WORKING TOGETHER TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC

Norfolk Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA)
THE 4TH ANNUAL REPORT 2004-5

THE 4TH ANNUAL REPORT 2004-5

WORKING TOGETHER TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC

Contents
Foreword Introduction How MAPPA operates locally Referrals Key achievements in the Norfolk MAPPA within the last 12 months Duty to Co-operate Lay Advisors New legislation The protection of victims Disclosure of information Promoting the work of MAPPA MAPPA management in Norfolk Data collection and information sharing Strategic Management Board Final Thoughts on MAPPA MAPPA annual reports statistical information for Norfolk Comments on statistics Agency Representatives in the Norfolk MAPPA 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 12 13 13 14 15 16 18 19

THE 4TH ANNUAL REPORT 2004-5 1

MULTI AGENCY PUBLIC PROTECTION ARRANGEMENTS

WORKING TOGETHER TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC

Foreword
with the public more effectively. Without a growing sense of public knowledge and confidence about this work much of the benefits of the public protection arrangements will be lost. I hope this annual report will be useful, informative and re-assuring to local communities. The agencies and individuals who have contributed to the achievement of MAPPA locally are to be commended. Working together, key agencies across Norfolk are involved in putting in place robust plans to prevent an offender causing further harm either to their victims, to the professionals they work with, or to other members of the public. The business of the Norfolk MAPPA is the protection of the public and this, the 4th Annual Report, details the progress that we have made in better protecting the public from the harm that can be caused by dangerous offenders. The Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) exists to identify, assess and manage those offenders in the community whose previous offences or current behaviour suggest that they could pose a risk.

Introduction
measures we have in place to enhance the protection of the public. The increased role of the Prison Service in these Arrangements, for example, will serve to ensure a continuity of assessment and planning as high-risk offenders move from custody to the community. Moreover, we will be joined by two Lay Advisors recently appointed to the Strategic Management Board that oversees the MAPPA. Acting as “critical friends” the Lay Advisors will bring a fresh perspective to the way that MAPPA operates and present the voice and concerns of the ‘ordinary person’ in challenging the professionals in the assessments and decisions that they make. Further, we will be looking to the Strategic Management Board to formalise its arrangements through Joint Agency Protocols, internal inspections of practice and engagement with the wider public that it serves. In progressing this, the 4th Annual Report provides us with an opportunity to reflect on our work over the last year and to outline the contributions that MAPPA has made to the protection of the public across Norfolk. We hope that by doing this we are able to go some way to reassuring the public of our commitment to their protection.

Ministerial Foreword by Baroness Scotland

The work being undertaken to improve the safety of communities through the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) is vitally important and a priority for government. The annual reports for 2004/5 provide evidence of that active engagement. Violence and sexual abuse are unacceptable wherever they occur and it is evident that through MAPPA such offenders are identified and better managed than ever before. As the number of offenders within MAPPA continues to grow as expected there is clear evidence that the Responsible Authority, that is the local Police, Probation and the Prison Service, is addressing these additional demands by strengthening local partnerships, using new statutory powers to restrict the behaviour of offenders, returning offenders to custody where they breach their licence or order, and using the findings of research and inspection to strengthen national guidance and local practice. Baroness Scotland - Minister of State for Criminal Justice and Offender Management The MAPPA first began operating in April 2001. Through legislation a duty was placed on the Police, the Probation Service and, more recently, the Prison Service (the Responsible Authorities) to jointly assess the risk that individual sexual and violent offenders pose and manage that risk through inter-agency cooperation. This is particularly the case for those offenders who give society the greatest cause for concern, the “critical few”, whose behaviour presents an immediate risk to the public, but also those whose profile suggests that their risk might escalate if not addressed through the multi agency arrangements that we have in place in Norfolk.

Although it is never possible completely to eliminate the risk posed by dangerous offenders, MAPPA is helping to ensure that fewer people are re-victimised.

The active implementation of the Criminal Justice Act (2003) during the last year has clearly enhanced the ability of a number of agencies including health, social services and housing to work collaboratively with the Responsible Authority in assessing and managing those sexual and violent offenders in our communities who pose the highest risk of serious harm. For the continued success of MAPPA this collaboration together with the scrutiny of policy and practice must become the hallmark of these arrangements. Similarly MAPPA must integrate with other public protection mechanisms dealing with child abuse, domestic abuse and racial abuse.

Martin Graham - Chief Officer, Norfolk Probation Area

The identification and management of risk is not restricted to offenders who are subject to supervision by Norfolk Probation Area or involved with the Norfolk Police. In carrying out their function the Responsible Authorities have long been supported by other agencies in Norfolk who are concerned with criminal justice, public protection or offender rehabilitation and resettlement. Indeed it is the increasing integration of the work of criminal justice agencies with social care agencies and other statutory bodies that has been the theme for the last year and will continue to provide the context for our work over the coming year. Whilst we are pleased with the developments that have made been we are not complacent and will ensure that over the next year we continue to monitor, review and improve upon the

Carole Howlett - Temporary Chief Constable, Norfolk Police

For me one of the most exciting developments in this arena in the last 12 months has been the appointment of lay advisers to assist the Responsible Authority in the oversight of the arrangements. As ordinary members of the public these lay advisers represent a diverse, able and committed group of people who are now helping the statutory agencies to oversee the work being undertaken through MAPPA and communicate

James Shandley - Governor, HMP Norwich.

