You are on page 1of 18



joint annual report

2001 – 2002

01 02


Alternative languages ...................................................... 2

This document, how to contact us, further copies .............. 3

Foreword ........................................................................ 4

Metropolitan Police Service “Mission Vision & Values”

London Probation Area “Pledge to Londoners” .................. 5

London Probation Area Corporate Plan 2001/2004 .......... 6

Metropolitan Police Service Priorities 2002/2003 .............. 6

City of London Police Mission Statement and Priorities ...... 7

Introduction .................................................................... 8

Summary of roles and responsibilities .............................. 9

Outline of the arrangements made ................................ 10

Strategic management arrangements ............................ 12

Use of disclosure .......................................................... 13

Work with victims .......................................................... 15

Victim Support Services .................................................. 15

Annex A
Statistical Information .................................................... 16

Annex B
Costs - additional costs of arrangements made .............. 17

Note: ‘City of London’ is not part of the Metropolitan Police District. H&F Hammersmith & Fulham
The London Probation Area incorporates the ‘City of London’. K&C Kensington & Chelsea
This is a joint report of the Metropolitan Police Service, City of London Police
and London Probation Area setting out how we manage the risks posed by sex
offenders and other dangerous offenders in London.
It is the first such joint report covering the period April 2001 to March 2002
and has been produced in accordance with Section 67(4) of the Criminal Justice &
Courts Services Act 2000.
In addition to describing details of the arrangements for London, it provides
some statistical data and contact points. A summary of the report is available in
this sized type by writing to either of the addresses on the next page.








This is a joint report of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), City of London Police (CoLP) and London Probation
Area (LPA) setting out how we manage the risks posed by sex offenders and other dangerous offenders in London.
It is the first such joint report covering the period April 2001 to March 2002 and has been produced in accordance
with s. 67(4) of the Criminal Justice & Courts Services Act 2000.
In addition to describing details of the arrangements for London, it provides some statistical data and contact points.
It is a tripartite report because LPA incorporates the City of London whilst the MPS and City of London Police are two
distinct police services.

We welcome feedback and if you have any comments to make about the report they should be sent to either of the
addresses below.

PR and Communications Metropolitan Police Service

London Probation Area Headquarters MAPPPs Co-ordination & Support Unit
71-73, Great Peter Street, Territorial Policing HQ
London Victoria Embankment
SW1P 2BN London
Tel: 020 7222 5656 Tel: 020 7230 1212

Alternatively make a request by e-mail to:

Copies of the report can be obtained from either the MPS or LPA internet site at or www.probation- The report can also be seen at your local main library or main police station. You may also write to us
requesting a copy at either of the addresses above.



We are pleased to present this report on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), the City of London Police
(CoLP) and the London Probation Area (LPA). It is produced in accordance with s.67(4) of the Criminal Justice & Courts
Services Act 2000 (CJCSA) and details our work together protecting the public in London. This report, whilst local to
London, complements and should be read in conjunction with the centrally produced Home Office report.
In London, not only do we supervise those sex offenders who are required to register with police but we also
supervise a share of the country’s potentially dangerous offenders, usually having served the custodial part of their
sentence. They are then released into the community to serve the remainder of the sentence on licence or parole. We
also deal with those referred by other agencies such as Social Services or Health Trusts. Assessing and managing the
risks posed by such people is one of the key skills of police and probation officers.
In April 2001, the CJCSA placed a statutory duty on police and probation to establish inter-agency protocols for
the management of the risks posed by sexual and violent offenders. The most dangerous are referred to Multi-Agency
Public Protection Panels (MAPPPs) which have been established in every London borough. Information about MAPPPs
can be found in the section entitled Introduction.
Responsibility for the development of our service provision is being taken at the very highest levels of both
services. We are taking the lead on strategic management arrangements to monitor, review and change our
procedures where necessary. This strategy is still in development but we are convinced that it will lead to increased
public safety for those who either live in or frequent the capital. It will also give local communities increased confidence
in law enforcement agencies. MAPPPs provide an excellent example of inter-agency working, involving police,
probation and others. We have no doubt that this is the way forward in many other areas of joint working, as it
provides the best use of public resources.
Together, during the past year, we have made significant strides forward in the way that we manage the risks
posed by sexual, violent and potentially dangerous offenders living in our communities. This has been done from
within our existing resources.
We will now build upon this multi-agency response to ensure that we capitalise on the full range of options
available to police, probation and other organisations. The new multi-agency risk assessment and management
procedures and the development of the MAPPPs are already providing accountable, consistent and effective
mechanisms and making a really positive contribution to risk reduction through enforcement, employment, housing
provision and social integration.
This is of course a highly sensitive area and it is entirely to be expected that both public anxiety and media interest
will be high. It is important therefore that we continue to highlight the realistic impact of effective risk management on
offending behaviour, raising the level of public awareness and debate in London so that the complex issues of public
safety can be effectively progressed.
The vision of the MPS (echoed by CoLP) is to make London the safest major city in the world.
We see this work as being central to both that vision and LPA’s ‘Pledge to Londoners’.

