour. He returned to Leicester. A local charity that deals with homeless people then provided a stopgap bed and breakfast accommodation for him.

An emergency core-group meeting was convened by the MAPPA Manager which devised an action plan to manage the obvious risk. The complexity and difficulty of this case required that seventeen front line staff or managers of local agencies involved attended this meeting. Among the agencies were the Police and Probation Service and local drug treatment agencies. A package of measures was agreed at the meeting, after members felt that it was unsafe for Andrew to remain in Bed and Breakfast accommodation:

- The funding for bed and breakfast was withdrawn, thus effectively evicting him with immediate effect. - Andrew was offered a place in a City Housing Department hostel. - Joint funding was agreed for an additional security presence at the hostel. - The Police lodged an operational order on the hostel that guaranteed a rapid and proactive approach if requested. - A named point of contact was identified with a local health manager, guaranteeing the offer of voluntary admission to hospital and/or assessment for emergency section under the Mental Health Act. - The continued offer of voluntary contact with his ex-Probation Officer who would work with Andrew to try to motivate him to access local drugs services. - Andrew was to be told that if he co-operated, the longer term offer was for the City Council to provide move-on accommodation, with the support of the High Risk Outreach Team.

Unfortunately, despite all the interagency work in this complex case, Andrew breached his injunction by returning to his mother’s home. Although he was arrested, and initially remained in custody, he was bailed to a voluntary-sector hostel that has been successful in working with troubled young people. At the time of writing he remains in this placement and there are early signs to suggest that his behaviour is becoming more rational and stable.

This case demonstrates not only the scope and the extent of each agency’s involvement in the local MAPPA, but the crucial importance of information exchange followed by a co-ordinated planned approach. It is also worth noting that, despite the fact that no single agency had a statutory responsibility to deal with Andrew, all were prepared to become involved in the joint approach because of his obvious potential to harm others as well as himself.


Every year it is a requirement that the Annual Report provides statistical information in relation to the MAPPA. Each statistical entry is accompanied by an explanatory note which gives the bare statistics a context and makes them more understandable.

Registered Sex Offenders – MAPPA Category 1:
On 31st March 2006, there were 543 Registered Sex Offenders (RSOs) living in Leicester, Leicestershire


and Rutland, an increase of some 7% over last year’s figure of 508.

There is also a breakdown of Registered Sex Offenders living in each of Leicestershire Constabulary’s Areas, or Basic Command Units (BCUs). The fact that the total of these four BCU figures do not add up precisely to 543 reflects the fact that these statistics were requested after 31/03/06.

This demonstrates that the number on the Sex Offender Register is constantly changing, as some offenders reach the end of their registration period, whilst new ones are signing on. The typical registration period is intentionally substantial to allow the Police to monitor for lengthy periods of time and the most serious offenders are registered for life. The overall trend in the number, therefore, is upward and likely to continue to be so for some years to come.

Whilst there are significant variations in the proportion of RSOs within the overall population between different areas of the country for reasons which are not entirely clear, the proportion within Leicestershire and Rutland has always been, and remains close to the national average.

It must also be emphasised that the range of sexual offences which result in a requirement to register on the Sex Offender Register is very broad and whilst, obviously, it does include very serious offending, it also covers many offenders who are not assessed as high risk.

Thus, of the overall total of 543, only 63, or 12% were subject to MAPPA Level 2 management, and an even smaller number, 17, or 3% were subject to MAPPP management during the past year.

Also, for the second year running, no RSO living in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, managed at either MAPPA Level 2 or 3 was charged with a further very serious offence.

Required for the reporting period 1st APRIL 2005 - 31st MARCH 2006

(NB Figures for 2004/5 in brackets) 1. Category 1 MAPPA offenders: Registered Sex Offenders (RSO)
i) The number of RSOs living in Leicestershire and Rutland Area on 31st March 2006. 543 (508) Number of RSOs living in the individual Basic Command Units are – North: 117, East: 122, West: 161, Central: 131. a) The number of RSOs per 100'000 head of population. 58 (54)

ii) The number of sex offenders having a registration requirement who were either cautioned or convicted for breaches of the requirement, between 1st April 2005 and 31st March 2006 18 (11)

iii) The number of : (a) Sexual Offences Prevention Orders (SOPOs) applied for 3 (1) (b) interim SOPOs granted 1 (1) (c) full SOPOs imposed by the courts in Leicestershire and Rutland Area between 1st April 2005 and 31st March 2006 3 (0)

iv) The number of: (a) Notification Orders applied for 1 (1) (b) interim Notification Orders granted 1 (0) (c) full Notification Orders imposed by the courts in Leicestershire and Rutland Area between 1st April 2005 and 31st March 2006 1 (0)

v) The number of Foreign Travel Orders: (a) applied for 0 (0) (b) imposed by the courts in Leicestershire and Rutland Area between 1st April 2005 and 31st March 2006 0 (0)


Violent and Other Sex Offenders – MAPPA Category 2:

The number of offenders in this category for 2005/6 was 324, a figure broadly consistent with last year’s


total of 340. This category is largely made up of offenders released on licence, having served a prison sentence of 12 months or more for a violent offence and the small number of sex offenders released from such sentences, which are not required to register on the Sex Offender Register.

