Surrey Probation Area

Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements Annual Report 2003-4

In this report
Page 3: The risks that cannot be ignored Foreword by Denis O’Connor and Karen Page How many Cs in MAPPA ? Case file: Soothing a village’s fear of fire Management by MAPPA Case file: The horrified victim who threatened to tell Beef up the board by Howard Barlow and Carol Parsons Case file: The sinister face of a baby-sitter’s friendship Keeping the critical few critical Working together builds confidence and trust by Jenny Guven Case file: The night away that ended in jail 12: Tightening the deadlines by Paul Falconer Case file: MAPPA nips a network in the bud 13: ViSOR keeps offenders in view by Paul Falconer Why we are pleased to be aboard by Caroline Hewlett and Simon Smith 14: High Down fast-tracks serious offenders by Simon Langston Case file: Explosives and alcohol trigger MAPPA alert 15: 16: Statistics Contacts

4 / 5: 5: 6 / 7: 7: 8 / 9:

9: 10: 11:

The risks that cannot be ignored
This is the third annual report on the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) for Surrey. It highlights the achievements made as a result of effective collaboration between the criminal justice agencies. At the heart of MAPPA is the desire to prevent future victims by assessing risk thoroughly, by working together to manage risk and wherever possible, by engaging offenders to reduce their own risks by working on their offending behaviour. At a strategic level, Surrey has been fortunate in having the benefit of lay members to offer independent oversight of MAPPA and help move initiatives forward. In addition, the cooperation of the prison service, who have recently joined police and probation in the ‘responsible authority’ for this multi-agency work, has added value to reintegrating offenders into the community. We are also fortunate this year to be able to look forward to even more help and cooperation from a wide range of other agencies. We live in a society that is constantly being told of the latest risk, whether to our health, wealth or waistlines. Often as individuals we choose to ignore some such warnings but as a society, there are some risks that cannot be ignored. The MAPPA are a positive step to learn from the lessons of the past and build something that helps to protect the most vulnerable in our communities. The progress made by the Surrey MAPPA is illustrated in this report and represents an enormous amount of hard work, endeavour and commitment by those involved. We are sure they will continue to build on that foundation in the year to come.

Denis O’Connor Chief Constable Surrey Police

Karen Page Chief Officer National Probation Service Surrey


How many Cs in MAPPA ?
Four - and the first is C for co-operation
he Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements, or MAPPA, in Surrey are proving to be one of the most significant steps ever taken between agencies to protect the public against offenders who threaten most harm. While other agencies are involved, it is particularly true b e t we e n t h e p o l i c e a n d probation services. Regular and rapid communication has been established in an atmosphere of trust and confidence.


governing governor of HMP High Down near Banstead. Also represented are local authorities, social services, housing, and the county’s youth offending team. Representation is still settling into a consistent pattern.

Threat in proportion
Other accounts in this report give the details of activity within the MAPPA. Of the 410 cases dealt with within MAPPA in the county last year, only 14 or 3.5% r e q u i r e d a c t i o n by M u l t i Agency Public Protection Panels, or MAPPPs. These panels are the highest level of management for the most serious cases. That figure helps to keep the actual threat to the public in proportion. Ninety per cent of cases dealt with by the MAPPA are registered sex offenders. The remainder have been convicted of other sex or violent offences. As expected, the number of registered sex offenders has continued to rise, increasing from 277 to 371. (See Management by MAPPA, Page 6).

Targeted offenders
This partnership has been further strengthened in the last year by the launching of a targeted offender’s scheme. This concentrates on persistent offenders but can target serious o n e s t o o. Ta r g e t i n g a l s o depends on sharing information and working together. MAPPA is the responsibility of the Responsible Authority, which is set up by law. (See Keeping the critical few critical Page 10). It was made up originally of police and probation and now includes the prison service. T h e a u t h o r i t y ’s S t r a t e g i c Management Board meets four times a year. It consists of senior police and probation managers. They were joined earlier this year by the,

Surrey – in fact recorded sex offences fell slightly during 2003–2004 to 585 from the 598 of the previous year. It is due to the fact that offenders are joining the register faster than they leave it. This is due in part to the long periods of registration which can be for life. Although eventually, the size of the register is expected to level out, nobody yet knows when. Additionally, the eventual effects of the 2003 Sexual Offences Act are uncertain. Statistically, Surrey is one of the safest counties. However, it has borne its share of tragedy through crime in the last four years particularly with the deaths of Milly Dowler who lived in Walton and Sarah Payne who lived in Hersham. Sarah’s death was also a tragedy for Sussex where she lost her life.