Carole Howlett John Powls Perry Nove

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Chief Officer Commissioner
Metropolitan Police Service London Probation Area City of London Police

July 2002


MISSION Our mission is:

Making London safe for all the people we serve


! make places safer;

! cut crime and the fear of crime;
! uphold the law

VISION Our vision is:

To make London the safest major city in the world

VALUES Our values are to:

! treat everyone fairly;

! be open and honest;
! work in partnership;
! change to improve.


! the protection of the public

! the reduction of re-offending

! the proper punishment of offenders

! the rehabilitation of offenders

! the proper care of victims

Probation Priority

To contribute to public protection

Summary of Objectives

This will be achieved by:

and the safety of London • reducing reconviction rates by 5% compared to the predicted rate
communities • ensuring that risk assessments and management plans are completed
in all community orders and bail cases and at least 90% of all
resettlement cases

To reduce re-offending This will be achieved by:

• developing with the Metropolitan Police a strategy for targeting and
intervention with persistent offenders
• increasing the number of offenders on accredited programmes, particularly
those addressing sex offending, domestic violence and aggression
• increasing the number of hostel places for offenders

To ensure offenders are aware of This will be achieved by:

the effects of crime on victims • contacting victims in cases where the offender is sentenced to
12 months imprisonment or more

To tackle youth offending This will be achieved by:

• contributing to Youth Offending Teams in London


Policing Priority Summary of Objectives

To increase the security of the This will be achieved by:

capital against terrorism • preventing and disrupting terrorist activity
• improving the response to suspected and actual terrorist incidents

To create safer communities for This will be achieved by:

Londoners • working with partners to reduce crime in the most troubled areas in
each neighbourhood
• reducing violent armed criminality
• reducing the fear of crime
• increasing public satisfaction with visible police presence

To improve the police response to This will be achieved by:

vulnerable victims • improving child protection procedures
• improving the investigation and victim satisfaction of racist incidents
and racist crimes
• improving the investigation of homophobic crimes
• improving the investigation of domestic violence
• improving victim care and investigation in cases of rape

To tackle youth offending This will be achieved by:

• diverting youths away from crime through enhanced
multi-agency activity
• reducing re-offending by persistent young offenders


“We will provide a high quality

police service in the City of London
and work with the community,
other organisations and agencies,
to promote a safe, peaceful and
crime-free environment.”

Co-operation, consultation and

partnership are consistent themes of
this mission statement.



To keep crime levels as low as possible we will focus on six priorities during 2002/2003.
Three of these are national Ministerial Priorities and are set by the Home Secretary. They are:

! to help create safe communities by reducing crime, anti-social behaviour and disorder through
effective partnership working, including reducing availability and use of Class A drugs;

! to increase the number of offences for which offenders, and particularly persistent offenders,
are caught and brought to justice, in partnership with other criminal justice agencies

– These priorities will be addressed specifically by our partnership approach through

our Crime and Disorder Strategy.

! To reduce the fear of crime in all sections of the community and in particular to increase the
trust and confidence in policing amongst minority ethnic communities.

– The aim of the City of London Police Diversity Strategy is “to provide an ethical high
quality policing service to the whole community of the City of London, which treats
all people without prejudice and respects the right of individuals to be different in
their abilities, culture, values and beliefs”.

This is directed at building trust and confidence within minority groups.

The Force is driving forward its Diversity Agenda through training and
the implementation of Force-wide initiatives.

Three locally set initiatives are not relevant to this report.

This document for London should be read in conjunction with the Home
Office report which details those aspects of the arrangements which are
common to all areas of England and Wales.

