Goggins, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Community and Custodial provision in the Home Office As the recently appointed Minister with responsibility for the MAPPA, I am pleased to introduce this, the second, annual MAPPA report. It is clear that in the last year (2002/3) the multi-agency public protection arrangements (the MAPPA) continued to play an important role in what remains one of this government’s highest priorities – the protection of the public from dangerous offenders. As someone with many years experience of working in the field of child protection, I am particularly impressed by the important contribution the MAPPA are making to strengthen collaboration between agencies at a local level where the focus is on the dangerous offender. These improvements must, however, impact on the protection of children. As the tragic death of Victoria Climbie showed, an effective multi-agency partnership is crucial and the MAPPA are an important element. To ensure greater consistency in the MAPPA across the 42 Areas of England and Wales, and to prepare for the implementation of measures contained in the Criminal Justice Bill, we published the MAPPA Guidance in April. Building on good practice, that Guidance clarified the structure of the operational arrangements as well as the importance of formal review and monitoring – of which this annual report is a vital part. The Criminal Justice Bill will strengthen the MAPPA in two ways. First, it will make the involvement of other agencies part of the statutory framework. Second, it will introduce the involvement of lay people – those unconnected with day-to-day operation of the MAPPA – in reviewing and monitoring the MAPPA. Annual reports and this new lay involvement show the Government’s commitment to explaining how the often sensitive and complex work of public protection is undertaken. The Government is also strengthening the protection of the public with other measures in the Criminal Justice Bill. They include new sentences for dangerous offenders to prevent their release if they continue to be dangerous. Additionally, the Sexual Offences Bill will tighten up sex offender registration, introduce a new offence of ‘grooming’, and enable sex offender orders to be imposed on violent offenders who pose a risk of causing serious sexual harm – thereby extending sex offender registration to them. I commend this report to you and congratulate all the agencies and individuals who have contributed to the achievement of the MAPPA locally in your local Area.

Paul Goggins


SECTION B: THE NATIONAL PICTURE This section of the report draws attention to wider context of the operation and development of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (the MAPPA). The most important work undertaken within the MAPPA is done locally, led by the Police and Probation – who act jointly as the ‘Responsible Authority’ in your Area – and in each of the 42 Areas of England and Wales. The experience and good practice upon which this work is based began in the 1990s – most significantly as a result of the closer working relationship required by the Sex Offender Act (1997). The Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act (2000) formalised that relationship and built on the existing experience by requiring the Police and Probation services to establish arrangements (the MAPPA) for assessing and managing the risks posed by sexual and violent offenders. The Act also required the Responsible Authority to publish an annual report on the operation of those arrangements. This report, covering April 2002 to March 2003, is the second annual report. The importance of partnership Key to the development of the MAPPA in the past year has been the closer involvement of other agencies, such as housing, health and social services, working alongside Police and Probation. The truly multi-agency nature of the MAPPA and the collaboration which underpins it is to be strengthened further by the Criminal Justice Bill. The Bill will place a ‘duty to co-operate’ on a wide range of organisations including local health authorities and trusts; housing authorities and registered social landlords; social services departments; Jobcentres; Youth Offending Teams; and local education authorities. In addition, the Prison Service will join the Police and Probation services and become part of the MAPPA ‘Responsible Authority’. Supporting and co-ordinating the development of the MAPPA throughout the 42 Areas of England and Wales, is the National Probation Directorate’s Public Protection Unit (PPU). This Unit acts as a central point for advice and, increasingly, involvement in the management of difficult cases. These include, for example, UK citizens who have committed serious offences abroad and return to this country without anywhere to live. The Unit is also able to provide financial support when the risk management plans make exceptional demands upon local resources. Involving the public MAPPA developments in the next 18 months will also include the appointment by the Home Secretary of two ‘lay advisers’ to each Area. The eight Areas of England and Wales which have been piloting these arrangements since January (Cumbria, Greater Manchester, Durham, South Wales, Dorset, Hampshire, Surrey and West Midlands) report that they add real value. Lay advisers will contribute to the review and monitoring of the MAPPA which is undertaken by each Area’s Strategic Management Board – the work of which you can read more in this report. The purpose of appointing ‘lay advisers’ is to ensure that communities understand more of what is done to protect them and that those involved professionally with the MAPPA are aware of the views of the community. The lay advisers will not ‘represent’ the community in the way, for example, that local councillors do, nor will