Critical friends
Sarah’s case in particular led to demands for more public participation in the management of offenders who cause serious harm. Government responded by appointing lay members to Strategic Management Boards. Surrey was chosen as one of eight pilot sites. Throughout the year, our lay members, Howard Barlow and Carol Parsons have been

Eventual effects
The increase is not due to an explosion of sex offending in


playing the role of “critical friends”. Mr. Barlow and Ms. Parsons have made recommendations about the working of the system. Their own report of their mixed observations at strategic and operational level can be read on Pages 8/9. Earlier this year, the Home Secretary extended the lay members scheme across the country. They are to be known as lay advisors.

Chart way forward
Two more developments intended to further strengthen the MAPPA operation have been the appointment by the board of a MAPPA administrator and by Surrey Probation of a public protection manager. The Strategic Management B o a r d fa c e s t wo m a j o r challenges in 2004/05. The first is adjusting to its increased responsibilities in the 2003 Criminal Justice Act. These are fully described on Page 10. Among other things, they involve the Board making arrangements to assess and manage the risks caused by offenders who have received 12 months or more custody for any one of 153 violent or sexual offences. Working out strategy to accomplish this will be a priority for the board. The second is engaging with the wide range of other agencies which are now dutybound to cooperate. These include the health service, social security, education,

housing, social services and social landlords. In some agencies, duty to cooperate may raise conflicts, particularly around confidentiality of information. However, in Surrey co-operation is already good. Housing and social ser vices managers, psychiatrists, forensic psychologists, community mental health workers and even Surrey Fire and Rescue Service already attend the lower tier Risk Assessment and Management Panels or RAMPs either regularly or as required. (See Management by MAPPA, Page 6). A meeting of chief executives is planned for mid-summer 2004 to char t the way forward.

Soothing a village’s fear of fire
Residents of a Surrey village worried at the thought of Y. returning home from jail. He had been given seven years for a spate of arson attacks. The most serious was on the local shop with flats above. Everybody was evacuated; luckily nobody was hurt. Relative He used his time in prison well including completing major programmes in anger control and reasoning skills. He also admitted other offences he had previously denied. During sentence, his family, the local police beat officer and probation officer kept in contact. Before his release, arrangements were made for him to live with a relative in another part of the county. Fire service He was released on parole at the earliest opportunity. He was assessed as unlikely to cause further serious harm unless his circumstances changed and the case was monitored by the RAMP. The close liaison between family, police beat officer, probation officer and other agencies continued and they all met with Y. to discuss his future. Surrey Fire and Rescue ser vice gave him eight sessions on fire awareness and safety. He still lives away from home but gradually, he is being introduced into his own community, safely and successfully.

Consensus preferred
MAPPA brings together three criminal justice and now a range of social agencies into what is essentially a cooperative of care for the public and control for those who offer undue harm. It does not override agencies’ authority nor take over their responsibility. It asks them to cooperate together and coordinate their activity. It does not impose decisions but seeks consensus wherever possible. It seeks only commitment to decisions jointly made. The four Cs of MAPPA are therefore - Co-operation, Coordination, Consensus and Commitment. They are its strength and pillars of protection.


Management by MAPPA
Vigilance protects the public through Surrey’s MAPPPs and RAMPs
lmost every week somewhere in Surrey, staff from the police and probation services, housing departments, social services and other agencies meet in a police station or probation office. Their purpose is to review the behaviour and progress of more than 400 offenders in the county subject to the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA).


