You are on page 1of 39

L e i c e s t e r , L e i c e s tMulti-Agency

e r s h i rPublic
e & Rutland
Protection Arrangements
Annual Report 2004–5

Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland MAPPA

working together to protect the public
Foreword p. 1

Introduction p. 2

Understanding the MAPPA p. 4

A View from the Chair p. 5

Key Developments p. 6

The Role of Lay Advisors p. 8

How the MAPPA operates locally p. 10

Information Exchange p. 12

Risk Management p. 16

Case Studies p. 18

Statistical Information p. 24

Appendix 1 p. 30

Appendix 2 p. 32
Ministerial Foreword by Baroness Scotland

The work being undertaken to improve the safety of communities through the Multi-Agency Public Protection

Arrangements (MAPPA) is vitally important and a priority for government. The annual reports for 2004/5 provide

evidence of that active engagement. Violence and sexual abuse are unacceptable wherever they occur and it is

evident that through MAPPA such offenders are identified and better managed than ever before. As the number of

offenders within MAPPA continues to grow as expected there is clear evidence that the Responsible Authority, that is

the local Police, Probation and the Prison Service, is addressing these additional demands by strengthening local

partnerships, using new statutory powers to restrict the behaviour of offenders, returning offenders to custody where

they breach their licence or order, and using the findings of research and inspection to strengthen national guidance

and local practice. Although it is never possible completely to eliminate the risk posed by dangerous offenders,

MAPPA is helping to ensure that fewer people are re-victimised.

The active implementation of the Criminal Justice Act (2003) during the last year has clearly enhanced the ability of a

number of agencies including health, social services and housing to work collaboratively with the Responsible

Authority in assessing and managing those sexual and violent offenders in our communities who pose the highest risk

of serious harm. For the continued success of MAPPA this collaboration together with the scrutiny of policy and

practice must become the hallmark of these arrangements. Similarly MAPPA must integrate with other public

protection mechanisms dealing with child abuse, domestic abuse and racial abuse.

For me, one of the most exciting developments in this arena in the last 12 months has been the appointment of lay

advisers to assist the Responsible Authority in the oversight of the arrangements. As ordinary members of the public

these lay advisors represent a diverse, able and committed group of people who are now helping the statutory

agencies to oversee the work being undertaken through MAPPA and communicate with the public more effectively.

Without a growing sense of public knowledge and confidence about this work much of the benefits of the public

protection arrangements will be lost.

I hope this annual report will be useful, informative and re-assuring to local communities. The agencies and individuals

who have contributed to the achievement of MAPPA locally are to be commended.


This is the fourth Annual Report which covers the work of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements –

the MAPPA – in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland during the last twelve months.

We have a well-established multi-agency partnership in the field of Public Protection which is reflected at all

levels within the MAPPA structure, from the Strategic Management Board to the collaborative inter-agency

work which takes place at an operational level.

We are totally committed to maintaining this partnership in order to ensure that the protection of the public

remains the highest priority for all members. A joint approach ensures that the agencies involved are working

to the best of their abilities to reduce further offending and to prevent the re-victimisation of individuals.

To this end we have now approved the agreement of a Memorandum of Understanding, confirming our

commitment to multi-agency work, and an Information Sharing Protocol to cover the exchange of relevant

information on all offenders who fall within the remit of the MAPPA.

We are committed to keeping our practices and procedures under review, to ensure that the MAPPA within

Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland operate as effectively as possible. However, we believe that this report

demonstrates the solid base of good practice and expertise which we have developed in this area of public

protection work.

Chief Constable - Matt Baggott

Chief Officer of Probation - Heather Munro

Area Manager East Midlands South – HM Prison Service – Bob Perry

Leicestershire Youth Offending Service - Phil Hawkins

Leicester City Youth Offending Team - Mary Campagnac

Chief Executive Melton, Rutland & Harborough PCT - Wendy Saviour

Corporate Director, Social Care & Health Directorate, Leicester Social Services - Andrew Cozens

Director of Social Services, Leicestershire County Council - Tony Harrop

Chief Executive, Leicestershire Partnership Trust - Dr Maggie Cork

Corporate Director of Housing, Leicester City Council - Mike Forrester

Director of Social Services & Housing, Rutland County Council - Colin Foster


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.

There are three categories of offenders who fall with the MAPPA:

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

All offenders on post-custody licence, having been sentenced to 12 months or more custody for an
offence of violence (MAPPA Cat 2)
Any other offender, i.e. not in either of the above categories, whose previous offending and current
behaviour suggests he/she may pose a risk of harm to others (MAPPA Cat. 3)

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

Single agency management (MAPPA Level 1)

Middle tier Inter-Agency Management (MAPPA Level 2)
Higher tier Multi-Agency Management, the Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel or MAPPP
(MAPPA Level 3)

On 1st April 2001, it became a statutory responsibility, jointly, on all Police and Probation areas 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 with 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

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 required the recruitment of two ‘Lay Advisors’ in each area to
sit on the MAPPA SMBs.

Krystyna Findley
Assistant Chief Officer, Leicestershire
& Rutland Probation Area
Chair – Leicester, Leicestershire &
Rutland MAPPA Strategic
Management Board

I became Chair of the MAPPA We have recently agreed a Finally, I would like to express my
Strategic Management Board in Memorandum of Understanding that thanks to the local agencies who are
December 2004, following Davina formalises the existing commitment not part of the Responsible Authority
Logan’s promotion to Deputy Chief of all key local agencies to the multi- but continue to help to fund and
Constable in another area. agency approach, which is so vital operate the MAPPA – the Leicester
for the effectiveness of the MAPPA. City Council, Leicestershire County
My first task is to thank Davina We have also agreed a protocol with Council, Rutland County Council
Logan for her clear, focused and all relevant partners to share and the Melton Rutland &
supportive leadership of the MAPPA relevant information on all offenders Harborough Primary Care Trust
in Leicester, Leicestershire and who fall within the MAPPA. (representing all six local PCTs.)
Rutland during the last two years, I believe their contributions ensure a
and to wish her well in her new post. Whilst we continue to employ a meaningful and effective local multi-
full-time, dedicated MAPPA agency partnership.
Overall, I think the past twelve Co-ordinator, we have also
months has been a period of both increased the MAPPA administrative I would also like to thank the staff,
change and consolidation for support from a part time to a full especially frontline staff, of all
our MAPPA. time post. partner agencies for their
conscientious and dedicated work in
We have welcomed our two Lay During the next twelve months I look seeking to protect the public from
Advisors, who were appointed at the forward to the interesting challenges potentially dangerous offenders.
end of the year and who are that we shall meet in the developing
completing a process of induction. field of Public Protection. Whilst I am
They have already attended two confident about the robustness of
SMB meetings and I feel that our our local Arrangements, we will look
collective oversight of the continuing to develop more comprehensive
development and evolution of the quality assurance systems and
MAPPA can only benefit from the strengthen our links with other key
important lay, community bodies. These organisations and
perspective that they will bring to agencies include the Local Criminal
the process. Justice Board, the Crime Prevention
& Reduction Partnerships, the
We have also fully incorporated the current Area Child Protection
inclusion of the Prison Service as Committees and the planned
part of the Responsible Authority. Children’s Safeguarding Board. We
This move cements an established will also be looking at ways in which
and very positive relationship in the we can provide more regular
field of public protection. feedback to the whole community on
the workings of the local MAPPA.