Local arrangements
Local arrangements in London began in response to the Sex Offenders Act 1997 when
police and probation began to make joint arrangements for the assessment and management of
registered sex offenders. We have built on those arrangements over the past few years and each
London borough now has multi-agency protocols agreed by police, probation, health, housing
and social services for the sharing of information, assessment and management of sex offenders
and other potentially dangerous offenders. This document provides further details of how the
arrangements operate in London and gives contact points for any additional enquiries.

Each of the 32 London boroughs has established a MAPPP involving the statutory
agencies (police and probation). (The MAPPP for the City of London incorporates the same
agency members as Tower Hamlets). The MPS have established Public Protection Units (PPUs)
deploying some 90 staff. Additionally, police crime managers in each borough (or sometimes a
senior probation officer) devise the agenda for and chair the MAPPP. For LPA, this work extends
their normal work into a multi-agency forum.

MAPPPs Project
It is a complex task to co ordinate, review and support the work of so many MAPPPs across London.
So, in an effort to standardise procedures, share good practice, and ensure implementation of the initial
guidance provided by the Home Office, in April 2001 the MPS and LPA established a joint project.
The objective of that project was to:-

• develop a plan, by March 31st 2002, to ensure that the MPS and LPA are able to discharge the
statutory duty to assess and manage the risks posed by violent, potentially dangerous and
sex offenders.

This project has completed its initial work, producing proposals for operating procedures,
information sharing protocols and options for managing dangerous offenders. These proposals will
be refined, agreed and implemented over the coming year with assistance from a new central
co-ordination and support unit which the MPS has recently established, working closely with newly
appointed LPA policy development officers.

Additionally, we have conducted a training needs analysis for police and probation staff by
holding focus groups with our staff and sending out questionnaires. We intend to find ways of
delivering this training during the year. This is a first step towards wider multi-agency training, as
envisaged in the Home Office initial guidance.

We have also jointly reviewed our media strategy, and will be publishing the revised
version soon.

The proposals from this project have been put to a Home Office MAPPP Further Guidance
User Group and will be used to assist in establishing national standards.

Furthermore, a manual of guidance/options for dealing with these offenders will be made
available to all relevant agencies.

ViSOR Project
The MPS and LPA have staff working closely with the Police Information and Technology Organisation
(PITO) in the development and planned implementation of a national sex and violent offenders database,
called ViSOR. It is firmly believed that having such a national system for recording and storing data in a
standardised way will improve procedures for managing offenders; the database will also be used to assist
police in investigating crimes and targeting specific offenders. An added benefit will be ready access to a far
greater amount of information to identify best practice and assist our management processes.
Some of the offenders who come under the umbrella of the new strategy are housed in probation hostels. It is
the nature of London that hostels are often in the heart of residential communities and it would be foolish to try to deny
that people would prefer not to have a hostel in their neighbourhood.

The police and probation appreciate the value of hostels in managing offenders who need close
supervision and monitoring. LPA has recently reopened a hostel in south-west London: this hostel has
close links with its neighbours and holds regular meetings where local people can voice any concerns they
have. Police are closely involved with the hostel management and regularly attend the premises. LPA have
appointed a senior manager for hostels across London and are committed to consulting and listening to
all communities where hostels are located and engaging London and its representatives in planning for
future provision.

LPA restructuring
At the same time as the statutory duty to jointly manage these offenders has been created, LPA
continues to restructure following the bringing together of five former London services. The new design for
LPA prioritises resources according to the risk to the public.