Lower level
The meetings are Risk Assessment and Management Panels or RAMPs. They form the lower level of MAPPA protection and deal with offenders whose risk to others is either relatively low or under control. The meetings are chaired by the inspectors in charge of the vulnerable persons’ units of Surrey police’s four divisions. They are attended by their Registration and Assessment officers, (RAOs), the local probation manager and social services and housing managers. Whenever possible, probation case managers handling cases under discussion also attend.

health, hostel staff, probation victim workers and the youth offending team. Information is shared and risk is assessed by the actuarial Thornton 2000 Risk Matrix used by the police. The probation service use the national Offender Assessment System (OASys) soon to be adopted by the prison service. Ninety per cent of the cases discussed in the RAMPs are registered sex offenders. The remainder are offenders usually on probation supervision who have committed violent serious harm and might repeat it. Offenders thought to pose the highest risk are reviewed most frequently. In 2003-2004 staff held 700 case reviews - discussing many cases several times.

on the register as offenders were added faster than they were taken off. Sex offender registration starts at the point of conviction. Its length depends on sentence length and can be from five years to life. Juveniles serve half the adult registration period.

Pose most risk
The register is expected to go on growing until more cases are eligible for removal. Removals of the first five year registrations began in 2002. This year the first seven-year registrations will expire. Surrey RAMP meetings have evolved from the previous multiagency reviews of offenders on the sex offenders’ register. They are being used increasingly frequently as an efficient opportunity to include first-tier meetings of Multi-Agency Public Protection Panels or MAPPPs on offenders who pose most risk.

Added faster
They concluded that more than half the offenders had a medium or low risk of re-offending according to the police risk assessment tool. However, the risk of re-offending of a third - according to the police assessment method - was high. Seventeen offenders in the system were in custody when their cases were reviewed. Only fourteen offenders completed their sex offender registration in the county during the year. This mainly accounts for a 34% increase from 277 to 371

Little warning
This has been made possible mainly by probation case managers identifying very high risk prisoners well before release. However, where such offenders move into Surrey with little warning or where the threat level increases in a previously lower risk case, MAPPP meetings are

Risk matrix
Other agencies attend by request. They include forensic psychology, community mental


called at short notice - sometimes as little as a day or two. They are given priority by all the agencies. Police and probation attend them all as do usually, housing and social services. Other agencies with an interest - or with information - are also invited to contribute. Levels of cooperation and understanding are high.

The horrified victim who threatened to tell
The young rape victim was horrified to learn that F., the man who attacked her and another girl, was being considered for parole. He was less than five years into his seven year sentence. She wrote an impassioned letter to the Parole Board describing her distress and threatening to publicise the case “by any means “should he be freed near her. Hive of activity F. had wanted to return to the area where he had lived, where his offences were committed - and where both the victims lived. There followed a hive of activity between the various agencies involved in the management of this case. In particular probation and probation victim liaison, police, housing and a hostel coordinated their work through MAPPP meetings. Victims’ safety F. had bad health and was partly disabled. A local hostel and a local authority housing department offered short term accommodation - which also ke p t h i m u n d e r b e t t e r surveillance. Later, he was to be offered a longer-term home which met his health needs but kept him well away from children. Managers prepared a media statement just in case. Probation victim workers and the police RAO visited the victims and their families to explain the measures taken to protect them. The victims felt reassured. F. was released in December 2003 when arrangements were in place. There was no publicity. Instant recall All agencies worked extremely hard to ensure the safety of the victims and reassure them so they did not feel the need for the protection of the press. F. did not try to contact them; he was told it would have meant instant recall to prison. He has settled into his new home where his is trying to rehabilitate himself. This case highlights the close working relationship which has developed between all agencies that form part of the MAPPA process. This has been brought about by the greater understanding of each other’s roles and the trust that has developed over time between the individuals involved.

Critical few
Offenders discussed at MAPPP meetings have been described as “the critical few “ who create most risk. Generally, they are offenders who have committed “serious” life-threatening harm and are assessed as likely to do so again. They may also be notorious offenders likely to attract the attention of the media or arouse public concern. (See Keeping the critical few critical, Pages 10/11) MAPPP meetings are usually chaired by a probation manager, otherwise by a police detective chief inspector.