During the last twelve months, the - The appointment of a full-time Mr. David Walmsley, previously
relevant sections of the Criminal Administrative Assistant to the Governor, HMP Ashwell, who served
Justice Act, 2003 have largely been Police’s Sex and Dangerous for over two years as HM Prison
implemented in Leicester, Offender Unit, replacing the previous Service representative on the
Leicestershire and Rutland in half-time post. MAPPP. David retired in April 2004.
accordance with National Guidance
issued by the Home Office. - The implementation of MAPPA Ms. Sarah Baraclough, OASys
Level 2 (middle tier) “Risk Concerns Implementation Manager, HM Prison
These have included : Meetings” by Leicestershire Forensic Service, East Midlands Region, who
Mental Health Service to assess and succeeded David as the Prison
- The recruitment of two Lay manage mentally disordered Service’s MAPPP member before
Advisors to sit on the MAPPA offenders who are not subject to any moving to another post within the
Strategic Management Board in other form of MAPPA management Prison Service.
order to provide a community-based process.
perspective on our policies and Mr. Robert Nisbet, Service
practice. - The review and updating of the Manager, Leicestershire Forensic
Probation Service MAPPA Level 2 Mental Health Service, who served
- The agreement of a Memorandum “Risk Assessment & Management as the Health Service representative
of Understanding, confirming the Panels” (RAMPs) to take account of on both the MAPPP and the MAPPA
commitment of all key local agencies recent legislative changes. Operational Management Group for
to work in partnership within the several years. Robert, at the end of
MAPPA framework. - The development of formal links April 2005, left to pursue a new
between local MAPPA and Area career as an independent trainer.
- The signing of an Information Child Protection procedures, with
Sharing Protocol by all relevant local specific guidance in relation to Superintendent Graham Thomas,
agencies governing the process for offenders who are dangerous and who represented the Leicestershire
the sharing of relevant information who may have contact with children. Constabulary on the MAPPA
on MAPPA offenders. Operational Management Group for
Since the last Annual Report was the last three years has now been
- The re-designation of the MAPPP published, the following key staff replaced by Supt. Chris Tew.
Manager’s post to that of dedicated have moved from their previous
MAPPA Co-ordinator. involvement with Leicester,
Leicestershire and Rutland to
- The employment of a full-time new appointments:
MAPPA Administrative Assistant,
replacing the previous half-time Mrs. Davina Logan, previously
MAPPP administrator. Assistant Chief Constable with
Leicestershire Constabulary and
- The implementation by Chair of the MAPPA Strategic
Leicestershire Constabulary of the Management Board, to take up a
VISOR database, a national new post as Deputy Chief Constable
database in relation to all Registered of Northamptonshire Constabulary.
Sex Offenders. 6
Q : Why is there a need for a national MAPPA framework ?
A : A national system is a more effective system that offers increased protection to the public. A countrywide approach ensures that all areas adopt the same procedures in
this priority area of work with potentially dangerous offenders. A consistent method of management also helps agencies when handling the movement of offenders between
different areas. The national framework enables the Home Office to have an accurate and comprehensive picture of what is happening around the country and, when there is
a need to change things, any changes can be implemented across the board throughout England and Wales.
County Hall, Leicester - MAPPP meeting venue


Name: Caroline Hall


Background information:

A nurse practitioner in

Primary Care, Mrs Hall, who


has two children, is involved


in a range of activities in

connection with her


children’s schools.

“I have only recently been appointed to sit on the Strategic Management Board (SMB) that oversees
the MAPPA for the management of sex and dangerous offenders in the community.

“As a mother involved in various community activities, I have a keen interest in how our public
protection arrangements are met to ensure not only the safety of our children, but the safety of all
of us that live peacefully within our respective communities.

“The role that I undertake as a Lay Advisor means that I do not have involvement or direct contact in
the management of individual cases or with offenders, but bring to the board meetings a lay person’s
perspective. I like to think that my contribution is about introducing an aspect of common sense
when discussing quite demanding cases concerning the offenders assessed as the ‘critical few.’
However the professionals ultimately take responsibility for the day to day management of this
group of offenders.

“The post is voluntary, but to date I have received excellent training which has given me insight into
the complexities of the decision making with this small but very significant group of offenders. My
current training is on-going so by next year I will be less of a novice in the area of public protection.
I have full involvement in my training programme and choose to an extent what the opportunities are.
I intend to leave no stone unturned in my quest to understand public protection and look forward to
the challenges ahead.

“I welcome any comments from the public on reading this informative Annual Report.”

Q : The number of offenders on the Sex Offender Register seems to keep rising every year.
Should the public be alarmed by this?
A : The short answer is no. The number of offenders on the Sex Offender Register will continue to rise for many years. The minimum registration time for an adult is two
years, while the more serious sex offenders will be on the register for the rest of their lives. The purpose of the register is to allow the Police to keep track of sex offenders in
the community. For this reason, the legislation deliberately makes sex offenders subject to registration for long periods of time. Therefore, there is a significant cumulative
aspect to the annual total of offenders on the register. Another factor in the increased numbers is that the register only became operational towards the end of 1997, and it is
only recently that certain offenders are now completing their registration periods and coming off the register. An additional element has been that during recent years the
detection rate for certain crimes has been increasing. For example there has been a significant expansion in the conviction of offenders who have been using the internet to
publish or exchange indecent images of children. This increase reflects the more sophisticated methods of detecting this type of offending and obtaining convictions.

