You are on page 1of 16
South Yorkshire Multi- Agency Public Protection Arrangements Annual Report 2003- 2004

South Yorkshire

Multi- Agency Public Protection Arrangements

Annual Report 2003- 2004


We have pleasure in presenting this, the third annual report on public protection arrangements in South Yorkshire and great pride in the developing strength and continued success of what we have put in place on behalf of our communities.

Protecting South Yorkshire people from the most serious offenders living in our communities continues to be one of the highest priorities of law enforcement agencies and the criminal justice system generally. We believe that we have a positive story to tell in carrying out this work and this report begins to do just that.

The figures alone underline the effectiveness of such public protection work in making sure that serious offenders released from prison back into our communities do not have the opportunity to commit further offences and create more victims.

However, it is important that we don’t rest on our laurels. As the report clearly shows, much work has taken place in 2003/04 to develop our public protection arrangements, to streamline the working arrangements between the organisations involved and to continue to improve our intelligence gathering and monitoring.

More is to come. During the coming year, for the first time, lay members of the public will be involved in managing and advising on how public protection is carried out. The prisons will become central to the system. The Government has strengthened the law to deal with sex offenders and we will make full use of these powers where necessary in South Yorkshire.

We hope that, like us, you will be impressed by what this report has to say and that the public will be reassured by the hard work being carried out on its behalf. We look forward to our public protection arrangements developing further in the years ahead and making a major contribution to the safety of our communities.

Foreword We have pleasure in presenting this, the third annual report on public protection arrangements in

Heather Harker,

Chief Officer, National Probation Service, South Yorkshire.

Foreword We have pleasure in presenting this, the third annual report on public protection arrangements in

Mike Hedges,

Chief Constable, South Yorkshire Police.

Special arrangements to protect the public from sexual and violent offenders have been in place since 2001. Since then, both the local criminal justice agencies and the Government have worked to strengthen our ability to tackle sexual and violent crimes.


The Government has continued to strengthen public protection arrangements in three key areas:

• The prison service has now joined police and probation as a constituent member of the ‘responsible authority’ working alongside the other agencies at the heart of public protection work (see overleaf for further details)

• Certain agencies that can play an important role in preventing re-offending now have a duty to co-operate in public protection work;

• Members of the public now have an opportunity to support and advise the agencies involved and to monitor their effectiveness.

The Government has also strengthened and updated the law relating to sex offences, for example on rape and offences against children, while building on existing powers to restrict the movements of sexual offenders.

The appendix at the back of this report contains full details of these new provisions.

Protecting the public from these violent and sexual offenders is one of our top priorities in South Yorkshire. It is important that people know and understand what is being done on their behalf. This annual report will explain what the special public protection arrangements are in South Yorkshire, how they work and what in particular has been achieved over the past year.







The vast majority of those serving prison sentences will, at some point, be released back into the community. This includes violent and sexual offenders.

Although services such as the police and probation service had worked together for some years in dealing with these offenders, it became a requirement under the law following the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, which has now been updated by Sections 325-327 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Since then, the South Yorkshire public protection unit has co-ordinated the work of a wide range of organisations with the aim of reducing to a minimum the likelihood of violent and sexual offenders causing further harm.

Under the law, the National Probation Service in South Yorkshire, South Yorkshire Police and, from 2004, the Prison Service make up the ‘responsible authority’ that must manage and co- ordinate this work. They do this through the public protection unit.

The unit is made up of:

• The public protection manager (a senior probation officer) • A detective sergeant (to manage specific operational activity) • A police constable (with experience of work in the sexual offences unit) • A unit intelligence assistant • An administrator

Among the key roles of the unit are:

• Receiving preliminary assessments of potentially dangerous offenders • Advising on arrangements for sharing information, assessment and managing cases • Convening multi-agency public protection panels (see page 6 for more details) • Quality control of risk management plans • Maintaining a register of offenders • Co-ordinating sex offender risk assessment panels • Providing some intelligence work • Linking with other public protection arrangements in the region and nationally • Providing training

As already explained, South Yorkshire Police, the National Probation Service in South Yorkshire and the Prison Service are the central organisations involved in public protection arrangements. However, the work would not be possible without the involvement of a range of other agencies that bring their skills and resources to bear in managing sexual and violent offenders.