2 THE 4TH ANNUAL REPORT 2004-5

THE 4TH ANNUAL REPORT 2004-5 3

MULTI AGENCY PUBLIC PROTECTION ARRANGEMENTS

WORKING TOGETHER TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC

How MAPPA operates locally
Category 3 Offenders

Referrals

MAPPA in Norfolk is overseen by a Strategic Management Board (see later) with the day to day operation coordinated by a MAPPA Manager and a Deputy Manager.

What is MAPPA? (Multi agency public protection arrangements)

This is the locally based arrangement for assessing and managing the risks posed by sexual and violent offenders. The purpose of MAPPP (Multi-Agency Public Protection Panels) is to How do we assess risk?

These do not fall into either category 1 or 2 by virtue of the offence they have committed or sentence received but they still pose a risk of serious harm to society. They are identified according to two criteria. Firstly it has to be established that the person has committed an offence which indicates they are capable of causing serious harm to the public. Secondly that it must be reasonably considered the person may cause serious harm to the public.

• Bring together and analyse, in a multi disciplinary setting,

Many of the cases referred will be statutory Probation cases; in addition to any offenders who fall into the above category we will also MAPPP all offenders subject to the Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme, that is those offenders who have been sentenced to a Community Order with a Requirement to attend this programme. These offenders would probably not fall into the normal remit for MAPPP, but it is a requirement of the programme that they are looked at by a multi disciplinary panel so that a full assessment of risk can be made as well as ensuring their victims are safe and given the support they need.

Probation Officer, Superintendent Police Officer, Area Manager from Social Services, and the local MAPPP Manager. All level 3 cases are reviewed at least every 3 months or at key times when intervention is needed. Level 2 offenders are those whose risk is considered as high and where more than one agency is involved. Level 1 cases deal with these who present the lowest risk to the public and can be dealt with largely by one agency.

the information that has led to concerns about the offender

• Make informed judgements about the likely risk the offender

poses to the public

• Decide what future risk management plans are needed to

reduce or manage that risk.

To make the most effective use of resources there are three separate but connected levels at which risk is assessed and managed. Generally the higher the level of risk the higher the level of management required. The level a case is managed at is dependant on the nature of that risk and how it can be managed. Risk is not static, it is dynamic, offenders can move between different levels of risk according to differing circumstances.

Once the person has been referred the MAPPP Manager, the Deputy Manager and a senior Police officer will screen them for suitability for the MAPPP process. A decision will be reached as to whether the offender falls into level 2 or level 3 of the criteria outlined above. The MAPPP Manager then convenes the MAPPP and the appropriate agencies are invited.

This allows risks to be identified and managed properly and targets finite resources effectively. The system is not infallible but it is designed to ensure risks are managed in a logical and responsible way. The decisions taken must be defensible, reasonable and must be well documented. One of the strengths of the MAPPP process is that decisions are made collectively, agreed at the meeting and there is accountability to ensure actions are carried out. Each agency’s Manager or supervisor has responsibility to ensure that priority is given to those cases where people are assessed as high risk. CASE STUDY – VIOLENT OFFENDER

The panel does not assume responsibility for the cases, the responsibility remains with the agency making the referral, but the MAPPP process helps to ensure that other agencies co-operate.

• Level 1 – ordinary risk management

There are 3 categories of cases managed by MAPPA:

Category 1 Registered Sex offenders

This is where the risks posed by an offender can be managed by one agency with close liason with other agencies as necessary. Generally such offenders are assessed as low or medium risk, many MAPPA offenders are managed at this level.

Multi-Agency Public Protection Panels meet to discuss cases in three centres in Norfolk: at Kings Lynn, Great Yarmouth and in Norwich. Level 3 meetings are always held in Norwich and happen on a monthly basis to consider new referrals and/or reviews of existing cases, whilst Level 2 meetings are held in the area that the offender resides and generally happen fortnightly. Those professionals who attend can include Police, Probation, Social Services, Housing, Health and any relevant agency that holds information on the person concerned.

The identification of such offenders lies primarily with the Police. Although such offenders can be on statutory supervision to the Probation service, it is necessary to liaise with the Police regarding assessment and management issues.

• Level 2 – MAPPP (Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel)
This is for offenders where risk assessment is a complex issue or needs more than one agency to properly manage the risk. Cases will be discussed at a round table MAPPP meeting so that information can be exchanged, proper risk assessments undertaken and plans agreed.

