You are on page 1of 28


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

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

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

During the past year public protection work with individuals has
included a more diverse set of agency staff including:

ƒ Victim Contact
ƒ Community mental health teams
ƒ Outreach services to the homeless
ƒ Forensic services in the sphere of low, medium and high security
ƒ Social care services with vulnerable adults, those with learning
difficulties, and those with young people and children
ƒ Housing authorities and housing providers in the independent
ƒ Young offender institutions and the adult prison estate
ƒ Youth offending teams
ƒ Health providers in hospitals and general practice and in the
community e.g. occupational health
ƒ Police in local communities and in specialist provision such as
child abuse investigation, domestic violence and the sexual
exploitation of children
ƒ Benefit agency and employment services
ƒ Education welfare
ƒ 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 re-
structuring 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, co-

ordinating 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 the Criminal Justice and Court Act 2000, the risk assessment
Nottinghamshire Probation area (as Services Act 2000. informs court reports, sentence
the Responsible Authority) work planning in prisons, pre-release
together in the identification, The risk assessments undertaken by planning, and in the supervision
assessment and management of detectives in the DPMU, in planning of community orders.
relevant sexual and violent conjunction with senior police Across the National Probation
offenders, as described in the officers, are done in close Service a new and detailed offender
Criminal Justice and Court Services collaboration with colleagues in assessment system (OASys) has
Act 2000 Sections 67 and 68. probation and social service been developed and implemented.
departments who are actively This assessment tool is used to
In practice, risk assessment and involved in the issues of child assess the factors which have a
management is carried out by police protection, child sexual exploitation, bearing both on an individual’s
and probation officers through the protection of vulnerable adults, offending, and on the factors directly
operation of risk of re-conviction and others in the care sector and the related to the risk of harm they pose
risk of harm tools, and the field of mental and physical health. if they should re-offend. OASys is
procedures detailed in the The DPMU maintains responsibility now being used to assess levels of
Nottinghamshire Protocol. for managing all offenders whose risk and develop risk management
shared risk assessment indicates plans. It complements the police
MAPP arrangements are in place, that they are at either “high” or “very risk of re-conviction tool (Risk Matrix
operated via the Protocol to manage high” risk of re-offending seriously. 2000). Both assessment systems
offenders at different levels: The DPMU aims to continually use the same four levels of risk: low,
offenders who are assessed as consider all offenders who pose a medium, high and very high. From
posing a lower risk are managed at high risk of serious harm, and to this year, OASys will be introduced
single agency level, following the monitor their situation. throughout the prison system. This
collation of information from other will produce more consistency in
agencies e.g. SSD, prison, mental Those sex offenders subject to the assessment and definition across
health services. Those who are Sex Offenders Act 1997, who are the criminal justice system.
identified as presenting a higher risk assessed as posing a low or medium
need to be managed by processes risk of re-conviction, are managed at All assessments are made using
involving more agencies and a Local Area Command level. This information from other agencies, and
detailed co-ordination, through the means that officers can use their reviewed at key stages in their
vehicles of the Risk Strategy local knowledge to monitor the sentence or order. Those offenders
Meeting (RSM) or the Multi-Agency situation and liaise with the DPMU. who pose a high or very high risk of
Public Protection Panel: the MAPPP. The Multi-Agency Public Protection harm are ‘risk-registered’ within the
Manager works alongside the probation service systems and
detectives in the DPMU. In this way managed through the framework of
i. Police professional expertise, information, the Risk Strategy Meeting and/or
risk assessment and management is MAPP Panel, as outlined in the
In Nottinghamshire the police role of shared on an immediate day-to-day Nottinghamshire Protocol.
identification and assessment of basis.
sexual and violent offenders remains
within the remit of the specialist unit, iii. Partners in Risk
the Dangerous Persons ii. Probation Management
Management Unit (DPMU). The
unit is responsible for maintaining A risk of harm assessment is Police and probation work together
the register of sex offenders who are undertaken on all individuals in within the Nottinghamshire MAPP
obliged to notify the police of their contact with the service, by Arrangements on a day-to-day basis.
details, and any changes. The unit probation staff in Nottinghamshire. In the main, there needs to be no
is also responsible for initiating This process starts pre-court where more inter-agency action than
