You are on page 1of 32

Leicester,

Leicestershire &
Rutland
Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements

Contacts

National Probation Service Address Phone

Ms Krystyna Findley 2 St John Street 0116 251 6008


Assistant Chief Officer Leicester
Krystyna.Findley@leicestershire.probation.gsx.gov.uk LE1 3BE

Leicestershire Constabulary Address Phone

Graham Thomas Specialist Crime Investigation Dept. 0116 222 2222


Superintendent Wigston Police Station ext. 5569
graham.thomas@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk Bull Head Street
Wigston
Leicester LE18 1WX

MAPPP Unit Address Phone

Bob Petrie Wigston Police Station 0116 222 2222


MAPPP Manager Bull Head Street ext. 5506
Bob.Petrie@leicestershire.probation.gsx.gov.uk Wigston
Leicester LE18 1WX

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.
Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland
Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements
Annual Report 2003Ð4

Leicester,
Leicestershire &
Rutland MAPPA
working together
to protect the public
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
Foreword - “WORKING TOGETHER TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC”

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).


1 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 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.
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.

The origins of this can be traced The Leicester, Leicestershire and


to the establishment of our Public Rutland Public Protection Panel
Protection Panel, in 1998. Our was highly regarded nationally as
Panel was one of the first such an example of good practice.
arrangements in the country and, Several aspects of our local We have been well
at the time it was established, arrangements were incorporated placed to extend our
unique to the extent that it was in the first Home Office Guidance existing multi-agency
jointly funded by its six original which required that every area of partnership
partner organisations – the Police, England and Wales establish a arrangements into rolling
Probation and Health Services “Multi-Agency Public Protection out the full MAPPA
and the three local councils, Panel”, or MAPPP, as the first step framework locally. This
Leicester City, Leicestershire and in the wider development of the process is now
Rutland. The local councils were MAPPA. Therefore our “Public well under way and
represented operationally by their Protection Panel” became the should be completed
respective Social Services Leicester, Leicestershire and within the next twelve
Departments and, in the case of Rutland MAPPP on 1st May 2001. months.
the city, also by the Housing
Department.

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.
3 Key developments in the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland
MAPPA within the last twelve months

Key agencies, such as Health, - The inclusion on the SMB of a


Social Services, Prisons and senior manager to represent the
Housing have been actively Leicester City Housing Department
working for some time with the who, in turn, provides a link with all
Police and Probation Service in other Registered Social Landlords
Leicester, Leicestershire and in the area.
Rutland in the field of public
protection. In our area the statutory - The inclusion of a representative
“Duty to Co-operate” represents of the Leicester City and
little more than a formal Leicestershire Youth Offending
endorsement of our existing Services on the SMB. Both
practice. agencies have agreed that they will
share this task with one manager
We have, therefore, begun to make representing both organisations.
the necessary structural They will rotate their representative
adjustments to our local on a three-yearly cycle. The
arrangements in order to comply Director of Leicestershire and
with the new legislation and Rutland Victim Support now also
National Guidance. sits on our SMB.

These have included: N.B. A full list of local agencies’


representatives and involvement in
- The re-designation of the MAPPP our local MAPPA structures can be
Management Committee, which found in Appendix 1 of this Report.
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).
We have also taken several other This Protocol, currently out for
key steps to facilitate the further consultation, will effectively
development of the MAPPA in formalise the present de-facto
Leicester, Leicestershire and arrangements for information
Rutland: exchange;