The major partners are:

• Social services • Local authority housing services • Youth offending teams

• Mental health services

Other organisations are involved on a case-by-case basis, including:

• Education services • Employment service • Drugs and alcohol counselling services • Housing associations and supported accommodation providers • Domestic abuse support services • NSPCC • Junction Project-Barnados

Individual agencies make referrals to the public protection unit if they assess an offender as dangerous. Not surprisingly, the probation service makes most referrals.



it work?

If the public protection unit decides that a joint approach would improve public protection, then the unit co-ordinates the sharing of information and intelligence so that as much knowledge as possible is built up about the offender and, if necessary, joint plans made.

How it works is best illustrated by looking at practical examples and below are two that show some of the different approaches required.

Mark received six years for manslaughter. On his release from prison he lived in a probation hostel. Although at first finding it difficult to adjust into the community, he settled into the hostel and successfully applied for training. He attended college and began a relationship. His new partner visited probation and discussed his offence with his officer. At one point he wanted to visit his family in the area where the offence was committed. After enquiries by the police and the victim contact unit this was agreed but only for a short period. The meeting heard the information from the local area and agreed with this decision. This went well, and overall his progress indicated a reduced level of risk. Mark had completed an accredited group work programme and had been allowed to leave the hostel and begin to settle in his own accommodation. Because of the progress he made on licence, and the level of work he had completed, it was agreed that he shouldn’t continue to have his case reviewed in the joint arrangements. The probation service continues to supervise him, and no concerns have been registered. He has continued with his training, settled into his own home, and presented no problems to the police. His progress is positive and encouraging.

Case study:


Key agency

involved –




Case study:

Julie Key agencies involved – mental health services & probation

Julie had previous convictions for violence. There were also concerns about self-harm. Released on prison licence, the concerns grew and led to her recall back to prison after threatening her partner and committing new offences. At the later court appearance she received a community rehabilitation order, with a curfew requirement. A public protection panel was convened because, despite her recent court appearance, her supervising officer continued to raise concerns. She was referred to the local mental health team for assessment. The probation service’s psychological services also assessed the risk. The assessment concluded that Julie had an anti-social personality disorder and would need to seek specialist advice and intervention to reduce the risks if her condition went untreated. Her relationship suffered considerably and this affected her state of mind and the risks she posed. The police were called to her house after a neighbour complained about a disturbance. She was arrested and the information the police had on computer alerted them to the fact that Julie was known under the public protection arrangements and they contacted the appropriate services immediately. The swift actions of all agencies ensured that the situation did not escalate to a more worrying incident. Subsequent assessments took place and a care plan was developed to manage her future treatment.

A small number of offenders ('critical few') are considered to be very high risk and for these the public protection unit will convene what is known as a multi-agency public protection panel (MAPPP).

Each district – Sheffield, Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham – has such a panel and they meet monthly to consider cases. Meetings are also called as required.

Again, what happens is best illustrated by looking at examples.




Stephen was convicted of sexual assaults against young children. He had previous similar offences and was sentenced to five years in prison. On his release from custody he was supervised on licence and had to live at a probation-run hostel. As a sex offender he also had to register with the police. The licence conditions meant he had to live where directed and not to have contact with children. Both the public protection panel and the sex offender panel monitored his case. The police and the probation service attended both meetings and were able to ensure that all relevant information was shared in both sets of meetings. The police also had very good links to the hostel and his movements were monitored closely. During his licence concerns came to light about his behaviour and he was recalled to prison. Public protection panel meetings agreed that he could live with a supported housing provider, who worked closely with the police and probation. However, further safeguards were required and a sex offender order (see opposite for more information) was made. The accommodation provider, the police and probation monitored him. The sex offender order gave a number of safeguards, which if breached could result in a prison sentence, and the police continued to visit. The risks continue but are being managed successfully.