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


SECTION C: AREA SUMMARY The Origins of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) Humberside Police Service covers the Unitary Authority areas of North East Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire, the East Riding of Yorkshire and the City of Kingston-upon-Hull. The Service is divided into A, B, C and D Divisions that correspond to, and are coterminous with, those Unitary Authorities boundaries. They in turn are coterminous with the National Probation Service – Humberside’s larger offices in Grimsby, Scunthorpe and Hull. In terms of the East Riding a focus is provided at Beverley. This is the second Annual Report prepared by National Probation Service – Humberside and Humberside Police Service in respect of Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA). The first Annual Report (published in August 2002) provided an account of the setting up of Multi-Agency Public Protection Panels (MAPPPs) within the Probation and Police area. This followed legislation coming into force on 1st April 2001 requiring the two Services to work together as a joint ‘Responsible Authority’ in order to effectively assess and manage the risk posed by serious sexual or violent offenders within the community. The origins of MAPPA within the area covered by the two Services, in fact, goes rather further back than the two years since the legislation came into force. National Probation Service – Humberside and Humberside Police Service have a long history of co-operation in dealing with dangerous offenders. This has involved the sharing of information, and the earlier setting up of what were referred to as multi-agency risk strategy meetings. The Criminal Justice & Court Services Act 2000 both formalised and developed this earlier joint working. In recent years these arrangements have been developed and refined and are now based on, and tailored to suit local requirements. Each Police Division has strategic and tactical arrangements in place. These will be outlined in more detail later in this report. Protecting the public is a responsibility that is as serious as it is challenging. It places demands upon the Police and Probation Services, as well as other agencies represented on MAPPA, to share relevant information, to undertake a rigorous assessment of risk based on all available information, to determine and deliver a management plan which matches and addresses identified areas of risk, and to continually evaluate performance to ensure that we provide the best and most effective service possible. The Principles Underpinning Public Protection Managing the risk presented by offenders who pose a serious risk of harm to the public is complex, requiring that the rights and interests of victims, the wider public and the offender are considered and met. For example, an offender who is coming to the end of a prison sentence may look forward to returning to his home town, where he has family and roots. However, the victim or victim’s family is also likely to have remained in the area and may be fearful of, or at least distressed by, the


prospect of contact with the offender. The return of a known offender to an area can also give rise to public order concerns if it is thought that the offender might be subject to revenge attacks or so-called vigilantism. While the law does allow restrictions to be placed upon a released offender’s freedom of movement (e.g. by prohibiting contact with victims or access to defined areas of a town), it is rarely possible to exclude an offender from the whole of a town or village. Achieving the balance necessary to meet the rights and liberties expected by all parties is always a challenge, often requiring that the work of MAPPA to tread a fine line between the need for overt monitoring, and working with the offender to promote longer term rehabilitation. In all cases the degree of intrusion and other steps put in place within the risk management plan must be proportional to the risk posed by the offender. In this regard, we are frequently asked why we do not inform neighbourhoods where sex offenders are living. The answer is that the law does not allow such wideranging disclosure. While some members of the public would respond positively and reasonably to this information, experience has shown that others would not. Like all of us, an offender has the right to go about his lawful business without fear of assault or harassment. Although we believe that arrangements in the area covered by this report significantly strengthen public protection, MAPPA cannot provide absolute protection. This point is stressed by Professor Hazel Kemshall who writes: “The desirable outcome of MAPPA is effective risk management. However, this should not be understood as ‘zero risk’ as this position can never be achieved… Risk management should be understood as harm reduction either through the reduction of the likelihood of a risk occurring, or the reduction of its impact should it occur.”1 Even the most painstaking efforts on the part of Service managers, Probation officers, Police officers and our partner agencies cannot always prevent offenders from committing offences which cause serious harm (during the period covered by this annual report, two offenders managed by MAPPA went on to commit further serious offences – see table 1, viii(c)). We cannot offer the promise of complete protection against the behaviour of dangerous and often deeply disturbed offenders. However, the public can rightly expect that we will act reasonably and professionally in undertaking this important work. In managing the risk posed by an offender, MAPPA employs what might be described as a ‘twin track’ approach. Firstly, we work with the offender to get him to recognise and accept that he poses a risk to the public, and to improve his selfcontrol (or ‘internal’ controls). This involves getting the offender to think about his offending and the harm it causes in great detail. This includes looking at situations that may trigger offending or make offending more or less likely (e.g. whether alcohol or certain social situations increases or decreases the likelihood of offending). It also involves working with the offender to explore alternative courses of action that would steer him away from further offending.