prosecutions for failures to comply information is shared with police, sharing information and making a
with the Sex Offenders Act 1976. social service or health staff as multi-agency risk assessment. Most
The unit therefore carries out the appropriate. In respect of the offenders are managed by one
responsibilities of the police under relevant offenders detailed in the agency on the basis of that shared
Criminal Justice and Court Services information and assessment.
However the sharing of information vi. Youth Offending education, environmental and
and formulation of risk of harm Service licensing departments working
assessments, and the management through community safety
of the high and very high risk partnerships and forums.
The Youth Offending Teams are part
offenders depends on the
of the criminal justice system, and as
collaboration and co-operation of a In particular the housing sector
such they manage the young
number of other agencies involved in (including the independent sector)
offenders who may present a risk to
the area of care and control. has played an essential role in the
others. However these children and
management plans drawn up by the
young people are also themselves
agencies to deal with individuals who
sometimes very damaged by their
iv. Social Services current childhood experiences, and
are already living in the community
Departments or who need to be resettled after
may have been the victims of
release from institutions. The
offenders also being managed by
provision of appropriate
In Nottinghamshire the social the police and probation services.
accommodation, which minimises an
services departments are committed The Youth Offender Teams are
individual’s risk to others, is one of
to working with the criminal justice therefore important in the working
the most important risk management
agencies in protecting different together process between child
tools we have available. When a
groups within our communities. protection, police and probation
person is housed as safely as
Child Protection Teams are used to services and take part in the Risk
possible it becomes easier for
working together with police and Strategy Meetings and Panel
partner agencies to monitor them
probation officers, and relevant processes where young people may
and put further actions in place such
partner agencies in accordance with be the subject of a management
as electronically monitored curfews
area child protection procedures. plan, or are indeed, victims who
or exclusion conditions. Housing
Other teams within the social need further protection.
authorities are drawing up local
services are now following this
strategies for providing services for
model within the multi-agency public
vulnerable people. Housing those
protection procedures. In Risk vii. The Prison Service individuals who are at a high risk of
Strategy Meetings and Panels, Agency re-offending are part of these
social workers (with responsibility for
strategies, and are a vital part of the
areas across the board such as
The role of prisons in the risk commitment to protecting the public.
people with learning difficulties,
management of offenders has been
physical disabilities and mental
critical in the past year. The prison
health problems and those working
service is an integral part of the ix. Outreach Service Teams
in hospitals or residential settings),
Panel, and it is expected that
have taken part in devising risk
relevant prison staff attend meetings
management plans, and agreed to Teams who are part of the provision
at either Risk Strategy Meeting or
actions designed to protect potential of outreach services to the
Panel level. Information about
victims. homeless, whether in the field of
prisoners’ behaviour in prison, their
accommodation, physical and
attitudes, contacts and their
mental health or drug and alcohol
participation in any therapeutic
v. The Health Service programmes has been invaluable in
treatment have also played their part
in the management of high risk
planning the safer resettlement of
Health services cover a huge range individuals in the community in the
high-risk offenders.
of provision. In particular, in the city and county.
field of specialist forensic mental
health and learning disabilities, drug All this risk management work will be
viii. City and County further developed in the coming year
and alcohol treatment practitioners
Councils in response to government
have played their part in public
protection through participation in legislation and guidance.
multi-agency plans to minimise risk All local authority departments have
to patients, staff and the public. 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, and concerns of the victims. Most posed and devises a risk
by the nature of their statutory high-risk offenders are the subjects management plan. The proceedings
duties, take the lead role in the of Risk Strategy Meetings; only 39 and the decisions taken, are noted
assessment and management of the offenders were subjects of the by the Administrator who acts as
relevant offenders within our MAPP highest level of management i.e. the secretary to the Panel. The Panel
Arrangements, as described in the MAPP Panel. Attendance at these also decides whether the individual
previous section. meetings comprises representatives meets the criteria for registration on
from all agencies and departments the Public Protection Register.
Although the figure of almost 700 that have a part to play in the public
