leìcestershìre 8
Nu¦tì-Agency Pub¦ìc Protectìon Arrangements
National Probation Service
Ms Krystyna Findley
Assistant Chief Officer
Leicestershire Constabulary
Graham Thomas
Bob Petrie
MAPPP Manager
2 St John Street
Specialist Crime Investigation Dept.
Wigston Police Station
Bull Head Street
Leicester LE18 1WX
Wigston Police Station
Bull Head Street
Leicester LE18 1WX
0116 251 6008
0116 222 2222
ext. 5569
0116 222 2222
ext. 5506
The urban and rural images featured in this report have only been selected to give a pictorial representation of
Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.
Any persons shown in the general scenes are not connected with the work of the MAPPA.

leìcester, leìcestershìre 8 Rut¦and
Nu¦tì-Agency Pub¦ìc Protectìon Arrangements
Annua¦ Report ±oo+D=
leìcestershìre 8
Rut¦and NAPPA
workìng together
to protect the pub¦ìc

Matt Baggott - Chief Constable
Linda Jones - Chief Officer of Probation
Andrew Cozens - Corporate Director, Social Care & Health Directorate, Leicester Social Services
Mary Campagnac - Leicester City Youth Offending Team
Tony Harrop - Director of Social Services, Leicestershire County Council
Mike Forrester - Corporate Director of Housing, Leicester City Council
Wendy Saviour - Chief Executive Melton, Rutland & Harborough PCT
Phil Hawkins - Leicestershire Youth Offending Service
Dr Maggie Cork - Chief Executive, Leicestershire Partnership Trust
Colin Foster - Director of Social Services & Housing, Rutland County Council
Bob Perry - Area Manager East Midlands South, HM Prison Service

This is our third Annual Report. Its purpose is to explain to the local community the ways in which
our organisations work together in order to best protect the public from the small number of
offenders who pose a threat of harm to others.
Our arrangements, in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, have always been held in high regard
nationally and we would like to believe that we remain in the forefront of the continued
development and deployment of measures aimed to enhance public protection. However, we are
not complacent and will continue to strive for greater effectiveness in this area.
We are committed to ensure that all of our staff continue to share information, expertise and
experience and maintain a joint, collaborative approach to public protection using the framework of
our local Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (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 or current behaviour suggest
that they could pose a risk of harm to others.
On 1st April 2001, it became a statutory responsibility, jointly, on all
Police and Probation areas in 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 has
now included the Prison Service within the Responsible Authority.
The Responsible Authority in every area was also required to seek to
involve other key local agencies, such as Health, Social Services and
Housing in the MAPPA, a feature which has been formalised by the
recent legislation, which places a statutory “duty to co-operate” on such
organisations. This is important since a key part of the MAPPA involves
the exchange of 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 the
Responsible Authority and “duty to co-operate” agencies. The Criminal
Justice Act has also introduced plans for the recruitment of two “Lay
Advisors” in each area to sit on the MAPPA SMBs.
The Responsible Authority is also required to produce an Annual Report,
to explain to the local community the development and work of the
MAPPA. This is the third Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland MAPPA
Annual Report.
1 What are the MAPPA?

The origins of this can be traced
to the establishment of our Public
Protection Panel, in 1998. Our
Panel was one of the first such
arrangements in the country and,
at the time it was established,
unique to the extent that it was
jointly funded by its six original
partner organisations – the Police,
Probation and Health Services
and the three local councils,
Leicester City, Leicestershire and
Rutland. The local councils were
represented operationally by their
respective Social Services
Departments and, in the case of
the city, also by the Housing
The partner agencies also agreed
to exchange relevant information
on very high risk offenders and to
work collaboratively wherever
possible to manage them in the
community. To this end, they each
committed a senior manager to
represent them on the Panel and
agreed to use their joint funding
arrangements to employ an
independent manager – a
seconded Senior Probation Officer
– and a half time administrator.
The Leicester, Leicestershire and
Rutland Public Protection Panel
was highly regarded nationally as
an example of good practice.
Several aspects of our local
arrangements were incorporated
in the first Home Office Guidance
which required that every area of
England and Wales establish a
“Multi-Agency Public Protection
Panel”, or MAPPP, as the first step
in the wider development of the
MAPPA. Therefore our “Public
Protection Panel” became the
Leicester, Leicestershire and
Rutland MAPPP on 1st May 2001.
We have been well
placed to extend our
existing multi-agency
arrangements into rolling
out the full MAPPA
framework locally. This
process is now
well under way and
should be completed
within the next twelve
2 The origins of the MAPPA in Leicester,
Leicestershire & Rutland
We are, perhaps, fortunate in Leicester, Leicestershire
and Rutland that we have a well-established and solid
foundation of multi-agency working in the field of public
protection on which we can continue to build.