Kemshall, H. (2003) The Community Management of High-Risk Offenders, Prison Service Journal, March 2003.



National Probation Service – Humberside, together with our colleagues within the Prison Service, delivers a number of Home Office accredited programmes of intervention with offenders. These are based on the best that research tells us is effective with offenders (and, for that reason, are often collectively referred to as the ‘What Works’ initiative). Programmes are delivered by trained and experienced staff and the quality of programme delivery is constantly monitored. Programmes aimed at working with sex offenders can last for up to a year or more. A ‘relapse prevention’ programme in the community can follow up sex offender treatment programmes delivered during an offender’s time in prison. Other programmes (such as the ‘Think First’ programme) aim to develop the offender’s ability to resolve issues without recourse to offending and to avoid situations which make offending more likely. Of course, MAPPA does not just rely on the offender developing ‘internal’ controls. An offender assessed as posing a risk of serious harm would have to demonstrate his or her commitment towards not offending for a considerable period of time before the Probation and Police Services became convinced that they posed little or no risk. For a number of offenders, and despite their own efforts towards self-control, we could never be confident that they would not re-offend. For this reason, ‘internal’ controls are always supported by supervision and monitoring arrangements (or ‘external’ controls). For example, almost all sex offenders are required to register their whereabouts (home address) with the Police. This includes any change of address, any temporary stay amounting to 14 days within a twelve-month period, or any intention to travel abroad for eight days or longer. Specialist Police officers maintain the Sex Offender Register and visit the offender to confirm where they are living. For adult offenders, the requirements of sex offender registration can be in place for between five years and life. The National Probation Service provides and manages other examples of ‘external’ control. All offenders released from prison following a sentence of twelve months or more are supervised by Probation officers. The duration of supervision is dependent upon length of sentence, with the offender’s licence being revoked and him or her returned to prison if they do not comply with the conditions attached to release. For offenders sentenced to four years or more, the Parole Board determines licence conditions. These conditions can impose restrictions on the offender’s movements, and always include regular supervision by the National Probation Service (i.e. ‘external’ controls). The licence can also include a requirement to participate on an offending behaviour programme (i.e. seeking to develop ‘internal’ controls). MAPPA brings together the collective knowledge held by participating agencies about an offender who poses a risk of serious harm. It also brings together their individual and collective ability to assess the degree of risk posed, and the paricipating agencies’ experience of managing offenders who are assessed as posing a risk to the public. This collective knowledge and experience is brought together in a risk management plan which imposes external controls and monitoring, while also seeking to develop the offender’s internal controls.


Significant Operational Events While there have been no operational events of major significance to the work of MAPPA during 2002-2003, a number of issues warrant mention within this annual report. First of all, the number of registered sex offenders in the Humberside Police/Probation area increased by 22% during the year. This is higher than the national average increase of approximately 14%. However, an overall increase year-on-year is to be anticipated as offenders are convicted and required to register for extended periods of time. Secondly, and alongside other Police services, Humberside Police has investigated a significant number of cases involving Internet accessed child pornography arising from the national ‘Operation Ore’. This work has required careful consideration and monitoring by MAPPA and has involved the use of significant resources. In the longer term this operation provides the potential to identify a large number of offenders and potential victims, the management of which will undoubtedly place additional demands upon the time and resources of participating Agencies. Interestingly, an early outcome of Operation Ore has been the revelation that the majority of suspects arising from investigations have neither previous convictions nor have they been previously investigated by the Police. Thirdly, at the end of the period covered by this annual report, the Home Office published comprehensive guidance on the delivery and management of MAPPA. This guidance took effect from 1st April 2003, and has statutory authority (i.e. each ‘responsible authority’ is required to implement the framework outlined in the guidance). This will inevitably lead to some adjustment to the structures adopted within the Humberside Police/Probation area. These are still being considered and will be reported in next year’s annual report. Finally, as referred to earlier, two offenders assessed as posing a high risk of serious harm went on to commit further serious offences during the year. This is regrettable, but has to be viewed in the context of MAPPA managing 135 offenders who are assessed as posing the highest risk, and 844 offenders who are included within the provision overall. SECTION D: ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES As outlined earlier, the Criminal Justice & Court Services Act 2000 placed a joint responsibility on the Police and the Probation Service to make arrangements for the assessment and management of the risks posed by sexual and violent offenders, and other offenders who may cause serious harm to the public. The roles and responsibilities of the key agencies involved in MAPPA are detailed below. It should be stressed that the agencies outlined below are not the only agencies involved in MAPPA, other agencies attend multi-agency public protection panel meetings on an individual case by case basis. Whilst such contributions may not be as regular as the main agencies their contribution is nonetheless the key to the success of these arrangements. For example, the area’s four Youth Offending