Tim had a long history of alcohol misuse. He had been arrested for an offence of arson. This charge did not proceed because of his mental health state at the time. Both the police and the mental health services had concerns about his behaviour and his ability to cope in the community. His level of offending over the years, coupled with his risks at this time, made him suitable for public protection arrangements. Because of his recent behaviour he was admitted to a local hospital. After various assessments it was agreed that whilst he wasn’t suffering from behaviour that constituted a diagnosis of mental health impairment, his ability to function in the community without presenting risks to himself and others needed attention. After a number of meetings a strategy was agreed that would allow Tim to remain on the ward pending suitable accommodation being located and approved. A suitable property was located that would allow Tim to return into the community with the necessary support and assistance from the medical services. Such a plan would also allow a degree of supervision and monitoring thereby reducing the potential risks to others.

In addition to the partnership arrangements already described, other work is carried out to support public protection work.






The National Probation Service operates a range of special programmes designed to deal with particular offending behaviour. As well as a sex offender programme the service is introducing a new domestic violence programme. This programme will take more domestic violence offenders, offer support and safeguards for victims and will involve the police in providing information about any incidents involving the men on the programme.

There is also a partnership with Community Health Sheffield to provide resources for treating sex offenders with learning difficulties.

The aim of all this work is to reduce the risk of further offending.

Additionally, the probation service enforces the provisions of community sentences and prisoners released on licence. If offenders fail to report as required, they are returned to court and possibly prison.

The police manage the sex offender register. They visit each registered person every 12 months. If there is cause for concern, they will visit more frequently.

The police may also seek a sex offender order. This can prevent offenders from visiting certain places, such as parks. Such orders are becoming more important in providing additional controls for protecting the public.

During the year, a pilot scheme saw joint police/probation visits to sex offenders nearing the end of their sentences to compile a profile at the earliest opportunity.

The police also organise sex offender risk assessment panels, involving police, probation and social services. They review the risks posed by all registered sex offenders and link with the public protection arrangements described in this report to manage high risk offenders.



The aim, of course, of our public protection arrangements is to reduce to the minimum the chances of sexual and violent offenders harming further members of the public.

The success of these arrangements is underlined by the fact that of 90 offenders who came under arrangements for the ‘critical few’, only 1 re-offended. Eliminating such a risk would be our aspiration but in the real world is difficult to achieve. However, it is fair to say that without such arrangements, these offenders would commit far more crimes.

There have also been some important developments during the year covered by this report.

The most important of these was the development of structured arrangements to deal with those offenders who aren’t in the ‘critical few’ cases subject to public protection panels but need scrutiny by more than one agency. These are called Level 2 meetings.

This was a key area of the public protection unit’s work during 2003/04 and builds on the initial work to create strong arrangements for the most serious offenders.

The public protection unit moved into South Yorkshire Police headquarters. The unit restructured and completed a full review of its operational activity. The move has enabled the unit and the police to work even more effectively together, for example in sharing intelligence.

Of considerable benefit this year has been a pilot project funded by the Home Office with the Lucy Faithfull Foundation. This piece of work has enabled the unit to make full use of the considerable expertise of the foundation in its work with sex offenders. A number of assessments have been undertaken on high-risk offenders who present a risk of harm to children.

Psychology clinics operate across South Yorkshire and allow public protection panels to draw upon a growing range of skills and knowledge in putting together plans to manage offenders.

The public protection unit has linked with the University of Sheffield to review its ability to capture information on offending patterns and the effectiveness of its decision-making.