Key agencies, such as Health,
Social Services, Prisons and
Housing have been actively
working for some time with the
Police and Probation Service in
Leicester, Leicestershire and
Rutland in the field of public
protection. In our area the statutory
“Duty to Co-operate” represents
little more than a formal
endorsement of our existing
We have, therefore, begun to make
the necessary structural
adjustments to our local
arrangements in order to comply
with the new legislation and
National Guidance.
These have included:
- The re-designation of the MAPPP
Management Committee, which
met only twice a year, as the
MAPPA Strategic Management
Board, which now meets quarterly.
- The inclusion of the Prison
Service in the “Responsible
Authority”. As well as having a
“Core Panel Member” sitting on our
MAPPP, the East Midlands, South
Region of the Prison Service is
now also represented on the
Leicester, Leicestershire and
Rutland MAPPA Strategic
Management Board (SMB).
- The inclusion on the SMB of a
senior manager to represent the
Leicester City Housing Department
who, in turn, provides a link with all
other Registered Social Landlords
in the area.
- The inclusion of a representative
of the Leicester City and
Leicestershire Youth Offending
Services on the SMB. Both
agencies have agreed that they will
share this task with one manager
representing both organisations.
They will rotate their representative
on a three-yearly cycle. The
Director of Leicestershire and
Rutland Victim Support now also
sits on our SMB.
N.B. A full list of local agencies’
representatives and involvement in
our local MAPPA structures can be
found in Appendix 1 of this Report.
3 Key developments in the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland
MAPPA within the last twelve months

We have also taken several other
key steps to facilitate the further
development of the MAPPA in
Leicester, Leicestershire and
- The re-designation of our
independent MAPPP Manager’s
role to also encompass that of
MAPPA Co-ordinator;
- The agreement to increase our
current MAPPP Administrator’s post
from half to full-time in order to
cope with the anticipated increase
in workload as the MAPPA are fully
rolled out locally;
- The production of a draft
“Memorandum of Understanding” to
be signed by the Chief Officers of
all local, relevant organisations to
commit themselves and their staff
to co-operate in the operation of the
MAPPA (currently distributed to all
local agencies for consultation);
- The production of a draft Protocol
for the Exchange of Relevant
Information in respect of MAPPA
offenders. The existing Protocol
covers the Multi-Agency Public
Protection Panel cases only,
although in practice, information is
always shared between local
agencies on MAPPA cases.
This Protocol, currently out for
consultation, will effectively
formalise the present de-facto
arrangements for information
- The agreement to identify a single
point of contact for all MAPPA
agencies in order to facilitate the
most efficient and effective exchange
of relevant information on all
MAPPA offenders;
- The agreement of all local
agencies to implement a local
framework for the risk assessment
and management of all MAPPA
cases (see Appendix 2). All of the
component parts of this framework
are now in place except for the
provision of Police led and
convened MAPPA Level 2 multi-
agency meetings, which will manage
all non-Probation supervised
MAPPA offenders who require this
degree of management. It is
anticipated that these will become
operational in September 2004.
- The development and
implementation of a multi-agency
MAPPA training strategy. The first
event was delivered in February 2004.
- We have begun the process of
recruiting and training two Lay
Advisors to sit on our SMB. These
appointments should be confirmed
by October 2004.

(i) Which offenders are
There are three categories of
offenders who fall within the Multi-
Agency Public Protection
- All sex offenders who are required
to register with the Police on the Sex
Offender Register, and who are
living in the community. Contrary to
popular belief, this group of
offenders includes most sex
offenders and not just those who
offend against children. Registered
Sex Offenders are MAPPA Category
1 offenders.
- All offenders who receive a
custodial sentence of twelve months
or more for a violent offence or for
one of the small number of sexual
offences which does not require the
offender to register on the Sex
Offender Register. All offenders in
this group are subject to supervision
on licence to the Probation Service
following release and, for the
duration of this period of
supervision, these offenders are
subject to the MAPPA. They are
MAPPA Category 2 offenders.
- Any other offender, not included in
either of the above two categories,
whose previous offending and
current behaviour suggests that he
or she may pose a risk of harm to
others – “other dangerous”
offenders. This group will include
offenders who were previously
Category 1 or 2 offenders, whose
Sex Offender Registration
requirement or post-custody licence
has expired, but who are still
assessed as posing a risk. It may
also include some people who have
offended seriously in the past and
have recently come to the attention
of the authorities because their
current behaviour is of concern; and
the small number of people with
mental health problems who are
considered to pose a potential risk
to others. This group of offenders
make up MAPPA Category 3.
4 How do the MAPPA work?
(ii) What is the MAPPA
framework ?
First of all, systems need to be put
in place to ensure that all MAPPA
offenders can be identified. This is
comparatively easy for MAPPA
Categories 1 and 2, since their
offending and sentence mean that
they automatically fall within the remit
of the MAPPA. They are subject to a
legal requirement either to register
on the Sex Offender Register or to
comply with Probation supervision –
many offenders who have been
released from prison sentences for
serious sexual offending will initially
be subject to both.
Other MAPPA Category 3 offenders,
however, may initially come to the
attention of any one of the other
agencies, and so it is important that
good communication exists between
all MAPPA partners to identify
offenders in this category.
Once a MAPPA offender has been
identified, his or her potential risk to
others must be assessed. MAPPA
Category 1 offenders will always be
risk assessed by the Police and
Category 2 offenders will always be
assessed by the Probation Service.
However, Category 3 offenders may
be risk assessed by any agency,
with the help of Police or Probation
or both.
Communication and sharing of
knowledge and expertise are vital to
this process.
It is important, in this context, to
remember that the majority of
MAPPA offenders are not assessed
as posing a threat of serious harm to
others. Whilst these types of
offenders have always been in the
community, only a very small
minority go on to re-offend seriously.