- The re-designation of our - The agreement to identify a single


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

(i) Which offenders are - All offenders who receive a or she may pose a risk of harm to
affected? custodial sentence of twelve months others – “other dangerous”
or more for a violent offence or for offenders. This group will include
There are three categories of one of the small number of sexual offenders who were previously
offenders who fall within the Multi- offences which does not require the Category 1 or 2 offenders, whose
Agency Public Protection offender to register on the Sex Sex Offender Registration
Arrangements: Offender Register. All offenders in requirement or post-custody licence
this group are subject to supervision has expired, but who are still
- All sex offenders who are required on licence to the Probation Service assessed as posing a risk. It may
to register with the Police on the Sex following release and, for the also include some people who have
Offender Register, and who are duration of this period of offended seriously in the past and
living in the community. Contrary to supervision, these offenders are have recently come to the attention
popular belief, this group of subject to the MAPPA. They are of the authorities because their
offenders includes most sex MAPPA Category 2 offenders. current behaviour is of concern; and
offenders and not just those who the small number of people with
offend against children. Registered - Any other offender, not included in mental health problems who are
Sex Offenders are MAPPA Category either of the above two categories, considered to pose a potential risk
1 offenders. whose previous offending and to others. This group of offenders
current behaviour suggests that he make up MAPPA Category 3.

(ii) What is the MAPPA Other MAPPA Category 3 offenders, Communication and sharing of
framework ? however, may initially come to the knowledge and expertise are vital to
attention of any one of the other this process.
First of all, systems need to be put agencies, and so it is important that
in place to ensure that all MAPPA good communication exists between It is important, in this context, to
offenders can be identified. This is all MAPPA partners to identify remember that the majority of
comparatively easy for MAPPA offenders in this category. MAPPA offenders are not assessed
Categories 1 and 2, since their as posing a threat of serious harm to
offending and sentence mean that Once a MAPPA offender has been others. Whilst these types of
they automatically fall within the remit identified, his or her potential risk to offenders have always been in the
of the MAPPA. They are subject to a others must be assessed. MAPPA community, only a very small
legal requirement either to register Category 1 offenders will always be minority go on to re-offend seriously.
on the Sex Offender Register or to risk assessed by the Police and
comply with Probation supervision – Category 2 offenders will always be
many offenders who have been assessed by the Probation Service.
released from prison sentences for However, Category 3 offenders may
serious sexual offending will initially be risk assessed by any agency,
be subject to both. with the help of Police or Probation
or both.
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 Level 2 – middle tier multi-agency Level 3 – higher tier multi-agency
framework allows for the management. This is the risk meetings, or Multi-Agency Public
management of all relevant management level considered Protection Panels (MAPPPs). Those
offenders at one of three levels: appropriate for most high risk cases offenders assessed as very high
and a minority of those assessed as risk, or cases where there are
Level 1 – single agency medium – where, for example, the particularly complex dynamics or
management. This level of case is quite complex and more resource implications are generally
management is for the low risk and than one agency is actively involved managed by MAPPPs. These
many of the offenders who are with the offender. “critical few” cases will also have a
assessed as medium risk. In nominated key worker from the
practice, it means that one agency In these cases, whilst often a single agency which takes the lead role,
will take the sole responsibility for member of staff will provide the day but the overall management will be
the management of the case, to day monitoring, the overall agreed and supervised by the
although there is still an expectation management will be overseen by a MAPPP. The MAPPP will continue to
that other agencies that have multi-agency meeting. Such keep these cases under review until
relevant information or knowledge of meetings are usually chaired by a such time as they are no longer
the offender will keep the case middle manager, typically a Senior considered to require this level of
manager informed. For example, Probation Officer or a Police management. There are two main
most MAPPA Category 2 offenders – Inspector, and will be attended by all differences between MAPPPs and
those on licence from custodial of the front line professionals from Level 2 multi-agency meetings.
sentences of twelve months or more agencies that have an involvement First, MAPPPs are chaired
– will be very effectively managed by or an active interest in the case. independently and, secondly, all
their supervising Probation Officer. plans and decisions are taken by a
“core” group of senior managers
representing the key MAPPA
agencies, who sit on all panels.
How do the MAPPA work? cont.