MAPPPs have, to varying degrees, engaged with the following agencies, in addition to
the statutory partners of police and probation:-
Social Services; Health Services (predominantly Mental Health and Forensic Psychiatric Services); Housing
(Local Authority/Voluntary/Independent housing providers); Prisons (through police Prison Intelligence Officers and
Prison Probation Dept.); Young Offender Teams (YOTs); Education and Victim Support Services. These agencies with
their various functions within the community have an important part to play in public protection.
We mention below the roles of some of those agencies which perform a key function.
Social Services Departments have a wide range of statutory responsibilities, including the provision of services,
which sustain and contribute to the quality of life for individuals and communities. The duties and responsibilities of Social
Services include services to vulnerable individuals, both adults and children. This incorporates services to children in need
and their families, older people, disabled people and those with mental health needs. The services promote safety and
welfare which balances the needs and wishes of individuals with the safety of the wider community. In conjunction with
Social Services’ role in working with the agencies involved in the Area Child Protection Committee, there is a commitment
to multi-agency working to manage risk and protect the public.
In relation to housing needs all the London boroughs have their own objectives and procedures to meet their duties
towards the housing of homeless people, the care of existing tenants and staff, and the protection of vulnerable groups.
They are all committed to ensuring that people’s housing needs are assessed with the other MAPPP agencies to identify and
manage the risks that particular individuals may pose to communities.
The various Mental Health NHS Trusts in London provide a full range of services to meet the needs of service
users, carers and local communities. They are increasingly referring those considered to be particularly dangerous to
MAPPPs for multi-agency intervention. In many boroughs a representative attends all MAPPP meetings to share
information and provide professional consultation.
Not all agencies referred to above are full time MAPPP partners, but can certainly be called upon, along
with others, in specific cases to provide information about offenders and available services where appropriate. The
London Strategic Risk Management Group, which co-ordinates this area of work across all agencies, will advance
negotiations to involve agencies in those boroughs where difficulty has been encountered.
We firmly believe that extensive agency involvement is crucial to improving the sharing of information and
providing a full range of services and opportunities to prevent and reduce reoffending.
For further details of the efforts which are being made at strategic level to secure the engagement of as a
wide a range of relevant agencies as possible, please see the section entitled Strategic Management Arrangements.

In addition to the day to day work

outlined above, we have developed multi-
agency arrangements within all boroughs for
the assessment and management of sexual,
violent and other dangerous offenders. These
should reflect and be responsive to the diversity
of the local community.

Whenever a joint or multi-agency approach would improve public protection, police,

probation and any other relevant agency e.g. housing, health, social services etc, will share
information and formulate risk management plans. The organisation of this may vary from borough
to borough. For example, in some boroughs a probation officer is seconded to the local police Public
Protection Unit (PPU) for part of the week and in one, police and probation work collaboratively
within the same building on a full time basis. This approach is likely to be developed further.

Once a thorough risk assessment has been made, the “critical few” most dangerous offenders are
identified and referred to the MAPPP. There are 32 MAPPPs within the London area, covering all the
boroughs. These meet every 4-6 weeks. Additionally, emergency meetings are convened when the
need arises.
In advance of each meeting an agenda, drawn up by either the police or probation service, is sent
out confidentially to all MAPPP participants. Each will check for other information held about the subjects of
the meeting by their own agency. All MAPPPs will have in attendance staff from the police and probation
services as well as representatives from social services, health, local authority housing, young offender teams,
employment, prisons, customs and excise and other local agencies e.g. accommodation providers, and there
will be close liaison with the victim services. Meetings are chaired by either police or probation. The aim is to
ensure the participation of as many agencies as possible within this confidential setting. Minutes are taken,
and documented decisions made on each case, including the allocation of responsibility for key tasks. A
review process is identified to monitor progress in each case and a date is set for a MAPPP review unless
circumstances demand an earlier meeting.
Risk management plans vary according to individual circumstances and will reflect a balance
between the need to impose conditions and controls on the offender with the provision of treatment through
relevant programmes and services to reduce their re-offending.
The following are some examples of management of offenders:-
• ‘A’ was released from prison after serving three years for offences of indecent assault against teenage
boys. Prior to his release he was referred to a MAPPP. A decision was made to place him at a probation
hostel where he would be subject to a curfew and his daily activities monitored. It was also agreed that he
should attend a sex offender treatment programme provided by the forensic psychiatric services in
partnership with the probation service. A decision was also made to ensure that additional prison licence
conditions were imposed to forbid him from contacting the victims or returning to the area where the
offences had occurred. The supervision of the offender included monitoring potential employment and
leisure activities. Due to the nature of the offence he was also subject to sex offender registration
requirements with the police.
Where there is continued cause for concern about a person’s behaviour in the community, the police
are empowered to apply to a Magistrates’ Court for a sex offender order.

• ‘B’ was brought to the attention of a local MAPPP at a time when he was no
longer subject to supervision by the probation service, his prison licence having
ended some months previously. He had a number of convictions for sex offences
against children. He had not completed a treatment programme because of his
itinerant lifestyle. The MAPPP was informed when he moved into a
local housing project for homeless and rootless
people. An emergency MAPPP meeting was called
where it was agreed that police would provide
surveillance and see him weekly. The
probation service agreed to offer voluntary
contact and explore possible placement at
a probation hostel and referral to a sex
offender groupwork programme. A sex
offender order was successfully applied for, in
view of the need to impose continued
monitoring and oversight. Close liaison was
maintained between the MAPPP and all the services
involved, including police, probation, staff at the housing
project and the forensic psychiatric team. Although ‘B’ is no
longer resident in London, whilst in the area he was seen
regularly and did not commit further sexual offences. He has
since, however, breached his registration requirements outside
London and was recently imprisoned. This demonstrates the
degree of supervision which takes place; the sex offender order
(which can last for life) will ensure that wherever he moves, he
will be required to register and maintain contact with the
local police.