Category 2 Violent and other sex offenders

Each agency shares the information they have on the offender and a decision is then made whether to register the person as at risk of causing serious harm, or not.

S.D. a level 3 MAPPP subject, had been sentenced to 11 years in prison for violent offences which resulted in the victim being blinded in one case and left with permanent damage to the nerves of their face in another. He was assessed as presenting a very high risk of causing serious harm, which could happen at any time. He had been released previously, but been returned to prison and was due for release again. He was subject to MAPPP in another county but was being transferred to Norfolk Approved Premises due to concerns relating to his previous victims.

Whilst category 2 offences do not attract any requirement to register with the Police, all offenders will be under the statutory supervision of the Probation service, with the exception of a small number of offenders sentenced prior to the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

• Level 3 – MAPPP (Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel)
These are the “critical few”, the highest risk cases which, because of the seriousness of the offence or the notoriety of the offender, or the very high level of risk, need to be managed at the highest level.

Decisions are made using reliable risk assessments and professional expertise. Level 3 is the highest level of risk and is used for these people considered to be at risk of causing the public serious harm with some imminence, or where there is likely to be major public or media interest due to the nature of the case. Such cases usually require significant resources and are often referred to as “the critical few”. High-level representatives attend these cases from the relevant agencies for instance, Assistant Chief

A robust risk management plan was agreed, including a stringent curfew and reporting arrangements together with close liaison with the Police. It was learnt that he had developed a relationship with a vulnerable female who matched the profile of his previous victims. An emergency MAPPP was called where it was agreed that the risk of serious harm to the woman was considered so great that immediate and urgent recall was essential. Recall happened within a matter of hours.

4 THE 4TH ANNUAL REPORT 2004-5

THE 4TH ANNUAL REPORT 2004-5 5

MULTI AGENCY PUBLIC PROTECTION ARRANGEMENTS

WORKING TOGETHER TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC

Key achievements in the Norfolk MAPPA within the last 12 months
planning and procedures that prisoners will be subject to during their sentence. CASE EXAMPLE – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

“This last year has been about strengthening the collaboration between the agencies in Norfolk and building on the hard work of colleagues across the community” - J.W. MAPPA Manager 2001-November 2004.

• Assessment of offender’s needs and risks and accessing
prison based intervention and resettlement programmes to reduce risk.

The Prison Service

• Sharing information with community based public protection
agencies so that they are able to provide holistic assessments and risk management plans for the prisoner’s release. The Governor of HMP Norwich represents the Prison Service on the Strategic Management Board. Clearly HMP Norwich works with high-risk offenders from outside Norfolk as well as those returning to Norfolk, and as such the Governor has a role in ensuring that MAPPA in other counties are also supported and that practices and processes are consistent.

During this last year the Prison Service has joined Norfolk Probation Area and Norfolk Constabulary as the Responsible Authority group. This is the group that under Statute is tasked with the overall responsibility for the setting up, monitoring and development of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements for the management of high-risk offenders and others. The recent legislative changes (the Criminal Justice Act 2003) that have brought about the involvement of the Prison Service at this level reflect the important role that it has in protecting the public through:

J.T. was referred to the MAPPP by the Domestic Violence Unit of the Police. J.T. and his partner K.L. were both known to Social Services and Probation, but only J.T. was subject to current involvement through a Community Rehabilitation Order. The Domestic Violence Unit had received numerous calls from K.L. who had, over a period of time, received numerous injuries from J.T. Whilst K.L. had made official complaints in the past she had refused to give evidence that would support a prosecution. The Supervising Probation Officer had worked with J.T. regarding his domestic violence, but despite acknowledging his behaviour had not made any real changes to his behaviour, which seemed to be impulsive and related to his overall home situation.

• Keeping offenders in custody

It was confirmed that the Domestic Violence Unit and Social Services had both tried to work with K.L., but despite this she always allowed him to return home after a day or two. At the MAPPP meeting all agencies expressed concerns that at times K.L.’s behaviour aggravated the situation, this coupled with J.T.’s impulsive and violent responses meant that the risk of harm was high. Due to the lack of motivation for either K.L. or J.T. to engage in focussed work or make changes, it was agreed that a “Positive Prosecution Policy” be adopted. Following a further violent incident, K.L.’s children were deemed to be at risk of harm and were removed from the home. At this point K.L. decided that she had had enough and evicted J.T. from the home. K.L. now has another partner who is not violent towards her. J.T. was successfully prosecuted.

• By helping offenders to address the causes of their offending

• Assisting offenders in their resettlement plans.

The most important contribution that the Prison Service makes to the work of the MAPPA, however, is in ensuring a continuity of assessment, planning and intervention in the management of high-risk offenders. As offenders return from prison into the community or when they enter prison from the community there can be a break down in communication between the agencies tasked with their management and rehabilitation. By involving the Prison Service in the multi-agency public protection arrangements, Norfolk is seeking to strengthen the risk management assessments and plans that it makes.