Alongside these developments the following is planned for 2004-2005:

• Significant work with youth offending services on formalising the links with the public protection unit. • The introduction of ViSOR, which is a national database that will allow up-to-date information to be collated on all offenders subject to public protection arrangements. • Work will also be undertaken to establish a duty to co-operate on agencies relevant to public protection work within South Yorkshire and to formalise the role of the prison service in the responsible authority.

Every crime has a victim and South Yorkshire’s public protection arrangements take the interests of victims extremely seriously.

The probation service has a victim unit that keeps victims, subject to their agreement, informed about the offender’s progress through court and sentence. Victims’ views are also taken into account when conditions are attached to prisoners’ release.




The public protection unit will notify the victim unit of all public protection meetings and protection plans will always consider how to inform and safeguard the victim.

The following is an example of how this works.

Arnold is an offender posing a high risk of harm who maintained that he would contact his victim (ex-partner) and his children on release from prison. In order to reduce the risk to the victim as much as possible the public protection panel agreed that the offender would be released to live in a hostel before allowing him to return to his home area. The victim liaison officer was in regular contact with the victim and gave information on the decisions of each of the meetings. Although fearful at first, the victim recognised that Arnold would eventually return to his home and that it was better that this took place whilst he was on licence so that safeguards were in place. This decision was only reached after the victim liaison officer saw the victim and all the circumstances discussed. A number of other safeguards were established with the police. At all times the victim was given the opportunity to consider the decisions that were being made in this case and discuss them fully. It was understood that the licence wouldn’t last forever and that by allowing a move during the licence the agencies involved in the case could monitor the offender thoroughly and take any actions necessary should he breach his licence conditions. The offender moved home and the victim experienced no further problems.

Sometimes it is necessary to disclose information to protect the public from harm. At the same time, disclosure might make a situation worse or breach human rights.




Any decision to provide information, for example to a school or an employing organisation, is taken only after thorough discussion of all the issues involved and an analysis of the benefits and potential problems.




The strategic management board oversees the public protection arrangements in South Yorkshire. Its membership is:

• The assistant chief officer of probation with responsibility for public protection, • The detective chief inspector, force intelligence bureau, South Yorkshire Police, • A prison governor • A service manager from social services, • A service manager from housing services, • A mental health services manager • Divisional manager for youth offending teams. • A manager from the South Yorkshire Victim Support Scheme • A community safety officer from one of the South Yorkshire community safety partnerships • An independent member from Sheffield University with experience and expertise in the management of risk

Meeting quarterly, the board receives reports from the public protection manager, advises on the content and publication of the annual report, monitors and advises on the development of the public protection unit and champions the arrangements in the sectors from which membership is drawn.

A significant development for 2004 will be the appointment of two lay advisors to the board. This will enable suitably experienced members of the public to be part of the management of how sexual and violent offenders are managed in South Yorkshire.

The following table provides statistical information about sexual, violent and other dangerous offenders (Sections 67 & 68 of the Act)



• This year has seen an increase in the number of registered sex offenders. This currently stands at 682. Whilst hard to predict the reason for the increase it is inevitable that this figure will grow as the legislation takes hold. Some of the figure can be accounted for by new offenders. The legislation affects offenders who have been released in to the community, but may have been sentenced some time previously. The length of time of registration will have a cumulative effect on growth.

• There were a total of 856 offenders in the community who fell within the MAPPA in South Yorkshire. Only 90 of these offenders were managed at the level designed for the ‘critical few’ during 2003-2004. This indicates that whilst the offenders may fit the criteria for MAPPA their risks are such that the majority can be managed effectively in other ways. Of these 47 were new referrals during that period. New referrals have dropped since last year (90), in part due to the developing expertise and training within risk assessment and risk management within South Yorkshire.

• This year has seen a small increase in the use of sex offender orders. The police have acquired significant expertise in the successful use of these powers to supervise behaviour. All applications have been successful, which indicates the police's ability to target effectively and secure good, strong evidence prior to a court hearing. The new powers available within the Sexual Offences Act 2003 will broaden the availability of these sanctions, and the police are currently undertaking training in the use of the new orders.