“We have gone through the training and the induction. I have attended two

“I feel as a Lay Advisor that my role is to provide an overview, and ensure

“I applied to become a Lay Advisor because I felt this role was a logical
progression for me. I am very much involved in community life, and my

that individual agencies are pulling together. My fellow board members

know that I am a magistrate, and I was recently asked my view on an
aspect of sentencing. I hope that I can contribute to the process in a
Mother of three, Mrs Roberts is a school governor and a former
and is a non-executive director of a Primary Health Care Trust.

knowledge of the legal system and the work that is carried out with
lives in Leicestershire. She has been a magistrate for 15 years

offenders. I understand the roles of each of the agencies involved.

experiences gained as a magistrate means I have a good working
Background information: Mrs Roberts was born and currently

board meetings that have enabled me to get to know the people

concerned and understand the funding arrangements.
Name: Mrs Caroline Roberts

parish councillor.

constructive way.”


The multi-agency approach to assessing and managing offenders who may pose a risk of harm to others is
now well-established in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.This dates back to the establishment of our
Public Protection Panel in 1998, a body which foreshadowed our Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel
(MAPPP) in 2001 and the subsequent development of the full Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements
(MAPPA) framework.

The key operational partner agencies in our current MAPPA are :

The Leicestershire Constabulary

National Probation Service, Leicestershire & Rutland Area
HM Prison Service, East Midlands Region
Leicester City Council – Social Care & Health Dept.
Leicester City Council – Housing Dept.
Leicestershire County Council - Social Services Dept.
Leicestershire Forensic Mental Health Service
Rutland County Council – Social Services & Housing Dept.
Leicester City Youth Offending Team
Leicestershire Youth Offending Service.

“The inception of the MAPPA has seen a formalised
recognition of the old adage ' the Police alone
cannot solve everything '. With it we have also seen
a form of collaborative working previously unheard
of. It is without doubt that the MAPPP has gone
a long way in preserving the rights of some of the
most vulnerable people within society from the
most dangerous.”
DCI Philip Taylor,
Specialist Crime Investigation Department,
Leicestershire Constabulary

What follows is a brief overview of the way in which the MAPPA
operate within Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland, followed by some
anonymous, but real case studies to illustrate how the MAPPA work in practice:

Information Exchange :
In order for the MAPPA to work The aim is to ensure that staff from
effectively, it is necessary to have a any agency that has contact with an
system which facilitates the offender will be able to discover :
exchange of relevant information
between agencies. The sharing of - whether or not the offender
information ensures that offenders’ is currently under MAPPA
risk assessments remain up-dated, management
and the risk management is a co-
ordinated process. - which MAPPA category the
offender falls within “There are sometimes
In most cases, the relevant details of links between high
the offender will be available via the - at which level the offender is being risk offenders under
Police VISOR database, or managed the management of
Probation’s information system the MAPPA and child
called CRAMS. - the name and contact details of the protection concerns.
MAPPA key worker In such cases the
links between the two
In Leicester, Leicestershire and
- whether there are immediate, systems are vital in
Rutland, we have developed a
serious concerns to be aware of order to ensure that
system in which :
(e.g. risks to children). all the relevant
information is shared
- All local agencies have nominated
amongst all the
a member of staff to act as a single
agencies involved,
point of contact for enquiries from
and that an agreed,
other MAPPA agencies.
consistent approach
to risk management
- The MAPPA Co-ordinator operates
is adopted.”
a “clearing house” facility for cases
where it is not known whether, and if
Bob Parker,
so which, other agencies may be
Service Manager,
actively involved with an offender.
Child Protection,
Leicestershire Social
Services Department

Risk Assessment :
Leicestershire Constabulary has Leicestershire Youth Offending
the responsibility for assessing all Service and Leicester Youth
Registered Sex Offenders in the Offending Team are also involved
community (MAPPA Category 1). with a small number of MAPPA
This assessment is carried out by offenders, and will undertake risk
the specialist officers working in the assessments using the Youth
Sex and Dangerous Offender Unit. Offending Board’s ASSET
The risk assessment is based on the assessment tool.
Risk Matrix 2000 assessment tool,
which is used by forces throughout There are a small number of MAPPA
the country. offenders who are neither subject to
the requirements of the Sex
Leicestershire & Rutland Probation Offender Register, nor are they
Area is responsible for the risk subject to Probation or YOS
assessment of all cases under its supervision. This group may include
supervision, including all adult individuals under the management
MAPPA Category 2 offenders, i.e. of the Leicestershire Forensic
those on post-custody licence, Mental Health Service, who will
having served a prison sentence of undertake their own risk
12 months or more for a violent or assessments and liaise with other
sexual offence. The risk assessment relevant agencies. The local Health
process is based on the OASys Service has now developed a formal
assessment tool, which is used policy which incorporates the
nationally by the Probation and MAPPA into their Care Programme
Prison Services. Approach (CPA) procedures.

“As a recent new member to the Panel, representing
the East Midlands Area, it gives me a number of
useful quality checks to apply to the work in my own
prison so that I know we are operating a
complementary and joined up system. “
Moira Bartlett, Governor of Stocken Prison,
representing HM Prison Service
(East Midlands Area)

Q : What does “Risk Management” actually mean ?
A : There are two key components to risk management. First, it is important to try to maximise and enhance internal control mechanisms – i.e. helping the offender to control
his or her own behaviour. This can include giving high risk offenders priority access to sex offender treatment or drug or alcohol programmes. Secondly, it is important to
consider what external controls may be necessary and appropriate. This may include a requirement to reside in a supervised Probation hostel; a ban to prohibit them from
contacting previous victims; or excluding the offender from some geographical areas. In all cases, both internal and external controls are planned to be proportionate to the
degree of risk and to meet the number one priority of protecting the public. Regular communication between all agency staff underpins the two key components. These
discussions ensure a consistent, co-ordinated approach so that each risk assessment and risk management plan can be kept under review in the light of any changed
Bob Petrie chairing a recent MAPPP meeting staged at County Hall, Leicester.
Assessing and managing risk -
The Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel (MAPPP) is reserved for the ‘critical few’
offenders who are assessed as posing the highest, most imminent risk of harm to
others, and or those offenders who require further intensive resources for their
effective management.



