The main purpose of the
MAPPA is to ensure that
all relevant offenders are
assessed and monitored,
so that we can focus most
of our attention and
resources on those who
pose the greatest risk.
In this way the MAPPA provide a
more efficient and effective way of
targeting our resources in order to
better protect the public.
Because of this, the MAPPA
framework allows for the
management of all relevant
offenders at one of three levels:
Level 1 – single agency
management. This level of
management is for the low risk and
many of the offenders who are
assessed as medium risk. In
practice, it means that one agency
will take the sole responsibility for
the management of the case,
although there is still an expectation
that other agencies that have
relevant information or knowledge of
the offender will keep the case
manager informed. For example,
most MAPPA Category 2 offenders –
those on licence from custodial
sentences of twelve months or more
– will be very effectively managed by
their supervising Probation Officer.
Level 2 – middle tier multi-agency
management. This is the risk
management level considered
appropriate for most high risk cases
and a minority of those assessed as
medium – where, for example, the
case is quite complex and more
than one agency is actively involved
with the offender.
In these cases, whilst often a single
member of staff will provide the day
to day monitoring, the overall
management will be overseen by a
multi-agency meeting. Such
meetings are usually chaired by a
middle manager, typically a Senior
Probation Officer or a Police
Inspector, and will be attended by all
of the front line professionals from
agencies that have an involvement
or an active interest in the case.
Level 3 – higher tier multi-agency
meetings, or Multi-Agency Public
Protection Panels (MAPPPs). Those
offenders assessed as very high
risk, or cases where there are
particularly complex dynamics or
resource implications are generally
managed by MAPPPs. These
“critical few” cases will also have a
nominated key worker from the
agency which takes the lead role,
but the overall management will be
agreed and supervised by the
MAPPP. The MAPPP will continue to
keep these cases under review until
such time as they are no longer
considered to require this level of
management. There are two main
differences between MAPPPs and
Level 2 multi-agency meetings.
First, MAPPPs are chaired
independently and, secondly, all
plans and decisions are taken by a
“core” group of senior managers
representing the key MAPPA
agencies, who sit on all panels.

(iii) How do the MAPPA
operate in this area?
a) I nf or mat i on exchange :
A precondition for the effective
working of the MAPPA is a system
for the exhange of relevant
information on the risks offenders
may pose to others.
Whilst information sharing has been
an integral part of our multi-agency
arrangements for several years, we
are now in the process of
formalising this aspect of the work in
order to provide a more
comprehensive system.
The following are important
components of this provision :-
- The agreement of all partner
agencies to identify a member of
staff to act as a single point of
contact for enquiries from other
- The agreement that the MAPPA
Co-ordinator will operate a “clearing
house” facility for relevant
information on MAPPA offenders.
- The MAPPA Co-ordinator manages
a database of all referrals to the
MAPPA Level 3 provision i.e. the
Multi-Agency Public Protection
- The deployment of the interim
version of the VISOR (Violent &
Sexual Offender Register) database
by Leicestershire Constabulary – the
interim version applies only to
MAPPA Category 1, Registered Sex
Offenders. The national roll-out of
the full version, covering all MAPPA
offenders is expected in the near
- The use of Leicestershire and
Rutland Probation Area’s CRAMS
(Case Records Administration and
Management System) database,
that will provide regular reports to
the MAPPA Co-ordinator on all
MAPPA Category 2 Offenders.
b) Ri sk Assessment :
In accordance with the statutory
duty, all MAPPA offenders in this
area are subject to risk assessment
and, depending on their level of risk,
managed within our local three tier
risk management framework.
MAPPA Category 1 Offenders
(Registered Sex Offenders) are all
risk assessed by the Leicestershire
Constabulary’s Public Protection
Unit, which is based at Wigston
police station. They are risk
assessed as soon as they have
signed on the Sex Offender
The risk assessment process
involves the use of the Risk Matrix
2000 (RM 2000) assessment tool,
which has been developed by the
Home Office specifically for this
purpose. RM 2000 is used by Police
Forces throughout the country.
The RM 2000 provides an initial
screening, but in our area, this
preliminary assessment is always
cross-checked with any other
information or assessments which
may be relevant. There is often
close liaison with the Probation
Service, where the offender is under
their supervision or with the Social
Services Department if the previous
offending was against children.
Additionally, in this area, all
Registered Sex Offenders are also
visited at home to confirm their
address and to ensure that any
relevant local community, home or
family issues are taken account of in
the overall risk assessment process.
The local arm of the National
Probation Service, the Leicestershire
and Rutland Probation Area (LRPA)
undertakes risk assessments on all
cases under its supervision.
Whilst the Probation Service is
involved in the supervision of some
MAPPA Category 1 and 3 cases, all
adult MAPPA Category 2 Offenders
(violent and other sex offenders)
are, by definition, current Probation
cases following release from
custody on licence.
The initial risk screening uses the
Offender Assessment System
(OASys), which is also currently
being introduced nationally by the
Prison Service. Following initial
OASys screening, any case which
indicates a potential risk of harm to
others is subjected to a more
detailed risk assessment, involving
liaison with other relevant agencies.
How do the MAPPA work? cont.