Teams will not necessarily attend each meeting, but will attend when a young offender known to them is considered. Police As with all the other partners participating in MAPPA, one of the key roles of the Police is to provide information regarding the background to previous offending history as well as an assessment of specific risk. Where appropriate Police resources will be applied to the risk management plan agreed by the panel members. The Police activity could include regular contact with the offender, information gathering as to their movements, and high visible foot patrols to disrupt inappropriate activity. National Probation Service The Probation Service has very similar roles and responsibilities to those of the Police. In essence they are as follows: • • • • • To provide details of offending history and patterns of offending behaviour. To supply information regarding behaviour during sentence (both in custody and the community) and if applicable, response to treatment programs. Are key players in completing risk assessments and risk management plans. Supervise offenders in the community. Provide Chair and admin facilities, as required, to MAPPPs.

Health Mental Health is one of the primary referral agencies to MAPPP. A key aspect is to give guidance and advice on Mental Health issues. Roles include clinical monitoring of subjects in the community, liaison with Forensic Mental resources, Prison “in reach” and liaison with secure units. Social Services - Child Care The welfare of children is foremost and paramount. The involvement and input of Social Services Departments into the work of MAPPA is of vital importance in safeguarding this very vulnerable group. Where appropriate childcare resources will be applied to the risk management plan agreed by panel members. Resource provision tends to focus on protecting a specific child or children from an identified person. The Social Services Department’s expertise and resources is also important in protecting children where the source of risk is another young person. Housing Departments Securing suitable accommodation provides a major contribution to the risk management of offenders within MAPPA provision. In this context, ‘suitable’ almost always involves issues of location and ability to monitor, as well as meeting the 8

needs of the offender. The involvement of Housing Departments in the work of MAPPA ensures that issues and options relating to accommodation can be discussed in full. As with other partners of the protocol, their role is to provide guidance and advice, as well as practical assistance in managing risk. This necessitates investigating possible locations and type of accommodation, as well as exploring the vulnerability and needs of both the offender and those who are potentially at risk. Education Schools obviously have a significant amount of contact with children and families, and play an important role in both providing and receiving information about risk to children. Teachers are knowledgeable about the children in their care, and can be the first to notice changes in a child’s behaviour or other more obvious signs that all is not well. In addition, awareness and vigilance on the part of the school can provide specific safeguards against offenders who pose a risk to children. To this end, Education Department representatives are frequently involved in determining a risk management plan. SECTION E: THE OPERATION OF MAPPA Work attached to MAPPA is ensured through the locally based operation of multiagency public protection panels and the oversight of Strategic Management Boards. Specific local arrangements are detailed below: Kingston-upon-Hull Hull’s monthly MAPPP meetings are arranged by the Police and chaired by the Hull Intensive Supervision Team’s senior Probation officer. The meetings are also regularly attended by Police and Probation officers and representatives from Housing, Social services and Health. Within Hull, a representative of the ‘Multi Agency Project’, a joint agency project providing assessment and treatment of sex offenders, also attends. East Riding of Yorkshire East Riding of Yorkshire’s monthly MAPPP meetings are chaired by a Police Chief Inspector and are normally held in Probation Service offices, although the Chair and venue arrangements are flexible, with a number of senior Police and Probation staff trained to chair MAPPP meetings. North East Lincolnshire North East Lincolnshire MAPPP meets monthly to discuss individuals who, following a structured risk assessment, cause significant concerns to an agency. Meetings are chaired by the Police or Probation Service.