“LRPA has its own dedicated Victim Contact Team which has a renowned
reputation, nationally, as an example of good practice. In close liaison with
all other relevant agencies, the work of the Victim Contact Team is
essentially to offer information, support and advice to victims of serious
crime. As such, we obviously benefit from having an involvement in the
MAPPA process, and are routinely invited to MAPPA Level 2 and Level 3
meetings. We attend in cases where we have current or previous
information from victims and this input can be very important in helping to
inform risk assessments and to shape risk management plans. We are
then able to provide feedback and often reassurance to victims that the
perpetrators of offences against them are being effectively monitored and
managed when they are released from custody.”
Alan Gray MBE, Senior Probation Officer and
Manager of the Victim Contact Team, NPS

Q : Who decides how the MAPPA system should operate ?
A : This is primarily the responsibility of the Home Secretary who is advised by staff of the Public Protection and Courts Unit of the National Probation Directorate in the
Home Office. This staff group, with other professionals, play a key role in monitoring the effectiveness of the Arrangements. Their responsibilities also include consulting with
the people who are involved in operating the MAPPA at a local level, and identifying and promoting the wider dissemination of best practice. Having said that, the national
framework is sufficiently flexible to allow for variations in practice to reflect local circumstances and conditions. Each area has a MAPPA Strategic Management Board (SMB)
that decides in detail how the Arrangements can be tailored to effectively meet the needs of the area.
The MAPPA aims to protect the public throughout Leicester,
Leicestershire and Rutland.


Risk Management:

MAPPA Level 1 – either by the Probation Service or Any other MAPPA offender
Single Agency Management the Youth Offending Service. requiring Level 2 management
All Registered Sex Offenders will be managed via Local
(MAPPA Category 1) assessed as MAPPA Category 3 offenders (Other Policing Unit MAPPA Level 2
low or medium risk are managed by Dangerous) are, by definition, inter-agency meetings.
the Local Policing Unit (LPU) which assessed as high risk and are
covers the area where they live. therefore unsuitable for single
agency management. MAPPA Level 3 Management : The
All Violent & Other Sex Offenders Multi-Agency Public Protection
(MAPPA Category 2) who are not MAPPA Level 2 – Panel - the MAPPP
assessed as high risk are managed Multi-Agency Management
The MAPPP, and its forerunner, the
All MAPPA offenders, of whichever
“Public Protection Panel”, has been
MAPPA category, who are under
operating in Leicester, Leicestershire
COMMENTARY the statutory supervision of the
“I have found MAPPA Leicestershire and Rutland and Rutland since 1998. The
invaluable to the Probation Area, and who require MAPPP is reserved for “the critical
assessment and Level 2 management will be few” offenders who are assessed as
management of offenders overseen via Probation’s Risk posing the highest, most imminent
who are deemed to pose Assessment and Management risk of harm to others, and /or those
a risk to the community. Panels (RAMPs). Front line staff
offenders who require further
The knowledge and from other agencies who are
intensive resources for their
expertise of each agency involved with the offender are
effective management.
significantly contributes to also invited.
the Probation Service's
ability to manage such All MAPPA offenders, of whichever Referrals may be made by any
offenders more MAPPA category, who are subject to partner organisation, but a strict
effectively. MAPPA is statutory supervision by the Youth “gate keeping” system is employed
testament that the multi- Offending Service and who require
to ensure that only cases which
agency approach offers a Level 2 management are similarly
require this level of scrutiny are
more comprehensive managed by YOS Risk
considered. Most offenders reviewed
mechanism to manage Management Conferences.
offenders who pose a risk by the MAPPP will already have
to the public.” The small number of MAPPA been subject to a MAPPA Level 2
Jackie Wilson, Senior Level 2 offenders who are solely meeting, sometimes prior to their
Probation Officer and under the management of the release from prison.
Manager of the Health Service are managed by the
Resettlement Team, Risk Concerns Meetings convened
LRPA by the Forensic Mental Health
Service under the Care Programme
Approach (CPA) procedures.
are not willing to change, are often deterred when they realise that their behaviour is under close scrutiny.
prevent him or her from doing so. However, our experience of the MAPPA indicates that most offenders are motivated to avoid re-offending and even the small number, who
attracted the attention of any criminal justice agency. Even for those who are identified as high risk, if an offender is intent on committing a crime it may not be possible to
not possible to provide absolute guarantees of safety. There are some serious offences that are committed by people who have no previous convictions, and have not
A : The MAPPA provides the most effective approach to ensure that serious re-offending is kept to the minimum. Unfortunately, we do not live in a risk free society, and it is

Q : Can you guarantee that the MAPPA is the best way to protect the public?
The MAPPP is chaired by the independent MAPPP Manager/MAPPA
Co-ordinator. MAPPPs are held every month and are usually all day
meetings. As with Level 2 meetings, all staff working with the offender are
invited to attend, but key decisions are taken by designated managers of
the partnership agencies, who act as Core Panel Members.

The purpose of the MAPPP is to exchange information and pool

knowledge on each new and on-going case presented to the panel.
A collective decision is taken on whether MAPPP management is
required or should continue. The work is directed by a formal risk
management plan, and a key worker co-ordinates the implementation
of risk management measures.

MAPPP managed cases are regularly reviewed to determine whether

continued MAPPP management remains necessary. Cases downgraded
by the MAPPP will automatically revert to MAPPA Level 2 management.

The MAPPP will typically consider between four and eight cases at each
meeting. First time cases are usually allocated between one and one and-
a-half hours depending on their complexity. Reviews of current MAPPP
managed cases take between 30 to 45 minutes. Detailed, confidential
minutes are taken to ensure an “audit trail” of the information considered
and decisions taken.

“Being involved in MAPPA over several years has taught me what
real joint working and sharing responsibility for public protection is
about. It has to be. There can be no room for just rhetoric on this
matter. No individual agency can do this alone. Without a firm
commitment to working together, and supporting each other as
agencies with a common purpose, there could be disastrous
consequences. I am sure our communities would wish to see no
other approach from its public services.”
Robert J.Nisbet, Project Manager,
Mental Health Improvement Partnership


The following case studies have been chosen to demonstrate the range and
effectiveness of the MAPPA in operation during the past 12 months. The
names of the offenders have been changed, but the case studies are real
examples of high risk cases that have been managed at MAPPA Level 3 that
is, by the Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel.