offenders who came within the protection process. There is a core Only 14 cases remain registered at
arrangements appears large, the membership on the Panel, which the end of 2002/03. These cases
majority of these individuals are meets monthly on a pre-determined comprise individuals whose risk are
managed at the lowest levels of date. It is convened and chaired by assessed as the most serious and
normal single agency management. the MAPP manager and has the difficult to manage, and includes also
Under one third of these offenders, services of an Administrator. Any cases who are the subject of intense
who are the responsibility of the agency can refer an individual to the media interest (as this carries with it
probation service, need to be Panel if they meet the criteria of associated risk to others and the
referred to higher levels. In the highest risk of serious harm. public in general). The Public
same way, one third of the Protection Register is held, in
registered sex offenders might be confidence, by the MAPP Manager.
assessed as needing to be managed The Panel The role of the MAPP Manager is to
centrally. The rest remain the manage and co-ordinate the
responsibility of police local area The MAPP Panel comprises senior operation of the Panel on behalf of
command to monitor. managers representing; police, all the agencies involved.
probation, child protection services,
The high-risk sexual and violent health, forensic psychology, local Risk Strategy Meetings operate on
offenders, who are the statutory authority housing, prison and the the level below the Panel, however
responsibility of the probation youth offending services, covering attendance mirrors the Panel, but at
service, are supervised closely the city and county. There is a team management and practitioner
according to national standards; process for the inclusion of senior level. During 2002/03 with
managing their risk of harm is managers from other departments, probation, essential agencies such
prioritised in plans for their projects or agencies on particular as housing, mental health, social
supervision. In the case of cases such as education, welfare, services, prison, and police (either
registered sex offenders who pose health commissioning services, from the DPMU or local area
high risk of re-conviction, the DPMU community mental health services, command) have consistently
prioritise home visits and monitoring. drug/alcohol treatment or psychiatric attended Risk Strategy Meetings.
services. Senior management is
The Risk Strategy Meeting and necessary at Panel level because of Both Panels and Risk Strategy
Panel meetings provide the vehicles the level of decision making Meetings operate the MAPP
for the assessment and necessary e.g. in terms of Arrangements by devising and
management of these offenders. resourcing, speed of response to a acting on risk management plans.
Their objectives are the same: to situation, or specialist information. Such plans contain a series of
share information between agencies, actions for the different agencies,
make multi-agency risk assessments Each month individual cases are and a number of tools that can be
and develop multi-agency risk presented to the Panel by a referring used to manage the different risks
management plans. Both sets of agency, such as the probation presented. Since 1991 public
meetings therefore follow the same service. A probation officer protection legislation has been
agenda, taking into account accompanied by a senior probation enacted which allows us to monitor
information on the offender and officer would then present the case and control, to some extent, an
his/her behaviour from various to the panel. The Panel comes to a offender’s behaviour. We can never
sources, including the experience joint assessment of what risks are eliminate risk, but we can seek to
reduce the likelihood of an event We have found in managing risk offence has not been committed, but
happening and/or the seriousness of effectively one of the most important the individual’s behaviour may be
such an event. factors (particularly on release from mirroring their previous pre-offending
prison), is suitable accommodation. behaviour.
Other controls Conditions of residence are
commonly used in licences, often to The decision to pursue a Sex
External and internal controls can be approved hostels or other residential Offender Order in order to manage a
used. We have more offenders now units, which might offer specific sex offender is always taken on a
who were sentenced to lengthier treatment or offending behaviour multi-agency basis, at a Risk
sentences and longer periods of programmes. Most importantly, Strategy Meeting or Panel meeting.
supervision post-release. This has local authority housing departments The final decision is made at senior
allowed prisons to work with have worked within the public officer level in the police service.
offenders on Sex Offender protection arrangements to house The DPMU officers work with the
Treatment Programmes, and individuals in accommodation police service Solicitor in applying for
probation to work with these appropriate to their risks and needs. the order.
individuals on licence supervision on This is unquestionably a sensitive
relapse prevention strategies. In issue for many councils and The DPMU officers are responsible
the community, there has been a authorities, but without stable for managing the sex offender