Not all the work of the MAPPP concerns sex offenders;

violent and other potentially dangerous offenders are an important
area of responsibility.

• ‘C’ had a history of violence triggered by alcohol misuse. He was serving a

sentence for unlawful wounding. His probation officer was concerned
about the risk posed by this man, particularly as he had no settled
accommodation. The MAPPP devised a risk management plan
whereby the local housing department agreed to accommodate
the offender; this would enable monitoring of his behaviour and
reduce the risk to the public. He was interviewed at the probation
office to prevent a possibility of him turning up drunk at the housing
department. He was found somewhere to live and was subsequently
referred to an alcohol treatment programme.

During the last year there has been ongoing work to

explore the new joint statutory responsibility and to promote a
consistent approach in the operational arrangements throughout
London. As has been mentioned previously, this is a
developmental process and we will continue to develop and refine
our procedures in line with national standards, which are currently
being developed.


Since managing these offenders became a statutory responsibility on

1st April 2001, the MPS and LPA have jointly convened a London Strategic
Risk Management Group. This in itself is a statutory requirement placed
upon each responsible authority.

Initially, the principal attendees were the police and probation

service. Membership is now extended to the health service, including
forensic psychologists and psychiatrists; housing authorities, both local
and voluntary; Victim Support London and NSPCC. There are also
representatives from the prison service and recent invitations have gone
to London media. Social services are represented as well as the Youth
Justice Board. Other members include the Home Office Dangerous
Offenders Unit and the Metropolitan Police Authority. The important
ingredient is the diversity of the membership and the perspective each
agency brings to the tasks.

This group meets quarterly; its remit is to evaluate the work of MAPPPs across London.

The multi-agency group has agreed the terms of reference of their meetings and has worked to enable members
to understand and own the work of the statutory agencies (i.e. police and probation) and then consider their own
contributions to the management of risk across London. Plans are in hand to carry out an audit of MAPPPs next year.

The group will continue to meet quarterly and is chaired by the Chief Officer of the London Probation Area.

A list of current agency membership is set out below.

Chief Officer LPA Director of Community Protection LPA

MPS Lead – Child Protection and MAPPPs MPS Sex & Violent Offenders Crime Policy Unit

MPS MAPPPs Project Manager MPS Consultancy Group

Metropolitan Police Authority Governor of HMP Pentonville

Chief Executive Penrose Housing Association Chief Executive Victim Support London

Forensic Policy Advisor Department of Health Senior Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist

West London Mental Health NHS

Social Services Inspectorate Policy Advisor NSPCC

Senior Policy Advisor Youth Justice Board Youth Offending Team Manager, Greenwich

Home Office Dangerous Offender Unit Sentence Enforcement Unit

HM Prison Service Camden Council – Manager of Supporting People


The disclosure of personal information about offenders, in particular registered sex offenders
(RSOs), is a sensitive and complex subject. Whilst there is an apparent desire amongst communities to
know of the presence and whereabouts of offenders in their locality, we have to balance this against
the rights of offenders to privacy, particularly under human rights legislation. There is no blanket
provision of such information nor is it envisaged that there will be in the future.

‘Disclosure’ is often referred to as ‘community notification’, but in this context that may be too broad a description.

Providing details, such as a photograph, address or convictions of an offender to the community or targeted
sections of the community is a serious step, usually undertaken by the police in consultation with other MAPPP agencies,
particularly probation. Apart from an individual’s right to privacy we have to consider the impact of disclosure upon that
person and the potential risks to which they may be exposed. In particular we will examine closely the reason for
disclosure and the benefits we aim to achieve. We will look at the person’s offending history and behaviour, together with
all available current information in reaching a decision.

We are helped by the case of R -v- Chief Constable North Wales Police (1998) in which it was held that in LIMITED
circumstances the police could release factual information about individuals if it was very strongly in the public interest to
do so. That strong public interest exists where it is necessary for the prevention or detection of crime, or for the protection
of young or other vulnerable people. Additionally, the Association of Chief Police Officers has produced guidelines which
are referred to in reaching a decision whether or not to disclose.