Philip’s case was referred to the MAPPP when he was nearing

the end of a ten-year prison sentence imposed for burglary with
intent to rape. He was due to be released at the point in his
sentence when he could no longer be lawfully detained.
He was going to be released on a non-parole licence under
the supervision of the Probation Service.

He had a serious history of previous offences, including one for the rape of a schoolgirl. His risk was assessed as
“high” using Probation’s OASys assessment tool and “Very High” on the Police’s Risk Matrix 2000. In view of this, the
MAPPP decided that it would oversee the management of the case, and nominated the supervising Probation Officer
as the key worker.

The risk management plan included a requirement that Philip would reside at a Probation Hostel on release,
where he would be subject to a curfew, and where his behaviour could be more easily monitored. A core group was
set up that included his supervising Probation Officer, his caseworker in the hostel and a Detective Constable from
the Police’s Sex and Dangerous Offender Unit. Frequent, sometimes daily, liaison took place between these three
members of staff. Philip was informed that his case was under MAPPP management and that his behaviour would
be closely monitored.

Initially, Philip appeared to have settled well into the community. He was co-operative and compliant. He obtained
voluntary work in a charity shop, as preparation for full-time paid employment. He formed a relationship with Monica,
a local woman. Both his supervisor at the shop and his new partner were made aware of the relevant issues in
Philip’s past.

It soon became apparent that Philip’s new partner had a fifteen-year-old granddaughter who visited Monica at her
home. This fact obviously caused some concern, and it was considered whether it was justified to inform Monica’s
daughter about the potential risks posed by Philip to the young girl.

When these issues were discussed with Monica, she was concerned that such a disclosure may result in her losing
contact with her family. Monica insisted that if her daughter was told, she would end the relationship with Philip. She
was also quite clear that Philip would not be present when her granddaughter visited. Monica said that she would
never put her granddaughter in a position where she could come to any harm.

This development placed the authorities in something of a dilemma. Philip’s relationship with Monica, to which they
both appeared very committed, was seen as an important source of stability for him and a significant risk-reducing
factor. On balance, it was decided to closely monitor the situation and to reassess at the next MAPPP review meeting.

Police from another area of the country then arrested Philip. Officers were investigating allegations of historical
abuse by him upon his niece. Philip vehemently denied any involvement in such abuse, claiming that the allegations
were malicious and had their origins in a long-standing family feud. He was released on Police bail whilst the
investigation continued.

Consideration was given at this stage to revoking Philip’s licence, but it was felt that this would not succeed as he had
not been charged with any offence. Nonetheless, it was recognised that this inquiry was increasing Philip’s stress and,
therefore, his risk. The decision was taken to further increase the level of monitoring on Philip. As a result, it was
discovered that Philip had been present at Monica’s home during a visit by her granddaughter. Both Philip and Monica
were informed that the authorities now felt that they must alert the girl’s mother to the potential risks in this situation.

A few days later, the supervisor of the charity shop contacted the Police to express concern that a fellow worker, a
woman in her early thirties, had received indecent text messages on her mobile phone. Philip was named in the text

The Police immediately began an investigation into the matter. They quickly concluded that, whilst it was not possible
to identify the source of the text messages, there were clear grounds to suggest that Philip may have been
responsible. This discovery was immediately shared with the Probation Service, who concluded that the risks had now
become unacceptable and instigated an urgent revocation of Philip’s licence. He was arrested and returned to prison.

The vast majority of offenders subject to the MAPPA are motivated to avoid
re-offending, and to co-operate fully with the authorities. However, the real
value of the Arrangements is in enabling agencies to identify and concentrate
upon those offenders who pose the highest risk.


Cathy’s case was referred to the MAPPP shortly before she was about to be released from
a four year prison sentence for several offences. Her crimes included perpetrating a bomb
hoax and assaulting both a Police Officer and a security guard.

Cathy has a history of disturbed and The MAPPP requested that Social Unfortunately, Cathy refused to live
dangerous behaviour including Services undertake an immediate in this accommodation, failed to
offences of violence and arson. She risk assessment of this matter, prior keep appointments with her
has also been known to the mental to Cathy’s release from prison. Probation Officer and was again
health services for many years, Following the risk assessment, the recalled to prison.
although the consistent diagnosis decision was taken that Cathy
has been that she does not suffer should reside in a Probation hostel The present situation is that Cathy
from any treatable form of mental and not at her sister’s home. A remains in prison after her appeal
illness. Cathy is therefore not further condition was that Cathy’s against her recall was dismissed.
detainable under the terms of mental contact with her sister’s children She is likely to be released at the
health legislation. She is considered would be supervised and monitored end of the summer, but will not be
to have a personality disorder. Cathy by Social Services. on licence. The MAPPP will maintain
was assessed as high risk of harm oversight of her case because of the
using the OASys assessment. Within three weeks of her release, risk she poses to others. A local
Cathy was recalled to prison voluntary group, specialising in
Representatives attending the following threats to hostel staff, other supporting people with mental health
MAPPP were told that before her hostel residents and causing a problems, has agreed to work with
prison sentence, Cathy had been considerable amount of damage to her and her Probation Officer. This
living with an elder sister who had her room. By this stage she had group has had contact with Cathy in
three children. seen her sister’s children three the past. It is hoped that suitable
times. During each occasion she accommodation can be provided for
It was Cathy’s intention to return to had appeared menacing and Cathy before her release. She will
this address on release. At least one intimidating to the social workers remain subject to monitoring by the
of her previous convictions had who had been supervising them. Police. Social Services have sought
involved a local shopkeeper, whom and obtained an injunction
she threatened with a knife while her Two months later Cathy was re- preventing her from having
elder niece had been with her. released again on licence. It was no unsupervised contact with her
longer considered safe to place her sister’s children.
As well as the obvious concerns in in a hostel. She had requested
relation to violence and arson, the independent accommodation and a
MAPPP’s risk assessment identified suitable tenancy was identified,
possible child protection issues and allocated to her. Her case was
involving the children of Cathy’s also referred to the high risk
sister. The consensus of opinion outreach support team, who
was that Cathy’s behaviour could specialise in helping vulnerable or
put the children in situations where high risk offenders adjust to
they may be at risk of physical or independent living.
emotional harm.

