Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements Annual Report 2002-3

By Paul Goggins, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Community and Custodial provision in the Home Office As the recently appointed Minister with responsibility for the MAPPA, I am pleased to introduce this, the second, annual MAPPA report. It is clear that in the last year (2002/3) the multi-agency public protection arrangements (the MAPPA) continued to play an important role in what remains one of this government’s highest priorities – the protection of the public from dangerous offenders. As someone with many years experience of working in the field of child protection, I am particularly impressed by the important contribution the MAPPA are making to strengthen collaboration between agencies at a local level where the focus is on the dangerous offender. These improvements must, however, impact on the protection of children. As the tragic death of Victoria Climbie showed, an effective multi-agency partnership is crucial and the MAPPA are an important element. To ensure greater consistency in the MAPPA across the 42 Areas of England and Wales, and to prepare for the implementation of measures contained in the Criminal Justice Bill, we published the MAPPA Guidance in April. Building on good practice, that Guidance clarified the structure of the operational arrangements as well as the importance of formal review and monitoring – of which this annual report is a vital part. The Criminal Justice Bill will strengthen the MAPPA in two ways. First, it will make the involvement of other agencies part of the statutory framework. Second, it will introduce the involvement of lay people – those unconnected with day-to-day operation of the MAPPA – in reviewing and monitoring the MAPPA.

Annual reports and this new lay involvement show the Government’s commitment to explaining how the often sensitive and complex work of public protection is undertaken. The Government is also strengthening the protection of the public with other measures in the Criminal Justice Bill. They include new sentences for dangerous offenders to prevent their release if they continue to be dangerous. Additionally, the Sexual Offences Bill will tighten up sex offender registration, introduce a new offence of ‘grooming’, and enable sex offender orders to be imposed on violent offenders who pose a risk of causing serious sexual harm – thereby extending sex offender registration to them. I commend this report to you and congratulate all the agencies and individuals who have contributed to the achievement of the MAPPA locally in your local Area.

The National Picture
This section of the report draws attention to wider context of the operation and development of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (the MAPPA). The most important work undertaken within the MAPPA is done locally, led by the police and probation – who act jointly as the ‘Responsible Authority’ in your Area – and in each of the 42 Areas of England and Wales. The experience and good practice upon which this work is based began in the 1990s – most significantly as a result of the closer working relationship required by the Sex Offender Act (1997). The Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act (2000) formalised that relationship and built on the existing experience by requiring the police and probation services to establish arrangements (the MAPPA) for assessing and managing the risks posed by sexual and violent offenders. The Act also required the Responsible Authority to publish an annual report on the operation of those arrangements. This report, covering April 2002 to March 2003, is the second annual report. The importance of partnership Key to the development of the MAPPA in the past year has been the closer involvement of other agencies, such as housing, health and social services, working alongside police and probation. The truly multi-agency nature of the MAPPA and the collaboration which underpins it is to be strengthened further by the Criminal Justice Bill. The Bill will place a ‘duty to co-operate’ on a wide range of organisations including local health authorities and trusts; housing authorities and registered social landlords; social services departments; Jobcentres; Youth Offending Teams; and local education authorities. In addition, the Prison Service will join the police and probation services and become part of the MAPPA ‘Responsible Authority’.

Supporting and co-ordinating the development of the MAPPA throughout the 42 Areas of England and Wales, is the National Probation Directorate’s Public Protection Unit (PPU). This Unit acts as a central point for advice and, increasingly, involvement in the management of difficult cases. These include, for example, UK citizens who have committed serious offences abroad and return to this country without anywhere to live. The Unit is also able to provide financial support when the risk management plans make exceptional demands upon local resources. Involving the public MAPPA developments in the next 18 months will also include the appointment by the Home Secretary of two ‘lay advisers’ to each Area. The eight Areas of England and Wales which have been piloting these arrangements since January (Cumbria, Greater Manchester, Durham, South Wales, Dorset, Hampshire, Surrey and West Midlands) report that they add real value. Lay advisers will contribute to the review and monitoring of the MAPPA which is undertaken by each Area’s Strategic Management Board – the work of which you can read more in this report. The purpose of appointing ‘lay advisers’ is to ensure that communities understand more of what is done to protect them and that those involved professionally with the MAPPA are aware of the views of the community. The lay advisers will not ‘represent’ the community in the way, for example, that local councillors do, nor will they be involved in operational decision-making. And, given the sensitivity of much of what the MAPPA does, especially with the few offenders who pose a very high risk of serious harm to the public, it is not practicable for the general public to be involved. Lay advisers will, however, ensure an appropriate and a practical level of community involvement.

MAPPA Offenders This year the annual report provides a more detailed breakdown of the number of sexual and violent offenders who are covered by the MAPPA in your Area. As last year, the figures include the number of registered sex offenders. Because sex offender registration is for a minimum of 5 years (and generally for much longer) the figures are cumulative. This is why they have increased – by 16 per cent in England and Wales. Only a very small proportion (about six per cent throughout England and Wales) are considered to pose such a high risk or management difficulty that they are referred to the highest level of the MAPPA – the Multi-Agency Public Protection Panels (the MAPPP). Figures alone do not, of course, tell the whole story. The anonymised case studies illustrate the practical work of the MAPPA, and demonstrate the preventive action which can be taken. Prior to the MAPPA, action of this kind was mainly taken by one agency alone, with the effect that on occasion offenders’ behaviour which might have triggered preventative action went unnoticed. The multi-agency approach of the MAPPA helps ensure that if an offender does breach the condition of the licence under which they were released from prison or a court order prohibiting certain activities, then action to enforce the condition or order and protect the public can be taken more swiftly.
If you are interested in reading the reports of other Areas, they will be published on the National Probation Service’s website (under the public protection section) with all of them being available once the last Area has published its annual report in September.