“Whilst the focus of the MAPPA is on the management of risks posed by offenders in the community the Prison Service in Norfolk is committed to contributing to this through the work it does with prisoners pre release” - James Shandley, Governor, HMP Norwich.

More specifically, the Prison Services contribution comes through:

• Identifying MAPPA cases at the point of reception and

calculating their release date to ensure that agencies in the community can prepare for this.

• Advising community based colleagues on the sentence

6 THE 4TH ANNUAL REPORT 2004-5

THE 4TH ANNUAL REPORT 2004-5 7

MULTI AGENCY PUBLIC PROTECTION ARRANGEMENTS

WORKING TOGETHER TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC

Duty to Co-operate

Lay Advisors
views on how it can communicate its work to the local community and as part of this, next years Norfolk Annual Report will include a review by the Lay Advisors themselves.

It has long been understood that in order to protect the public, agencies concerned with managing the offender and reducing the risk of harm to the public, do so best by working together in sharing information and cooperating together. working together to address these factors. For instance we know that people are less likely to offend if their accommodation needs, employment/training and health care needs have been met. Likewise the contributions made by agencies concerned with mental health and child protection are often crucial in reducing the risks that individual offenders present. In practical terms this involves bringing the agencies together in round table ‘panel meetings’ (or Multi-Agency Public Protection Panels – MAPPPs). Or attendance at the Strategic Management Board meetings. These face to face meetings of professional practitioners and senior Managers ensure the sharing of advice about the assessment and management of cases from their agencies perspective and the development of strategic plans to address risk management. Last year the Home Office piloted the introduction of Lay Advisors to certain Strategic Management Boards throughout the country. The idea was that the Lay Advisors (members of the general public) would act as “critical friends” of the MAPPP process, challenge the professionals that sit on the Board in a constructive manner, and question what is being done and why. The pilot studies were evaluated and it was found that the Lay Advisors made a significant contribution to the process. We are currently actively seeking another lay Member of the Strategic Management Board, we hope to attract someone from a minority ethnic background.

The 2003 Criminal Justice and Court Services Act embeds these principles of good practice in law and places key agencies under an actual “Duty to Cooperate” in the management of offenders who are subject to MAPPPs.

“I’m looking forward to gaining a greater understanding of the three main Criminal Justice Agencies and to working in collaboration with other partner agencies involved in community development and public safety. This increased awareness will, I’m certain, enable me to ask the “why” questions of the professionals involved, and to offer constructive criticism where necessary. I believe that it is vital to share the thinking behind the lay initiative with the public that MAPPA serves. I believe this will go a long way to reassuring the public that they have a voice where decisions are taken that affect their safety.” - P.S. Lay Advisor

Those agencies who have “signed up” to the Duty to Cooperate are Youth Offending Teams, Social Security (including Child Support, War Pensions and Employment & Training), Education, Local Housing Authorities and Registered Social Landlords, e.g. Housing Associations, Social Care Services with a particular emphasis on child and vulnerable protection, Local Health Authorities and Primary Care Trusts, the providers of electronic tagging equipment, and a new member Jobcentre Plus. Many of the above were already involved in public protection arrangements but this has now been strengthened, as you will see below.

“Given the importance of accommodation in the resettlement of offenders and therefore in the management of their risk it is vital that the Norfolk Housing Authority and Registered Social Landlords are able to contribute to MAPPA”. - Daryl Smith Housing Authority representative.
CASE STUDY - MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS

There are three important features of the Duty to Co-operate:

1. The establishment of shared arrangements to assess and manage the risk posed by offenders subject to the MAPPP process.

2. The confirmation that such arrangements are as important and comparable with any other statutory function of the agency.

In Norfolk we advertised for members of the public to take up the post of Lay Advisors in February 2005. A number of people were interviewed from a strong and eclectic pool of candidates and one was selected to sit on the Strategic Management Board. She will commence her training and induction into the MAPPP process in the Spring/Summer of 2005 and will thereafter take up her seat on the Board. We are currently seeking a further lay member for the Strategic Management Board. The appointment of the Lay Advisors seeks to ensure that a community interest is represented on the Strategic Management Board. Coming with a wealth of experience from ‘non-professional’ backgrounds they will play a key role in bringing a different perspective to the review and monitoring of MAPPA. The Lay Advisors will not be involved in operational decision-making, but will assist in the review of MAPPP functions. Crucial to this is their role in challenging the views of agencies and professionals so as to ensure that the concerns and issues of the wider community are reflected upon in developing the Arrangements. The professionals engaged in the MAPPA are diligent and rigorous but, on occasion, it can be difficult to bring to bear the ordinary persons point of view alongside their professional judgement. This is where the Lay Advisors play a part: in asking pointed questions of the SMB and commenting on the way that the Board delivers on its core activities. Further, the Lay Advisors will be expected to offer the SMB their

3. The development of “memorandums of understanding” drawn up by the Duty to Co-operate agencies and the Responsible Authorities clarifying their respective responsibilities.