This process will include
consideration of other assessments
such as parole reports, pre-sentence
reports or psychiatric reports. To
supplement this, Probation now
employ their own dedicated forensic
psychologist who is frequently asked
to provide assessments on complex,
high risk cases.
Both the Leicester City Youth
Offending Team and the
Leicestershire Youth Offending
Service supervise a small number of
MAPPA offenders.
Both of these organisations utilise
the National Youth Justice Board’s
ASSET model for risk assessments,
but, again, this process is enhanced
by inter-agency liaison and
information exchange.
Most of the small number of MAPPA
offenders who have mental health
problems are known to, or under the
care of the Leicestershire Forensic
Mental Health Service (LFMHS).
In such cases LFMHS will assess
offenders and/or contribute to the
risk assessments of other agencies,
notably the Police and Probation
All risk assessments are regularly
reviewed and revised in the light of
new information and/or changed
c) Si ngl e- Agency
Management :
Registered Sex Offenders who are
assessed as “low” or “medium” risk
are usually considered suitable for
single agency management, which
is undertaken by officers from the
Local Policing Unit that covers the
area where the offender lives.
The majority of MAPPA Category 2
offenders who are assessed as “low”
or “medium” risk can be effectively
managed by the supervision of their
Probation Officer or their YOTs
supervisor under single agency
It should be remembered that
MAPPA Category 3 Offenders
(“Other Dangerous”) only fall into
this category if they are high risk
and, therefore, that they are unlikely
to be suitable for single agency
d) MAPPA Level 2, Mul t i -
Agency Management :
A minority of MAPPA Category 1
offenders (Registered Sex
Offenders) are assessed as “high”
risk. Many of these will also be
under the supervision of the
Probation Service, usually on post-
custody licence.
In these circumstances, in order to
avoid unnecessary duplication,
these offenders will be managed via
Probation’s MAPPA Level 2 multi-
agency meetings, which are called
Risk Assessment and Management
Panels, or RAMPs. The Police
always attend RAMPs on Registered
Sex Offenders.
For those high risk MAPPA Category
1 Offenders who are not, or no
longer subject to Probation
supervision, the Police hold their own
MAPPA Level 2 meetings – Risk
Assessment Group or RAG meetings.
Currently RAG meetings only
manage Registered Sex Offenders,
but there are plans to replace these
meetings with the Police equivalent
of RAMPs, which will have the brief
of managing all categories of
MAPPA offenders at Level 2 who
are not under the supervision of the
Probation Service.
All Probation cases assessed as
“high” risk, using OASys, will
normally be subject to Probation
RAMP meetings.
RAMPs are convened and chaired
by Senior Probation Officers. All
front line staff from any agency
involved in the case are invited to
RAMPs follow a prescribed format
and follow a standard agenda.
The key purposes of these
meetings are :-
- The exchange and updating of
relevant information about the
- The agreement of the level of risk
- The agreement of a co-ordinated
risk management plan, and
- A decision as to whether the case
can be effectively managed at Level
2 or whether a referral to the Level 3
MAPPP is appropriate.
The Youth Offending Services also
have their own MAPPA Level 2
meetings – Risk Assessment and
Management Meetings - to manage
the small number of MAPPA
offenders under their supervision.
Finally, other agencies may, on
occasions, be the most centrally
involved with a small number of
MAPPA offenders. In such
circumstances it is sometimes
appropriate that they take the lead in
convening Level 2 Multi- Agency
meetings. This is most often true in
respect of the Leicestershire
Forensic Mental Health Service
which operates a system of “Risk
Concerns Meetings” as part of the
Care Programme Approach
(CPA) system.

e) MAPPA Level 3 – The Multi-
Agency Public Protection Panel –
“The Critical Few”
The relatively small number of
Registered Sex Offenders who are
assessed as “very high” risk are
automatically referred to our MAPPA
Level 3 facility, the Multi-Agency
Public Protection Panel or MAPPP.
Other high risk offenders,
considered at a variety of Level 2
meetings, as previously described,
can be referred to the MAPPP. All
Level 2 meetings will routinely
address this matter as part of their
standard agenda.
Because the MAPPP should be
reserved only for the very highest
risk cases and/or those which
require senior management multi-
agency oversight – “The Critical
Few” - there is a rigorous
“gatekeeping” process for cases
referred to MAPPA Level 3. This
requires that all referrals are first
approved by a senior manager of
the referring agency, and that they
are then screened by the MAPPP
manager. Front line staff, involved
with the case, are also consulted
before it is agreed to take a case to
the MAPPP.
The Multi-Agency Public Protection
Panel meets for a full day every
month, when it will typically consider
between four and six cases. MAPPP
meetings are usually held at County
In many ways, the MAPPP has
similar objectives to Level 2
meetings, in that all those
participating share information,
assess risk and agree on measures
to manage offenders and protect
the public.
However, there are also significant
differences from Level 2 meetings.
These include :
- The MAPPP is chaired
independently by the MAPPP
- Although front line practitioners are
invited to MAPPP meetings to
provide information and contribute to
the discussions, all key decisions
are taken by a group of senior
managers of the key partner
organisations*, who represent them
as “Core Panel Members”.
- The Core Panel Members have the
authority to make a preliminary
commitment, on behalf of their
respective organisations, of
resources or services which may be
necessary in order to contribute to
risk management.
- Core Panel Members will decide
whether the offender under
consideration requires “registration”
i.e whether ongoing Level 3
management is necessary. If this
action is taken the case will regularly
be brought back before the
MAPPP for review.
Cases that are no longer deemed to
require MAPPP management will
automatically revert to the
appropraite MAPPA Level 2
Core Panel Members have sufficient
authority within their respective
organisations to hold their staff to
account concerning the work agreed
that is contributing to the risk
management plan.
The agencies currently providing
Core Panel Members are :
Leicestershire Constabulary,
Leicestershire and Rutland
Probation Area, HM Prison Service,
East Midlands, South Region,
Leicester City Social Care and
Health Dept., Leicester City Housing
Dept., Leicestershire Social Services
Dept., Leicestershire Forensic
Mental Health Service, Rutland
County Council Social Services and
Housing Dept. (See Appendix 1 for
more details).
The day to day management of the
MAPPP is the responsibility of the
Operational Management Group,
which reports to the MAPPA
Strategic Management Board.
How do the MAPPA work?
How do the MAPPA operate in this area? cont.