1. Area Summary
Multi-agency Arrangements for public protection have been established in Nottinghamshire since 1998. Building on the strong inter-agency working arrangements for child protection, and under the auspices of the local Area Child Protection Committees, a protocol was established and launched as “The Inter- Agency Framework and Procedures for the Risk Management of Potentially Dangerous People in Nottinghamshire” in 1998. In 2000, criminal justice agencies in Nottinghamshire, with partner agencies in the fields of child protection, social and health care and housing agreed to develop and fund a Multi-Agency Public Protection post: the MAPP Manager/Co-ordinator. A further framework: “The Nottinghamshire Public Protection Protocol, Policy, Guidance and Procedures” was produced. These procedures, for the management of individuals who pose a risk of harm in Nottinghamshire, have been in place since the launch of the Protocol in January 2001. The first Nottinghamshire MAPPA Annual Report in 2001/2 contains an account of the setting up of the protocol and procedures which now constitute our framework for the MAPPA arrangements under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. The MAPP Manager co-ordinates the arrangements for risk management, and this post continues to be funded by the original agencies: Nottinghamshire Police, National Probation Service – Nottinghamshire Area, Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council, Nottingham and North Nottinghamshire Health Authorities and the Nottinghamshire Healthcare Trust. These funding arrangements are based on the strong commitment that the agencies all have towards the principle that the community is best safeguarded by an inter agency approach to the assessment and management of those individuals who pose a risk of harm to others. Police and Probation staff in Nottinghamshire (the Responsible Authority under Section 67 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000) lead the arrangements, working closely in assessing and managing the risk of all relevant offenders. However, the management of those who pose a high or very high risk of harm needs the commitment of partner agencies in the statutory and

voluntary sectors. Information needs to be shared to formulate risk management plans and thus put into place the necessary actions for their particular roles in risk management. The agencies involved in the arrangements approach public protection work from different perspectives, and undertake different roles. However, public protection is both strengthened by these varying perspectives and roles and is enhanced by staff who hold complementary skills, knowledge and expertise. In the last three years of multi-agency working, agencies have developed a greater understanding of each other’s values and ethics, and have established shared objectives that are centred on protecting children, vulnerable people and the community in general. Staff working on public protection understand that safeguarding the community (“risk reduction”), is a process which involves not only accurate information sharing and assessments, but a complementary mix of prevention, rehabilitation and control. Underpinning the values of all agencies is a shared understanding of the need to balance the rights and responsibilities of the offenders with the right of the public to be protected. Consequently we have been able, through these arrangements, to share information and make detailed and specific action plans to manage individuals. These action plans both enable the offenders to engage in work designed to help them reduce their risk through treatment interventions (either in custody or in the community) and, allow the responsible agencies to monitor and interrupt their behaviour through external controls such as statutory conditions, orders or recall to prison. During the past year public protection work with individuals has included a more diverse set of agency staff including: Victim Contact Community mental health teams Outreach services to the homeless Forensic services in the sphere of low, medium and high security

Social care services with vulnerable adults, those with learning difficulties, and those with young people and children Housing authorities and housing providers in the independent sector Young offender institutions and the adult prison estate Youth offending teams Health providers in hospitals and general practice and in the community e.g. occupational health Police in local communities and in specialist provision such as child abuse investigation, domestic violence and the sexual exploitation of children Benefit agency and employment services Education welfare Leisure services In the next year, in order to implement the Home Office MAPPA Guidance, further liaison and negotiation between the MAPP Manager and these agencies should lead to a series of “memoranda of understanding” or brief protocols which can become part of the re-written Nottinghamshire Protocol. The 2001/2 MAPPA Annual Report describes the operation of the Sections 67 & 68 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 in Nottinghamshire. The assessment procedures within police and probation remain as described, however the police and probation services have developed operational structures during the past year, which reflect the heightened need to centre services around risk assessment and management. The vehicles to manage offenders who are assessed as high and very high risk of harm remain the Risk Strategy Meeting (RSM) and the Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel (MAPPP). In general, the vast majority of sexual and violent offenders can be managed at the level of the single agency, usually either police or probation, with assessment based on shared information between appropriate agencies.

Those whose risk of harm is assessed at a higher level, need greater levels of resource and intervention. In the city, the probation service has restructured in order to create a team of specialist probation staff to manage the high-risk offenders at a more intensive level. This team works in close liaison with the Dangerous Persons Management Unit (DPMU) who are police officers based within CID. Together, the two agencies lead the public protection work on these offenders, bringing in many other partner agencies to share information and manage the risks presented. In the city and county, specific days are set aside for Risk Strategy Meetings on offenders, so that staff time is more efficiently and effectively managed in both the police and probation services. At the same time, the Nottinghamshire Police have recognised the need to re-structure around public protection. This planned restructuring will be implemented from April 2003, when the DPMU, whose role is the management of Registered Sex Offenders along with other sexual and violent offenders, are brought alongside the Child Abuse Investigation Unit (CAIU) and the Anti-Vice Squad under a Detective Superintendent, Detective Chief Inspector and Detective Inspector responsible for public protection. This more effective working arrangement recognises the interrelated strands of protection and management in the work of the police. The MAPP Manager remains pivotal in public protection, coordinating information sharing and interventions not only between police and probation, but also with the different agencies, outlined above, who are involved in providing a service to both victims and offenders and the community of Nottinghamshire in general.