Threat subsides
The MAPPP continues to meet as often as is needed until the risk of committing serious harm subsides. Then the case can be referred back to the level two RAMP for monitoring and review. In the year ending March 30, fourteen offenders were discussed at 40 MAPPP meetings across Surrey. One offender was the subject of nine MAPPP meetings and three others were each the subject of five.

Luckily, one of the police Registration and Assessment Officers (RAOs) had been involved in the original case and knew the victim who wrote the letter. Priority was to ensure the safety of the victims and reassure them. Parole licence conditions, drafted in consultation with the other agencies, excluded F. from parts of three towns where he might meet the victims.


n the last 12 months, the operational staff from the agencies represented in the Responsible Authority in Surrey and others have continued to work positively and effectively to monitor the list of people who fall within the MAPPA remit. As lay members, we have observed a number of routine monthly reviews ( RAMPs) in all the police divisions of the county.


Howard Barlow and Carol Parsons were appointed lay members of the Surrey Strategic Management Board 18 months ago as part of a pilot project to involve the public in MAPPA. This year the scheme went national. They find MAPPA works well - but that the board needs more resources. Their advice is

Effective exchange
We have found there is an effective exchange of information within the Responsible Authority agencies and with other agencies who have attended. We have advised police and probation of this positive effort and recommended a standard format for all divisional RAMPs. This standard is in process of being introduced in the coming year.

Beef up the board
community that we would like to see represented on the Strategic Management Board (SMB). Their inclusion, we believe, will strengthen working together by the agencies. We also believe they have an important perspective to give.

Inevitable delays Areas to improve
Our attendance at Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel meetings (MAPPPs) has been fairly limited due to the small number held and their timing. Our experience of these has also been of positive communication and effective information sharing. At a strategic level, we feel that there are some areas that could be improved upon. There are some key agencies in the We also observe that of the agencies who do attend the board now, somewhat inconsistent attendance by some has meant that progress between one board meeting and the next has been painfully slow at times. Both probation and police have appeared to be too shor t o f resource in the senior management area to fully implement the SMB activities and needs. The resource, be it people or budget, has always been

constrained and has inevitably delayed both the development and the implementation of strategic actions. Additionally, the ability to enhance representation on the SMB with people from agencies outside the Criminal Justice System to date has been affected by the lower priority given to the MAPPA by those agencies.

Significant improvements
We hope that the implementation of the Duty to Cooperate by key organisations will, in addition, increase the interest and contribution at this strategic level of process. That said, in the last quarter of the year, representation has improved and it is hoped that a full SMB will make significant improvements strategically in the coming year.


Wholehearted involvement
We hope that the recent recruitment of a public protection manager by the probation service will have a significant impact on the senior management time available for MAPPA issues. During the coming year, we plan to continue to enhance our knowledge and understanding of the Arrangements through education and attendance at all levels of meetings. This will include attending more MAPPPs and some RAMPs. We plan to continue with regular contact with advisors in other areas so that Surrey can continue to receive the benefits from the exchange of ideas. We remain convinced that wholehearted involvement from all the relevant agencies at every level is the most effective way of reducing the likelihood of re-offending in the often-complex cases dealt with in this process.

The sinister face of a baby-sitter’s friendship
G. is now 70. He was convicted in 1996 for a number of indecent assaults on girls under 16. He was sentenced to five years and is on the sex offenders’ register for life. G. befriended a family. Whilst baby-sitting he groomed a nine year old by allowing her to watch pornographic videos. Media interest He indecently assaulted her many times over several years. G.’s conviction resulted from an historical allegation from one of his victims. Following that, numerous allegations were received from other females. There was also some media interest. G. was released from prison on a licence to the probation service, which required him to complete the probation sex offender treatment programme. He completed it but made no significant progress. G. completed his licence and moved to Surrey. Family contact G. became subject to Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) and was assessed as being at high risk of re-offending. He was monitored by the police and reviewed frequently by police, probation, housing and social services. In July 2003 during a review, the local authority disclosed that they had heard that G. was involved with local families. Limited disclosure approved by the MAPPA was made to key persons within the families in order to safeguard the children. Police enquiries showed later that G. had regular contact with several children. In October 2003, a MAPPP meeting agreed unanimously that a sex offender order was needed. Statements and reports were obtained and further enquiries made by all agencies involved. Working closely In January 2004, a court granted a 10 year sex offender order prohibiting G. from contact with children and association with any location or activity where children might be. This successful case required the close co-operation of police, probation, social services and local authority housing. It demonstrates how well in Surrey the agencies in the Responsible Authority are already working closely with other agencies within the MAPPA.