North Lincolnshire North Lincolnshire MAPPP also meets monthly with attendees co-ordinated through the Police Risk Management Co-ordinator. Meetings are again chaired by either managers within the Police or Probation Service. Agencies taking part understand issues of confidentiality and, if necessary, emergency meetings can be called. While taking account of local needs, each MAPPP has the following in common: • • • • • • Regular (monthly) meetings Chaired by a senior officer from either the Police or Probation Service All Chairs have received training in the role All MAPPPs have the facility to invite other agencies to attend All decisions are recorded Each MAPPP is subject to scrutiny and evaluation by a Strategic Management Board

MAPPPs are intended to address only those offenders who pose the highest risk to the public and, therefore, a vital part of MAPPA is that agencies (usually Police or Probation) manage lower risk offenders without referral to the MAPPP. This level of risk management is unlikely to significantly involve input from other agencies, though may involve sharing of information. The management of high-risk offenders is discussed within the MAPPP meeting. Currently, all cases within the Humberside Police/Probation area that are assessed as posing a significant risk are discussed at these meetings. However, it has been recognised that this can result in discussion being spread across a large number of cases, with the attendant risk that insufficient time and attention is given to the much fewer number of offenders whose risk management is particularly complex. It is likely, therefore, that monthly MAPPP meetings will be redesignated as ‘local interagency risk management meetings’, with separate multi-agency public protection panel meetings being reserved for the few offenders who present complex management issues or the need for significant additional resourcing, or where there are particular issues of public interest. Probation officers and Police officers involved in the work of MAPPA are trained and experienced in the assessment of risk. The National Probation Service’s ‘Offender Assessment System’ (OASys) provides a comprehensive and computer based assessment tool which addresses the relative importance of a range of offending related issues. It also assesses the risk of harm posed by an offender and requires the Probation officer to formulate an initial risk management plan and plan for supervision. This assessment is reviewed and revised every sixteen weeks (or earlier if required). Both Police and Probation use another risk assessment tool (‘Risk Matrix 2000’) to provide an initial assessment of risk posed by sex offenders and violent offenders. For those individuals who have a requirement to register under the Sex Offenders Act 1997, there are specific monitoring arrangements in place. The frequency of such monitoring being determined by risk assessment. If necessary, consideration is also given to the obtaining of a Sex Offender Order.


The range of circumstances surrounding individuals who pose a risk of serious harm to the public is extremely diverse and it is therefore essential that each case be considered on its individual issues. A number of case examples are detailed below: Case A An 18 year old male previously convicted and cautioned for serious sexual offences against young children returned to the area following a period of in-care supervision in a number of therapeutic centres around the country. Expert assessment was that he had a sexual attraction towards young children, and still constituted a significant risk. A MAPPP agreed risk management plan was put in place to cater for the needs of the community and the offender, namely: • • • • • • • • Suitable accommodation was identified Support from Social Services 16+ service and Havelok sheltered housing care workers was identified and put in place to help re-establish the offender back into the community. Education identified schools in the vicinity of the proposed address and relevant timings at the schools. Police ensured talks were planned at local schools in relation to ‘stranger danger’ Local Policing Teams to provide higher visible presence near schools. The Risk Management Officer to conduct daily visits upon initial return and ensures monitoring at certain times of day. A surveillance camera and video to be installed to give 24 hr monitoring of the accommodation entrance. Contingency plan in case of press awareness.

No sexual offending has been reported since his return to the area. However, he was subsequently charged with a further serious offence. Prior knowledge within the MAPPP enabled medical reports to be made available quickly for the court process and for relevant officers to give evidence at preliminary hearings. It also ensured that close monitoring and supervision continued during a period of bail. This included assessment within a bail hostel in another area, and liaison with the MAPPP within that area.

Case B This case provides an example of what can appropriately be described as the routine monitoring of offenders through the MAPPA process. ‘B’ is a registered sex offender who was released into the community on licence, having served a custodial sentence for indecency with children. A local-authority social worker, who knew of the individual through MAPPP meetings, saw evidence of ‘risky’ behaviour, and drew it to the attention of the MAPPP. As a result of this, the individual received additional and joint visits at his home by Police and Probation officers. It was made clear to him that his behaviour was known about and causing concern. He responded positively to the advice given.


