You are on page 1of 40

Protecting the Public in Partnership

Multi-Agency arrangements for managing

sexual, violent and other dangerous offenders
Annual Report 2002–2003

■ Metropolitan Police Service

■ City of London Police
■ London Probation Area
What does the work involve?

This report contains information about the themes represented as pieces

of a jigsaw in the map of London below.

Alternative languages 2–4

This document, how to contact us, further copies 5

Foreword – Paul Goggins – Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Community and Custodian Provision 6

The National Picture 7–8

Setting the Scene for London 9 – 10

Metropolitan Police Service “Mission Vision & Values”

London Probation Area “Pledge to Londoners” 11

London Probation Area Corporate Plan 2001/2004 12

Metropolitan Police Service Priorities 2002/2003 13

City of London Police Mission Statement and Priorities 14

Summary 15 – 17

Who We Are – Summary of roles and responsibilities 18 – 21

What We Do – Outline of the arrangements made 22 – 27

Where Are They? – Use of Disclosure 27 – 29

Crimestoppers 29

Monitoring Progress – The Strategic Management of MAPPA 30 – 31

Working With Victims 32 – 33

Victim Support Services 34

Appendix A – Statistical Information 35

Commentary on Statistics 36

To keep crime levels as low as

Alternative languages Three locally set initiatives are not relevant to
this report.
possible we will focus on six priorities
during 2002/2003. Three of these are
This isMinisterial
national a joint report
Priorities of
and the
are Metropolitan Police Service
set by the City
Home of London
Secretary. Police
They are : (CoLP) and London
■ to help create Area (LPA) setting
safe communities by out how we manage
the riskscrime,
reducing posed by behaviour
anti-social sex offenders and other dangerous
and disorder through effective
offenders in London.
partnership working, including reducing
availability and use of Class A drugs;
It toisincrease
■ the second
the numbersuch report, covering the period
of offences

April 2002
for which to March
offenders, 2003 and has been produced
and particularly
persistent offenders, are caught and
to justice, inwith Section
partnership with 67(4) of the Criminal Justice
& other
criminalServices Act 2000.
justice agencies
■ These priorities will be addressed specifically by

Inouraddition to describing
partnership approach through our Crime details of the arrangements

2 and Disorder Strategy.


London, it provides some statistical data and
To reduce the fear of crime in all
sections ofpoints.
the community and in
particular to increase the trust and

It confidence
is a tripartite
in policing report
amongst because LPA incorporates the
minority ethnic communities.

of London, whilst the MPS and City of London
The aim of the City of London Police Diversity
Strategy isare twoandistinct
“ To provide police services.
ethical high quality
policing service to the whole community of the

A City
of London, which oftreatsthe report
all people without is available in this sized
prejudice and respects the right of individuals to
type by inwriting
be different their abilities,to either
culture, values andof the addresses on page 4.
beliefs”This is directed at building trust and
confidence within minority groups. The Force
is driving forward its Diversity Agenda through
training and the implementation of Force-Wide

Alternative languages



This document
This is a joint report of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), City of London Police (CoLP) and London
Probation Area (LPA) setting out how we manage the risks posed by sex offenders and other dangerous
offenders in London.

It is the second such report covering the period April 2002 to March 2003 and has been produced
in accordance with s. 67(4) of the Criminal Justice & Courts Services Act 2000.

In addition to describing details of the arrangements for London, it provides some statistical data
and contact points.

It is a tripartite report because the LPA incorporates the City of London whilst the MPS and
City of London Police are two distinct police services.

How to contact us
We welcome feedback and if you have any comments to make about the report they should be
sent to either of the addresses below.

Marketing and Communications, London Probation Area Headquarters,

71-73 Great Peter Street, London, SW1P 2BN
Tel: 020 7222 5656

Metropolitan Police Service

MAPPPs Co-ordination & Support Unit (Operation Jigsaw),
New Scotland Yard, Room 1024, Broadway, London, SW1H 0BG
Tel: 020 7230 4919

Alternatively make a request by e-mail to:

Further copies
Copies of the report can be obtained from either the MPS or LPA internet site at or The report can also be seen at your local main library or main police station.
You may also write to us requesting a copy at either of the addresses above.