2. Roles and Responsibilities: Who is involved and what they do
The Nottinghamshire Police and Nottinghamshire Probation area (as the Responsible Authority) work together in the identification, assessment and management of relevant sexual and violent offenders, as described in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 Sections 67 and 68. In practice, risk assessment and management is carried out by police and probation officers through the operation of risk of re-conviction and risk of harm tools, and the procedures detailed in the Nottinghamshire Protocol. MAPP arrangements are in place, operated via the Protocol to manage offenders at different levels: offenders who are assessed as posing a lower risk are managed at single agency level, following the collation of information from other agencies e.g. SSD, prison, mental health services. Those who are identified as presenting a higher risk need to be managed by processes involving more agencies and detailed co-ordination, through the vehicles of the Risk Strategy Meeting (RSM) or the Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel: the MAPPP. the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. The risk assessments undertaken by detectives in the DPMU, in conjunction with senior police officers, are done in close collaboration with colleagues in probation and social service departments who are actively involved in the issues of child protection, child sexual exploitation, protection of vulnerable adults, others in the care sector and the field of mental and physical health. The DPMU maintains responsibility for managing all offenders whose shared risk assessment indicates that they are at either “high” or “very high” risk of re-offending seriously. The DPMU aims to continually consider all offenders who pose a high risk of serious harm, and to monitor their situation. Those sex offenders subject to the Sex Offenders Act 1997, who are assessed as posing a low or medium risk of re-conviction, are managed at a Local Area Command level. This means that officers can use their local knowledge to monitor the situation and liaise with the DPMU. The Multi-Agency Public Protection Manager works alongside the detectives in the DPMU. In this way professional expertise, information, risk assessment and management is shared on an immediate day-to-day basis. Act 2000, the risk assessment informs court reports, sentence planning in prisons, pre-release planning, and in the supervision planning of community orders. Across the National Probation Service a new and detailed offender assessment system (OASys) has been developed and implemented. This assessment tool is used to assess the factors which have a bearing both on an individual’s offending, and on the factors directly related to the risk of harm they pose if they should re-offend. OASys is now being used to assess levels of risk and develop risk management plans. It complements the police risk of re-conviction tool (Risk Matrix 2000). Both assessment systems use the same four levels of risk: low, medium, high and very high. From this year, OASys will be introduced throughout the prison system. This will produce more consistency in assessment and definition across the criminal justice system. All assessments are made using information from other agencies, and reviewed at key stages in their sentence or order. Those offenders who pose a high or very high risk of harm are ‘risk-registered’ within the probation service systems and managed through the framework of the Risk Strategy Meeting and/or MAPP Panel, as outlined in the Nottinghamshire Protocol.



In Nottinghamshire the police role of identification and assessment of sexual and violent offenders remains within the remit of the specialist unit, the Dangerous Persons Management Unit (DPMU). The unit is responsible for maintaining the register of sex offenders who are obliged to notify the police of their details, and any changes. The unit is also responsible for initiating prosecutions for failures to comply with the Sex Offenders Act 1976. The unit therefore carries out the responsibilities of the police under




Partners in Risk Management

A risk of harm assessment is undertaken on all individuals in contact with the service, by probation staff in Nottinghamshire. This process starts pre-court where information is shared with police, social service or health staff as appropriate. In respect of the relevant offenders detailed in the Criminal Justice and Court Services

Police and probation work together within the Nottinghamshire MAPP Arrangements on a day-to-day basis. In the main, there needs to be no more inter-agency action than sharing information and making a multi-agency risk assessment. Most offenders are managed by one agency on the basis of that shared information and assessment.

However the sharing of information and formulation of risk of harm assessments, and the management of the high and very high risk offenders depends on the collaboration and co-operation of a number of other agencies involved in the area of care and control.


Youth Offending Service


Social Services Departments

In Nottinghamshire the social services departments are committed to working with the criminal justice agencies in protecting different groups within our communities. Child Protection Teams are used to working together with police and probation officers, and relevant partner agencies in accordance with area child protection procedures. Other teams within the social services are now following this model within the multi-agency public protection procedures. In Risk Strategy Meetings and Panels, social workers (with responsibility for areas across the board such as people with learning difficulties, physical disabilities and mental health problems and those working in hospitals or residential settings), have taken part in devising risk management plans, and agreed to actions designed to protect potential victims.

The Youth Offending Teams are part of the criminal justice system, and as such they manage the young offenders who may present a risk to others. However these children and young people are also themselves sometimes very damaged by their current childhood experiences, and may have been the victims of offenders also being managed by the police and probation services. The Youth Offender Teams are therefore important in the working together process between child protection, police and probation services and take part in the Risk Strategy Meetings and Panel processes where young people may be the subject of a management plan, or are indeed, victims who need further protection.

education, environmental and licensing departments working through community safety partnerships and forums. In particular the housing sector (including the independent sector) has played an essential role in the management plans drawn up by the agencies to deal with individuals who are already living in the community or who need to be resettled after release from institutions. The provision of appropriate accommodation, which minimises an individual’s risk to others, is one of the most important risk management tools we have available. When a person is housed as safely as possible it becomes easier for partner agencies to monitor them and put further actions in place such as electronically monitored curfews or exclusion conditions. Housing authorities are drawing up local strategies for providing services for vulnerable people. Housing those individuals who are at a high risk of re-offending are part of these strategies, and are a vital part of the commitment to protecting the public.


The Prison Service Agency


The Health Service

Health services cover a huge range of provision. In particular, in the field of specialist forensic mental health and learning disabilities, drug and alcohol treatment practitioners have played their part in public protection through participation in multi-agency plans to minimise risk to patients, staff and the public.

The role of prisons in the risk management of offenders has been critical in the past year. The prison service is an integral part of the Panel, and it is expected that relevant prison staff attend meetings at either Risk Strategy Meeting or Panel level. Information about prisoners’ behaviour in prison, their attitudes, contacts and their participation in any therapeutic programmes has been invaluable in planning the safer resettlement of high-risk offenders.

ix. Outreach Service Teams
Teams who are part of the provision of outreach services to the homeless, whether in the field of accommodation, physical and mental health or drug and alcohol treatment have also played their part in the management of high risk individuals in the community in the city and county. All this risk management work will be further developed in the coming year in response to government legislation and guidance.


