Norfolk Area

Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements Annual Report 2002-3


By Paul Goggins, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Community and Custodial provision in the Home Office As the recently appointed Minister with responsibility for the MAPPA, I am pleased to introduce this, the second, annual MAPPA report. It is clear that in the last year (2002/3) the multi-agency public protection arrangements (the MAPPA) continued to play an important role in what remains one of this government’s highest priorities – the protection of the public from dangerous offenders. As someone with many years experience of working in the field of child protection, I am particularly impressed by the important contribution the MAPPA are making to strengthen collaboration between agencies at a local level where the focus is on the dangerous offender. These improvements must, however, impact on the protection of children. As the tragic death of Victoria Climbie showed, an effective multi-agency partnership is crucial and the MAPPA are an important element. To ensure greater consistency in the MAPPA across the 42 Areas of England and Wales, and to prepare for the implementation of measures contained in the Criminal Justice Bill, we published the MAPPA Guidance in April. Building on good practice, that Guidance clarified the structure of the operational arrangements as well as the importance of formal review and monitoring – of which this Annual Report is a vital part. The Criminal Justice Bill will strengthen the MAPPA in two ways. First, it will make the involvement of other agencies part of the statutory framework. Second, it will introduce the involvement of lay people – those unconnected with day-to-day operation of the MAPPA – in reviewing and monitoring the MAPPA. Annual Reports and this new lay involvement show the

Government’s commitment to explaining how the often sensitive and complex work of public protection is 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

The National Picture
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 cooperate’ 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 MultiAgency Public Protection Panels (the MAPPP). Figures alone do not, of course, tell the whole story. The anonymised case studies illustrate the practical work of the MAPPA, and demonstrate the preventive action which can be taken. Prior to the MAPPA, action of this kind was mainly taken by one agency alone, with the effect that on occasion offenders’ behaviour which might have triggered preventative action went unnoticed. The multi-agency approach of the MAPPA helps ensure that if an offender does breach the condition of the licence under which they were released from prison or a court order prohibiting certain activities, then action to enforce the condition or order and protect the public can be taken more swiftly.

If you are interested in reading the reports of other Areas, they will be published on the National Probation Service’s website (under the public protection section) with all of them being available once the last Area has published its Annual Report in September.

1. Area Summary
A Journey of collaboration – the MAPPP in Norfolk

Historically, public protection In Norfolk is the story of close working relationships between agencies principally the Police and the Probation Service. In the early days i.e. the early 1990’s, this was done via informal consultation and relied on mutual good will. Throughout the 1990’s, however, following a number high profile cases, and in response to ongoing legislative developments, most notably the 1997 Sex Offender Act, Norfolk created an interagency protocol for the management of risk and dangerousness. This became known as the “Blue Book” to distinguish it from other protocols and risk management procedures then current in Norfolk. The Blue Book protocol had from the beginning an impressive number of agencies committed to it and the principles of risk management it outlined. Over time the wider principle of different agencies from the statutory and voluntary sector working together which was implicit in the Blue Book was refined and developed. For example, Social Services Departments, Health Trusts and Housing Departments and other service providers from the voluntary sector, all started to come together to work with the Police and Probation Service to assess, manage and treat the most dangerous people in the community, or who were about to enter the community upon leaving institutional care. Multi agency risk management panels were established to manage this process. They developed strong cross agency links to facilitate the process of managing risk and dangerousness, and, because of the multi agency nature of this work, resources from a range of agencies

were committed to managing and overseeing difficult and dangerous people. Following Sections 67-68 of the Criminal Justice and Court Service Act 2000, the risk management panels became the Multi-Agency Public Protections Panels (MAPPPs). These were tasked to manage and concentrate on the critical few, i.e. the very high risk and dangerous offenders. The legislation also established the “Notes for Guidance” principles which outline the operation of panels and give guidance for the publication of the Annual Report. These principles of inter–agency work and co-operation are currently governed by the Guidance published in 2002. The panels are also learning from the developing practice of their constituent agencies and from other panels within the region. In general, the Panel’s purpose is to provide effective inter-agency arrangements for the assessment and management of risk, balancing information on the individual offender and the victims, whilst taking into account the Human Rights of both groups Once the risk is assessed and classified, the Panel’s task is to develop the most effective risk management plan it can. This will mean using any one of a number of techniques or resources either singularly or in combination, with the aim of reducing risk of re-offending and risk of harm to the community.