f) Links with Child Protection :
It is clearly important that the
MAPPA have close links with the
local agencies and departments who
work in the Child Protection arena.
In Leicester, Leicestershire and
Rutland these links are maintained
via the three MAPPP Core Panel
Members who represent Leicester
City Social Care & Health,
Leicestershire Social Services and
Rutland County Council Social
Services & Housing Dept., all of
whom are Specialist Child Protection
Senior Managers in their respective
organisations who sit on the two
local Area Child Protection
Additionally the Police’s Public
Protection Unit and the MAPPP
Manager are all co-located in the
same office as Leicestershire
Constabulary’s Child Protection Unit
which facilitates effective liaison over
relevant cases.
Finally, we have a clear convention
that in cases of possible ambiguity
or overlapping interest, the Child
Protection Procedures take
precedence in order to ensure that
the safety of the child or children
concerned is always the paramount
g) Work with Victims :
A very high priority is attached to the
work with victims within the
Leicester, Leicestershire and
Rutland MAPPA. The importance of
a victim focus has been recently
enhanced by the agreement of the
Director of Leicestershire and
Rutland Victim Support to serve in
an advisory capacity on our MAPPA
Strategic Management Board.
The two agencies mostly involved in
this work are the Probation Service
and the Police. Both agencies have
specialist staff who work closely with
victims of crime. Either or both of
these units will be invited to attend
MAPPA Level 2 or Level 3 (MAPPP)
meetings in cases where there are
current, ongoing victims issues
which need to be considered in the
context of either risk assessment or
risk management.

Alan had a history of drug taking, alcohol abuse and violence. He had also been diagnosed as suffering
from a personality disorder.
His case was considered by a Risk Assessment and Management Panel (RAMP), prior to his release on
licence from a four-year sentence for grievous bodily harm. The offence involved him viciously beating a
young man with learning difficulties who, allegedly, owed one of Alan’s friends a small sum of money. He
also had a history of domestic violence and an ex-partner, the mother of his son, who lived in a
neighbouring county. She was apparently terrified of him and of the fact that he would try to see his child
following his release.
The RAMP referred Alan’s case to the MAPPP, at which he was assessed as posing a high risk of serious
violence to others, particularly vulnerable victims of either sex.
The risk management plan included:
- A requirement of his licence that he reside at a Probation hostel in the area, which also involved a curfew.
- A requirement of his licence that contained a geographical exclusion from the area where his ex-partner
was living.
- Liaison between local Police with their counterparts in the area where his ex-partner was living, which
resulted in her home being supplied with a police alarm.
- A request that the prison undertake an up-to-date psychologist’s assessment – this subsequently
confirmed that Alan, as suspected, scored high for psychopathy. This was important information since it
suggested he was unlikely to benefit from a Probation anger management course, which was under
- A “fast track” facility was put in place to enable Alan’s immediate recall to prison, should this prove
Alan was “flagged-up” as a high risk offender on Police intelligence systems. The implications were
explained to Alan and he was informed that he was to be managed by the MAPPA , in particular, his
behaviour would come under close scrutiny.
Alan initially settled well at the hostel, but within a few weeks he was officially warned for verbally
intimidating another hostel resident. Unfortunately, a similar incident followed a few days later after he had
been drinking outside the hostel and, when reprimanded, Alan verbally threatened a member of the hostel’s
staff. Alan was immediately recalled and returned to prison.
Case History A To demonstrate the work of the MAPPA, the following are real, but
anonymised, case examples from the last year. It must be emphasised that the vast majority of
offenders who are subject to the MAPPA are motivated to avoid re-offending and actively co-
operate with the authorities. The real value of the MAPPA lies in the identification of high risk
cases and the action that can be taken when offenders do not comply. These examples have
been chosen to highlight this aspect of the MAPPA.