Whilst the main focus of some of the Duty to Co-operate agencies may not, on the face of it, be concerned with public protection, it is clear that public protection is often on the coordination of work that key agencies undertake with an offender. Public protection is enhanced and strengthened by

The Community Mental Health Team referred S.D. to the MAPPP. She was known to a number of agencies including Police, Probation, Mental Health, Housing, and a number of voluntary agencies. Her behaviour was such that she had been banned from a number of agencies. She was diagnosed with a mental illness as well as a personality disorder. To some extent she was compliant with treatment, but when stabilised would with draw from treatment, stop taking her medication and relapse, causing worries over her behaviour and about the risk of harm she posed to herself and others. Treatment and response had become a “revolving door”. Her psychiatrist and others involved in her care considered she required long-term treatment in a secure environment, which would necessitate a placement in a non - NHS hospital. Through the MAPPP meeting the Primary Care Trust member agreed to the full funding necessary to secure successful treatment for her.

8 THE 4TH ANNUAL REPORT 2004-5

THE 4TH ANNUAL REPORT 2004-5 9

MULTI AGENCY PUBLIC PROTECTION ARRANGEMENTS

WORKING TOGETHER TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC

New legislation
CASE STUDY - SEX OFFENDER The primary focus of MAPPP meetings is the risk assessment and management of the offender. However, part of the management of an offender is to ensure that all practical steps are taken to reduce the risk of further victims being created and to protect existing victims from re-victimisation. The risk an offender poses to vulnerable people, such as children, those with learning disabilities or the elderly requires effective co-working between the Responsible Authorities (Police, Prison and Probation) and other agencies such as Social Services or mental health professionals. There are three reasons underlying the importance of victim focus in MAPPP meetings. 1. The Probation Service has a statutory duty to consult with and notify victims of sexual or other violent crimes about the release arrangements of the offender, where they are sentenced to 12 months or more. 2. The Responsible Authority owes a “duty of care” to existing victims and should take all reasonable steps to protect people from re-victimisation. 3. Victims can make a contribution to the assessment and management of risk, as they know the nature of the risk imposed by the offender. This is particularly important where the offender has been in an abusive relationship with family members or in other forms of domestic violence. Victims of sexual offending have been identified as a priority group by the National Victims and Witness Strategy, which was published in July 2003. It aims to improve support for victims and witnesses by B.B., a registered sex offender and a level 3 MAPPP case, was sentenced to a period of custody for breaching a requirement of his Sex Offender Registration, because he failed to notify the Police of a change of address. However, he continued to behave in a risky way and a Sex Offender Prevention Order was obtained. The publicity surrounding this led to concerns that B.B. may be at risk of harm from members of the community. His neighbours presented the housing authority with a petition demanding he be moved from the area. The Public Protection Unit in London was kept informed of developments as they occurred. Matters were then further complicated by the pregnancy of his partner. The baby was due to be born around the same time as B.B. was released from prison and an earlier child protection conference had decided the baby should be should be removed from her at birth to safeguard it.

The protection of victims
These initiatives will help to improve public confidence in the Criminal Justice System. The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill will create a new independent post of Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses to be a champion/voice for all victims of crime and a new statutory code of practice will be built on to the existing victims charter, setting out the responsibilities that each criminal justice agency and Victim Support must provide to victims.

The last 12 months have been a time of change and challenge for the Norfolk MAPPP. The introduction of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act (2003) has meant many changes and a strengthening of MAPPP. In particular the inclusion of the Prison Service as part of the Responsible Authority and the Duty to Cooperate protocols have embedded in Law a duty for agencies to work together, sharing information as well as risk assessment and risk management of the offenders included in the MAPPP process.

“Victim Contact Unit work with these cases helps to empower victims at a vulnerable time in their lives. They are kept informed of key stages in the sentencing process, they have knowledge of the supervision imposed on the offender post release and are able to request release license conditions such as “No contact with victim”, and/or a geographical exclusion zone around where they live and work. Victims have frequently expressed their view that having a Victim Liaison Officer represent their interests in the minefield of the Criminal Justice System, has been a positive experience coming from an otherwise traumatic ordeal”. - J.K. Probation Victim Liaison Officer
CASE EXAMPLE A young woman was the victim of a violent attack from her expartner. He was sent to prison for 18 months. She feared he would attack her on his release. It was decided at a MAPPP meeting that there should be conditions on his licence preventing him from contacting his ex-partner and an exclusion zone was put around the area in which she lived which prevented that offender from entering the area. This helped the victim to feel much safer.