• Although the number of registered sex offenders has gradually risen the number of those offenders managed at the highest level has decreased from 39 in 2002-2003 to 29 in the period 2003-2004. This once again indicates the quality of risk management procedures within the sex offender panels.

• The area has seen a slight increase in the use of restraining orders. These powers will however be superseded by new powers within the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The public protection unit is committed to maximising the use of these new powers once they are introduced in May 2004. Training and briefings will be available for both police and probation staff.

• Recall on prison licence is an important control for MAPPA. During this year a total of 14 offenders were recalled to prison. The reasons for this are usually because their behaviour is cause for concern. It does not in itself mean that they have committed an offence. The probation service has developed procedures for dealing effectively with offenders who breach their licence conditions. Offenders subject to MAPPA will be recalled immediately. This means a warrant will be issued on the same day as the breach. The relationship between the police and probation ensures that the offender is arrested promptly.

• In the last year out of the 90 offenders that have been subject to panel meetings one offender was charged and convicted of a further serious offence. The offender has now been dealt with by the courts and received a custodial sentence.



  • 1. Category 1 MAPPA offenders: Registered Sex Offenders (RSOs)

i) The number of RSOs living in South Yorkshire on 31st March 2004


ia) The number of RSOs per 100,000 head of population


ii) The number of sex offenders having a registration requirement who were either cautioned or convicted for breaches of the requirement, between 1st April 2003 and 31st March 2004


iii) The number of full sex offender orders (a) applied for and

  • (b) imposed by the courts in South Yorkshire between 1st April 2003 and


31st March 2004.


iv) The number of interim sex offender orders (a) applied for and

  • (b) imposed by the courts in South Yorkshire between 1st April 2003 and


31st March 2004.


  • 2. Category 2: violent offenders and other sexual offenders.

v) The number of violent and other sexual offenders (as defined by Section 68 (3), (4) and (5) of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act (2000)) living in South Yorkshire between 1st April 2003 and 31st March 2004


  • 3. Category 3: other offenders

vi) The number of ‘other offenders’ (as defined by Section 67 (2)(b) of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act (2000)) between 1st April 2003 and 31st March 2004


vii) The number of restraining orders imposed on any MAPPA offenders by the courts in South Yorkshire between 1st April 2003 and 31st March 2004


  • 4. MAPPP cases

viii) Identify how many MAPPA offenders in each of the three categories (i.e. (i) registered sex offenders, (v) violent and other sexual offenders and (vi) other offenders above) have been managed through the MAPPP (level 3) between 1st April 2003 and 31st March 2004.

registered sex offenders


violent and other sexual offenders


other offenders


ix) Of the cases managed by the MAPPP between 1st April 2003 and 31st March 2004 how many, whilst still in the MAPPP:

Were returned to custody for a breach of licence?


Were returned to custody for a breach of a restraining order or sex offender order?


Were charged with a serious sexual or violent offence?


This annual report has shown clearly the wide-ranging co-operation needed to manage the risks posed by dangerous offenders in our communities. The public protection unit is at the heart of this joint work and has continued to go from strength to strength, improving its expertise in risk assessment. It is also the main link between risk management and operational policing.


Public protection arrangements are now strongly established in South Yorkshire with all agencies involved working together consistently. We will continue to develop our operations in the light of experience and new legislation to make sure that we fulfil our duty to protect the public from the most dangerous members of our communities.