City and County Councils

All local authority departments have participated in the implementation of risk management procedures. Involvement has come from leisure,

3. The Operational of the MAPPA: How the arrangements work
The probation and police services, by the nature of their statutory duties, take the lead role in the assessment and management of the relevant offenders within our MAPP Arrangements, as described in the previous section. Although the figure of almost 700 offenders who came within the arrangements appears large, the majority of these individuals are managed at the lowest levels of normal single agency management. Under one third of these offenders, who are the responsibility of the probation service, need to be referred to higher levels. In the same way, one third of the registered sex offenders might be assessed as needing to be managed centrally. The rest remain the responsibility of police local area command to monitor. The high-risk sexual and violent offenders, who are the statutory responsibility of the probation service, are supervised closely according to national standards; managing their risk of harm is prioritised in plans for their supervision. In the case of registered sex offenders who pose high risk of re-conviction, the DPMU prioritise home visits and monitoring. The Risk Strategy Meeting and Panel meetings provide the vehicles for the assessment and management of these offenders. Their objectives are the same: to share information between agencies, make multi-agency risk assessments and develop multi-agency risk management plans. Both sets of meetings therefore follow the same agenda, taking into account information on the offender and his/her behaviour from various sources, including the experience and concerns of the victims. Most high-risk offenders are the subjects of Risk Strategy Meetings; only 39 offenders were subjects of the highest level of management i.e. the MAPP Panel. Attendance at these meetings comprises representatives from all agencies and departments that have a part to play in the public protection process. There is a core membership on the Panel, which meets monthly on a pre-determined date. It is convened and chaired by the MAPP manager and has the services of an Administrator. Any agency can refer an individual to the Panel if they meet the criteria of highest risk of serious harm. posed and devises a risk management plan. The proceedings and the decisions taken, are noted by the Administrator who acts as secretary to the Panel. The Panel also decides whether the individual meets the criteria for registration on the Public Protection Register. Only 14 cases remain registered at the end of 2002/03. These cases comprise individuals whose risk are assessed as the most serious and difficult to manage, and includes also cases who are the subject of intense media interest (as this carries with it associated risk to others and the public in general). The Public Protection Register is held, in confidence, by the MAPP Manager. The role of the MAPP Manager is to manage and co-ordinate the operation of the Panel on behalf of all the agencies involved. Risk Strategy Meetings operate on the level below the Panel, however attendance mirrors the Panel, but at team management and practitioner level. During 2002/03 with probation, essential agencies such as housing, mental health, social services, prison, and police (either from the DPMU or local area command) have consistently attended Risk Strategy Meetings. Both Panels and Risk Strategy Meetings operate the MAPP Arrangements by devising and acting on risk management plans. Such plans contain a series of actions for the different agencies, and a number of tools that can be used to manage the different risks presented. Since 1991 public protection legislation has been enacted which allows us to monitor and control, to some extent, an offender’s behaviour. We can never eliminate risk, but we can seek to

The Panel
The MAPP Panel comprises senior managers representing; police, probation, child protection services, health, forensic psychology, local authority housing, prison and the youth offending services, covering the city and county. There is a process for the inclusion of senior managers from other departments, projects or agencies on particular cases such as education, welfare, health commissioning services, community mental health services, drug/alcohol treatment or psychiatric services. Senior management is necessary at Panel level because of the level of decision making necessary e.g. in terms of resourcing, speed of response to a situation, or specialist information. Each month individual cases are presented to the Panel by a referring agency, such as the probation service. A probation officer accompanied by a senior probation officer would then present the case to the panel. The Panel comes to a joint assessment of what risks are

reduce the likelihood of an event happening and/or the seriousness of such an event.

Other controls
External and internal controls can be used. We have more offenders now who were sentenced to lengthier sentences and longer periods of supervision post-release. This has allowed prisons to work with offenders on Sex Offender Treatment Programmes, and probation to work with these individuals on licence supervision on relapse prevention strategies. In the community, there has been a rollout of tested, effective Community Sex Offender Programmes and these are used on community orders or during extended periods of licence supervision. These treatment programmes, alongside effective treatment delivered by partner psychiatric and psychological services, allow high-risk offenders to develop internal strategies for preventing re-offending. In the same way, conditions in licences and on community orders which bring offenders into drug or alcohol programmes, work on giving offenders responsibility for controlling their offending behaviour, and lead to sanctions such as recall if the offender does not co-operate. Other ways of managing offenders include the imposition of more external controls, for example conditions in licences which exclude or ban offenders from forms of employment, or places or areas, or from contacting their victims or those with whom they offended. The electronically monitored curfew (tag) has been used on a number of occasions with high-risk offenders in order to interrupt their pattern of behaviour and protect particular categories of victim such as children.