Again, the vast majority of these offenders are low risk, with only 56 in this category, or 17% managed at MAPPA Level 2, and 7, or 2%, managed at MAPPA Level 3 by the MAPPP. As with MAPPA Category 1 offenders and, again, as for last year, no Category 2 offenders managed at either Level 2 or 3 were charged with a further, very serious offence.

Other dangerous offenders – MAPPA Category 3:
This category is made up of offenders who do not fit into either of the above categories, but who are still assessed as high risk and, therefore, subject to multi-agency management at either MAPPA Level 2 or 3 Panels. This year’s total of 44 represents a very significant decrease over last year’s figure of 89.

Whilst some variation on the figures, year to year, can always be expected, the major reason for this significant discrepancy is that this year the offenders who have been counted include only those subject to ongoing multi-agency management at some point in the year.

That is to say, offenders included in this category this year were subject to at least one multi-agency review meeting following initial consideration by Panels. Last year, all offenders subject to an initial Panel were counted, even though many of those were not subject to ongoing multi-agency arrangements and, therefore, review.

It is felt, therefore, that this year’s figure reflects a more accurate indication of the number of high risk offenders in this category. Of the overall total of 44, only 8, or 18% were assessed as very high risk and subject to MAPPP management. And no MAPPA Category 3 offender re-offended seriously.

Required for the reporting period 1st APRIL 2005 - 31st MARCH 2006

(NB Figures for 2004/5 in brackets) 2. Category 2 MAPPA offenders: Violent offenders and Other Sexual offenders (V&OS)
vi) The number of violent and other sexual offenders (as defined by Section 327 (3), (4) and (5) of the Criminal Justice Act (2003)) living in Leicestershire and Rutland Area between 1st April 2005 and 31st March 2006. 324 (340)

3. Category 3 MAPPA offenders: Other Offenders (OthO)
vii) The number of ‘other offenders’ (as defined by Section 325 (2)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act (2003)) between 1st April 2005 and 31st March 2006. 44 (89)



MAPPA Level 2 and 3 management:
The total number of offenders who fell within the MAPPA in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland at some point during the last twelve months was 911.

Of these, 155, or 17% were managed at MAPPA Level 2 at some point during the year.

And 32, or three and-a-half per cent of the total number, were managed at MAPPA Level 3.

Of the combined total of 187 managed at either MAPPA Level 2 or 3, 40, or 21% were breached and returned to custody.

The MAPPA statistical returns for 2005/6 are encouraging and, I hope, reassuring.

I believe that they indicate the effectiveness of the MAPPA framework, in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, in successfully protecting the public.

It is worth remembering that this level of effectiveness cannot be achieved without the active co-operation of all the agencies involved and without the skills, dedication, commitment and sheer hard work of numerous staff of all agencies who have been working together to protect the public.

Bob Petrie, MAPPA Manager, Leicestershire & Rutland May 2006.

Required for the reporting period 1st APRIL 2005 - 31st MARCH 2006

(NB Figures for 2004/5 in brackets) 4. Offenders managed though Level 3 (MAPPP) & Level 2 (local inter-agency management)
(viii) The number of MAPPA offenders in each of the three Categories have been managed through the MAPPP (level 3) and through local inter-agency risk management (level 2) between 1st April 2005 and 31st March 2006. (1) RSO’s – Level 2 - 63 (56) Level 3 – 17 (19) (2) V & O – Level 2 – 56 (53) Level 3 – 7 (9) (3) OthO – Level 2 – 36 (75) Level 3 – 8 (14)

(ix) Of the cases managed at levels 3 or 2 (i.e. (viii)) between 1st April 2005 and 31st March 2006 how many, whilst managed at that level: (a) Were returned to custody for a breach of licence? Level 2 – 26 (32) Level 3 – 14 (10) (b) Were returned to custody for a breach of a restraining order or sexual offences prevention order? Nil – 2 currently RIC for such a breach (Nil) (c) Were charged with a serious sexual or violent offence? Nil (Nil) 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’): a Murder; b Attempted murder; c Arson (where there is an intent to endanger life); d Manslaughter; e Rape; f Kidnap/abduction or attempted kidnap/abduction. g Any other very serious violent or very serious sexual offence, armed robbery (defined as robbery involving a firearm), assault with a deadly weapon or hostage taking. h Any other violent or sexual offence where the offender/ offence is likely to attract significant media interest or which raises wider issues of national interest.