(iii) How do the MAPPA MAPPA Category 1, Registered Sex cross-checked with any other
operate in this area? Offenders. The national roll-out of information or assessments which
the full version, covering all MAPPA may be relevant. There is often
a) Information exchange : offenders is expected in the near close liaison with the Probation
A precondition for the effective future. Service, where the offender is under
working of the MAPPA is a system their supervision or with the Social
for the exhange of relevant - The use of Leicestershire and Services Department if the previous
information on the risks offenders Rutland Probation Area’s CRAMS offending was against children.
may pose to others. (Case Records Administration and
Management System) database, Additionally, in this area, all
Whilst information sharing has been that will provide regular reports to Registered Sex Offenders are also
an integral part of our multi-agency the MAPPA Co-ordinator on all visited at home to confirm their
arrangements for several years, we MAPPA Category 2 Offenders. address and to ensure that any
are now in the process of relevant local community, home or
formalising this aspect of the work in b) Risk Assessment : family issues are taken account of in
order to provide a more In accordance with the statutory the overall risk assessment process.
comprehensive system. duty, all MAPPA offenders in this
area are subject to risk assessment The local arm of the National
The following are important and, depending on their level of risk, Probation Service, the Leicestershire
components of this provision :- managed within our local three tier and Rutland Probation Area (LRPA)
risk management framework. undertakes risk assessments on all
- The agreement of all partner cases under its supervision.
agencies to identify a member of MAPPA Category 1 Offenders
staff to act as a single point of (Registered Sex Offenders) are all Whilst the Probation Service is
contact for enquiries from other risk assessed by the Leicestershire involved in the supervision of some
agencies. Constabulary’s Public Protection MAPPA Category 1 and 3 cases, all
Unit, which is based at Wigston adult MAPPA Category 2 Offenders
- The agreement that the MAPPA police station. They are risk (violent and other sex offenders)
Co-ordinator will operate a “clearing assessed as soon as they have are, by definition, current Probation
house” facility for relevant signed on the Sex Offender cases following release from
information on MAPPA offenders. Register. custody on licence.

- The MAPPA Co-ordinator manages The risk assessment process The initial risk screening uses the
a database of all referrals to the involves the use of the Risk Matrix Offender Assessment System
MAPPA Level 3 provision i.e. the 2000 (RM 2000) assessment tool, (OASys), which is also currently
Multi-Agency Public Protection which has been developed by the being introduced nationally by the
Panel. Home Office specifically for this Prison Service. Following initial
purpose. RM 2000 is used by Police OASys screening, any case which
- The deployment of the interim Forces throughout the country. indicates a potential risk of harm to
version of the VISOR (Violent & others is subjected to a more
Sexual Offender Register) database The RM 2000 provides an initial detailed risk assessment, involving
by Leicestershire Constabulary – the screening, but in our area, this liaison with other relevant agencies.
interim version applies only to preliminary assessment is always
This process will include The majority of MAPPA Category 2 All Probation cases assessed as
consideration of other assessments offenders who are assessed as “low” “high” risk, using OASys, will
such as parole reports, pre-sentence or “medium” risk can be effectively normally be subject to Probation
reports or psychiatric reports. To managed by the supervision of their RAMP meetings.
supplement this, Probation now Probation Officer or their YOTs
employ their own dedicated forensic supervisor under single agency RAMPs are convened and chaired
psychologist who is frequently asked management. by Senior Probation Officers. All
to provide assessments on complex, front line staff from any agency
high risk cases. It should be remembered that involved in the case are invited to
MAPPA Category 3 Offenders attend.
Both the Leicester City Youth (“Other Dangerous”) only fall into
Offending Team and the this category if they are high risk RAMPs follow a prescribed format
Leicestershire Youth Offending and, therefore, that they are unlikely and follow a standard agenda.
Service supervise a small number of to be suitable for single agency The key purposes of these
MAPPA offenders. management. meetings are :-