We have found in managing risk effectively one of the most important factors (particularly on release from prison), is suitable accommodation. Conditions of residence are commonly used in licences, often to approved hostels or other residential units, which might offer specific treatment or offending behaviour programmes. Most importantly, local authority housing departments have worked within the public protection arrangements to house individuals in accommodation appropriate to their risks and needs. This is unquestionably a sensitive issue for many councils and authorities, but without stable accommodation the agencies cannot monitor offenders and offenders themselves cannot access the programmes which promote them taking responsibility for their offending, and to work towards some level of rehabilitation. Evidence demonstrates that individuals are much more likely to become vulnerable and to offend, if they cannot access housing provision. The Crown Court has yet to make use of the restraining order on sex offenders. This order is made at the time of sentence and is designed to prevent sex offenders, on release or during custody, from re-victimising their victims or behaving in ways which could lead to offending. On the other hand, the Magistrates’ Courts have now made 23 Sex Offender Orders in Nottinghamshire, and 6 have been imposed on individuals during 2002/03. The Sex Offender Order was introduced in the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act. It is civil order, applied for and managed by the police. It is a preventative order. This means it is used to prevent offending rather than as a punishment for an offence that has been committed. It is used primarily with offenders who have come to the attention of agencies because their inappropriate behaviour is causing concern. An

offence has not been committed, but the individual’s behaviour may be mirroring their previous pre-offending behaviour. The decision to pursue a Sex Offender Order in order to manage a sex offender is always taken on a multi-agency basis, at a Risk Strategy Meeting or Panel meeting. The final decision is made at senior officer level in the police service. The DPMU officers work with the police service Solicitor in applying for the order. The DPMU officers are responsible for managing the sex offender orders. They do this through visiting the offender at their home and monitoring local intelligence. The Sex Offender Order itself sometimes works as an internal control for some offenders; it acts as a constant reminder to them that they must not put themselves in risky situations. It is also an effective method of external control; offenders are prevented from doing things, or going to places where they are more likely to offend. Any breach of one of the Order’s conditions constitutes an offence, punishable by up to 5 years in prison. In 2002/03, 7 offenders were returned to custody for breach of the Sex Offender Order. One offender was sentenced to the maximum of 5 years imprisonment; others were sentenced to shorter periods of imprisonment. In addition to managing the Sex Offender Orders, the DPMU manage the higher risk registered sex offenders and liaise with local areas on the lower risk registered sex offenders. The police have limited powers under the Sex Offenders Act 1997, but they home visit to ensure the presence of offenders at their registered addresses, and take further appropriate actions if they receive intelligence which is of concern on any registered sex

offender in Nottinghamshire. After statutory periods of offender supervision come to an end, the police are often the key agency involved in public protection. They will use the skills of the beat officer, community police and any surveillance evidence to monitor behaviour and pass concerns to the DPMU if necessary. A further risk management device is the use of disclosure of information. The police have an important and general power to disclose information for the prevention, detection and reduction of crime. All agencies who are part of the public protection framework have agreed a set of principles with respect to disclosure. The main principle is that disclosure should

increase a potential victim’s ability to protect themselves or others, and it should be part of an agreed strategy with clear boundaries, and within a risk management plan. Decisions to disclose information are made on a case by case basis and any recommendation to disclose must be approved by the police at Assistant Chief Constable level. In Nottinghamshire, disclosure as a protective device has been made to individuals either directly affected by the risk of harm or to those who hold a level of responsibility towards others and have an ability to act on the information to protect themselves or others. Disclosure has been made to particular employers, schools, parents and projects in the past year. The probation service

has a statutory duty to share the risks that certain offenders present with the employment services, and this is done routinely to prevent individuals working in jobs which could make others vulnerable to them. All these risk management devices, (which can be very intrusive in a person’s life), are imposed only after a thorough risk assessment. They have therefore to be both appropriate to the individual case and proportionate to the risks posed bearing in mind the rights and obligations of all concerned in the process i.e. agencies, offender and victim.


4. The Strategic Management of MAPPA
The MAPP Arrangements are overseen by a strategic management Steering Group. The Steering Group was set up under the Nottinghamshire Protocol and has been renamed the Strategic Management Board and has been reviewed, within the framework of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. The Strategic Management Board has historically represented at strategic level, the member agencies that have made a commitment to the multi-agency management of potentially dangerous people in Nottinghamshire. In 2002/03, senior staff from the health service, covering both the city and county, police, probation and the offices of the City and County Councils’ Chief Executives have attended meetings. The Strategic Management Board functions to agree and review the effective operation of the MAPPA. It has been chaired, and sits within the remit of, the Chief Probation Officer for the Nottinghamshire Probation Area. The Strategic Management Board has met quarterly in the last year and received reports from the MAPP Manager on the function of the arrangements; it is strategically responsible for the preparation of this MAPPA Annual Report 2002/03. As a result of the increased demands of proposed legislation concerning MAPPA (i.e. the closer working arrangements that need to be negotiated with agencies and local authority departments who will have a “duty to co-operate” with the MAPPA), associated MAPPA guidance, and to further legislation concerning sexual offences, the Strategic Management Board have agreed the creation of an additional MAPP manager post. The new post of “MAPPA Strategy and Policy Officer” is an innovative response to the Strategic Management Board’s strategic function and the “Responsible Authority’s” statutory duty to put in place effective arrangements in respect of the management of sexual and other violent offenders, and to review and evaluate the workings of the MAPPA. The Strategic and Policy Officer’s key role is to service the Strategic Management Board in ensuring that the arrangements are compliant with legislation for the protection of the

public and that all agencies involved are able to implement the arrangements. The dedication of a full-time officer to the strategic development of the MAPPA will ensure that links will be made across agencies and committees involved in the protection of the public and vulnerable groups e.g. the Area Child Protection Committees and the Nottinghamshire Committee for the Protection of Vulnerable Adults; that lessons and recommendations from reports and enquiries will be pursued; and that the Responsible Authority can carry out an effective on-going review and evaluation of

how we are carrying out the public protection function as laid down in current and forthcoming legislation. The original post of MAPP Manager, within which the growing area of policy development was carried out, can then be wholly devoted to operational matters. The MAPP Manager will continue to be responsible for the operation of the MAPP Panel, and the joint working arrangements for the management of relevant sexual and violent offenders. They will also be able to develop the post in line with the further MAPPA Guidance and work

closely with the Strategy and Policy Officer on reviewing and evaluating the performance of the arrangements. The Strategic Management Board has decided that both public protection posts will be multi-agency funded, which is a strong and tangible message that across the health, probation and police services and the City and County Councils there is an on-going commitment to protecting the community in Nottinghamshire from harm.