Brian was sentenced to eight years imprisonment for an offence of aggravated burglary.
Whilst serving this sentence he began to exhibit paranoid behaviour, which resulted in him being transferred
from prison to a medium secure mental health unit. He remained there beyond his prison release date and
was discharged into the community after he had responded positively to prescribed anti-psychotic
medication. Brian was not, at this point diagnosed as suffering from any mental illness, but, rather a
personality disorder, the more extreme aspects of which were alleviated so long as he continued to take
medication regularly.
During his time in custody, Brian had begun a relationship and subsequently married a young woman who
also had a history of mental health problems and was felt to be vulnerable. Shortly after his discharge from
hospital, Brian and his wife became embroiled in a violent argument in a public place, after they had both
been drinking heavily. A passer-by sought to intervene, at which point Brian produced a knife and threatened
him. Brian was arrested and subsequently sentenced to a further ten months imprisonment.
By the time he was released his initial licence period from his eight-year sentence had expired and, since
his recent sentence was less than twelve months, this did not involve supervision on licence either. He was
therefore about to be released with no restrictions, nor subject to the involvement of any agency with
statutory power to supervise or monitor his behaviour.
At this point, Brian was referred to the MAPPP by the local Health Services.
At the MAPPP, it was agreed that the best way to monitor Brian’s behaviour was to offer voluntary contact
from the Forensic Mental Health Service, ostensibly to offer him a convenient source of his prescription
drugs, which helped to stabilise his behaviour. However because of his tendency towards paranoid
behaviour and his suspicion of authority, it was agreed that this plan would not work if Brian knew that he
was under the MAPPP’s management; in fact this knowledge may actually put the staff working with him in
personal danger.
Since his relationship with his wife had broken down, Brian was allocated a small flat by the City Council so
that, at least, we would know where he was living. He was also flagged up as a potentially dangerous
offender on Police intelligence systems.
Over the next few months, Brian flitted from one brief relationship to another, usually with vulnerable
women. Because we could track him in this way, Social Services were able to undertake risk assessments
where necessary in respect of some of these women and their children. Police also became aware that he
was terrorising the proprietors of a local corner shop, threatening them and stealing money from them on a
regular basis.
As a result, Brian was arrested and subsequently sentenced to six years imprisonment for offences of
robbery, extortion, blackmail, assault and witness intimidation.
Case History B

Charles had a history of gaining employment using forged documentation. This approach gave him
access to vulnerable people. From such positions of trust, he had stolen from vulnerable adults and,
more recently, had sexually assaulted two ten-year-old boys at a community centre where he had
managed to obtain work. This last offence had resulted in a four-year prison sentence. Perhaps the
most worrying feature of this case was the escalating nature of his offending.
On release he was subject to supervision by the Probation Service; he was also on the Sex Offender
Register indefinitely. Charles’ case was under the management of the MAPPP.
It had been agreed that Charles would stay at a Probation Hostel as a requirement of his licence
following his release. Seemingly compliant, Charles stayed at the hostel for several months before he
suddenly disappeared.
Because he was considered such a high risk offender, a Priority Police Investigation was launched to
track him down. Within a short time, it was established that he was living in another area of the country.
He was arrested and returned to prison, in breach of his licence. He will soon be back in court for
breaching the conditions of the Sex Offender Register – an offence that carries a maximum sentence of
five years imprisonment. He is also currently under investigation on suspicion of downloading indecent
images of children from the Internet.
Case History C

David was sentenced to three and-a-half years imprisonment for offences of indecent assault. The victim was a
ten-year-old girl, the daughter of a family friend whom David had groomed over a long period of time. The
offence came to light when David contacted a commercial pornographer asking if he could provide a female
child to use in the production of obscene videos. This man contacted the police who, in the course of their
enquiries, examined David’s personal computer, where they discovered obscene photographs of his victim.
During his prison sentence, David’s wife divorced him and now has no contact with him, nor do his two grown
up children. He does remain in contact with his mother, however. When David was released from prison he was
required to reside at a Probation hostel in the first instance. Whilst there, he became obsessed with a female
member of staff, believing, quite wrongly, that his feelings for her were reciprocated and that they had a future
together. Despite warnings that his behaviour was not only futile but also grossly inappropriate and offensive,
events culminated when David was caught trying to follow this member of staff to her home. He was
immediately recalled and returned to prison.
David’s case was referred to the MAPPP shortly before he was due for release for the second time. His post-
custody licence had almost expired and he was only to be subject to supervision for a few days. However, he
was required to register on the Sex Offender Register for an indefinite period. Amongst other measures in
relation to risk management, the Police agreed to install a “panic” alarm at the home of the member of hostel
staff who had been subjected to the stalking/harassing behaviour.
Several weeks later, the value of the multi-agency approach was demonstrated when a Probation Officer
supervising another offender, who had known David when they were both living at the Probation hostel,
advised that David had obtained employment at the same small firm where he was working. This caused
concern since enquiries revealed that the employer’s sixteen-year-old daughter was also employed as an office
After consultation, it was agreed to inform the employer about David’s previous offending. The employer,
pleased with David’s work and attitude and forewarned with regard to his daughter’s safety, agreed to continue
his employment so long as he stuck to an agreement never to enter the office alone if his daughter was
present. At the time of writing, David remains in this job.
There has, however been one further cause for concern. David informed his Police “case officer” that he was
seeing a female counsellor, to whom he had been referred by his GP, to talk through his feelings of loss at the
breakdown of his family relationships. Through the MAPPP, it was agreed that the counsellor should be
contacted, via Health Service channels, to alert her to the fact that David had previously developed an
obsession with a female member of staff. This was done, enabling her to put in place measures to ensure her
safety during and after counselling sessions.
David has now been in the community for over twelve months and appears to have re-integrated well. He has
not sought to contact the hostel member of staff and he has, thus far, not committed any further offences. The
last MAPPP agreed to downgrade him to MAPPA Level 2 management in six months time if his current
progress is maintained.
Case History D Although the MAPPA deal with some high risk offenders, most of these are
compliant and co-operative, and although vigilance is necessary, many of these cases demonstrate
that rehabilitation and re-integration into the community can be effectively achieved.
This case is a good example.