Both of these organisations utilise d ) M A P PA L e v e l 2 , M u l t i - - The exchange and updating of


the National Youth Justice Board’s Agency Management : relevant information about the
ASSET model for risk assessments, A minority of MAPPA Category 1 offender
but, again, this process is enhanced offenders (Registered Sex - The agreement of the level of risk
by inter-agency liaison and Offenders) are assessed as “high” - The agreement of a co-ordinated
information exchange. risk. Many of these will also be risk management plan, and
under the supervision of the - A decision as to whether the case
Most of the small number of MAPPA Probation Service, usually on post- can be effectively managed at Level
offenders who have mental health custody licence. 2 or whether a referral to the Level 3
problems are known to, or under the MAPPP is appropriate.
care of the Leicestershire Forensic In these circumstances, in order to
Mental Health Service (LFMHS). avoid unnecessary duplication, The Youth Offending Services also
these offenders will be managed via have their own MAPPA Level 2
In such cases LFMHS will assess Probation’s MAPPA Level 2 multi- meetings – Risk Assessment and
offenders and/or contribute to the agency meetings, which are called Management Meetings - to manage
risk assessments of other agencies, Risk Assessment and Management the small number of MAPPA
notably the Police and Probation Panels, or RAMPs. The Police offenders under their supervision.
Service. always attend RAMPs on Registered
Sex Offenders. Finally, other agencies may, on
All risk assessments are regularly occasions, be the most centrally
reviewed and revised in the light of For those high risk MAPPA Category involved with a small number of
new information and/or changed 1 Offenders who are not, or no MAPPA offenders. In such
circumstances. longer subject to Probation circumstances it is sometimes
supervision, the Police hold their own appropriate that they take the lead in
c) Single-Agency MAPPA Level 2 meetings – Risk convening Level 2 Multi- Agency
Management : Assessment Group or RAG meetings. meetings. This is most often true in
Registered Sex Offenders who are respect of the Leicestershire
assessed as “low” or “medium” risk Currently RAG meetings only Forensic Mental Health Service
are usually considered suitable for manage Registered Sex Offenders, which operates a system of “Risk
single agency management, which but there are plans to replace these Concerns Meetings” as part of the
is undertaken by officers from the meetings with the Police equivalent Care Programme Approach
Local Policing Unit that covers the of RAMPs, which will have the brief (CPA) system.
area where the offender lives. of managing all categories of
MAPPA offenders at Level 2 who
are not under the supervision of the
Probation Service.
How do the MAPPA work?
How do the MAPPA operate in this area? cont.
e) MAPPA Level 3 – The Multi-
Agency Public Protection Panel –
“The Critical Few” In many ways, the MAPPP has Cases that are no longer deemed to
The relatively small number of similar objectives to Level 2 require MAPPP management will
Registered Sex Offenders who are meetings, in that all those automatically revert to the
assessed as “very high” risk are participating share information, appropraite MAPPA Level 2
automatically referred to our MAPPA assess risk and agree on measures provision.
Level 3 facility, the Multi-Agency to manage offenders and protect
Public Protection Panel or MAPPP. the public. Core Panel Members have sufficient
authority within their respective
Other high risk offenders, However, there are also significant organisations to hold their staff to
considered at a variety of Level 2 differences from Level 2 meetings. account concerning the work agreed
meetings, as previously described, These include : that is contributing to the risk
can be referred to the MAPPP. All management plan.
Level 2 meetings will routinely - The MAPPP is chaired
address this matter as part of their independently by the MAPPP The agencies currently providing
standard agenda. Manager. Core Panel Members are :
Leicestershire Constabulary,
Because the MAPPP should be - Although front line practitioners are Leicestershire and Rutland
reserved only for the very highest invited to MAPPP meetings to Probation Area, HM Prison Service,
risk cases and/or those which provide information and contribute to East Midlands, South Region,
require senior management multi- the discussions, all key decisions Leicester City Social Care and
agency oversight – “The Critical are taken by a group of senior Health Dept., Leicester City Housing
Few” - there is a rigorous managers of the key partner Dept., Leicestershire Social Services
“gatekeeping” process for cases organisations*, who represent them Dept., Leicestershire Forensic
referred to MAPPA Level 3. This as “Core Panel Members”. Mental Health Service, Rutland
requires that all referrals are first County Council Social Services and
approved by a senior manager of - The Core Panel Members have the Housing Dept. (See Appendix 1 for
the referring agency, and that they authority to make a preliminary more details).
are then screened by the MAPPP commitment, on behalf of their
manager. Front line staff, involved respective organisations, of The day to day management of the
with the case, are also consulted resources or services which may be MAPPP is the responsibility of the
before it is agreed to take a case to necessary in order to contribute to Operational Management Group,
the MAPPP. risk management. which reports to the MAPPA
Strategic Management Board.
The Multi-Agency Public Protection - Core Panel Members will decide
Panel meets for a full day every whether the offender under
month, when it will typically consider consideration requires “registration”
between four and six cases. MAPPP i.e whether ongoing Level 3
meetings are usually held at County management is necessary. If this
Hall. action is taken the case will regularly
be brought back before the
MAPPP for review.
f) Links with Child Protection : g) Work with Victims :
It is clearly important that the A very high priority is attached to the
MAPPA have close links with the work with victims within the
local agencies and departments who Leicester, Leicestershire and
work in the Child Protection arena. Rutland MAPPA. The importance of
a victim focus has been recently
In Leicester, Leicestershire and enhanced by the agreement of the
Rutland these links are maintained Director of Leicestershire and
via the three MAPPP Core Panel Rutland Victim Support to serve in
Members who represent Leicester an advisory capacity on our MAPPA
City Social Care & Health, Strategic Management Board.
Leicestershire Social Services and
Rutland County Council Social The two agencies mostly involved in
Services & Housing Dept., all of this work are the Probation Service
whom are Specialist Child Protection and the Police. Both agencies have
Senior Managers in their respective specialist staff who work closely with
organisations who sit on the two victims of crime. Either or both of
local Area Child Protection these units will be invited to attend
Committees. MAPPA Level 2 or Level 3 (MAPPP)
meetings in cases where there are
Additionally the Police’s Public current, ongoing victims issues
Protection Unit and the MAPPP which need to be considered in the
Manager are all co-located in the context of either risk assessment or
same office as Leicestershire risk management.
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
consideration.
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.