rollout of tested, effective accommodation the agencies cannot orders. They do this through visiting
Community Sex Offender monitor offenders and offenders the offender at their home and
Programmes and these are used on themselves cannot access the monitoring local intelligence. The
community orders or during programmes which promote them Sex Offender Order itself sometimes
extended periods of licence taking responsibility for their works as an internal control for some
supervision. These treatment offending, and to work towards some offenders; it acts as a constant
programmes, alongside effective level of rehabilitation. Evidence reminder to them that they must not
treatment delivered by partner demonstrates that individuals are put themselves in risky situations. It
psychiatric and psychological much more likely to become is also an effective method of
services, allow high-risk offenders to vulnerable and to offend, if they external control; offenders are
develop internal strategies for cannot access housing provision. prevented from doing things, or
preventing re-offending. In the going to places where they are more
same way, conditions in licences The Crown Court has yet to make likely to offend. Any breach of one
and on community orders which use of the restraining order on sex of the Order’s conditions constitutes
bring offenders into drug or alcohol offenders. This order is made at the an offence, punishable by up to 5
programmes, work on giving time of sentence and is designed to years in prison. In 2002/03, 7
offenders responsibility for prevent sex offenders, on release or offenders were returned to custody
controlling their offending behaviour, during custody, from re-victimising for breach of the Sex Offender
and lead to sanctions such as recall their victims or behaving in ways Order. One offender was sentenced
if the offender does not co-operate. which could lead to offending. On to the maximum of 5 years
the other hand, the Magistrates’ imprisonment; others were
Other ways of managing offenders Courts have now made 23 Sex sentenced to shorter periods of
include the imposition of more Offender Orders in Nottinghamshire, imprisonment.
external controls, for example and 6 have been imposed on
conditions in licences which exclude individuals during 2002/03. The In addition to managing the Sex
or ban offenders from forms of Sex Offender Order was introduced Offender Orders, the DPMU manage
employment, or places or areas, or in the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act. the higher risk registered sex
from contacting their victims or those It is civil order, applied for and offenders and liaise with local areas
with whom they offended. The managed by the police. It is a on the lower risk registered sex
electronically monitored curfew (tag) preventative order. This means it is offenders. The police have limited
has been used on a number of used to prevent offending rather than powers under the Sex Offenders Act
occasions with high-risk offenders in as a punishment for an offence that 1997, but they home visit to ensure
order to interrupt their pattern of has been committed. It is used the presence of offenders at their
behaviour and protect particular primarily with offenders who have registered addresses, and take
categories of victim such as children. come to the attention of agencies further appropriate actions if they
because their inappropriate receive intelligence which is of
behaviour is causing concern. An concern on any registered sex
offender in Nottinghamshire. After increase a potential victim’s ability to has a statutory duty to share the
statutory periods of offender protect themselves or others, and it risks that certain offenders present
supervision come to an end, the should be part of an agreed strategy with the employment services, and
police are often the key agency with clear boundaries, and within a this is done routinely to prevent
involved in public protection. They risk management plan. Decisions to individuals working in jobs which
will use the skills of the beat officer, disclose information are made on a could make others vulnerable to
community police and any case by case basis and any them.
surveillance evidence to monitor recommendation to disclose must be
behaviour and pass concerns to the approved by the police at Assistant All these risk management devices,
DPMU if necessary. Chief Constable level. (which can be very intrusive in a
person’s life), are imposed only after
A further risk management device is In Nottinghamshire, disclosure as a a thorough risk assessment. They
the use of disclosure of information. protective device has been made to have therefore to be both
The police have an important and individuals either directly affected by appropriate to the individual case
general power to disclose the risk of harm or to those who hold and proportionate to the risks posed
information for the prevention, a level of responsibility towards bearing in mind the rights and
detection and reduction of crime. others and have an ability to act on obligations of all concerned in the
All agencies who are part of the the information to protect themselves process i.e. agencies, offender and
public protection framework have or others. Disclosure has been victim.
agreed a set of principles with made to particular employers,
respect to disclosure. The main schools, parents and projects in the
principle is that disclosure should past year. The probation service