Q : Do offenders know that they are subject to the MAPPA ?
A : Current legislation such as the Data Protection Act requires us to advise offenders that they are subject to the MAPPA. For the majority of offenders in this group, who are
motivated to avoid re-offending, this poses no problem. Active MAPPA management can also act as a very effective deterrent particularly for the small number who are
unconcerned about maintaining a lawful lifestyle. They know that we are “on their case” and if they do re-offend, they will almost certainly be quickly apprehended. There are
a very small number of offenders where it is advisable not to tell them that they are under MAPPA management. One reason is that such a disclosure would put other people
at an even greater risk of harm than is already the case. In such circumstances, after very careful consideration, the decision may be taken not to reveal this information. In
all cases, however, offenders will not have access to any information which is likely to put a third party, such as a previous or potential future victim, at risk.
David was sentenced to five years imprisonment
for an offence of grievous bodily harm.

He had originally been charged with attempted murder. The offence involved a vicious drunken knife attack on a man
who he knew vaguely and against whom he bore a grudge. A few weeks earlier the victim had intervened to prevent
David from bullying a young Asian girl.

David had been released previously from this sentence, but had been recalled to prison for failing to attend an anger
management programme and being charged with possession of a bladed weapon.

He had a history of violent behaviour, and much of his previous offending had clear links with alcohol abuse. He was
known to regularly carry knives and to harbour extreme racist views. He had a poor record of co-operating with the
authorities and had openly boasted that his next prison sentence would be for a life term. During his prison sentence
he had been in trouble for acts of violence towards other prisoners and threats to staff.

David’s case was referred to the MAPPP a few weeks before his release for the second time on a non-parole licence.
It was agreed that he should be allowed to return to his mother’s address on release, but there was a geographical
exclusion in his licence preventing him from going near the victim’s home. The victim also had a Police panic alarm
installed in his house.

At that time David’s partner was pregnant, and the MAPPP was clearly concerned to ensure that the child would not
be at risk from him. Social Services subsequently undertook an assessment in relation to David’s partner, who lives
with her own parents. Social Services have monitored the situation following the baby’s birth, and they have no
grounds for current concern in relation to the child.

Contrary to all fears and expectations, David has co-operated and responded very well on licence. It would appear
that becoming a father has had quite a profound effect on David’s world view. He appears to have matured and now
feels that he has developed a good working relationship with his Probation Officer, who is a black woman. He has fully
co-operated with a psychological assessment, which identified key issues of immaturity and low self-esteem. He is
undertaking basic skills work in relation to literacy and numeracy and is actively seeking employment. He is also
regularly seeing an alcohol advisor.

It is now almost ten months since David’s release from prison and he has not re-offended nor caused any concern
with regard to his behaviour. At the last MAPPP review, it was agreed to consider downgrading his management to
MAPPA Level 2 when his case is next considered if his present progress is maintained.

MAPPA process by the Victim Contact Team and taken into account in the formulation of risk management measures.
licence conditions, such as excluding the offender from particular geographical areas. Where the victim has taken up this offer of contact, their views will be fed into the
information such as when the offender may be considered for parole or when s/he is about to be released. They are also able to put forward their own views or requests for
A : Yes, every victim of a serious crime committed by an offender in this area is contacted by Probation’s Victim Contact Team. Through this contact, victims can access

Q : Do victims have a voice in the MAPPA process and are they heard?
Michael is a Registered Sex Offender with a history of
abusing pre-pubescent and adolescent boys.

He had been identified as a high risk offender and been subject to MAPPP
management in his home area in the Southwest. He moved to Leicester
more than eighteen months ago. Whilst it was never entirely clear why he
moved here, there was some suggestion that he may have been “outed” as a
paedophile at his previous address.

A short time after his arrival, he was convicted of minor offences of

dishonesty and was made subject to a Community Rehabilitation Order.
When his case was considered at the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland
MAPPP, the exchange of information revealed a pattern of behaviour.
Michael formed close relationships with families with young male children in
order to “groom” potential victims. The MAPPP agreed that Police, Probation
and Social Services would need to work very closely together to protect any
children he may have contact with. It was also hoped that any such instances
would provide grounds to apply to the court for a Sexual Offending
Prevention Order. Breach of this Order would render Michael liable to arrest
and carries a maximum punishment of five years imprisonment.

Michael was also referred to Probation’s psychologist for assessment in order

to establish his suitability to attend the Community Sex Offender Treatment
Programme.This assessment concluded that Michael had a psychopathic
personality, and would be unlikely to benefit from treatment. Evidence now
suggests that a psychopath’s risk of re-offending may actually be increased
by putting them through treatment programmes.

Over the next few months Michael changed his address on several
occasions, moving in and out of the city. On each move a fresh risk
assessment was undertaken. Three separate families were identified, whom
Michael had sought to befriend, and all had young or teenage male children.
The families were warned that Michael could pose a risk to their children.

As a result of this pattern of behaviour, the Police applied to the Court for a
Sexual Offending Prevention Order, with a requirement that Michael should
not have unsupervised contact with children under the age of eighteen.
Michael resisted this application, but the Court, having originally made an
interim order, has recently made a full SOPO for fifteen years.