The Sexual Offences Act (2003) overhauls much of the antiquated sex offender legislation, plus many of the “loopholes” in existing law. It strengthens the law on rape and sexual offences against children. It introduces new offences such as “sexual grooming” and extends the protection from exploitation in relation to 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, thus targeting those who abuse children this way. It also strengthens the Sex Offenders Register and introduces civil orders (Sex Offender Prevention Orders or SOPO’s) to prevent further offences being committed. This helps the Police to monitor convicted sex offenders in our area. It will also involve MAPPP in a lot more meetings to share information and discuss the way forward when assessing and monitoring sex offenders. Various agencies all worked very closely together on this case and the Public Protection Unit of the Home Office was regularly updated. A contingency plan in case of public disorder when B.B. was released was arranged. The Police press department was kept fully informed and had an agreed press release should it be needed. However, matters were successfully concluded with the unborn child’s safety being secured, and the offender released from custody without complication or repercussions from the public.

• Reducing the adverse effects of crime on victims and
witnesses, preventing secondary victims

“The MAPPA process opens up channels to other relevant agencies when we are dealing with some of the most difficult offenders in the County. It allows for frank and appropriate exchange of views, a real measure of risk and will also put in place an effective Management Plan with a contribution from all agencies.” - M.A., Detective Inspector Public Protection Unit, Norfolk Constabulary.

• Encouraging more victims and witnesses to come forward • Offering more options to victims and witnesses, including
alternatives to Court attendance.

10 THE 4TH ANNUAL REPORT 2004-5

THE 4TH ANNUAL REPORT 2004-5 11

MULTI AGENCY PUBLIC PROTECTION ARRANGEMENTS

WORKING TOGETHER TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC

Disclosure of information
There is clearly a need to bring about consistency in both referrals and response from all agencies involved in MAPPP. This requires that agencies understand the role of MAPPP; what it can and can’t do. To this end the previous MAPPP Manager made a number of presentations to Primary Care Trusts, mental health agencies the Area Child Protection Committee etc. with the aim of bringing about consistency and clarification. This work is ongoing and the present Manager has a schedule of presentations and informal gatherings planned over the next 12 months to raise awareness of MAPPP throughout Norfolk. Recently there has been a change of MAPPP Manager as the previous incumbent had come to the end of her secondment. We would also like to extend our thanks to the Acting MAPPP Manager “who held the fort” between November 2004 and March 2005 when the current Manager was able to take up her post. We are fortunate in being able to have acquired the funding for a Deputy MAPPP Manager post from April 2005 and this post is to be filled by the former Acting Manager. The remit for this post is to look at the development of the level 2 MAPPPs and how to manage them both effectively and efficiently.

Promoting the work of MAPPA

MAPPA management in Norfolk

Data collection and information sharing
Up to now the Police and the Probation service have relied on local unconnected computer databases to record details of offenders in their area. This has made it difficult to keep track of individuals as they move from area to area.

Information about individuals is shared at MAPPP meetings and is confidential to those agencies that attend. At the start of the MAPPP meeting a confidentiality statement is read out and all the agencies that attend the meetings have signed a confidentiality protocol. A balance is struck between having sufficient information to make an informed decision to manage the risk the person poses, but at the same time, not breaching the confidential nature of the information that is shared.

Sometimes it may be necessary to share information about a person’s history to protect a victim or others in the community. However, this is only done after careful consideration and with the recommendation of the MAPPP Manager.

Information is always disclosed in a sensitive way, sometimes they are only told about the person in general terms. Occasionally where appropriate, more specific information is given.

“I have a much better understanding of the role of MAPPP and how it works. Coming along to the conference has really clarified things for me. I now feel confidant about making a referral.” - ACPC conference delegate.

We are currently in the process of piloting a new referral form, which will ensure that we have sufficient information on which to make the screening decisions. A new form is to be used when screening referrals. This will ensure accountability and transparency in the decision making process whilst at the same time ensuring robust targeting of both referrals and resources. In addition we have also set up a new method of tracking referrals through the MAPPP process. We hope that these new systems will assist in providing an “audit trail” and will become a foundation for accountability in the future.

ViSOR is a computer based Violent and Sex Offender Register and is set to play a vital role both nationally and locally in monitoring sex, dangerous and violent offenders. We hope to introduce ViSOR to Norfolk in 2005. The information sharing potential under ViSOR will make Police and Probation officers responsible for monitoring this category of offender more effective. All Police and Probation areas will have ViSOR in the near future, therefore any information added by Police or Probation in one part of the country will become immediately searchable by Police and Probation in another part of the country. Large amounts of information can be held on offenders making it more difficult for them to change their appearance and emerge undetected in another part of the country. ViSOR will comply with the Human Rights Act and the Data Protection Act.

12 THE 4TH ANNUAL REPORT 2004-5

THE 4TH ANNUAL REPORT 2004-5 13

MULTI AGENCY PUBLIC PROTECTION ARRANGEMENTS

WORKING TOGETHER TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC

Strategic Management Board
county Criminal Justice Board to ensure a holistic approach to public protection.

Final Thoughts on MAPPA

• Helped to improve the quality of public protection work
through multi agency training. • Participated in a Thematic Inspection of Sex Offenders by Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary and of HMI Probation. Over the next twelve months the SMB has tasked itself with taking forward its work through formalised sub groups concerned with Quality Assurance, Policy and Procedures and Training and Development.