Case C This case provides an example of the clear liaison and agreement of expectations that takes place within a MAPPP meeting. This is a vital element of MAPPA as a lack of clarity can lead to issues being missed through poor communication or misunderstanding. Offender ‘C’ is an eighteen year old male, who was earlier required to register as a sex offender given a history of offending and inappropriate sexual behaviour. His management was overseen by the MAPPP and initially involved the Youth Offending Team. Responsibility for supervision was transferred to Probation, and subsequently involved joint visits by Police and Probation. Interventions to address the risk posed by ‘C’ also involved work by a multi-agency sex offender project. The careful planning, sharing of information and co-ordinated input has ensured that responsibilities were clear, with no risk of issues falling between agencies. Case D This case provides an example of excellent planning and liaison between Humberside Police and National Probation Service – Humberside, leading to a swift response when the offender failed to comply with conditions attached to his licence on release from custody. Offender ‘D’ was released on licence, having served a lengthy sentence for offences of False Imprisonment and Making Threats to Kill. He was assessed as continuing to pose the highest risk towards the victim of the earlier offences. This offender’s release was discussed and planned for during MAPPP meetings. The agreed risk management plan included: • • • • A licence requirement that the offender lives in a Probation hostel some distance from his home town. A licence requirement that the offender be electronically monitored (or ‘tagged’) during his time within the hostel. Consultation with the victim. The putting in place of monitoring processes, including Police surveillance provision.

The outcome of this case was that, when the offender travelled to the Probation hostel, but then refused to comply with the requirement relating to electronic monitoring, his arrest was immediately authorised. He was returned to prison on the same day of his release, and within a few hours of arriving at the hostel.


Mention has already been made to ‘What Works’ programmes. During 2002-3, National Probation Service – Humberside has implemented an accredited, community based sex offender treatment programme. The programme includes a core programme of at least 144 hours contact with the offender, and can include a relapse prevention component. This complements sex offender treatment programmes already available in prisons. In addition to this, all offenders supervised by the National Probation Service are supervised in accordance with National Standards. These are published Standards required of all Probation areas, and each area’s performance is monitored against them. The National Standards most relevant to work with offenders who pose a risk of serious harm are frequency of supervision (at least weekly appointments during the early part of supervision), enforcement (ensuring that any missed appointments are followed up quickly, leading to an early return to Court or licence revocation if the offender refuses to comply), and supervision/risk management planning (required to be completed within 5 working days of release from custody for those offenders assessed as posing a high-risk of serious harm). Monitoring confirms that National Probation Service – Humberside is amongst the top performing Probation areas in respect of National Standards compliance. As indicated, the publication of the first annual report last year raised a number of questions about the limits of disclosure (particularly the extent to which it is appropriate to disclose information about an offender to a third party). Information sharing between the agencies represented in MAPPA is a routine part of multiagency risk management. However, any information shared must be specific to the purpose of MAPPA in identifying offenders who pose a risk of serious harm, and to assess and manage that risk in order to protect the public. In addition, shared information is confidential to those agencies, who must ensure that others cannot access the information. The sharing of information to a third party can, in exceptional circumstances, be part of the risk management plan agreed within a MAPPP meeting. In deciding this course of action, the panel has to agree that the offender presents a risk of serious harm to identified individuals, that disclosure is the only practicable way of protecting the individuals (and failure to disclose information would put them in danger), that any risk to the offender brought about by disclosure does not outweigh the risk to the individuals and that disclosure is to the right person who is aware of the need to ensure confidentiality. In many cases it is possible to discuss the need for disclosure with the offender and even to support the offender in providing the information himself or herself. Detailed below are some further case studies that include elements of disclosure. Case E A male offender commenced a relationship with a young mother. They intimated they wished to develop the relationship. Because of the identified significant risks the offender posed, serious consideration was given to applying for limited disclosure to the family concerned.


It was felt that if the offender wished to pursue a lasting relationship, then selfdisclosure might be more appropriate. This has been used successfully on a number of occasions, both within domestic situations and where on offender wished to become involved in community and church groups. It shows a desire on behalf of the offender to go forward with openness. It also gives a good basis for the family, Community group to progress with knowledge, help and support.