2. Techniques we use to reduce risk
When considering risk and how to manage it, the Panel has a range of resources available to it and a range of things it can do to reduce the risk dangerous individuals pose to the public. In the case of sex offenders for example, the Panel may ask the Probation Service to consider placing them on a programme of work and supervision known as the Thames Valley Sex Offender Programme. This was introduced nationally and adopted by Norfolk Area Probation Service in 2002. This programme, which is aimed at addressing sexual offending and its impact on families and victims, is one of a number of programmes run by Probation Areas known as accredited programmes. Such programmes have been shown to address offending behaviour in a way that the overall levels of risk of harm and further offending are significantly reduced. Other techniques available to the panel and which the panels have used during 2002-2003 have included the use of surveillance to see whether a particular offender is behaving in such a way that places individuals at risk. The MAPPP has asked the Police to gather evidence to obtain sex offender orders. On other occasions, it has asked Police to place cameras in strategic locations to monitor homes to gather evidence of harassment. In exceptional circumstances, the Panel considers disclosure. Disclosure is a device used to inform communities of the presence of a high-risk offender living in the community and is only done after very careful consideration of risk and dangerousness by the Panel. The Panel carefully considers all information in the case and it follows the guidelines laid down by the North Wales Judgement to ensure that disclosure is the appropriate option. During the year 2002/03 Norfolk did not undertake a full public disclosure exercise but did disclose information about individuals on a number of occasions in a controlled way to a restricted audience. Because management of risk is not a static area of work along side the different techniques that are used and the protocol that has been developed other structures and strategies have been put into place to manage risk and dangerousness For example the MAPPP has worked closely with the prisons and other agencies to develop protocols on information sharing with the specific aim of community protection and risk management ensuring all agencies adopt a consistent approach to risk management. Resources currently being deployed in the community have included the appointment of dedicated police liaison officers to each of the operational areas in Norfolk. The dedicated officers’ main job is to visit the registered sex offenders regularly and check on their circumstances. This means that the 416 sex offenders currently registered in Norfolk are monitored and their circumstances and risk are kept under constant review. The Probation Area has (during 2002/03) allocated staff to work exclusively with sexual offenders, and strengthened the management arrangements in the area of resettlement work with sentenced offenders.


3. MAPPPs – What they do
Following the Criminal Justice & Court Services Act 2000, the Police and Probation Services (collectively known as the Responsible Authority) were tasked with the responsibility of assessing the risk posed to the community by convicted sexual and violent offenders as defined by the legislation. The legislation also provides for a third category of offender who do not fall within the legislative definition of sexual and violent offenders but who will clearly give cause for concern to communities and professionals by reason of their (the offenders) behaviour. The risk that is assessed may be categorised into any one of four categories of risk known as low, medium, high, or very high risk. Risk is assessed two ways. Firstly, using static risk management tools which give an actuarial prediction of risk, these factors are based on fixed facts such as age and criminal convictions. Secondly and in conjunction with a static risk management tool, staff use dynamic risk factors i.e. facts that may change. These factors may include whether someone is starting to drink or a sex offender moving into a home with children. All this information is collated at a panel meeting to define the risk an individual poses and then the individual is placed into a category of risk and managed accordingly. The level of risk may change over time depending on that individual’s circumstances. Thus, risk management is dynamic and ever changing. The MAPPPs deal with “the critical few”, that is those individuals who

fall within the very high risk category. Once the risk has been assessed in this category, relevant steps are taken to ensure, as far as practicable, the safety of the community These offenders who fall within the “critical few” require much greater oversight and input than any one agency can provide and are managed via the multi agency approach. This approach is developed following the MAPPP meeting which formulates the risk management action plan and assigns tasks to different agencies. These agencies report back to the panel or MAPP Co-ordinator as appropriate. Any one offender therefore can have two, three or even four agencies contributing towards the management of their risk in the community. A recent case, for example, which came before the MAPPP, involved the Police Forensic Services, Housing, Drug Agency and Probation all working with one offender towards a common goal of safety for the community, but also ensuring that the offender received appropriate treatment and support which ultimately reduced his capacity to reoffend. Most offenders who are assessed under the MAPPA process as risky, fall within the low and medium categories and are successfully managed by the agency responsible for their care and oversight, usually the Probation Service, and are generally dealt with within normal agency rules and procedures. High risk offenders are subject to a clarification and pre-MAPPP risk assessment known as a local risk management strategy meeting and may be either referred to the Multi