The Responsible Authority is
required to produce statistical
information within the MAPPA
Annual Report.
It may be helpful to provide some
guidance and clarification in order to
make sense of the bold statistics.
The first figure is for the total
number of MAPPA Category 1
Offenders, Registered Sex
Offenders, who were living in
Leicester, Leicestershire and
Rutland on 31st. March 2004. This
total of 484 represents an increase
of some 17% from the 413 RSO’s
living in this area on 31/03/03.
This increase, which is believed to
be broadly in line with the national
average, is to be expected. This is
because the purpose of the Sex
Offender Register is to allow the
Police to keep track of the
movements of sex offenders in the
community. For this reason, the
length of the registration
requirement is deliberately
substantial – the minimum period for
an adult is five years, whilst the
more serious sex offenders are
subject to registration for life. Since
the introduction of the Sex Offender
Register in 1997, the total of those
required to register represents a
cumulative figure.
It is also worth remembering that the
vast majority of sex offenders are
subject to the Sex Offender Register
but only a small minority of these
are assessed as high risk,
potentially dangerous offenders.
Finally, these offenders exist and
would still be living in the community
even if the Sex Offender Register
had not been introduced. The fact
that the register exists allows the
Police, in conjunction with other
relevant agencies, to better monitor
their behaviour and manage the
risks they may potentially pose.
Seen in this way, it is obvious that
the Sex Offender Register provides
an important contribution to overall
community safety.
The number of MAPPA Category 2
offenders, “Violent and other Sex
Offenders” is, by contrast, at 236, a
very significant reduction of last
year’s figure of 590. This is largely
explained, by the fact that we have
been required, for this year’s Annual
Report, to provide only the figure of
offenders in this category who were
living in the community following
release on licence. Last year’s figure
contained a large number sentenced
for such offences during the year,
but not released before
31st. March, and almost 250
prisoners serving sentences who
spent the whole of the period
covered by the Annual Report in
custody. This year’s figure conveys
a more accurate reflection of those
offenders within this category who
were subject to MAPPA within the
The overwhelming majority of these
offenders co-operate fully during
their period of licence and, when this
is completed, are no longer subject
to the MAPPA. Only a small number
are considered to remain high risk,
and these will be re-classified as
MAPPA category 3, “Other
Dangerous Offenders”, but, because
of this re-classification process,
there will also be a cumulative
element to this figure.
Another reason for this year’s
increase in MAPPA Category 3
offenders – 53, compared with last
year’s total of 29 – is that the
operation of the MAPPA have
become increasingly embedded
amongst all local agencies. This has
led to the improved identification of
offenders in this category.
The total number of offenders
managed by the MAPPP, MAPPA
Level 3, is 41 similar to last year’s
figure of 43. This is partly explained
by the fact that there is now a more
comprehensive MAPPA Level 2
management provision within the
area. The Level 2 provision is now
able to manage both offenders who
may previously have been referred
to the MAPPP, as well as those
downgraded from Level 3 when they
are no longer assessed as posing
an imminent risk. It also suggests
that, locally, our “gatekeeping”
procedures remain robust and,
therefore, that our MAPPP continues
to be reserved for “the critical few”
cases that warrant this degree of
scrutiny and management.
This year only one offender
committed a serious further offence,
involving serious harm to a person
whilst under MAPPP’s management.
This concerned a Registered Sex
Offender, also subject to post-
custody licence to the Probation
Service, who has since been
sentenced to life imprisonment for
an offence of rape. Because this
offender was a Probation case, a
detailed internal investigation was
carried out and a report submitted to
the Home Office under the terms of
Probation’s “Serious Incident”
procedures. In addition, the MAPPA
Strategic Management Board
requested an independent review to
be carried out by a MAPPP Manager
from a neighbouring county, using a
regional protocol negotiated for this
purpose. Whilst, inevitably, these
procedures produced things we can
learn from – which is essentially the
point of the exercise, perhaps
significantly, both confirmed the
accuracy of the risk assessment, the
appropriateness of the risk
management plan and both
concluded that no additional
measures, not actually put in place,
could have been reasonably
expected to have prevented the
offence from occurring.
5 The MAPPA statistics