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
consideration.
- A “fast track” facility was put in place to enable Alan’s immediate recall to prison, should this prove
necessary.

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 B

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 C

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 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.

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
junior.

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.
5 The MAPPA statistics

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

i. The number of Registered Sex Offenders on 31 March 2004 484


i(a) The number of RSO per 100,000 head of population 52

ii. The number of sex offenders having a registration requirement who


were either cautioned or convicted for breaches of the requirement, 13
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 0

(a) The total number of Sex Offender Orders applied for 0

(b) The total number granted 0

(c) The total number not granted 0

iv. The number of Restraining Orders issued by the courts between


1 April 2003 and 31 March 2004 for offenders currently managed 0
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 236
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 53
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 16

(b) MAPPP - violent and other sex offenders 8

(c) MAPPP - other offenders 17


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 6

(b) who were returned to custody for breach of a Restraining Order or 0


Sex Offender Order

(c) charged with a serious sexual or violent offence 1

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)
APPENDIX 1
A G E N C Y R E P R E S E N TAT I V E S I N T H E L E I C E S T E R , L E I C E S T E R S H I R E A N D
R U T L A N D M U LT I - A G E N C Y P U B L I C P R O T E C T I O N A R R A N G E M E N T S

T H E M A P PA S T R AT E G I C M A N A G E M E N T B O A R D
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 1

Wally Holynski - Commissioning Manager, Melton, Rutland and Harborough Primary Care Trust 2

Wendy Poynton – Director of Development and Operational Practice, Leicestershire Youth Offending Service 3
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

T H E M A P P P O P E R AT I O N A L M A N A G E M E N T G R O U P
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
M A P P P C O R E PA N E L M E M B E R S
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

M A P P P M A N A G E R / M A P PA C O - O R D I N ATO R
Bob Petrie - Senior Probation Officer, National Probation Service, Leicestershire and Rutland Area (seconded)

M A P P P A D M I N I S T R ATO R
Christine Campbell - Administrative Officer, Leicestershire Constabulary
APPENDIX 2