also to Tim Bryan, Karen Cairns, Lesley Cross, Bob Jenkin, James Jolly, Sally Jones, Brenda Lane, Alison Mileson, Tom Ruddy, Jill Shipp and Kate Windless for their contributions or other help in producing this report.


Keeping the critical few critical
Why MAPPA takes serious harm so seriously
he priority of the MultiAgency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) is to identify offenders who create an exceptional risk to others - the critical few - and concentrate attention on them. But the task of the Responsible Authority, made up of the police, probation and from April 2004, the prison service, is wider and has been made wider still by the 2003 Criminal Justice Act.


Assessment System, OASys, it is defined as harm that is “ lifethreatening and/or traumatic whether physical or psychological, and from which recovery, can be expected to be difficult or impossible”. It has been characterised as harm that is life taking, life threatening, life violating or life changing.

Violence to children
Examples of “serious harm” offences include homicides; rape; violence causing permanent injury; sexual offences and violence against children, young people or other vulnerable people; arson which endangers life; kidnapping and hostage taking; aggravated burglary; offences involving lethal weapons and conspiracy or attempts to commit these offences.

Assess and manage the risks
The Act requires the Responsible Authority to establish arrangements to assess and manage the risks posed by offenders subject to sex offender registration. Also included are other offenders who have received 12 months or more custody or detention for any one of 65 violent offences including murder and 88 sexual offences. They are specified in Sch 15 of the Act. Anyone else the Responsible Authority considers may cause serious harm due to offending is also its responsibility.

MAPPP management is that the offender must have caused serious or potentially serious harm. Also the offender must be more likely than not to cause it again either imminently or at any time. Cases likely to arouse extra public concern or media interest also go to the MAPPPs to decide strategy. Senior managers from the agencies attend the panels in case extra resources are needed. The 14 Surrey offenders managed by MAPPPs last year had been convicted of armed robbery, indecent assaults and gross indecency involving children, rape, arson, manslaughter, forced imprisonment and threats to kill.

Help with accommodation
A minority of MAPPP-level offenders who are exceptionally risky or notorious and are likely to attract the attention of the national media are referred to the Public Protection and Courts unit of the National Probation Directorate as Critical Public Protection Cases. They have been dubbed “the critical few of the critical few”. The unit can offer extra funding for specialised accommodation, the shortage of which is often a serious problem.

Extra public concern
As referred to in earlier articles, MAPPA divides into three levels of management. These are level one relatively-low risk cases handled by a single agency, higher risk cases handled by the level two RAMPs and the most serious managed by level three MAPPPs. In order to concentrate on “the critical few”, the threshold for

Recovery impossible
“Serious harm” is defined by the Act as “death or serious personal injur y, whether physical or psychological”. In the probation service’s Offender


The night away that ended back in jail
P. was sentenced to a long period of imprisonment for a series of grave sexual offences. He moved into Surrey after the completion of his licence and was monitored on the Sex Offender register. We were able to find some background information on him. Pornography P. was seen leaving his car overnight at an address which he had not registered with the police. The police Registration and Assessment officers investigated. They eventually removed P.’s computer on which was discovered downloaded child pornography. He was later jailed for this offence and for conspiracy to indecently assault a child. Probation hostel MAPPPs were called before and after release. P. left prison earlier this year for a local probation hostel. Eventually, safe private accommodation was a p p r ove d by the MAPPP. P. was allowed to move in. He remains under supervision on licence and is reviewed regularly at RAMP meetings although MAPPPs will be called again if there is any suspicion that risk may have increased.