4. The Strategic Management of MAPPA

The MAPP Arrangements are The Strategic Management Board MAPPA), associated MAPPA
overseen by a strategic functions to agree and review the guidance, and to further legislation
management Steering Group. The effective operation of the MAPPA. It concerning sexual offences, the
Steering Group was set up under the has been chaired, and sits within the Strategic Management Board have
Nottinghamshire Protocol and has remit of, the Chief Probation Officer agreed the creation of an additional
been renamed the Strategic for the Nottinghamshire Probation MAPP manager post.
Management Board and has been Area.
reviewed, within the framework of The new post of “MAPPA Strategy
the Criminal Justice and Court The Strategic Management Board and Policy Officer” is an innovative
Services Act 2000. has met quarterly in the last year response to the Strategic
and received reports from the MAPP Management Board’s strategic
The Strategic Management Board Manager on the function of the function and the “Responsible
has historically represented at arrangements; it is strategically Authority’s” statutory duty to put in
strategic level, the member agencies responsible for the preparation of place effective arrangements in
that have made a commitment to the this MAPPA Annual Report 2002/03. respect of the management of
multi-agency management of sexual and other violent offenders,
potentially dangerous people in As a result of the increased and to review and evaluate the
Nottinghamshire. In 2002/03, senior demands of proposed legislation workings of the MAPPA. The
staff from the health service, concerning MAPPA (i.e. the closer Strategic and Policy Officer’s key
covering both the city and county, working arrangements that need to role is to service the Strategic
police, probation and the offices of be negotiated with agencies and Management Board in ensuring that
the City and County Councils’ Chief local authority departments who will the arrangements are compliant with
Executives have attended meetings. have a “duty to co-operate” with the legislation for the protection of the
public and that all agencies involved how we are carrying out the public closely with the Strategy and Policy
are able to implement the protection function as laid down in Officer on reviewing and evaluating
arrangements. The dedication of a current and forthcoming legislation. the performance of the
full-time officer to the strategic arrangements.
development of the MAPPA will The original post of MAPP Manager,
ensure that links will be made across within which the growing area of The Strategic Management Board
agencies and committees involved in policy development was carried out, has decided that both public
the protection of the public and can then be wholly devoted to protection posts will be multi-agency
vulnerable groups e.g. the Area operational matters. The MAPP funded, which is a strong and
Child Protection Committees and the Manager will continue to be tangible message that across the
Nottinghamshire Committee for the responsible for the operation of the health, probation and police services
Protection of Vulnerable Adults; that MAPP Panel, and the joint working and the City and County Councils
lessons and recommendations from arrangements for the management there is an on-going commitment to
reports and enquiries will be of relevant sexual and violent protecting the community in
pursued; and that the Responsible offenders. They will also be able to Nottinghamshire from harm.
Authority can carry out an effective develop the post in line with the
on-going review and evaluation of further MAPPA Guidance and work