Here are some examples of how disclosure has been used in London:-

• On the authority of a senior police officer, the media have assisted on a number of
occasions to locate sex offenders who are wanted by police for breach of their
registration requirements and who are considered to be particularly dangerous. The
media have also played a part on a few occasions in finding those wanted for serious
sex offences where traditional methods have been unsuccessful. The rationale is to
find these dangerous people and bring them before the Courts before they have the
opportunity to re-offend.

• Recently, details of a sex offender who had been granted bail by a court, (facing his
fourth prosecution for breach of his registration requirements) were disclosed to the
media generally. This was deemed necessary because he had absconded from a
probation hostel where he was required to reside as a condition of his bail. Attempts
to find him had been unsuccessful and he was considered a particular risk to young
boys. As a result of this disclosure he was arrested within a day and has since been
sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.

• A PPU became aware of an allegation of indecent assault on an 11-year-old girl by

an adult male employee of a local sporting facility. The assault happened at the
centre, but the girl’s parents did not want her to give evidence; this man had a
previous conviction for indecency. The local MAPPP decided that the employer should
be informed of this man’s past and recommended that he should not be allowed
unsupervised access to children. Alternatively, police would consider full disclosure to
parents of children using the facility. Future developments included a clinical
assessment wherein this man admitted that he had intended to rape the girl. The
employer was updated with developments, resulting in his employment being
terminated. The man’s carers were told of the incident and asked to liaise with police
in the future. A further allegation of indecent assault was made elsewhere and the
man is now receiving treatment in a secure residential unit.

• Police notified an employment agency of the sexual offence convictions of a client who
had told them he had convictions for violence. This agency frequently placed people
in jobs in hospitals, service stations or labouring. As a result of this disclosure he was
only offered labouring work. The agency was also advised about its applications
which only asked a client whether or not they had a ‘conviction’, without recording the
details. Similarly, a hospital was told of the sexual offence convictions of a man
employed as a porter. This was because of the nature of his offences and his access
to vulnerable people. He was dismissed and subsequently prosecuted for obtaining a
pecuniary advantage (his employment) by deception.

• Another man told his probation officer that he was seeking a job as a sports
groundsman at a place where children would gather. He had convictions for
indecency with children and such employment was considered inappropriate. The
employment agency was told and the application was terminated.

These are just a few examples of how limited disclosure to selected sections of the
community is used in serious cases to protect those communities. We will continue to use our
discretion in exercising disclosure on a case by case basis.

victims WORK WITH
Section 69 of the CJCSA places a statutory duty upon the probation service to consult with victims of
sexual and violent offences where an offender has been sentenced to 12 months imprisonment or
more. (In the past, probation was required to act in cases of offenders sentenced to 4 years or more).
This consultation takes place before the offender is released and helps to determine the conditions
imposed in the offender’s release on licence. It is one way of trying to ensure that previous victims are
not revictimised.

Since April 2001 LPA has reorganised its victim contact and liaison services in line with the new responsibility.
Taking into account the restructuring required as a result of the amalgamation of the previous five probation services
covering London, LPA has formed the Victim Liaison Service. The estimated number of victims who are eligible for the
services in cases sentenced by the London courts per year has risen to 3,500. There is a current staff establishment of 16
victim liaison officers and seven administrators managed by two senior probation officers and a head of service delivery.
Staff are located in five offices across London. One office is the central referral point for all new cases and undertakes the
tracing work in liaison with the police prior to allocation.
People do, of course, move on, particularly after a period of time and in London the population is particularly
transient. It is therefore impossible to contact every victim, but the new service is working towards meeting the National
Probation Service targets for victim contact.
It is crucial to link the work of victim liaison with the work of the MAPPP especially in cases where there is a
significant risk of revictimisation. For example:-
• a victim liaison officer attended a MAPPP meeting in one borough to discuss an offender who was due to be released
for offences of grievous bodily harm upon two ex partners. Clearly, these were serious offences. The victim liaison
officer, having met with both ex-partners, was able to convey to the MAPPP the level of fear and concern that both were
experiencing. As a result, the police ensured that if they received any request for assistance from either partner, they
would be able to provide an appropriate response.
LPA is revising and producing clear guidelines on the role of victim liaison officers in ensuring that information
about the victim is included in the assessment process and development of risk management and victim protection plans.
Two seminars have recently been held to enhance awareness among police and probation officers of this work and to
capture best practice.
We realise the significance of this duty and will continue to strive to ensure that we locate victims, consider their
fears and needs and work together to provide appropriate and adequate measures to reduce the risk of revictimisation.
Victim liaison service contact points. For individual cases: Tel: 0207 631 0535 / 0208 262 6927. For information on
policy and service development: Tel: 0207 436 1282