Agency Public Protection Arrangements and dealt with as one of the critical few or dealt with within normal agency practices and procedures or in some cases single agency management with some support short of the MAPPP. Procedures for referring to the Multi Agency Public Protection Process are laid down in the Norfolk Protocol. Offenders undergo careful single agency screening before referral to the MAPP Coordinator’s Office, where the risk is re-assessed. The case is either taken forward to Multi Agency Management because the risk is too high for a single agency to manage or is referred back to the referring agency for that agency to manage. It is the responsibility of the MAPP Co-ordinator to advise agencies on levels of risk, talk to agency representatives and advise them on issues of risk management. Once a case passes the risk screening process, i.e. it is considered High risk of harm, the MAPP Co-ordinator will convene a meeting of the Panel to consider the case and the implications in managing and working the case in a multi agency way. The referring agency states its case and then the Panel will: o o o o Share information about the offender Assess the risk as specifically and comprehensively as possible Devise a Risk Management Plan commensurate with the level of risk Identify resources from each agency needed to manage the risk in the community

o o o

Designate a lead agency and key worker Decide on information sharing beyond the panel if appropriate Schedule review meetings if appropriate

The Co-ordinator also ensures that the Action Plans are drafted on the basis of risk with due regard to the individual human rights of all parties. The Panels, which meet regularly, i.e. once every three weeks, are made up of representatives of core agencies in the public protection process. This means that the panels have the Probation, Police and Social Service Managers meeting regularly together to discuss people whose risk to the community is considered to be high. Interested parties join core agencies as each case demands and contribute to the Panel’s deliberations. The panels sitting in 2002 – 2003 discussed 78 cases. The type of offenders which were considered involved men and women who had committed a range of very serious offences such as murder manslaughter, rape and various other sexual and violence offences. The Panel also considered the appropriateness of applying for Sex Offender Orders in five cases, three of which were granted and two cases are ongoing and currently have interim order status. They are awaiting final hearings in the latter part of 2003. These cases are kept under review by the Co-ordinator.


4. What matters to you matters to us - Work with the Victims of Crime
Section 69 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 places a statutory duty on the Probation Service to contact the victims of sexual and violent crime, when the offender receives a prison sentence in excess of twelve months, to establish whether or not they wish to be consulted about release arrangements. The Norfolk Probation Area has dedicated staff to do this and has been engaged in working with victims on a local level since the early 1980’s. The Victim Liaison Officers under the guidance of a Senior Probation Officer, have developed high levels of expertise and made many agency links to help advise and support victims, thus ultimately helping the victims of serious crime come to terms with the effects of serious and damaging offending on their lives. A victim recently commented that they “were grateful for the visit of two lovely ladies”. Other victims have commented that they “were very satisfied with the information (that) was given. It was very helpful” other victims have “thanked (Probation staff) …for explaining the system to me… it is good to hear and have dates when he can come out .“ Broadly, the Probation Service offers advice and regularly monitors the work it does with victims and the effect that it has. The Probation Service is always sensitive to the needs of victims and is constantly seeking to refine this area of its work. The Victims Unit has developed a protocol with the MAPPP to ensure that the victim’s concerns are properly represented within the MAPPP system. The Protocol provides Victim Contact Officers with direct access to the MAPPP meetings so that they can inform those meetings of the views of the victims of the offenders being reviewed by the MAPPP. This has lead to the MAPPP asking for conditions in Licences of Supervision. Such conditions have included non contact with the victims, excluding the offender from certain areas where the victims live and work and requiring offenders to live outside of Norfolk for the duration of their licence. Lastly, involvement in the MAPPP’s also enables the Victim Contact Officers to keep victims properly informed about the key decisions made in the management and supervision of offenders should the victims want this information.


5. How does it work in practice?
The Multi-Agency Panel is chaired by the Multi Agency Protection Panel Co-ordinator and has, at its heart, three agencies that make up its core membership: the Police and the Probation Service who are represented by Senior Managers from those agencies, and the Service Manager (Child Protection) from the Social Service Department. The Panel meets every three weeks and considers up to five cases per session. The Panel listens to all the information that agencies bring on an individual offender and considers what it has heard and then makes an assessment of risk using a combination of static and dynamic risk factors. It draws up the Risk Management Action Plan, which is the document that states what needs to be done to manage the risk, who will do it and when it will be done by. The Panel will then decide whether or not the case needs to be reviewed. The following examples are of two of the cases the panel considered during the year 2002 – 2003 Case A Mr Y, a convicted sex offender who was not on the Sex Offender Register because his offences were committed before the Sex Offender Act came into force. He was known to approach young girls on the street talk to them and then indecently assault them. He regularly frequented areas where he could find children. A MAPPP was held because of concerns regarding his behaviour. A joint operation was then launched between surveillance teams from a number of police forces and CCTV operators. His actions were recorded and used as evidence to obtain a Sex Offender Order. He is now banned from approaching any child under 16 in the street. If he breaches this order he can be immediately arrested and face up to five years in prison. Case B Mr X had a previous conviction for Indecent Assault. He advertised himself as a babysitter and once alone with the girls he indecently assaulted them. They were all under the age of eleven years. He was convicted and placed on the Sex Offender Register for five years. However, it became apparent to a number of agencies that Mr X was

continuing to offer babysitting to other, mainly single women, with children. He was told to stop by the agencies but did not A MAPPP was held. This decided that a Sex Offender Order was needed that would ban him from this type of behaviour and thus protect children.