5. Victim Work
The Nottinghamshire Probation Area is committed to enhancing the position of victims of crime within the criminal justice system; there is also a strong link between the statutory victim contact service provided by probation, and victim support schemes locally. In practice, direct victim contact work is undertaken by a specialist team of probation staff who are located throughout the county. A detailed policy and practice guidance are in place which direct the work of the probation Victim Contact Unit. The victim contact staff have aligned their practice with the duty imposed on them by the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, Section 69. Under this section more victims of sexual and violent offences have had their concerns recognised and often allayed through receiving accurate and timely information. Victims are given the opportunity to be kept informed about a custodial sentence, of expressing any concerns about the offender’s eventual return to the community, and to make representations concerning conditions which could be attached to a prison licence. In Nottinghamshire, in response to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, every victim of a sexual or other violent crime (where the offender is sentenced to 12 months imprisonment or more) is contacted by the Victim Contact Unit within two months of the offender receiving the prison sentence. Victims are offered a home visit, with an appointment date; if a person does not want contact, that is clearly respected. Some victims do not want home visits at that early stage, but want to be kept informed about release times and any future possibility of meeting accidentally with their perpetrator. Some home visits are done on a multi-agency basis in conjunction with staff from Victim Support and the police service. Many victims who have experienced serious physically and emotionally damaging assaults retain understandable fears about what may happen to them in the future, depending on what happens to the offender who has hurt them. Their concerns often centre around whether the offender could escape from custody, concerns for their safety if they are forced to give evidence at a trial and the perpetrator can then recognise them, and on-going fears of harassment when the offender is released, or fear of the offender returning to live in the victim’s home area. Positioning victim contact within the probation service’s work has meant that staff working with the perpetrators, take into account when assessing and planning to manage the risks presented, the victim’s experience, fears and concerns. Systems are in place to ensure that at strategic points in an offender’s sentence, probation officers can use firm information to make more informed judgements. Sharing information both empowers victims

and protects them. In Risk Strategy Meetings and Panels, information from the Victim Contact Unit is fed in via the probation officers. This informs any pre-release actions, and risk management plans, and enables us to work pro-actively on behalf of past victims as well as any potential future victims. We can include in post custody licences, a number of conditions, which can address for the victims’ fears e.g. conditions of residence, exclusions from specific areas or conditions of non-contact with past victims. Any breaches of these types of condition normally results in the offender being returned to custody. Whilst the probation officers dealing with the perpetrator work on behalf of victims in this way, alongside other agencies such as police and housing, different probation staff working within victim

contact work can directly re-assure and empower victims by informing them of the measures being taken to meet their personal concerns. Information from victims has enhanced the work done within the MAPP Arrangements. It has enabled agencies to take direct action to minimise the risk of revictimisation, and because of its particular perspective, victim information has proved invaluable in the process of assessment, thus contributing directly to the risk management plan and the protection of future victims. Often working in conjunction with probation Victim Contact, Victim Support is the 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 provides the Witness Service, based in every criminal court in England and Wales, to offer assistance before, during and after a trial. You can also call the Victim Support Line – 0845 30 30 900 – for more information and support and details of local services and relevant organisations. Victim Contact and Victim Support Scheme details are provided at the end of this report. .

6. Case Studies
Importance of health and housing involvement in the MAPPA An offender who had been recalled to prison for breaching a condition of his licence was due to be rereleased without statutory supervision.

Risk and Assessment
High risk of serious sexual/violent assault on previous victim. High risk of violent assault on others as a result of deterioration in his mental health and/or alcohol abuse, lack of stable accommodation or access to GP or psychiatric intervention.

Housing department prioritised the application and an appropriate address was allocated on release. GP allocated by health services. Mental health assessment undertaken; community psychiatric nurse allocated to the case. Consultant psychiatrist and psychologist engaged offender in treatment, motivated to work on violent offending. Offender notified details of address to police. DPMU visited at different times to monitor situation. Victim helped to move address under the appropriate legislation; new GP and new address checked in order that offender and victim’s home area were not the same. Although the offender complied initially with his registration obligations, he then moved without notifying his details, and moved once again and complied. Visits by the DPMU lead to prosecution under the Sex Offender Act 1997. However, since this offender’s risks have been greatly reduced and he became stabilised with psychiatric oversight and a settled address, all agencies involved in the court process worked towards a non-custodial sentence as the best risk management plan.

Long history of violent offending coupled with history of alcohol abuse. Present sentence for sexual and other violence. No evidence of any positive change in attitudes or behaviour during prison sentence. Disruptive behaviour in prison, subject to outbursts of anger, loss of control and threatening behaviour towards staff. Previous psychiatric diagnosis of depression and an untreatable personality disorder Lost accommodation when originally sentenced; accommodated with family on previous release but this option is no longer available. Recalled to prison the day after release on licence for breach of condition of non-contact with victim. Housing project assessed offender as too high risk to be housed with other vulnerable people; still claiming symptoms of psychopathy.

Risk Management Plan
Liaison with health service to ensure early access to GP with knowledge of risks to victim and others. Consultant psychologist agreed to re-refer offender to forensic mental health allocations meeting to secure timely psychological/psychiatric intervention. Housing agreed to prioritise housing application for time of release. Risks flagged on police intelligence system for fast response. DPMU involvement. Victim to be visited by police re safety systems to be put in place. DPMU to plan visits under Sex Offender Act 1997 to monitor offender and alcohol use.

Surveillance and control Two offenders were referred to the MAPP Panel by the police service.