Victim Support is the national charity for people affected by crime. It is an independent organisation, offering a
free and confidential service, whether or not a crime has been reported. Trained staff and volunteers at local branches
offer information and support to victims, witnesses, their families and friends.
Victim Support also provides the Witness Service, based in every criminal court in England & Wales, to offer
assistance before, during and after a trial. Further information for victims and details of local services and other relevant
organisations are available as follows:-

Victim Support Service Helpline Women’s Aid International (for victims of

Tel: 0845 3030900 domestic violence)
Website: Tel: 0845 7023468
Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre (RASASC)
(providing a London service for women and girls who Southall Black Sisters (services for Asian women)
have been raped or sexually abused, no matter when) Tel: 0208 571 9595
Tel: 0208 683 3311
NSPCC Child Protection Helpline (for anyone
concerned about a child at risk of abuse)
Survivors UK (for male victims of sexual abuse) Tel: 0800 800500
Helpline Tel: 020 7357 6677 (Tues 7pm – 10pm) Website:
ChildLine (for children ,about any problem,
MIND (for mental health issues) at any time)
Tel: 0845 7660163 Tel: 0800 1111
Website: Website: 15
statistics ANNEXE A

Item Number

The number of registered sex offenders (RSOs) in the community on 31 March 2002 1,847 1 2

The number of RSOs per 100,000 population 25 3

The number of RSOs who were either cautioned or convicted for breaches of the requirement,
between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2002

The number of sex offender orders between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2002:-

a) total applied for 1

b) granted 1

c) not granted 0

d) applications still in progress 5

The number of offenders considered under the arrangements prescribed by

sections 67 and 68 of the Act:-

• All sexual & violent offenders who fall within section 68(3) (sentenced to 12 months
imprisonment or more) on or after 1 April 2001 up to and including 31 March 2002 4,540 4
(unless they already feature as a registered sex offender). The meaning of sexual or violent
offence for the purpose of this subsection is provided in the Home Office central report

• Any other offender considered under the local multi-agency arrangements because they 409 5
were assessed as posing a high risk of serious harm to the public (but who did not fall
within either of the two categories immediately above).

1 this figure does NOT include offenders who have failed to register; those with a registration requirement but who have
not yet registered as they are currently in custody; nor those who have registered but are in custody for a further offence

2 includes 3 people registered in the City of London Police area

3 based upon the mid-2000 population of Greater London of 7,375,065

4 this figure is made up of 2,600 offenders in custody, 880 offenders on licence and 1,060 new sentences over the period
of this report

5 this figure only relates to high risk potentially dangerous offenders who have been referred to and dealt with by a MAPPP

statistics ANNEXE B

In the absence of specific funding, additional costs have been met from within current resources. All costs are in £s

LPA MPS Other Agencies 5 Total

Staff Costs 295,000 1 140,929 3 Not available 435,929

Other Costs 25,000 2 89,297 4 Not available 114,297

Total Expenditure 320,000 230,226 Not available 550,226

Income 0 0 Not available 0

Net Expenditure 320,000 230,226 Not available 550,226

Set up costs
included in net 0 0 0 0

1 This figure represents additional costs of :-

(i) two policy development officers working a total of 6 days a week on a job share basis;
(ii) additional one day per month for MAPPP work for local LPA staff (all boroughs); and
(iii) additional work for senior LPA staff over the year

2 Estimate of administrative costs (e.g. telephone, photocopying) calculated on 9% of total salary expenditure

3 This figure represents the cost of MPS staff re-deployed into this work since April 1st 2001. There are no
identified additional costs for the City of London Police

4 This figure represents identifiable additional costs to the MPS in respect of equipment, office space or
surveillance upon violent and potentially dangerous offenders (but not registered sex offenders). It does not
include the costs of meetings or administration of meetings.

5 We are not currently able to identify the additional costs which have clearly been incurred by other agencies
across London.