5. Victim Work
The Nottinghamshire Probation Area concerns about the offender’s damaging assaults retain
is committed to enhancing the eventual return to the community, understandable fears about what
position of victims of crime within the and to make representations may happen to them in the future,
criminal justice system; there is also concerning conditions which could depending on what happens to the
a strong link between the statutory be attached to a prison licence. In offender who has hurt them. Their
victim contact service provided by Nottinghamshire, in response to the concerns often centre around
probation, and victim support Criminal Justice and Court Services whether the offender could escape
schemes locally. Act 2000, every victim of a sexual or from custody, concerns for their
other violent crime (where the safety if they are forced to give
In practice, direct victim contact work offender is sentenced to 12 months evidence at a trial and the
is undertaken by a specialist team of imprisonment or more) is contacted perpetrator can then recognise them,
probation staff who are located by the Victim Contact Unit within two and on-going fears of harassment
throughout the county. A detailed months of the offender receiving the when the offender is released, or
policy and practice guidance are in prison sentence. Victims are offered fear of the offender returning to live
place which direct the work of the a home visit, with an appointment in the victim’s home area.
probation Victim Contact Unit. date; if a person does not want
contact, that is clearly respected. Positioning victim contact within the
The victim contact staff have aligned Some victims do not want home probation service’s work has meant
their practice with the duty imposed visits at that early stage, but want to that staff working with the
on them by the Criminal Justice and be kept informed about release perpetrators, take into account when
Court Services Act 2000, Section 69. times and any future possibility of assessing and planning to manage
Under this section more victims of meeting accidentally with their the risks presented, the victim’s
sexual and violent offences have perpetrator. Some home visits are experience, fears and concerns.
had their concerns recognised and done on a multi-agency basis in Systems are in place to ensure that
often allayed through receiving conjunction with staff from Victim at strategic points in an offender’s
accurate and timely information. Support and the police service. sentence, probation officers can use
Victims are given the opportunity to firm information to make more
be kept informed about a custodial Many victims who have experienced informed judgements. Sharing
sentence, of expressing any serious physically and emotionally information both empowers victims
and protects them. In Risk Strategy contact work can directly re-assure free and confidential service,
Meetings and Panels, information and empower victims by informing whether or not a crime has been
from the Victim Contact Unit is fed in them of the measures being taken to reported. Trained staff and
via the probation officers. This meet their personal concerns. volunteers at local branches offer
informs any pre-release actions, and information and support to victims,
risk management plans, and enables Information from victims has witnesses, their families and friends.
us to work pro-actively on behalf of enhanced the work done within the
past victims as well as any potential MAPP Arrangements. It has Victim Support provides the Witness
future victims. We can include in enabled agencies to take direct Service, based in every criminal
post custody licences, a number of action to minimise the risk of re- court in England and Wales, to offer
conditions, which can address for victimisation, and because of its assistance before, during and after a
the victims’ fears e.g. conditions of particular perspective, victim trial. You can also call the Victim
residence, exclusions from specific information has proved invaluable in Support Line – 0845 30 30 900 – for
areas or conditions of non-contact the process of assessment, thus more information and support and
with past victims. Any breaches of contributing directly to the risk details of local services and relevant
these types of condition normally management plan and the protection organisations.
results in the offender being returned of future victims.
to custody. Whilst the probation Victim Contact and Victim Support
officers dealing with the perpetrator Often working in conjunction with Scheme details are provided at the
work on behalf of victims in this way, probation Victim Contact, Victim end of this report.
alongside other agencies such as Support is the charity for people
police and housing, different affected by crime. It is an .
probation staff working within victim independent organisation, offering a
6. Case Studies
CASE STUDY ONE: Risk and Assessment Outcome
Importance of health and housing
involvement in the MAPPA ƒ High risk of serious ƒ Housing department prioritised
sexual/violent assault on the application and an
An offender who had been recalled previous victim. appropriate address was
to prison for breaching a condition of allocated on release.
his licence was due to be re- ƒ High risk of violent assault on
released without statutory others as a result of deterioration ƒ GP allocated by health services.
supervision. in his mental health and/or
alcohol abuse, lack of stable ƒ Mental health assessment
accommodation or access to GP undertaken; community
or psychiatric intervention. psychiatric nurse allocated to the
ƒ Long history of violent offending
coupled with history of alcohol
Risk Management Plan
ƒ Consultant psychiatrist and
abuse. psychologist engaged offender
ƒ Liaison with health service to
ensure early access to GP with in treatment, motivated to work
ƒ Present sentence for sexual and on violent offending.
other violence. knowledge of risks to victim and
ƒ Offender notified details of
ƒ No evidence of any positive address to police.
change in attitudes or behaviour ƒ Consultant psychologist agreed
during prison sentence. to re-refer offender to forensic
mental health allocations ƒ DPMU visited at different times
meeting to secure timely to monitor situation.
ƒ Disruptive behaviour in prison,
subject to outbursts of anger, psychological/psychiatric
intervention. ƒ Victim helped to move address
loss of control and threatening under the appropriate legislation;
behaviour towards staff. new GP and new address
ƒ Housing agreed to prioritise
housing application for time of checked in order that offender
ƒ Previous psychiatric diagnosis of and victim’s home area were not
depression and an untreatable release.
the same.
personality disorder
ƒ Risks flagged on police
intelligence system for fast Although the offender complied