Michael’s Community Rehabilitation Order has now expired, but he remains

under MAPPP management and subject to Police monitoring as a high risk
registered sex offender.
Every year the Responsible For most offenders the registration The figure now includes offenders
Authority is required to provide period is far longer and a substantial whose crimes range from assault
statistical information on the proportion will remain registered occasioning actual bodily harm
MAPPA. The statistics for 2004/5 indefinitely. Therefore there is a to murder at the opposite end of
are printed overleaf. They include, strong cumulative element to the the spectrum
for the first time, a breakdown of the figure of 508.
number of offenders managed under Secondly, the figure of 340 will
MAPPA Level 2 arrangements, and It is predicted that the number of include many offenders sentenced
the outcomes of that management – MAPPA Category 1 offenders will in the past to varying lengths of
previously the requirement was only continue to rise for several years to imprisonment, from 12 months
to provide detailed statistics in come. However, for Leicester, upwards, who were released on
relation to MAPPA Level 3 Leicestershire and Rutland, both the licence at some point during the
management i.e. the Multi-Agency number of Registered Sex Offenders last year. Clearly, there are likely
Public Protection Panel (the (RSOs) and the proportion of the to be annual variations in this
MAPPP). overall population represented by number reflecting historical
this figure have remained around sentencing patterns, which are
This, more detailed statistical the national average. difficult to predict.
analysis may help the public to
understand the range, scope and It is also worth remembering that the It is important to remember that the
effectiveness of the MAPPA in vast majority of Registered Sex majority of MAPPA Category 2
Leicester, Leicestershire and Offenders are not considered to be offenders are not considered to be
Rutland. In order to best interpret high risk. Of the overall total of 508, high risk. Only 53, or approximately
and understand the statistics, the only 56, or 11%, were under Level 2 15% of the 340 total were subject to
following may be helpful. management at any point during the Level 2 management. An even
past year, whilst only 19 or slightly smaller proportion of nine cases,
Number 1 refers to the total number fewer than 4% were managed by or 2.5 % of the total number, were
of Registered Sex Offenders in the the MAPPP. No Registered Sex managed by the MAPPP.
community (MAPPA Category 1 Offender, under Level 2 or 3
offenders) in Leicester, management during the period Overall, it should be stressed that
Leicestershire and Rutland on 31st 01/04/04 – 31/03/05, was charged the substantial increase in the
March 2005. The total of 508 with a further serious offence. number of MAPPA Category 2
represents an increase of some 5% offenders does not equate to a
from last year’s figure of 484. The number of MAPPA Category 2 dramatic increase in violent crime in
offenders in the community during Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland
It is important to remember that this the period covered by this annual over the past twelve months.
figure does not represent the report was 340, a very significant
number of sex offenders required to increase on last year’s figure of 236
register with the Police over the last – a rise of some 30%.
twelve months.
There are two likely explanations for
The Sex Offender Register was this increase. First, Home Office
introduced towards the end of 1997 guidance has changed in relation to
and, the minimum registration period which categories of offence must
is two years. now be included. This change has
effectively “widened the net”.
Service, Health Service and our three local councils, Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.
During 2004/5, the cost of the MAPPA Unit was approximately £70,000, which was paid, jointly by our local MAPPA partner agencies – the Police, Probation Service, Prison
Panel (MAPPP) Manager/MAPPA Co-ordinator, with admin support. The MAPPP manager chairs the MAPPPs to help assess and manage the most dangerous offenders.
has seen this work become more co-ordinated and focussed. A large percentage of the annual bill pays for the employment of a dedicated Multi-Agency Public Protection
A : The work to manage and supervise dangerous offenders in the community was being undertaken by different agencies before the MAPPA was introduced. The MAPPA

Q : How much do the MAPPA cost?

The total of 89 MAPPA Category 3 The total number of offenders
offenders (“Other Dangerous”), is managed by the MAPPP at Level 3,
again a very significant increase on is significantly lower than this at just
last year’s figure of 53. below 5%.

However, 13 cases in this category, The total figure of MAPPP managed

one third of the total increase, were cases stands at 42, and is almost
identified and managed by the Youth exactly the same as last year.
Offending Teams and Forensic This figure represents the number
Mental Health Service. The increase of offenders who were managed at
may suggest that all agencies are this level at some point during the
now more clearly focussed on last twelve months. In fact the
identifying offenders who may pose maximum number of offenders that
a risk of harm to others. have been subject to MAPPP
management at any given time
Since all MAPPA Category 3 during the last year is 26.
offenders are, by definition,
assessed as “high risk” they were all Finally, no offender subject to Level
subject to Level 2 or 3 management. 2 or Level 3 management has been
However, only 14, or 15%, of the charged with a serious further
offenders within this category were offence during the past year.
assessed as requiring Level 3, or
MAPPP management. Some offenders were ‘breached’ and
returned to prison. These included
The total number of all MAPPA 10 MAPPP managed offenders, and
offenders, of whichever category, 32 offenders managed at Level 2.
who were managed at Level 2,
represents less than 20% of the Whilst there can be no room for
overall number of offenders who complacency, these local statistics
were subject to the MAPPA during suggest that the Multi-Agency Public
the past year. Protection Arrangements are being
operated effectively and rigorously
and that they play an important part
in protecting the people living in
Leicester, Leicestershire and

Bob Petrie


No. of Offenders
1. Category 1 MAPPA offenders: Registered Sex Offenders (RSO)

i. The number of RSOs living in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland 508

on 31st March 2005.
i(a) The number of RSOs per 100,000 head of population. 54

ii. The number of sex offenders having a registration requirement who 11

were either cautioned or convicted for breaches of the requirement,
between 1st April 2004 and 31st March 2005.

iii. The number of (a) Sexual Offences Prevention Orders (SOPOs) (a) 1
applied for (b) interim SOPOs granted and (c) full SOPOs (b) 1
imposed by the courts in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland (c) 0
between 1st May 2004 and 31st March 2005.

iv. The number of (a) Notification Orders applied for (b) interim (a) 1
Notification Orders granted and (c) full Notification Orders imposed (b) 0
by the courts in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland between (c) 0
1st May 2004 and 31st March 2005.

v. The number of Foreign Travel Orders (a) applied for and (b) imposed (a) 0
by the courts in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland between (b) 0
1st May 2004 and 31st March 2005.

2. Category 2 MAPPA offenders: Violent offenders and

Other Sexual offenders (V&OS)
The number of violent and other sexual offenders (as defined by
Section 327 (3), (4) and (5) of the Criminal Justice Act (2003))
living in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland between 1st April 2004
and 31st March 2005.


No. of Offenders
3. Category 3 MAPPA offenders: Other Offenders (OthO)

vii. The number of ‘other offenders’ (as defined by Section 325 (2)(b) of 89
the Criminal Justice Act (2003)) between 1st April 2004 and
31st March 2005.

4. Offenders managed through Level 3 (MAPPP) & Level 2

(local inter-agency management)

viii.The number of MAPPA offenders in each of the three Categories Level 3 Level 2
(i.e. (1)- RSOs, (2)- V&O and (3)- OthO above) have been managed RSO 19 56
through the MAPPP (level 3) and through local inter-agency risk V&O 9 53
management (level 2) between 1st April 2004 and 31st March 2005. OthO 14 75

ix. The number of the cases managed at levels 3 or 2 Level 3 Level 2

(a) who were returned to custody for breach of licence a) 10 32

(b) who were returned to custody for breach of a Restraining Order b) 0 0
or Sex Offender Order
(c) charged with a serious sexual or violent offence. c) 0 0


It must be remembered that behind every statistic there is a victim with his or her own story to tell. It is
important that we don't lose sight of this fact. What follows is one victim’s story.