Case F A female with mental health problems was brought to the attention of MAPPP by the Forensic Mental Health Team. She had disclosed a serious long-term problem in respect of watching young children using the toilet. The woman would frequent shopping precincts and local schools, offering to give very young children soft drinks, or offering to take the children to the toilet on behalf of busy parents. She realised she posed a risk but felt when the urge happened she could not prevent her actions. After discussions with the Mental Health Team and the Police, she authorised disclosure to parties deemed appropriate by the agencies. Limited disclosure was made to security staff at the local shopping precinct and to the head teacher of a local primary school. Bulletins were prepared and circulated with the Local Policing Teams and notification made to all MAPPP signatories. At present there has been no reported incidents of inappropriate behaviour and the female is reassured by the measures taken. Case G Information relating to an adult registered sex offender was received from an off duty Police officer who is a member of a local church. The sex offender joined the church and began paying particular interest in youth and childrens’ activities. The situation was discussed at a MAPPP meeting and it was decided that the Police should make a disclosure to the head of the Church. The Church discussed the information with the individual who voluntarily ceased attendance. His behaviour was addressed further by a visit from the Police who discussed the possibility of applying for a Sex Offender Order if such behaviour continued. The individual continues to be monitored and has not repeated this behaviour.


Case H Information was received that a male, previously convicted of sexual offences and subject to MAPPP management, had obtained employment outside the area as a public service vehicle driver. The company has contracts to provide a school bus service. After lengthy consideration within the MAPPP, disclosure was made to the company. This revealed that the male had failed to disclose his previous convictions on the job application form. The company confirmed that they would not have employed him had he so disclosed. The male was prosecuted for relevant offences. As a result of the investigation the company has reviewed its recruitment procedures. Case I This case involves an offender who was a patient in a local mental health unit. The offender, who was considered a serious risk to children, had absented himself from the unit on a number of occasions. This was contrary to the agreed management plan. In considering how to bring about his safe return to the unit, the MAPPP looked at the option of publicising his absence, both as a vulnerable person as well as being a risk to the community. The offender returned to the unit before it was necessary to put this in place.

SECTION F: THE STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT OF MAPPA Section 67(3) of the Criminal Justice & Court Services Act 2000 requires the Police and Probation Services, as the Responsible Authority, to put in place strategic management arrangements to ensure that the work of MAPPA is subject to monitoring and review. Current arrangements within the area covered by National Probation Service – Humberside and Humberside Police are that there is a Strategic Management Board covering the work of the Hull and East Yorkshire MAPPPs, and two separate Strategic Management Boards covering the work of the North-East Lincolnshire MAPPP and the North-Lincolnshire MAPPP. As an example, the Hull and East Riding Strategic Management Board (SMB) meets quarterly and is chaired by an Assistant Chief Officer within National Probation Service – Humberside, with one of the Divisional Commanders acting as the Vice Chair. A detailed action plan has been prepared which sets out a twelve-month programme of work for the SMB. The Probation Service has taken responsibility for co-ordinating the work of the SMB. A statement of commitment has been agreed and sets out in detail the aims and purpose of the SMB. These follow the guidance set down by the Home Office and specifically include:


• • • • • • • •

Reviewing and monitoring the effectiveness of arrangements agreed between the respective agencies and where necessary, revising. Overseeing the work of each MAPPP. Receiving a referral on any case in which an offender, subject to MAPPP risk management arrangements, commits a violent or sexual crime during the time they are being managed. Ensuring that an independent review is carried out into the effectiveness of the assessment and management of the risks posed by such offenders. Determining whether that review forms part of any other statutory review being carried out into the case or whether a separate review should be commissioned. Determining, in the light of the review, any revisions which may need to be made for assessing and managing the risks posed by sexual, violent or other offenders who may cause serious harm to the public. Acting as final arbiter where one of the MAPPPs fails to agree an issue concerning an offender who is subject to arrangements for the assessment and management of risks. Producing performance indicators relating to its action plan and the work of each MAPPP.