The Strategic Management Board provides oversight of the Arrangements in Norfolk. The Board draws its membership from Senior Managers from the Responsible Authority agencies (the Probation Service, the Police and the Prison Service) and from key stakeholders concerned with Criminal Justice, Public Protection and Offender Management. In addition to this, two Lay Advisors represent the wider community.

“In my experience, MAPPA adds hugely to the management of high risk offenders by providing a multi-agency forum of skills, experience and decision making that is unique in this field. The close cooperation that exists between the agencies and the confidential sharing of information improves risk management far beyond that which would be possible without the MAPPA”. - D.B. the Deputy Manager “Having previously been a member of the “general public” I had little knowledge of how the various agencies worked, either solely or together. However, I am extremely impressed with the work of the MAPPA and consider it to be an essential forum for protecting the public in Norfolk.” - L.R. MAPPP Administrator

The SMB has the statutory duty to ensure rigor and scrutiny in the review and monitoring of MAPPA. Over this last period it has been active in ensuring that in Norfolk we have effective multi agency risk assessments and management arrangements in place and in making any changes to them when necessary.

Each year the SMB develops a Programme of Work to take forward its principle activities:

• To monitor and evaluate the operation of the Arrangements

and identify areas for improvement.

“The SMB is committed to ensuring that all of the staff from the participating agencies continues to share information, expertise and knowledge and foster a collaborative approach to public protection” - S.M. Assistant Chief Officer, SMB Chair

• To ensure that the work of MAPPA supports and

complements the work being undertaken by other public protection arrangements.

“Being new to the role of MAPPP Manager I’ve had the opportunity to look at the process with fresh eyes, to review policies and procedures. I feel this will contribute overall to enhancing public safety. I’m delighted at the level of cooperation shown by all the various agencies involved with MAPPP and the willingness to improve public protection by working together” - J.S. MAPPP Manager

• To promote the work of MAPPA across Norfolk and the

contribution that it makes to protecting the public.

Meeting on a regular basis throughout the year the Norfolk SMB has:

• Developed and agreed local policies and procedures for

inter-agency work to protect the public.

• Facilitated effective working relationships based on trust and

shared objectives between professionals from a wide variety of statutory and community agencies.

• Worked to bring about agreement and mutual understanding

amongst agencies about the nature of risk and appropriate levels of intervention.

• Worked alongside the Norfolk Area Child Protection

Committee, the District Crime and Disorder Groups and the

14 THE 4TH ANNUAL REPORT 2004-5

THE 4TH ANNUAL REPORT 2004-5 15

MULTI AGENCY PUBLIC PROTECTION ARRANGEMENTS

WORKING TOGETHER TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC

MAPPA annual reports statistical information for Norfolk
NUMBER OF OFFENDERS QUESTION NUMBER OF OFFENDERS

Required for the reporting period 1st April 2004 - 31st March 2005

QUESTION

1. Category 1 MAPPA offenders: Registered Sex Offenders (RSO) 547

4. Offenders managed though Level 3 (MAPPP) & Level 2 (local inter-agency management)

i)

The number of RSOs living in your Area on 31st March 2005.

This is information principally held by the Police and is a snapshot of RSOs on 31/03/05. It should NOT include RSOs in prison.
68 26 (b) V&O Level 3 Level 2 (c) OthO Level 3 Level 2

ia) The number of RSOs per 100'000 head of population.

viii) Identify how many MAPPA offenders in the following three categories have been managed through the MAPPP (level 3) and through local inter-agency risk management (level 2) between 1st April 2004 and 31st March 2005: (a) RSOs Level 3 Level 2

8 21 5 51 1 7

ii)

The number of sex offenders having a registration requirement who were either cautioned or convicted for breaches of the requirement, between 1st April 2004 and 31st March 2005

Only those cautions that have actually taken place and breaches that have been successfully completed during the reporting period should be counted.
3 3 2

iii) The number of: (a) Sexual Offences Prevention Orders (SOPOs) applied for (b) interim SOPOs granted (c) full SOPOs imposed by the courts in your Area between 1st May 2004 and 31st March 2005

The level 3 figure is the ‘critical few’. The criteria for referring a case to the MAPPP are defined in MAPPA Guidance as those in which the offender:

Sex Offender Orders & Sex Offender Restraining orders (both superseded by the SOPO) and their interim counterparts applied for and/or imposed by the courts between 1st - 30th April 2004 should be incorporated into these figures.