ƒ Lost accommodation when initially with his registration
originally sentenced; response. DPMU involvement.
obligations, he then moved without
accommodated with family on notifying his details, and moved once
previous release but this option ƒ Victim to be visited by police re
safety systems to be put in again and complied. Visits by the
is no longer available. DPMU lead to prosecution under the
Sex Offender Act 1997. However,
ƒ Recalled to prison the day after since this offender’s risks have been
release on licence for breach of ƒ DPMU to plan visits under Sex
Offender Act 1997 to monitor greatly reduced and he became
condition of non-contact with stabilised with psychiatric oversight
victim. offender and alcohol use.
and a settled address, all agencies
involved in the court process worked
ƒ Housing project assessed towards a non-custodial sentence as
offender as too high risk to be the best risk management plan.
housed with other vulnerable
people; still claiming symptoms
of psychopathy.
CASE STUDY TWO: Risks Outcome
Surveillance and control
ƒ Very high risk of serious sexual ƒ Surveillance enabled the
Two offenders were referred to the assaults against children. offenders to be tracked to
MAPP Panel by the police service. Nottingham.
ƒ High risk of the offenders
Background disappearing immediately and ƒ DPMU visited, having prioritised
being unmonitored in the this very high-risk case.
ƒ Both offenders were prolific,
ƒ Fail to register the address
entrenched, predatory
ƒ Risk Management Plan within the permitted time was
paedophiles with a history of
sexual offences, who had met
ƒ Nottinghamshire police service
within the prison system.
were to liaise with other services ƒ Sex Offender Orders were
in the area of offender’s release, imposed on both offenders.
ƒ Evidence from prison security
and with prison from which
revealed plans to meet and
offender was to be released. ƒ Sex Offender Orders also
commit serious sexual offences
imposes sex offender
against children.
ƒ Police to track the progress of registration on the second
both men together across the offender.
ƒ One offender was due to be
released from prison
ƒ Disclosure to the relevant church
unconditionally, following recall
ƒ Police to visit wherever authorities enabled them to
for breach of licence conditions.
offenders eventually settled. protect their congregations.
ƒ Risks were seriously heightened
ƒ Information on current church ƒ One offender accommodated in
by association with each other.
involvement to be gained. a way that minimises the risks to
ƒ Neither offender was subject to
ƒ MAPP Manager to inform the
any statutory supervision or
Diocesan Child Protection ƒ Both offenders vigorously
oversight by any agency.
Officer, for involvement by the monitored.
ƒ Only one offender was a
ƒ Both sex offenders arrested for
registered sex offender, subject
ƒ Possible disclosure discussed breach of their sex offender
to notifying his details to the
and put before Assistant Chief orders and are currently
Constable. remanded in custody.
ƒ Community religious groups had
ƒ Evidence of behaviour mirroring
been used in the past as a way
previous pre-offending behaviour
of gaining credibility in the
to be collected.
community and targeting families
with young children.
ƒ Application for Sex Offender
Order discussed as an external
ƒ It was not clear where these two
control method, and way of
men would travel, but they had
separating the offenders.
transport and intended to
immediately meet up.
ƒ Housing department agreed to
look at appropriate
accommodation for one offender
to enable the separation.
Importance of close liaison
between police and probation ƒ High risk of serious sexual ƒ The MAPP Manager wrote to
abuse of vulnerable children in Housing Associations alerting
This offender was referred to the vulnerable families by them to the need to refer to the
MAPP Panel by the probation ingratiating himself and Housing Panel member for
service. assuming the role of trusted information on the offender if he
adult. should apply to them.
Risk Management Plan ƒ Accommodation was allocated
via a housing association which
ƒ Previous offences for sexual enabled monitoring by
assault of young boys. ƒ Accommodation issues were to
be managed by police and management and minimised his
MAPP Manager liaison with the risk locally, as there were no
ƒ Pattern of offending indicated an families with children in the
ability to groom children over a homeless hostel.
long period of time; used various
devices to gain their interest and ƒ The offender’s behaviour at the
hostel was to be monitored ƒ His employment and activities
trust. were monitored by the DPMU in
closely to prevent grooming of
staff to obtain access to their liaison with child protection
ƒ Gained positions in the services and probation.
community, which brought trust families.
and kudos e.g. volunteer and ƒ A sex offender order was applied
charity work. ƒ Settled accommodation was
necessary in order to better for and granted.
ƒ On a community order he failed monitor the offender and
manage his risks: the hostel ƒ DPMU sent out information and
to comply with any conditions ‘flagged' the offender on their
willingly: avoided reporting, project would refer to housing
associations. system.
giving information and did not
comply with the sex offender ƒ DPMU visited the home and
treatment programme. ƒ Disclosure to any housing
association that agreed to supported the housing
consider the offender was association in managing the
ƒ Networking with other known offender.
offenders who were in his sought from the ACC.
address when police visited. ƒ Whilst in custody for further
ƒ Sex offender order was
discussed at the Panel and it offences of theft, his
ƒ History of other dishonesty on circumstances were
going; abuse of vulnerable was agreed to look at evidence
for an application by the police. investigated.
people and their identification
cards for different services. ƒ Liaison with SSD child
ƒ The probation service agreed to
write reports for court on various protection, police child abuse
ƒ Community order was revoked investigation officers and DPMU
and no statutory supervision was offences of dishonesty and on
breach, proposing sentences led to information that the
then in place. offender was in a relationship
which could result in an
opportunity for the offender to with a woman with small
ƒ Accommodation was unsettled children, and through her he had
as the local authority had been engage in treatment
programmes in prison. groomed a further family into
the subject of his dishonesty; in allowing him supervisory access
hostel accommodation. to young children.
ƒ The police would monitor any
employment and risk, frequently,
under the Sex Offender Act The offender was prosecuted for
1997. breach of the sex offender order and
sentenced to the maximum prison
sentence of five years.
7. Statistical Information No. of Offenders