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
6 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

This section of the report draws attention to the 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
8 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).

Setting the London Scene

We are pleased to present this report on behalf of the Metropolitan Police

Service (MPS), the City of London Police (CoLP) and the London Probation Area
(LPA). It is produced in accordance with s.67(4) of the Criminal Justice & Courts
Services Act 2000 (CJCSA) and details our work together protecting the public in
London and improving our services to victims. This report seeks to represent the
range of activity taking place every day across London, whilst focussing on some
specific activity and significant areas of development.

This is the second year of the statutory provision of MAPPA nationally. As we laid out in our report last year, we
have followed the initial guidance produced by the Home Office for the establishing of these arrangements. As
anticipated, police and probation working at the ‘coal face’ of service delivery in the Boroughs have sought to
continue to refine their procedures, building on developing good practice and improving working relationships.
We are confident that these improvements to public protection are taking place and will continue to develop.

But, sadly, horrendous events, beyond the comprehension of most people, are never far away. This year
we have suffered the terrible murders in Soham whilst in London there has been the Climbie Inquiry and the 9
convictions for the equally horrific murder of Analee Walker in Newham. Such tragedies serve to remind us
of the importance of our role in trying to manage risks and prevent grave crimes.

Yet the notorious cases we have referred to (all involving children) represent but a tiny proportion of serious
offending which the MAPPA have been established to seek to prevent. We strive to identify the most dangerous
offenders and prioritise our resources to deal with them. But there is the inevitable realisation that offenders
assessed as ‘low risk’ of reoffending often actually do and sometimes in a serious way. To compound the
enormity of the task, recent research has indicated that some 32% of all murders and 36% of serious sexual
offences are committed by people who have no criminal record at all. That does not necessarily mean that
there has been no previous offending, but perhaps that it has not been identified.

This is why we need the help and support of other agencies and of communities in bringing offending
behaviour to our notice. Information sharing, not just between agencies, but between communities and
relevant agencies, is essential to ensure an appropriate risk assessment is made. Only then can appropriate
action be considered. The examples highlighted in the report demonstrate just how effective proper multi-
agency working can be in protecting the public.

We are conscious that during 2003/4 the Police and Probation Inspectorates will be examining MAPPA
nationally and in some parts of London. This presents an opportunity for us to ensure that we are doing
the best we can to ensure that our actions are valid and soundly judged, and that the public in London
are getting the best protection possible from these dangerous offenders.

We welcome this opportunity to provide you, the public, with an insight and understanding of the public
protection arrangements in London.

John Yates John Powls James Hart QPM

Commander Chief Officer Commissioner
Metropolitan Police Service London Probation Area City of London Police

September 2003


MPS Mission, Vision and Values

Making London safe for all the people we serve

Our Mission Our Values Our Vision

To make places safer To treat everyone fairly To make London the safest
major city in the world
To cut crime and the fear To be open and honest
of crime
To work in partnership
To uphold the law
To change to improve

London Probation Area

Our Pledge to Londoners

The protection of the public

The reduction of re-offending

The proper punishment of offenders

The rehabilitation of offenders

The proper care of victims


London Probation Area –

Corporate Plan 2001/2004

Probation Priority Summary of Objectives

To contribute to public protection and This will be achieved by:

the saftey of London communities Reducing reconviction rates by 5% compared to the
predicted rate.

Ensuring that risk assessments and management plans

are completed in all community orders and bail cases
and at least 90% of all resettlement cases.

To reduce re-offending This will be achieved by:

Developing with the Metropolitan Police a strategy
for targeting and intervention with persistent offenders.

Increasing the number of offenders on accredited

programmes, particularly those addressing sex
offending, domestic violence and aggression increasing
the number of hostel places for offenders.

To ensure offenders are aware of the This will be achieved by:

effects of crime on victims Contacting victims in cases where the offender is
sentenced to 12 months imprisonment or more.