• •
0 0 0

is assessed under OASys as being a high or very high risk of causing serious harm; AND presents risks that can only be managed by a plan which requires close co-operation at a senior level due to the complexity of the case and/or because of the unusual resource commitments it requires; OR although not assessed as a high or very high risk, the case is exceptional because the likelihood of media scrutiny and/or public interest in the management of the case is very high and there is a need to ensure that public confidence in the criminal justice system is sustained.

iv) The number of: (a) Notification Orders applied for (b) interim Notification Orders granted (c) full Notification Orders imposed by the courts in your Area between 1st May 2004 & 31st March 2005

v) The number of Foreign Travel Orders: (a) applied for (b) imposed by the courts in your Area between 1st May 2004 & 31st March 2005 0 0

The level 2 figure should include those offenders who have not been managed at level 3 at any point in the counting period & meet the criteria set out in the MAPPA Guidance as follows:

2. Category 2 MAPPA offenders: Violent offenders and Other Sexual offenders (V&OS) 79

The management of the offender requires the active involvement of more than one agency but the complexity of managing the risk is not so great as to require referral to Level 3, the MAPPP
ix) Of the cases managed at levels 3 or 2 (i.e. (viii)) between 1st April 2004 and 31st March 2005 how many, whilst managed at that level: (a) Were returned to custody for a breach of licence? Level 3 Level 2 1 2

vi) The number of violent and other sexual offenders (as defined by Section 327 (3), (4) and (5) of the Criminal Justice Act (2003)) living in your Area between 1st April 2004 and 31st March 2005

You should include in this figure only those Category 2 offenders who are living in your Area during the reporting period. You should NOT include those Category 2 offenders who are still in custody. Care must also be taken NOT to include here any Category 1 offenders.

3. Category 3 MAPPA offenders: Other Offenders (OthO) 8

vii) The number of ‘other offenders’ (as defined by Section 325 (2)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act (2003)) between 1st April 2004 and 31st March 2005.

(b) Were returned to custody for a breach of a restraining order or sexual offences prevention order? Level 3 Level 2 (c) Were charged with a serious sexual or violent offence? Level 2 Level 3

0 0 0 0

This figure should not include any offenders who are included in either the Category 1 or 2 (i.e. (i) and (vi) above) unless they have left those categories and are still considered by the Responsible Authority to pose a risk of serious harm.

16 THE 4TH ANNUAL REPORT 2004-5

THE 4TH ANNUAL REPORT 2004-5 17

MULTI AGENCY PUBLIC PROTECTION ARRANGEMENTS

Comments on statistics
Norfolk Probation Area Norfolk Social Services Mandy Lyons Service Manager Child Protection County Hall Martineau Lane Norwich Norfolk NR1 2SQ Tel: 01603 222141

Agency Representatives in the Norfolk MAPPA
Youth Offending Team Sue Massey Graphic House 120 Thorpe Road Norwich Norfolk NR1 1RT Tel: 01603 877526

There has been a fairly large influx of out of county offenders through the Probation Hostel which have influenced the figures. These offenders have now largely returned to their own counties and this is reflected in the reduced numbers this year. Stuart MacDonald Assistant Chief Officer 4th Floor St James Yarn Mill Whitefriars Norwich Norfolk NR3 1SU Tel: 01603 220100

Whilst there are a relatively high number of registered sex offenders in the county, and these naturally cause concern to the public, the incidence of violent offenders are steadily growing and the management of such offenders is an issue which needs to be addressed within Norfolk during the coming year. Norfolk Police

Premier Monitoring Services Head of Monitoring Services Austin House Stannard Place St Crispins Norwich Norfolk NR3 1YF

Offenders who breached licence conditions did so for minor offences such as failing to notify a change of address. There were no serious incidents which would have warranted recall.

Howard Wynn Service Manager Adult Protection Nelson House 31-33 South Quay Great Yarmouth Norfolk NR30 2RG Tel: 01493 850317

Tel: 01603 428300 Norwich City Council HMP/YOI

D.I. Mike Austin Public Protection Unit Norfolk Constabulary Jubilee House Falconers Chase Wymondham Norfolk NR18 OWW Tel: 01603 276318

MAPPP Coordinator

Lynda Peacock Acting Director of Housing City Hall St Peters Street Norwich NR2 1NH Tel: 01603 212212

James Shanley Governor Knox Road Norwich Norfolk NR1 4LU Tel: 01603 708600 The Norvic Clinic Joy Singleton Public Protection Unit Norfolk Constabulary Jubilee House Falconers Chase Wymondham Norfolk NR18 OWW Tel: 01603 276344

Dr Ann Stanley Norvic Clinic St Andrews Business Park Thorpe St Andrew Norwich Norfolk NR7 4HT Tel: 01603 439614

18 THE 4TH ANNUAL REPORT 2004-5

THE 4TH ANNUAL REPORT 2004-5 19

MULTI AGENCY PUBLIC PROTECTION ARRANGEMENTS

Notes

20 THE 4TH ANNUAL REPORT 2004-5

MULTI AGENCY PUBLIC PROTECTION ARRANGEMENTS

Printed by:
40-42 Lothian Street Norwich NR2 4PH Telephone: 01603 625542 Fax: 01603 621817 Email: sales@rigby-print.co.uk www.rigby-print.co.uk

An eye for detail

THE 4TH ANNUAL REPORT 2004-5