i. The number of registered sex offenders on 31 March 2003 607

ii. The number of sex offenders having a registration requirement who were either 10
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 7

(b) The total number granted 6

(c) The total number not granted 1

iv. The number of Restraining Orders issued by the courts between 1 April 2002 0
and 31 March 2003 for offenders currently managed within MAPPA

v. The number of violent and other sexual offenders considered under MAPPA 701
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 16
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

a) MAPPP - registered sex offenders 26

b) MAPPP - violent and other sex offenders 8

c) MAPPP - other offenders 5

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 7

b) who were returned to custody for breach of a Restraining Order or Sex 7

Offender Order

c) charged with a serious sexual or violent offence 1

The information contained in during the year, all of whom had they were reviewed and assessed
Section 7 builds on the statistics already been counted in the figures. as no longer needing management
published in last year’s Annual through the Panel.
Report, and includes more detailed Taking this into account the number
information on the individuals who of “other sexual and violent At the end of the year 31st March
have been assessed as posing the offenders” dealt with under MAPPA 2003, we have only 14 individuals
highest risk of serious harm and has risen by about 92 individuals in who are registered at MAPP Panel
have therefore been managed at actuality, representing an increase of level. The figure of 39 in total is
MAPP Panel level. 15%. not made up of all new cases,
some individuals will have
The overall number of offenders In addition to the relevant sexual and remained at Panel level from the
dealt with during the year, through violent offenders, there are a small previous year, and some will have
the MAPP Arrangements is number of individuals who came to been re-referred on release
contained in Sections (v) and (vi). the notice of an agency e.g. following a period of recall to
The figure 683 at Section (v) is probation, police, SSD, health, and custody. In addition, the Panel
made up of all the probation area’s who are assessed as posing a high members are gaining experience
caseload of sexual and violent risk of serious harm which then and expertise in their defensible
offenders who were serving a necessitates management at a decision making, and are able to
sentence of 12 months or more, or higher level. This is the relatively de-register more individuals in the
who were released on licence small number of ‘other offenders’ knowledge that the RSM level can
supervision following such a (Section 67 (2) (b) Criminal Justice appropriately manage them. The
sentence. It also includes young and Court Services Act 2000) Panel Register increasingly only
people supervised by the Youth contained in Section (vi), who are includes those who meet the
Offending Service. The total figure managed through the Panel or at Home Office criteria of ‘the critical
will include some of the same RSM level. few’.
offenders as last year in this
category, as it counts all those A total of 39 individuals were Section (viii) describes ways in
people still serving a long managed through the Panel between which the Responsible Authority,
sentence, which may have been 1st April 2002 and 31st March 2003, through the Panel, has carried out
imposed prior to 1st April 2002. and Section vii contains a the function of public protection in
This total figure is less than the breakdown of the category into a number of cases, through
number appearing under the same which they fall. A number of these effective risk management plans,
category in last year’s Annual panel cases were de-registered for close supervision and monitoring
Report. This is because we different reasons: if they were of post custody licences and Sex
counted RSOs and those returned to custody, transferred to Offender Orders. The result of
offenders released on licence another area, or if the level of risk these actions is evidenced in the
they continued to present had 14 offenders who were either
successfully been managed, and recalled to custody for breach of a
condition in their licence, or information on RSOs in 10 cautions for breaching the
sentenced to custody for breaching Nottingham which has been requirement. The police monitor
a condition in their Sex Offender dependent on other areas’ action the registration of individuals by
Order. These outcomes are the in registering ex- visiting the homes of registered
result of preventative actions by Nottinghamshire offenders’ sex offenders, either at divisional
the agencies, so that further details level or by the DPMU. The
offending by these 14 individuals Nottinghamshire police have
was pre-empted by vigorous ƒ by the fact that a number of applied for and been granted
action. Although the agencies can offenders have moved out of the another 6 Sex Offender Orders this
take all professional steps to limit county following increased police year: this brings the total number
the likelihood of an offender activity in their cases still operative to 23. These
repeating their offences, or to orders are monitored by the
reduce the seriousness and impact ƒ by offenders being returned to specialist officers in the DPMU, in
of any further offending, risk custody for breach of their sex close liaison with beat officers and
cannot be completely eliminated. offender orders or failure to other agencies. They have proved
Only 1 MAPPA Panel case went notify their details, constituting to be a positive external control
on to re-offend in the year. He further offences measure that we can use as part
was, however, quickly of an overall risk management
apprehended and brought to ƒ by “natural wastage” i.e. some plan. In addition, a number of
justice as a result of the close offenders who were required to offenders who have been
oversight of the Panel. register their details in 1997/8 at breached, have been given prison
the start of the Sex Offender Act sentences within which treatment
The number of registered sex have reached the end of their interventions have been started.
offenders in the county has registration period and they no Sex Offender Order applications
increased by 15 this year. This longer appear on the RSO are only recommended through
increase is smaller than in many database. risk strategy plans because of their
other areas. It can be accounted serious and intrusive nature;
for in a number of ways: The level of compliance nationally however we have found them a
with the requirements of the Sex very useful risk management tool.
ƒ by a more accurate and Offender Act 1997 is very high, and
refined processing of police in the county there have been only


MAPPP Protocol Address Phone

National Probation Service, Nottinghamshire Area Head Office 0115 840 6461
Marina Road
Email: Castle Marina Nottingham

Nottinghamshire Police Service Service Headquarters 0115 9420999

Sherwood Lodge

Gedling PCTC Carlton House Clinic 0115 840 5921

61 Burton Road

Chief Executive’s Office County Hall 0115 982 3823

Notts County Council
West Bridgford

Chief Executive’s Office The Guildhall 0115 915 5555

Nottingham City Council
South Sherwood Street (switchboard)

City Social Services Directorate 14 Hounds Gate 0115 915 5500

Victim Services Address Phone

Nottinghamshire Probation Area

County Victim Contact Team 46 Nottingham Road 01623 460843

NG18 1BL

City Victim Contact Team 2nd Floor 0115 859 9423

Albion House
5-13 Canal Street

Victim Support Scheme

National Support Line 0845 30 30 900

Local Victim Support Scheme

2 King Edward Court 0115 852 3507

Area Office King Edward Street
County Manager Nottingham

Manager – Outreach Service 0115 844 5095

Mansfield & Ashfield 01623 450 088

Nottingham City 0115 844 5993

North & East Nottinghamshire 01909 500 455

(Bassetlaw, Newark & Sherwood)

South Nottinghamshire 0115 844 6070

Witness Service Address Phone

Manager – Witness 1 Queens Road 0115 986 9924

Service Nottingham
British Transport Police NG2 3AS
Police Probation
Logo to go here Logo to go here

Printers details to go here