Working together builds trust and confidence
It also shares the load avoiding exhaustion and mistakes, says Jenny Guven.
y job involves attending the monthly Risk Assessment and Management Panel (RAMP) for the Woking area. Over a period of time my team and I have developed excellent working relationships with our police Registration and Assessment officers (RAOs).


Highest protection
It has enabled a higher level of monitoring of sex offenders and potentially dangerous offenders on our shared caseloads. The RAMPs allow for a multiagency involvement in the assessment and management of risk. This allows a comprehensive plan to be developed that will provide the highest level of public protection.

We have found that there is a great deal to be gained by the first post release licence appointment for sex offenders and other offenders threatening serious harm to be conducted jointly with a police RAO. This allows tight boundaries to be set regarding reporting and behaviour and demonstrates a joint approach to risk management. To illustrate, a sex offender disengaged from drug and alcohol services. He failed to keep an appointment with his s u p e r v i s o r a n d wa s n o t answering his door.

Speedy breach
A call to the RAO resulted in police gaining access and finding him heavily under the influence of alcohol - a trigger to his offending - and speedy breach action followed. The close and trusting working relationships developed through the RAMPs has allowed us to respond speedily to situations of increased risk. It delivers, I believe, the sort of protection that the public deserves and in which it can have confidence.

Spirit of trust
Understanding the roles and responsibilities of the other agencies makes it easier to discuss the offender issues that cause anxiety within a spirit of trust. This multi-agency approach means that no one person is left carrying all the responsibility and concerns regarding a high risk offender which can lead to emotional exhaustion and the potential for mistakes to be made.

Jenny Guven is probation court and community supervision manager at Woking.


Tightening the deadlines
Paul Falconer of Surrey Police’s Public Protection Strategy Unit reviews the effects of the 2003 Sexual Offences Act
he Sexual Offences Act, implemented in M ay, t i g h t e n s u p restrictions on registered sex offenders which make up 90% of the Surrey Multi-Agency Public Protection caseload. The Act modernises the law and closes loopholes. The time given to sex offenders to tell the police of changes in their circumstances has been cut from 14 days to three. Offenders have to disclose any address they stay at for more than seven days in a year, halving the previous threshold.


Spiking drinks
Newly-registered offenders will have to disclose their National Insurance numbers. Offenders already on the register will have to disclose theirs when they comply with another new requirement, obliging them to confirm their details annually. For the first time, a conditional discharge will be considered a conviction for purposes of registering. The Act creates 80 new offences including meeting children after grooming them; trafficking for sexual exploitation; spiking drinks with intent to commit an offence under the Act and voyeurism.

people. Some offences have sentencing thresholds triggering registration. The Act also introduces a raft of new orders. They include Notification Orders obliging people who offend abroad to notify their details as if they had offended in this country. Sexual Offences Prevention Orders replace the previous Sex Offender Orders. Such orders can be made by a court at the time of conviction or on application by the police. Breaches can no longer be dealt with by conditional discharges. Foreign travel orders can stop offenders travelling abroad to harm children. Risk of Sexual Harm Orders are designed to restrict grooming for sexual activity.

Bigger impact
However, the caseload is expected to increase until expiring orders balance new ones. The Home Office though is expecting a much bigger impact from improved policing, changes in police priorities and big operations into Internet crime such as Operation Ore.

MAPPA nips a network in the bud
J. posed a high risk to children. After a lengthy prison sentence it became apparent on licence that he was still interested in children. He was discussed at a RAMP. The probation officer and police Registration and Assessment Officer visited him together. Police and probation monitored him closely and shared disclosures. We suspected he was developing a network of like-minded men and we called a MAPPP. We are now working towards a Sex Offender Prevention Order. The speedy exchange of infor mation has helped contain J.’s behaviour. He knows he is being monitored by both the police and the probation service.