Very high risk of serious sexual assaults against children. High risk of the offenders disappearing immediately and being unmonitored in the community. Risk Management Plan Nottinghamshire police service were to liaise with other services in the area of offender’s release, and with prison from which offender was to be released. Police to track the progress of both men together across the country. Police to visit wherever offenders eventually settled. Information on current church involvement to be gained. MAPP Manager to inform the Diocesan Child Protection Officer, for involvement by the Church. Possible disclosure discussed and put before Assistant Chief Constable. Evidence of behaviour mirroring previous pre-offending behaviour to be collected. Application for Sex Offender Order discussed as an external control method, and way of separating the offenders. Housing department agreed to look at appropriate accommodation for one offender to enable the separation.

Surveillance enabled the offenders to be tracked to Nottingham. DPMU visited, having prioritised this very high-risk case. Fail to register the address within the permitted time was pursued. Sex Offender Orders were imposed on both offenders. Sex Offender Orders also imposes sex offender registration on the second offender. Disclosure to the relevant church authorities enabled them to protect their congregations. One offender accommodated in a way that minimises the risks to children. Both offenders vigorously monitored. Both sex offenders arrested for breach of their sex offender orders and are currently remanded in custody.

Both offenders were prolific, entrenched, predatory paedophiles with a history of sexual offences, who had met within the prison system. Evidence from prison security revealed plans to meet and commit serious sexual offences against children. One offender was due to be released from prison unconditionally, following recall for breach of licence conditions. Risks were seriously heightened by association with each other. Neither offender was subject to any statutory supervision or oversight by any agency. Only one offender was a registered sex offender, subject to notifying his details to the police. Community religious groups had been used in the past as a way of gaining credibility in the community and targeting families with young children. It was not clear where these two men would travel, but they had transport and intended to immediately meet up.

Importance of close liaison between police and probation This offender was referred to the MAPP Panel by the probation service.

High risk of serious sexual abuse of vulnerable children in vulnerable families by ingratiating himself and assuming the role of trusted adult.

The MAPP Manager wrote to Housing Associations alerting them to the need to refer to the Housing Panel member for information on the offender if he should apply to them. Accommodation was allocated via a housing association which enabled monitoring by management and minimised his risk locally, as there were no families with children in the complex. His employment and activities were monitored by the DPMU in liaison with child protection services and probation. A sex offender order was applied for and granted. DPMU sent out information and ‘flagged' the offender on their system. DPMU visited the home and supported the housing association in managing the offender. Whilst in custody for further offences of theft, his circumstances were investigated. Liaison with SSD child protection, police child abuse investigation officers and DPMU led to information that the offender was in a relationship with a woman with small children, and through her he had groomed a further family into allowing him supervisory access to young children. The offender was prosecuted for breach of the sex offender order and sentenced to the maximum prison sentence of five years.

Previous offences for sexual assault of young boys. Pattern of offending indicated an ability to groom children over a long period of time; used various devices to gain their interest and trust. Gained positions in the community, which brought trust and kudos e.g. volunteer and charity work. On a community order he failed to comply with any conditions willingly: avoided reporting, giving information and did not comply with the sex offender treatment programme. Networking with other known offenders who were in his address when police visited. History of other dishonesty on going; abuse of vulnerable people and their identification cards for different services. Community order was revoked and no statutory supervision was then in place. Accommodation was unsettled as the local authority had been the subject of his dishonesty; in hostel accommodation.

Risk Management Plan
Accommodation issues were to be managed by police and MAPP Manager liaison with the homeless hostel. The offender’s behaviour at the hostel was to be monitored closely to prevent grooming of staff to obtain access to their families. Settled accommodation was necessary in order to better monitor the offender and manage his risks: the hostel project would refer to housing associations. Disclosure to any housing association that agreed to consider the offender was sought from the ACC. Sex offender order was discussed at the Panel and it was agreed to look at evidence for an application by the police. The probation service agreed to write reports for court on various offences of dishonesty and on breach, proposing sentences which could result in an opportunity for the offender to engage in treatment programmes in prison. The police would monitor any employment and risk, frequently, under the Sex Offender Act 1997.

7. Statistical Information
i. The number of registered sex offenders on 31 March 2003

No. of Offenders

ii. The number of sex offenders having a registration requirement who were either cautioned or convicted for breaches of the requirement, between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003


iii. The number of Sex Offenders Orders applied for and gained between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003

(a) The total number of Sex Offenders Orders applied for


(b) The total number granted


(c) The total number not granted


iv. The number of Restraining Orders issued by the courts between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003 for offenders currently managed within MAPPA


v. The number of violent and other sexual offenders considered under MAPPA during the year 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003 (as defined by section 68 [3], [4] and [5])


vi. The number of "other offenders" dealt with under MAPPA during the year 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003 as being assessed by the Responsible Authority as posing a risk of serious harm to the public (but who did not fall within either of the other two categories, as defined by s.67 [2b])


vii. For each of the three categories of offenders covered by the MAPPA ("registered sex offenders", "violent and other sex offenders" and "other offenders"), identify the number of offenders that are or have been dealt with by:

a) MAPPP - registered sex offenders


b) MAPPP - violent and other sex offenders


c) MAPPP - other offenders


viii. Of the cases managed by the MAPPP during the reporting year what was the number of offenders:

a) who were returned to custody for breach of licence


b) who were returned to custody for breach of a Restraining Order or Sex Offender Order