Post Script

Detective Sergeant, Tim Hollis

I would like to take this opportunity to publicly pay my personal tribute to Detective Sergeant Tim Hollis, the front line manager of Leicestershire Constabulary’s Sex and Dangerous Offender Unit, who retired in January of this year.

I worked alongside Tim for almost eight years and during this time he helped me in countless ways, but most particularly in developing my understanding of the way Leicestershire Constabulary works as an organisation. He made an enormous personal contribution in helping the Constabulary move forward in embracing multi-agency work and fulfilling its responsibilities within the MAPPA.

I know I speak for many people in all the key organisations linked to the MAPPA, when I say that Tim’s friendly, open, co-operative approach to this work, his wisdom, his experience and his consummately professional approach will be missed.

Bob Petrie, MAPPA Manager



Appendix A - Business Plan Appendix B - Memorandum of Understanding Appendix C - Key Personnel in MAPPA




1. MAPPA development strategy - To achieve dedicated MAPPA Coordination and Administration capacity during 2006-7 - Complete an annual review of arrangements and resource levels, to ensure that they are fit for purpose - Develop longer term 3 year strategy - Maximise benefits at a regional level through Regional Public Protection Pathway - Ensure proper synthesis between Operations Group and the SMB, including targeted joint meetings


March 2007

Progress report: 1.1 Implementation of further national guidance

SMB/MAPPA manager SMB/Ops group

March 2007 March 2007 MAPPA Manager/Police March 2007 MAPPA Manager/SMB March 2007 Police/Probation/SMB March 2007 Police/Probation March 2007

Progress report: 1.2 Development of needs based services for MAPPA offenders, based on analysis of MAPPP risk management plans

Progress report: 1.3 Recruitment of additional MAPPA admin support including dedicated MAPPA Co-ordinator

Progress report: 1.4 Manage services within budget

Progress report: 2. Public Protection Inspection- implement relevant recommendations

Progress report: 3. Actions arising from Sex Offender Inspection - implement relevant recommendations

Progress report: 4. Further develop Strategic Links with - LCJB - CDRPs - LSCB

Police Probation Probation

March 2007

LEAD SMB Chair/QA group

DATE March 2007

Progress report: 5. Monitoring and Development Strategy. Development of monitoring arrangements to support - Publication of Annual Report - Information to the SMB as outlined in the SMB Quality Assurance Framework - Implement SMB QA framework (already agreed) Police/Sub group

Progress report: 6. 1 Agree and implement Communications Strategy, taking account of the national RA Steering Group

March 2007

Progress report: 6.2 Publish Annual Report, aimed at developing public understanding and engagement

SMB/MAPPA manager October 2006 MAPPA Manager/ Ops Group March 2007

Progress report: 7. Training Strategy - Training plan based on Audit - Delivery of training plan - Induction to MAPPA of new practitioners - Training for SMB members - Training for MAPPA coordinators and administrators

Progress report: 8. Diversity – representation or advice at MAPPA level 3 meetings

SMB Chair/ MAPPA manager MAPPA manager and Co-ordinator SMB/Ops Group

July 2006

Progress report: 9. Full Implementation of ViSOR

March 2007 July 2006

Progress report: 10. Lay Advisers – role definition

Progress report: 11. Assess viability of Stop It Now and Leisurewatch (carry forward from 2005-6)

Ops Group MAPPA manager

July 2006 March 2007

Progress report: 12. User survey

Progress report:


1. We, the undersigned, hereby commit the staff of our respective organisations to co-operate fully with all other organisations involved in the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) in place in Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland.


The MAPPA aim to provide the best possible structures and systems for:-


The identification of offenders who may pose a risk of harm to others (as specified by

Sections 325, 326 & 327 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003)


The exchange of relevant information on such offenders which may inform or enhance

risk assessments and/or risk management plans


In appropriate cases, the active co-operation of relevant agencies in a co-ordinated

and collaborative approach to the management of those MAPPA offenders who are assessed as posing a high or very high risk of harm to others


Specifically, therefore, we commit the staff of our respective organisations to actively

co-operate and participate in the structures and processes outlined under paragraph 2, above.


The commitment to exchange relevant information will be according to the terms of the

MAPPA Inter-Agency Protocol in relation to this matter.