To tackle youth offending This will be achieved by:

Contributing to Youth Offending Teams in London.

Metropolitan Police Service –

Priorities for 2002/2003

Policing priority Summary of objectives

To increase the security of the Capital This will be achieved by:

against terrorism Preventing and disrupting terrorist activity.

Improving the response to suspected and actual

terrorist incidents.

To create safer communities This will be achieved by:

for Londoners Working with partners to reduce crime in the most
troubled areas in each neighbourhood.

Reducing violent armed criminality.

Reducing the fear of crime.

Increasing public satisfaction with visible

police presence.

To improve the police response This will be achieved by:

to vulnerable victims Improving child protection procedures.

Improving the investigation and victim satisfaction of

racist incidents and racist crimes.

improving the investigation of homophobic crimes.

Improving the investigation of domestic violence.

Improving victim care and investigation in cases of rape.

To tackle youth offending This will be achieved by:

Diverting youths away from crime through enhanced
multi-agency activity.

Reducing re-offending by persistent young offenders.


City of London Police –

Our Mission Statement

We will provide a high quality police service in the City of London and work
with the community, other organisations and agencies, to promote a safe,
peaceful and crime-free environment.

Co-operation, consultation and partnership are consistent themes of this mission statement.

Our Priorities 2002/2003

To keep crime levels as low as ■ To reduce the fear of crime in all
sections of the community and in
possible we will focus on six priorities
particular to increase the trust and
during 2002/2003. Three of these are confidence in policing amongst
14 national Ministerial Priorities and are minority ethnic communities
set by the Home Secretary. They are: ➜ The aim of the City of London Police Diversity
Strategy is “To provide an ethical high quality
■ to help create safe communities by policing service to the whole community of
reducing crime, anti-social behaviour the City of London, which treats all people
and disorder through effective without prejudice and respects the right of
partnership working, including reducing individuals to be different in their abilities,
availability and use of Class A drugs; culture, values and beliefs” This is directed at
■ to increase the number of offences building trust and confidence within minority
for which offenders, and particularly groups. The Force is driving forward its
persistent offenders, are caught and Diversity Agenda through training and the
brought to justice, in partnership with implementation of Force-Wide initiatives.
other criminal justice agencies
Three locally set initiatives are not relevant to
➜ These priorities will be addressed specifically this report.
by our partnership approach through our
Crime and Disorder Strategy.


This report sets out how the with this responsibility vested jointly in the Chief
Officer of the newly established London Probation
Multi-Agency Public Protection
Area (LPA) and the Commissioners of the
Arrangements (MAPPA) operate Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and City of
in London. London Police (CoLP). ‘Potentially dangerous
offenders’, often referred to as PDOs, are those
The origins of MAPPA deemed by the RA to present a risk of causing
Protecting the public is greatly important and serious harm, whether physical or psychological, to
various agencies have been working together any person. ‘Serious harm’ is accepted as meaning
for a number of years in London to manage the life threatening or harm from which recovery is
risks posed by violent and sexual offenders. The unlikely. We cannot possibly hope to manage all
implementation of the Sex Offenders Act in 1997 those offenders who have committed and may
was a milestone in inter-agency working, leading again commit ‘any’ sexual or violent offence.
to the police and probation services taking Furthermore, as will become apparent, we cannot
responsibility for the assessment and management possibly hope to eliminate all risk and all offending
of registered sex offenders. We have built on those (however much we would aspire to).
arrangements over the intervening years and each
Each of the 32 London boroughs subsequently 15
London borough now has multi-agency protocols
established a Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel
agreed by police, probation, health, housing and
(MAPPP) involving the statutory agencies (police
social services (to varying degrees across the
and probation) as core members. (The MAPPP for
boroughs) for the sharing of information,
the City of London incorporates the same agency
assessment and management of sex offenders
members as Tower Hamlets). The MPS and LPA
and other potentially dangerous offenders. This
in each borough have dedicated teams of staff in
document will provide further details of how the
Public Protection Units (PPUs) and Public Protection
arrangements operate in London and gives contact
Teams who mostly work with these offenders.
points for any additional enquiries.
Increasingly these teams are working more closely
The Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act together (see LPA restructuring below).
2000 (which was implemented on April 1st 2001)
introduced a statutory duty on the police and
probation to make joint arrangements for the
assessment and management of, not only registered
sex offenders, but also certain violent, potentially
dangerous and other sex offenders. Police and
probation became the Responsible Authority (RA),