“This is my story. I can sum it up in few short words: I was raped. I am a victim of crime.

The man who raped me was caught. He pleaded Not Guilty but he was found Guilty. We then learned
that he had raped another women in the past. I had put my life on hold until the court case was over.
The day I saw him sentenced, I felt like a big weight had been lifted.

The man who raped me was sentenced to 18 years in prison, but his sentence was later reduced to
15 years. The reduction to his sentence hit me hard.

I have suffered sleepless nights: nights spent trying to fall asleep in the armchair rather than the bed.
I even put cups and saucers on the window sills so if anyone tried to get in, I would hear the
crockery rattle.

Time has gone by and I eventually approached Probations Victim Contact Team to find out about his
release. Probation staff have kept me informed and up-to-date with any developments. It was
important for me to know what was happening.

My family and I wanted certain conditions on his licence, and they were granted. I know that he is well
managed and well monitored now he is living in the community. That’s something. I have not allowed
him to ruin the rest of my life.”

Q : How do you know which offenders pose the highest risk to the public ?
A : Exhaustive assessments are carried out that determines an offender’s level of risk. Remember all MAPPA qualifying offenders are risk assessed, and all of these risk
assessments are regularly reviewed, even for low risk offenders. Risk assessments follow a standardised process that involves the use of at least one method that has been
specifically designed for this purpose. The Police use a system called Risk Matrix 2000 (RM 2000) for all registered sex offenders, and the National Probation Service has a
system called the Offender Assessment System (OASys). As well as using these methods, it is also crucial for the agencies involved in the risk assessment process to be
able to pool and exchange up-to-date information on the offender.

One of the important ways in which The main focus of the Prison - No changes to release dates or
the Criminal Justice Act (2003) Service contribution is at an arrangements being made without
strengthened the MAPPA was to operational level. A number of prior consultation with police
make the Prison Service part of the measures have been put in place and probation.
Responsible Authority with police across the prison estate to ensure
and probation in each of the 42 that this will be effective - Playing an effective role in the
Areas in England and Wales. The and result in: multi agency risk management of
Prison Service has been given this MAPPA offenders requires good
enhanced role in recognition of the - Prompt identification of MAPPA communication between criminal
important part it plays in protecting offenders so that their details can be justice partners. The Prison Service
the public by keeping offenders in used in sentence planning has taken steps to ensure that there
custody; helping them to address arrangements, including are dedicated points of contact for
the causes of their offending interventions to manage and public protection at both Area level
behaviour; and by undertaking reduce risk. and in every prison establishment,
other work to assist their successful and that these are published
resettlement. - Regular monitoring of the together with police and probation
behaviour of those assessed as contacts to ensure better
As part of the Responsible Authority presenting the highest risk, and communication across the
the Prison Service is now sharing information with police Responsible Authority.
represented on each of the Strategic and probation colleagues.
Management Boards (SMBs) in the With the ever increasing MAPPA
42 Areas. The Prison estate is - All relevant risk management population, and proportion of those
configured differently from information being provided to multi received into prison likely to grow
Police/Probation areas in that its agency meetings which help plan with the introduction of the new
establishments are contained within an offender’s release. public protection sentences, the
only 12 geographical areas and two inclusion of the Prison Service as
functional areas – the High Security - At least three months notification to part of the Responsible Authority
estate, and Contracted Prisons. For police and probation of the expected will continue to be vital in protecting
this reason arrangements for Prison release dates of those offenders the public.
Service representation on SMBs who have been referred to the multi-
vary across the country, but each agency public protection panel
Prison Service Area Manager has (MAPPP), and at least six weeks
entered into an agreement with the notification of those being managed
SMBs on how the Service will at level 2 risk meetings.
contribute both strategically and
operationally to the MAPPA.



Krystyna Findley, Assistant Chief Officer, National Probation Service, Leicestershire and Rutland, (Chair)

Chris Eyre, Assistant Chief Constable, Leicestershire Constabulary

Hilary Fielder, Area Resettlement Co-ordinator, HM Prison Service, East Midlands 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 and Rutland Victim Support

Caroline Hall, Lay Advisor

Caroline Roberts, Lay Advisor

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

Paul Dempsey, Acting Service Manager, Forensic Mental Health Service, Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust

Bob Parker, Service Manager, Child Protection, Leicestershire County Council Social Services Department

Chris Tew, Detective Superintendent, Leicestershire Constabulary.


Steven Attwood, Head of Service, Children and Families Dept., Rutland County Council

Moira Bartlett, Governor, HMP Stocken, HM Prison Service, East Midlands 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 Department

Paul Dempsey, Acting Service Manager, Forensic Mental Health Service, Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust

Bob Parker, Service Manager, Child Protection, Leicestershire County Council Social Services Department

John Thomson, Neighbourhood Housing Manager, Leicester City Council Housing Department

Chris Redfern, Detective Chief Inspector, Leicestershire Constabulary.


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


Jo Brown, Administrative Officer, Leicestershire Constabulary.

Electronic versions of the report are available from the following websites:

Questions or comments concerning the MAPPA can be sent to the Lay Advisors:
Lay Advisor
c/o MAPPA Co-ordinator
Leicestershire Constabulary HQ
Leicestershire LE19 2BX

Any comments or questions will be shared with the Strategic Management Board.

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

Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland
Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements


National Probation Service Address Phone

Ms Krystyna Findley 2 St John Street 0116 251 6008

Assistant Chief Officer Leicester LE1 3BE

Leicestershire Constabulary Address Phone

Chris Tew Specialist Crime Investigation Dept. 0116 222 2222

Superintendent Leicestershire Constabulary HQ, Enderby
Leicestershire LE19 2BX

HM Prison Service Address Phone

Ms Hilary Fielder East Midlands South Area Office 0116 281 4000
Area Resettlement Co-ordinator Empriss House, Unit C Harcourt Way, Meridian Business Park
Leicester LE19 1WP

MAPPA Unit Address Phone

Bob Petrie Leicestershire Constabulary HQ 0116 222 2222

MAPPA Co-ordinator Enderby extension 5293 Leicestershire LE19 2BX