c) charged with a serious sexual or violent offence


The information contained in Section 7 builds on the statistics published in last year’s Annual Report, and includes more detailed information on the individuals who have been assessed as posing the highest risk of serious harm and have therefore been managed at MAPP Panel level. The overall number of offenders dealt with during the year, through the MAPP Arrangements is contained in Sections (v) and (vi). The figure 683 at Section (v) is made up of all the probation area’s caseload of sexual and violent offenders who were serving a sentence of 12 months or more, or who were released on licence supervision following such a sentence. It also includes young people supervised by the Youth Offending Service. The total figure will include some of the same offenders as last year in this category, as it counts all those people still serving a long sentence, which may have been imposed prior to 1st April 2002. This total figure is less than the number appearing under the same category in last year’s Annual Report. This is because we counted RSOs and those offenders released on licence

during the year, all of whom had already been counted in the figures. Taking this into account the number of “other sexual and violent offenders” dealt with under MAPPA has risen by about 92 individuals in actuality, representing an increase of 15%. In addition to the relevant sexual and violent offenders, there are a small number of individuals who came to the notice of an agency e.g. probation, police, SSD, health, and who are assessed as posing a high risk of serious harm which then necessitates management at a higher level. This is the relatively small number of ‘other offenders’ (Section 67 (2) (b) Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000) contained in Section (vi), who are managed through the Panel or at RSM level. A total of 39 individuals were managed through the Panel between 1st April 2002 and 31st March 2003, and Section vii contains a breakdown of the category into which they fall. A number of these panel cases were de-registered for different reasons: if they were returned to custody, transferred to another area, or if the level of risk they continued to present had successfully been managed, and

they were reviewed and assessed as no longer needing management through the Panel. At the end of the year 31st March 2003, we have only 14 individuals who are registered at MAPP Panel level. The figure of 39 in total is not made up of all new cases, some individuals will have remained at Panel level from the previous year, and some will have been re-referred on release following a period of recall to custody. In addition, the Panel members are gaining experience and expertise in their defensible decision making, and are able to de-register more individuals in the knowledge that the RSM level can appropriately manage them. The Panel Register increasingly only includes those who meet the Home Office criteria of ‘the critical few’. Section (viii) describes ways in which the Responsible Authority, through the Panel, has carried out the function of public protection in a number of cases, through effective risk management plans, close supervision and monitoring of post custody licences and Sex Offender Orders. The result of these actions is evidenced in the 14 offenders who were either recalled to custody for breach of a

condition in their licence, or sentenced to custody for breaching a condition in their Sex Offender Order. These outcomes are the result of preventative actions by the agencies, so that further offending by these 14 individuals was pre-empted by vigorous action. Although the agencies can take all professional steps to limit the likelihood of an offender repeating their offences, or to reduce the seriousness and impact of any further offending, risk cannot be completely eliminated. Only 1 MAPPA Panel case went on to re-offend in the year. He was, however, quickly apprehended and brought to justice as a result of the close oversight of the Panel. The number of registered sex offenders in the county has increased by 15 this year. This increase is smaller than in many other areas. It can be accounted for in a number of ways: by a more accurate and refined processing of police

information on RSOs in Nottingham which has been dependent on other areas’ action in registering exNottinghamshire offenders’ details by the fact that a number of offenders have moved out of the county following increased police activity in their cases by offenders being returned to custody for breach of their sex offender orders or failure to notify their details, constituting further offences by “natural wastage” i.e. some offenders who were required to register their details in 1997/8 at the start of the Sex Offender Act have reached the end of their registration period and they no longer appear on the RSO database. The level of compliance nationally with the requirements of the Sex Offender Act 1997 is very high, and in the county there have been only

10 cautions for breaching the requirement. The police monitor the registration of individuals by visiting the homes of registered sex offenders, either at divisional level or by the DPMU. The Nottinghamshire police have applied for and been granted another 6 Sex Offender Orders this year: this brings the total number still operative to 23. These orders are monitored by the specialist officers in the DPMU, in close liaison with beat officers and other agencies. They have proved to be a positive external control measure that we can use as part of an overall risk management plan. In addition, a number of offenders who have been breached, have been given prison sentences within which treatment interventions have been started. Sex Offender Order applications are only recommended through risk strategy plans because of their serious and intrusive nature; however we have found them a very useful risk management tool.


MAPPP Protocol National Probation Service, Nottinghamshire Area Email: Address Head Office Marina Road Castle Marina Nottingham NG7 1TP Phone 0115 840 6461

Nottinghamshire Police Service

Service Headquarters Sherwood Lodge Arnold Nottingham NG5 8PP

0115 9420999

Gedling PCTC

Carlton House Clinic 61 Burton Road Carlton NG4 3DQ

0115 840 5921

Chief Executive’s Office Notts County Council

County Hall West Bridgford Nottingham NG2 7QP

0115 982 3823

Chief Executive’s Office Nottingham City Council

The Guildhall South Sherwood Street Nottingham NG1 4BT

0115 915 5555 (switchboard)

City Social Services Directorate

14 Hounds Gate Nottingham

0115 915 5500

Victim Services Nottinghamshire Probation Area County Victim Contact Team



46 Nottingham Road Mansfield NG18 1BL 2nd Floor Albion House 5-13 Canal Street Nottingham NG1 7EG

01623 460843

City Victim Contact Team

0115 859 9423

Victim Support Scheme National Support Line 0845 30 30 900

Local Victim Support Scheme Area Office County Manager Email: 2 King Edward Court King Edward Street Nottingham NG1 1EL 0115 852 3507

Manager – Outreach Service Mansfield & Ashfield Nottingham City North & East Nottinghamshire (Bassetlaw, Newark & Sherwood) South Nottinghamshire

0115 844 5095 01623 450 088 0115 844 5993 01909 500 455 0115 844 6070

Witness Service Manager – Witness Service British Transport Police Email:

Address 1 Queens Road Nottingham NG2 3AS

Phone 0115 986 9924

Police Logo to go here

Probation Logo to go here

Printers details to go here

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.