Statistical Information No. of Offenders
i. The number of Registered Sex Offenders on 31 March 2004
i(a) The number of RSO per 100,000 head of population
ii. The number of sex offenders having a registration requirement who
were either cautioned or convicted for breaches of the requirement,
between 1 April 2003 and 31 March 2004
iii. The number of Sex Offender Orders applied for and gained between
1 April 2003 and 31 March 2004
(a) The total number of Sex Offender Orders applied for
(b) The total number granted
(c) The total number not granted
iv. The number of Restraining Orders issued by the courts between
1 April 2003 and 31 March 2004 for offenders currently managed
within MAPPA
v. The number of violent and other sexual offenders considered under
MAPPA during the year 1 April 2003 and 31 March 2004 (as defined
by section 68 [3], [4] and [5])
vi. The number of "other offenders" dealt with under MAPPA during the
year 1 April 2003 and 31 March 2004 as being assessed by the
Responsible Authority as posing a risk of serious harm to the public
(but who did not fall within either of the other two categories, as
defined by s.67 [2b])
vii. For each of the three categories of offenders covered by the MAPPA
("registered sex offenders", "violent and other sex offenders" and
"other offenders"), identify the number of offenders that are or have
been dealt with by:
(a) MAPPP - registered sex offenders
(b) MAPPP - violent and other sex offenders
(c) MAPPP - other offenders

viii. Of the cases managed by the MAPPP during the reporting year
what was the number of offenders:
(a) who were returned to custody for breach of licence
(b) who were returned to custody for breach of a Restraining Order or
Sex Offender Order
(c) charged with a serious sexual or violent offence
In session :
Members of the Multi - Agency Public Protection Panel

Do the MAPPA really work in protecting the public?
Yes, we believe that the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements are the most
effective way to manage dangerous offenders.
The very fact that agencies share information means that risk assessments are likely to be
more comprehensive and accurate. Similarly, a collaborative approach and the co-
ordination of risk management plans are likely to be more effective.
However, it must be borne in mind that the MAPPA do not convey any additional powers or
authority on any of the agencies involved, but rather represent a framework that facilitates
a co-ordinated approach. It follows, of course, that any measures adopted by the MAPPA
partner agencies must not only be lawful, but also proportionate and demonstrably
necessary in order to protect the public.
Nonetheless, of over 200 cases referred to the MAPPP (or previously the Public Protection
Panel) over a six-year period, all of whom, by definition, had been assessed as high or
very high risk, only six have committed serious offences within our area whilst under this
level of management. We are not complacent about this figure, nor, indeed, about the
provision of any of the MAPPA locally, but believe that it does suggest that the
management of high risk offenders is demonstrably effective in the overwhelming majority
of cases.
We must be clear, however, that it can never be possible to completely eliminate risk, nor
to offer the public absolute guarantees. However we would want the public to be re-
assured that all staff involved with the operation of the MAPPA will continue to work hard to
protect the public – but it is important to remember that we all share a responsibility to
co-operate with the Police and other authorities to actively contribute to this goal.
MAPPP MANAGER/MAPPA CO-ORDINATOR Bob Petrie Senior Probation Officer,
National Probation Service, Leicestershire and Rutland Area (seconded)

Davina Logan, Assistant Chief Constable, Leicestershire Constabulary (Chair)
Krystyna Findley, Assistant Chief Officer, National Probation Service, Leicestershire & Rutland Area
Hilary Fielder, Regional Resettlement Manager, HM Prison Service, East Midlands – South Region
Andrew Cozens – Director, Leicester City Council Social Care and Health Department
Neil Dhruev –Director of Adult Mental Health, Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust
Colin Foster – Director of Social Services and Housing, Rutland County Council
Pat Hobbs – Service Director, Leicester City Council Housing Department
Wally Holynski - Commissioning Manager, Melton, Rutland and Harborough Primary Care Trust
Wendy Poynton – Director of Development and Operational Practice, Leicestershire Youth Offending Service
Flick Schofield – Assistant Director, Leicestershire County Council Social Services Department
Mick Studley - Director, Leicestershire & Rutland Victim Support
1 Representing all Social Housing Providers, Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland
2 Representing the Leicestershire Health Services Primary Care Trusts
3 Representing Leicester City and Leicestershire Youth Offending Services
Pat Hobbs – Service Director, Leicester City Council Housing Department (Chair)
Steven Attwood – Head of Service, Children and Families Department, Rutland County Council
Krystyna Findley – Assistant Chief Officer, National Probation Service, Leicestershire and Rutland Area
Pat Nawrockyi – Service Manager – Child Protection, Leicester City Council Social Care and Health Department
Robert Nisbet – Service Manager, Forensic Mental Health Service, Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust
Bob Parker – Service Manager, Child Protection, Leicestershire County Council Social Services Department
Graham Thomas – Detective Superintendent, Leicestershire Constabulary

Steven Attwood – Head of Service, Children and Families Dept., Rutland County Council
Sarah Baraclough - OASys Implementation Manager, HM Prison Service, East Midlands – South Region
Krystyna Findley – Assistant Chief Officer, National Probation Service, Leicestershire and Rutland Area
Pat Nawrockyi – Service Manager, Child Protection, Leicester City Council Social Care and Health Dept.
Robert Nisbet – Service Manager, Forensic Mental Health Service, Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust
Bob Parker – Service Manager, Child Protection, Leicestershire county Council Social Services Department.
Suki Supria - Contracts Manager, Leicester City Council Housing Department
Phil Taylor – Detective Chief Inspector, Leicestershire Constabulary
Bob Petrie - Senior Probation Officer, National Probation Service, Leicestershire and Rutland Area (seconded)
Christine Campbell - Administrative Officer, Leicestershire Constabulary