Additionally, whilst acknowledging that all people with whom our organisations have dealings

have a right to confidentiality, we assert that such a right may be superseded by the need to protect others from serious harm. The commitment to exchange information, therefore, is made on the understanding that such information should be relevant to and necessary for the protection of others. However, it is also a condition of the disclosure of such information, that it remains confidential to those involved in the MAPPA arrangements and may not be disclosed to any other third party, nor used for any other unauthorised purpose save for the reduction of risk and protection of people from serious harm.



Whilst also making the commitment to co-operate fully in any interventions which may be

agreed, this undertaking is made on the basis that any such actions must be lawful, proportionate to the assessed level of risk and demonstrably aimed at reducing risk and/or reasonable and necessary in order to protect others from serious harm.


Without prejudice to our agencies’ legal and statutory responsibilities and/or our

organisational priorities, we also commit our staff to treating high risk cases with due priority with regard to the provision of resources and services aimed at reducing risk and/or protecting others from serious harm. This will include, wherever feasible, the expectation that appropriate staff will attend risk management assessment and review meetings, and/or provide written reports in order to inform the decision making at any such meetings where attendance is not possible or practical.


Whilst acknowledging the statutory responsibility of the Police, Probation and Prison Services

(the “Responsible Authority”) to put in place and manage the MAPPA, we further undertake to co-operate and assist in the review and management of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements. Specifically this will include providing an agency representative, at the appropriate rank or level within the organisation to serve on the Strategic Management Board, Operational Management Group, Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel or any similar body which the Strategic Management Board may agree as necessary or appropriate in order to facilitate the effective operation of the MAPPA.


This Memorandum of Understanding will remain valid and binding until such time as it may

be subject to any review or amendment by the MAPPA Strategic Management Board.




Krystyna Findley, Assistant Chief Officer, National Probation Service, Leicestershire & Rutland Area (Chair) Chris Eyre, Assistant Chief Constable, Leicestershire Constabulary Hilary Fielder, Area Re-settlement Co-ordinator, HM Prison Service, East Midlands Region Andrew Bunyan, Service Manager, Leicester City Council Family Support & Safeguarding Services, Children’s & Young Persons Services Dept. Neil Dhruev, Director of Adult Mental Health, Leicestershire & Rutland NHS Partnership Trust Colin Foster, Director of Adult Services, Rutland County Council Pat Hobbs, Service Director, Leicester City Council Housing Dept.(1) Wally Holynski, Commissioning Manager, Melton, Rutland & Harborough Primary Care Trust (2) Bob Parker, Service Manager, Leicestershire Children’s & Young Persons’ Services Dept. (seconded as Chair, Operational Management Group) Wendy Poynton, Director of Development & Operational Practice, Leicestershire Youth Offending Service (3) Flick Schofield, Assistant Director, Leicestershire Children’s & Young Persons’ Services Dept. Mick Studley, Area Director, Leicestershire & Rutland Victim Support Caroline Hall, Lay Advisor Caroline Roberts, Lay Advisor (1)Representing all social housing providers, Leicestershire & Rutland (2)Representing the Leicestershire Health Services Primary Care Trusts (3)Representing Leicester City & Leicestershire Youth Offending Services


Bob Parker, Service Manager, Leicestershire Children’s & Young Persons’ Services Dept. (Chair) Steven Attwood, Head of Inclusion, Children & Young People’s Services, Rutland County Council Martin Clewlow, Housing Manager, Leicester City Council Housing Dept. Martin Curran, Senior Probation Officer, National Probation Service, Leicestershire & Rutland Area Paul Dempsey, Acting Service Manager, Leicestershire Forensic Mental Health Service Hilary Fielder, Area Resettlement Co-ordinator, HM Prison Service, East Midlands Region Loz Jones, Operational Manager, Leicester City Youth Offending Service Pat Nawrockyi, Service Manager, Leicester City Children’s & Young Persons’ Services Dept. Chris Tew, Detective Superintendent, Leicestershire Constabulary

Steven Attwood, Head of Inclusion, Children & Young Peoples Services, Rutland County Council Paul Dempsey, Acting Service Manager, Leicestershire Forensic Mental Health Service Krystyna Findley/Paul Hindson, Assistant Chief Officers, National Probation Service, Leicestershire & Rutland Area Pat Nawrockyi, Service Manager, Leicester City Children’s & Young Persons’ Services Dept. Bob Parker, Service Manager, Leicestershire Children’s & Young Persons’ Services Dept. Chris Redfern, Detective Chief Inspector, Leicestershire Constabulary John Thomson, Neighbourhood Housing Manager, Leicester City Council Housing Dept. Steve Turner, Governor, HMP Stocken, HM Prison Service, East Midlands Region

Bob Petrie, Senior Probation Officer, National Probation Service, Leicestershire & Rutland Area (seconded)

Jo Brown, Administrative Officer, Leicestershire Constabulary.