Two years’ delay
The new offences and orders are not expected by the Home Office to increase the MAPPA caseload much, at least not for the first two years. This is largely because offenders convicted of some of the new offences would also have been convicted of the old offences and would have entered the caseload anyway. Additionally, the Act will only apply to offences committed after May 1 2004. The effect will only be felt as offenders come to court and are given community sentences or are released from prison.

Travel orders
The Act has also special provisions to protect vulnerable


ViSOR keeps offenders in view
by Paul Falconer he Violent and Sex Offender Register or ViSOR computer system will help the risk assessment and management of such offenders. It will be a central national application with links into the Police National Computer (PNC). Surrey police are already using an interim version and the final version is expected later this year. ViSOR will enable both police and probation services to register offenders and maintain an up-to-date, shared store of information on these offenders, including risk assessments and their movements.

Why we are pleased to be aboard
Caroline Hewlett and Simon Smith explain why forensic mental health teams should be working with MAPPA agencies



o some of the public, patients suffering from mental disorders, psychosis, personality disorder, or the disorders of sexual desire - represent the greatest threat to public safety. The reality is though that the majority of sexual and violent offenders are not suffering from a mental disorder within the meaning of current mental health legislation and would not be treated by mental health services.

at Chertsey, at Redhill and our own based at the Ridgewood Centre in Camberley. Currently the teams operate as separate entities within their own NHS Trusts.

Single trust
On 1st April 2005 the mental health Trusts will reconfigure to form a single mental health Trust for the people of Surrey, North-east Hampshire and Croydon. In Surrey/Hampshire Borders we have accepted the need for an identified link between criminal justice agencies including MAPPA and the Trust. This liaison and advisory role between the criminal justice agencies and mental health teams for risk management of the few cases has been identified within the Community Forensic Service. Over the year the Trust has taken the ‘duty to co-operate’ seriously and will continue to develop joint working with MAPPPA in accordance with the Act. Simon Smith is a consultant forensic clinical psychologist; Caroline Hewlett is a senior approved social worker practitioner and acting team manager of the Surrey/ Hampshire Borders forensic team.

Stopped medication
Where patients suffering from psychosis offend, they have often stopped medication. The victims are often people nearest to them such as their family and friends. That said, mental health patients occasionally pose a threat to public safety and for some years we have worked with colleagues from other agencies to support the patient and protect others. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 imposes ‘a duty to co-operate’ and gives greater clarity to the role of the NHS in public protection. Closer working relationships between the forensic teams and criminal justice agencies need to be developed in order to meet this duty. There are three forensic mental health teams based in Surrey -

By users for users
It will also provide an audit trail so that the authorities can ensure effective offender monitoring is taking place. ViSOR has been designed by users for users and is based around familiar web-based technology. Its introduction will reduce administration as information will only need to be entered once. The database complies with current legislation, including the Human Rights Act and the Data Protection Act. It also supports MAPPA.


High Down fast-tracks serious offenders
by Simon Langston
risons can make a significant contribution to the MAPPA process and HMP High Down takes its new role as part of the Responsible Authority very seriously. Senior Officer Jill Shipp has been appointed as High Down’s Public Protection Manager. She oversees and co-ordinates our multi-disciplinary risk reduction procedures for offenders convicted of harassment, violence or sexual offences. High Down’s Public Protection strategy has three main elements:Identifying offenders who r e q u i r e P u bl i c P r o t e c t i o n m e a s u r e s. A l l t h e p r i s o n disciplines take part. Reducing the risk in custody. This involves making sure offenders are prevented from causing distress to a previous victim or grooming a future one. This can include mail monitoring, telephone and visiting restrictions and intelligence gathering.

Explosives and alcohol triggers MAPPA alert
H. is fascinated by weapons and explosives. He has convictions for possessing firearms and ammunition. He has also a long history with the mental health services and an alcohol problem. He has been assessed as a high risk of serious harm to the public. He was the subject of a MAPPP and is monitored by the RAMP. Mini bombs He sees his probation officer frequently and regularly and sees the forensic community mental health team. His risk to the public is monitored by frequent liaison between probation, mental health staff, police and fire service. He knows the agencies work together. Earlier this year, his mental health deteriorated. He appeared very low in mood with persistent thoughts of causing harm. He bought some camping gas canisters and implied he could use them as mini bombs. The MAPPA agencies reacted urgently, concerned at the combination of mental instability, alcohol misuse and explosives. H. was admitted to hospital as an emergency and later detained under a section of the Mental Health Act for more than a month.