Max Beatson Public protection manager April 2004

South Yorkshire Public Protection Unit

Max Beatson Public Protection Manager

South Yorkshire Police Headquarters Snig Hill Sheffield S3 8LY Tel 0114 2523703 E-mail




South Yorkshire Police Detective Chief Inspector Simon Verrall

South Yorkshire Police Head Quarters Snig Hill Sheffield S3 8LY Tel- 0114 2202020 E-mail

The National Probation Service, South Yorkshire Marion Wright Assistant Chief Officer

Head Office 45 Division Street Sheffield S1 4GE Tel 0114 2766911 E-mail


Sections 67 and 68 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 as re-enacted by Sections 325-327 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires the "responsible authority" (the chief of police, probation board, and the prison service acting together) to establish and manage multi-agency arrangements for the assessment and management of violent and sexual offenders. The Government regards tackling sexual and violent crimes as one of its highest priorities. Having set up the MAPPA in 2001 – which provided for the first time a firm statutory basis for the work police and probation jointly undertake to protect the public from sexual and violent offenders - it has in the last year done a great deal to strengthen the MAPPA and the wider public protection framework.

The national development of the MAPPA has concentrated on preparing to implement the MAPPA provisions of the Criminal Justice Act (2003). These provisions came into force on 5th April 2004 and help strengthen the MAPPA by:

(i) making the prison service part of the ‘responsible authority’ with police and probation;

(ii) formalising the involvement of other agencies which can make an important contribution to helping offenders not to re-offend - the Act imposes a ‘duty to co-operate’ with the responsible authority MAPPA upon:

• Local authority housing, education and social services • Health service bodies • Jobcentres Plus • Youth offending teams • Registered social landlords which accommodate MAPPA offenders, and • Electronic monitoring providers

(iii) The appointment by the Home Secretary of two members of the public (‘lay advisers’) in each area to assist in monitoring the effectiveness of the MAPPA.

The introduction of an element of public scrutiny of this often complex and sensitive area of public protection through the appointment of two lay advisers in each area, has been carefully and successfully trialled and evaluated.

In addition to this work to strengthen the MAPPA, the Government has also begun to strengthen other statutory provisions, the most significant of which is the Sexual Offences Act (2003) and the measures to introduce new sentences for dangerous offenders which will keep them in custody until they no longer pose a serious risk to the public.




The Sexual Offences Act overhauls the many antiquated sexual offences and plugs loopholes in the law. In updating sexual offences, it strengthens the law on rape and on sex offences against children. It introduces new offences of ‘sexual grooming’ and extends the protection from exploitation in prostitution or pornography to children up to the age of 18. For the first time, it will be an offence to buy sexual services from a child below this age, targeting those who abuse children in this way.

The Sexual Offences Act also strengthens the sex offenders register, which has proved a valuable means by which the police can monitor convicted sex offenders within their area, and introduces new civil orders to help prevent further offences from being committed.

In April 2003, the Home Office issued national guidance to all the 42 areas in England and Wales outlining the minimum requirements for the successful execution of the duties in Section 67 &68. It also addressed issues of consistency across the areas and formalised a ‘MAPPA framework’ for: i) the identification of MAPPA offenders; ii) the sharing of relevant information; iii) the assessment of the risk of serious harm; and iv) the management of that risk. The guidance brought a structure to risk management procedures across all areas. There are three levels of risk management:

Level 1: ordinary risk management, which is the level used in cases in which the risks posed by an offender can be managed by one agency without actively involving or significantly involving other agencies.

Level 2: local inter-agency risk management, which is the level used where the active involvement of more than one agency is required but where either the level of risk or the complexity of managing the risk is not so great as to require a referral to Level 3, the Multi Agency Public Protection Panel (MAPPP).

Level 3: Multi agency public protection panel, the level responsible for managing the risks presented by the most dangerous, i.e. the 'critical few'.

South Yorkshire

Multi - Agency Public Protection Arrangements

Annual Report 2003- 2004

South Yorkshire Multi - Agency Public Protection Arrangements Annual Report 2003- 2004
South Yorkshire Multi - Agency Public Protection Arrangements Annual Report 2003- 2004
South Yorkshire Multi - Agency Public Protection Arrangements Annual Report 2003- 2004