An example of the work of strategic management arrangements is provided by Hull and East Riding Strategic Management Board, who completed a detailed case review involving a man who had earlier been the subject of MAPPA management and who subsequently went on to commit serious offences some months after his release licence supervision ended. This report was made available to the Area Child Protection Committee (ACPC). The above case and a later HM Inspector of Probation report highlighted the need for closer links between MAPPA and ACPCs. A member of each Strategic Management Board now represents MAPPA on each ACPC. SECTION G: VICTIM WORK Section 69 or the Criminal Justice & Court Services Act 2000 placed a duty on the National Probation Service to consult with and notify victims about the release arrangements for all offenders convicted of a sexual or violent offence for which they received a sentence of at least 12 months imprisonment. Work attached to MAPPA is well served by four Victim Liaison Officers employed by National Probation Service – Humberside. Victim Liaison Officers attend multiagency public protection panel meetings, ensuring that the concerns of the victim are taken into account. Victims are contacted within two months of an offender being sentenced and includes an offer to meet the victim at home. The Victim Liaison Officers’ role is to provide the victim with information about the sentence and eventual release of the offender. This includes confirmation of the month of release and area where the offender will be living (though not the specific date of release or address of the offender). However, the Victim Liaison Officer will also discuss any conditions that can be included in an offender’s release licence – for example, to prevent the offender from contacting the victim. Also, where an offender is being considered for parole, the Victim Liaison Officer can provide the 16

Parole Board with a written report outlining the victim’s views and concerns about conditions attached to release. In addition, work is done by Police Family Liaison Officers and Vulnerable Victim Officers, who in turn attend the meetings (when required to do so) to bring the victim’s views. In relation to its work with victims of sexual or violent offences, National Probation Service – Humberside and Humberside Police value the work undertaken by Victim Support. Victim Support is the national charity for people affected by crime. It is an independent organisation offering a free and confidential service to victims (whether or not the offence has been reported to the Police). Trained staff and volunteers at local branches offer information and support to victims, witnesses, their families and their friends.


Table 1 No. of offenders 544 19 0 1 0 1 0 243

i. The number of registered sex offenders on 31.3.03 ii. The number of sex offenders having a registration requirement who were cautioned or convicted for breaches of the requirement, between 1.4.02 and 31.3.03 iii. The number of Sex Offender Orders applied for and gained between 1.4.02 and 31.3.03 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 Restraining Orders issued by the courts between 1.4.02 and 31.3.03 for offenders currently managed within MAPPA v. The number of violent and other sexual offenders considered under MAPPA during the year 1.4.02 and 31.3.03 (as defined by Section 68 (3), (4) and (5) vi. The number of "other offenders" dealt with under MAPPA during the year 1.4.02 and 31.3.03 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 Section 67 (2(b)) vii. For each of the three categories of offenders covered by the MAPPA ("Registered sex offenders", "violent and other sex offenders" and "other offenders"), identify the number of offenders that are or have been dealt with by: a) MAPPP-Registered sex offenders b) MAPPP-violent and other sex offenders c) MAPPP-other offenders viii. Of the cases managed by the MAPPP during the reporting year what was the number of offenders: a) who were returned to custody for breach of licence b) who were returned to custody for breach of a Restraining Order or Sex Offender Order c) charged with a serious sexual or violent offence Re vii. This figure must be the critical few even if other cases are referred to the MAPPP. The critical few are those cases that meet one or more of the following criteria; imminence of serious harm, requiring exceptional resource allocation, serious community concerns, serious media implications or other complicating factors such as the involvement of other agencies not usually involved in MAPPA.


58 60 17

7 1 2

Re viii. A sexual or violent offence is one of the following: Murder, attempted murder, arson with intent to endanger life, rape, armed robbery involving a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon, hostage taking or abduction, and any other offence which has attracted or seems likely to attract significant media interest or which raises wider issues of national interest.


Natinal Probation Service – Humberside The Chief Officer National Probation Service Head Office 21 Flemingate BEVERLEY East Yorkshire HU17 0NP (As above) (01482) 867271

Assistant Chief Officer (Risk Management)

(01482) 867271

Humberside Police The Chief Constable Humberside Police Police Headquarters Priory Road Police Station KINGSTON-UPON-HULL HU5 5SF Crime Management Branch (As Above) (01482) 326111

Detective Chief Superintendent

Victim Support Schemes Hull & District East Yorkshire Goole & Pocklington Grimsby & Cleethorpes Scunthorpe & North East Lincolnshire National Victim Supportline (01482) 587666 (01482) 401689 (01482) 767070 (01472) 250251 (01724) 871324 0845 30 30 900