An order was granted banning him from contact with any child under the age of 12 and specifically from offering to baby-sit. It also put him on the Sex Offender Register for life which affords greater child protection. He was later arrested for being alone with a child as this was in breach of

his Sex Offender Order. He was caught before he assaulted the child. These Orders prohibit behaviour and act as a preventative measure He is currently in custody and on release will be subject to Probation Service Supervision as well as being on the Sex Offender Register.


6. Managing the Panels – Who is responsible?
The work of the MAPPP is overseen and kept under review by the Strategic Management Board, which meets as a minimum on a quarterly basis. The Board is required to monitor the effectiveness of the Public Protection Panel, the plans which flow from it and make any changes that are necessary or expedient to the operation of the Panels. The features of the Board are: o o Monitoring and evaluating the work of the multi agency panels; Liaising with other agencies to ensure effective and o consistent management of risk at operational and strategic levels; Publication of the Annual Report; Long term planning and development of the MAPPP; Identifying and developing the common training and developmental needs of those working in the MAPPPs; Resolve interagency and other complaints and disputes; Ensure that proper financial and other administrative arrangements are in place. Service, the Police, Social Service Departments and the Prison Service. Other Board Members are co-opted and include Local Authority and Health Service representatives. An exciting development in 2003 – 2004 will be the appointment of Lay Advisors to the Board, who will, it is hoped, provide a community perspective. It is probable that these posts will be advertised and recruited to locally. Because of further legislative changes the Board will also welcome senior representatives from Education, Youth Justice and Victim Support on to it at some point during the year 2003 – 2004.

o o o


The Board consists of senior members of the Probation


Population figure for Norfolk administration area as supplied by the last census in 2001 RSO per 100’000 population is

803970 52 Number of Offenders`


The number of Registered sex offenders on 31 March 2003


ii. The number of sex offenders having a registration requirement who were either cautioned or convicted for breaches of the requirement, between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003


iii. The number of Sex Offenders Orders applied for and gained between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003

(a) The total number of Sex Offenders Orders applied for


(b) The total number granted


(c) The total number not granted


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


v. The number of violent and other sexual offenders considered under MAPPA during the year 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003 (as defined by section 68 [3], [4] and [5])


vi. The number of "other offenders" dealt with under MAPPA during the year 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003 as being assessed by the Responsible Authority as posing a risk of serious harm to the public (but who did not fall within either of the other two categories, as defined by s.67 [2b])


vii. For each of the three categories of offenders covered by the MAPPA ("Registered sex offenders", "violent and other sex offenders" and "other offenders"), identify the number of offenders that are or have been dealt with 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


The number of Sex Offenders has increased during the year due to an assertive policy of detection and prosecution, which ensures that the Responsible Authority has reliable information on the whereabouts of Sex Offenders. Similarly, the breach rate has increased slightly as the profile of dangerous offenders has become better understood during the course of the year. The Norfolk Probation Area has taken prompt and vigorous enforcement action to ensure that dangerous offenders, where possible, do not stay in the community but are returned to custody when their behaviour becomes unacceptable. The “other” category has fallen during the year as the focus of the Panel has shifted to dealing with the “critical few”. The offenders who formerly fell within this category have either been devolved to single agency management or are being assessed and managed by local Risk Management Panels.


8. Conclusion

Multi-Agency Public Protection has been developed in response to a wide range of community concerns. In England and Wales, there is now a network of notification and risk management that is being designed to protect communities from some of the most difficult and dangerous men and women in society. The work

of the Panels is only a part of this process. The Panel can only do its job with your help and assistance. This report has, hopefully, outlined for you the origins of the Panel, what the Panel does and how the Panels are managed. We have included an introduction from Central

Government, which we hope you will find interesting.

Please feel free to forward any queries or comments you wish to make on this report to the MAPP Co-ordinator of Norfolk.


Norfolk Probation Area Hilary Collyer Assistant Chief Officer Risk Management Address 4th Floor St. James Yarn Mill Whitefriars Norwich Phone 01603 220100

Norfolk Police Jacqueline D. Westrop MAPP Co-ordinator

Address Public Protection Unit Norfolk Constabulary Jubilee House Wymondham Norfolk

Phone 01953 424242

NPS No lk rfo

No rfolk Co nstabulary

Printed by Four CP (UK) Ltd Tel: 01603 633804