Planning for release. Partner agencies including health, police, probation and social services are invited to risk management meetings. The offender’s community and custodial history is discussed and risk reduction strategies are agreed to prepare for release. We are also attending more and more MAPP panels in the community and we are always pleased to be invited.

In prison, we are able to observe with whom prisoners associate, with whom they maintain contact outside and how they conduct themselves every day. The whole strategy is underpinned by our monthly multidiscipline public protection meetings. Case reviews are carried out on every offender who creates a public protection risk. High Down enjoys an established and constructive relationship with both Surrey police and probation but half our prisoners are released to other areas. We are working with them to make sure our links are just as good.

We also make sure these offenders benefit from the specific prison accredited programmes designed to reduce risk. We prioritise them for Sentence Planning and Jill Shipp works closely with Sentence Management to arrange transfers to prisons which offer the programmes.

Simon Langston is Head of Resettlement at HMP High Down.


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

No. of Offenders
2002–2003 277 2003–2004 371

ii. The number of sex offenders having a registration requirement who were either cautioned or convicted for breaches of the requirement, between 1 April and 31 March iii. The number of Sex Offender Orders applied for and gained between 1 April and 31 March (a) The total number of Sex Offender Orders applied for (b) The total number granted (c) The total number not granted iv. The number of violent and other sexual offenders considered under MAPPA during the year 1 April 2003 and 31 March 2004 (as defined by section 68 [3], [4] and [5]) v. The number of “other offenders” dealt with under MAPPA during the year 1 April and 31 March 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])



2 0 2

1 1 0




vi. For each of the three categories of offenders covered by the MAPPA (“registered sex offenders”, “violent and other sex offenders” and “other offenders”), identify the number of offenders that are or have been dealt with by: (a) MAPPP – registered sex offenders (b) MAPPP – violent and other sex offenders (c) MAPPP – other offenders viii. Of the cases managed by the MAPPP during the reporting year what was the number of offenders: (a) who were returned to custody for breach of licence (b) who were returned to custody for breach of a Restraining Order or Sex Offender Order (c) charged with a serious sexual or violent offence 4 3 16 9 3 8 6 0






Surrey Probation Area Director of Operations and Public Protection Manager

Bridge House Flambard Way Godalming Surrey GU7 1JB

01483 860191

Surrey Police Public Protection Strategy Unit

Mount Browne Sandy Lane Guildford Surrey GU3 1HG

01306 676803

Surrey Women’s Aid and Domestic Violence Helpline

01483 776822

Youth Offending Team

Churchill House Mayford Green Woking Surrey GU22 0PW

01483 723922

Victim Support Scheme Addresses and Telephone Numbers
East Surrey VSS Reigate Police Station 79 Reigate Road Reigate RH2 0RY 01737 766323 Epsom & District VSS The Pines 2 The Parade Epsom KT18 5DU 01372 743650 Waverley VSS 8 Dolphin Close Haslemere GU27 1PU 01252 573351

Esher & District VSS Claygate Centre Elm Road Cobham KT10 0EH 01372 470690

Guildford VSS PO Box 26 Guildford GU1 4XN 01483 503173

Runnymede & Elmbridge VSS c/o Adlestone Police Station Garfield Road Addlestone, KT15 2NW 01932 855110

Mole Valley VSS c/o Dorking Police Station Moores Road Dorking RH4 2BQ 01306 875866

North West Surrey VS 80a Rydens Way Old Woking Woking GU22 9DN 01483 770457

Staines & Woking Magistrates Court Witness Service Staines Magistrates Court Knowle Green Staines TW18 1XH 01784 492299


Printed by A3 Design & Print (01252) 737222

Prison Service Surrey & Sussex Area Office

Room 604 Cleland House Page Street London SW1P 4LN

02072 172538