Principles underpinning from a particular activity associated with their

public protection offending behaviour. This could include prohibiting
unsupervised contact with children, or geographical
The management of offenders posing a high risk
exclusion zones to protect victims. Any breach of
of serious harm to the public is one of the most
such conditions could result in the offender being
complex and difficult tasks currently facing agencies
returned to prison. In all of these measures
within the MAPPA. Once we have identified these
collaborative working between agencies is of
offenders a full assessment of their risk is made.
crucial importance as demonstrated in the case
The LPA is currently implementing the use of a
studies later in this report.
nationally approved assessment tool, OASys
(Offender Assessment System). This forms the basis Significant operational
of a plan of action to manage the identified risks. activity
These plans must include action to monitor the
ViSOR Project
behaviour and attitudes of the offender and
The MPS and LPA have staff working closely
to intervene in their life in order to control and
with the Police Information and Technology
minimise the risk of serious harm. This has to
Organisation (PITO) in the development and
be carried out in a lawful manner, according to
planned implementation of a national sex and
Human Rights Principles so that an individual’s
violent offenders database, called ViSOR
right to privacy is balanced against the need to
(Violent and Sex Offenders Register). It is evident
intervene in the offender’s life in order to protect
that having such a national system for recording
potential victims and to prevent re-victimisation.
16 and storing data in a standardised way will improve
The plans need to relate to the risk situation procedures for managing offenders; the database
drawing upon information from all agencies will also be used to assist police in investigating
involved. The nature and severity of the risks posed crimes and targeting specific offenders.
and the factors that may trigger further offending This database is being piloted in one London
(e.g. drug/alcohol abuse, accommodation or borough (Wandsworth) as well as in Durham,
domestic changes) are important in determining where early indications are that an added benefit
which risk management options are appropriate. will be ready access to a far greater amount of
Examples of effective approaches include offence information to identify best practice and assist
based programmes such as Sex Offender our management processes. So, for example,
Treatment Programmes and the Aggression when a police force is investigating a murder,
Replacement Training (ART) programme. they will require information about potential
These programmes also emphasise the offender’s suspects. Whilst the sex offender register was
need to develop internal controls over their used to identify Sarah Payne’s killer, Ray Whiting,
behaviour. However, many of the ways in which this database will inevitably speed up the process
we manage risk involves external controls, e.g. of identifying suspects in many investigations.
when someone is released from prison there may This is a very exciting project because it will
be a condition in their licence which prohibits them undoubtedly enhance public protection.

Hostels Training
Some of the offenders who fall under the MAPPA Over the year a number of events have taken place
umbrella are housed in probation hostels. It is the to help our staff understand the developments in
nature of London that hostels are often in the heart MAPPA, appreciate each other’s different cultures
of residential communities and we understand that and share good ideas and practice. These include
communities do have concerns about placing a conference for key personnel in the police,
hostels in their neighbourhood. probation and prison services to encourage wider
sharing of information. This was organised in
The police and probation services greatly appreciate
preparation for the working as our statutory
the value of hostels in managing offenders who
partners as proposed in the Criminal Justice Bill
need close supervision and monitoring. Last year the
(see The National Picture).
LPA reopened a hostel in south London: this hostel
has close links with its neighbours and holds regular Central Co-ordination & Support
meetings where local people can voice any concerns It is crucial in an area the size of London that
they have. Police are closely involved with the hostel efforts are made to ensure consistency and to
management and regularly attend the premises. promote best practice in this field of work. In last
The hostel continues to operate in this community year’s report we stated that we would be increasing
without any significant difficulties. The LPA are in the central support and co-ordination function.
the process of developing more co-ordinated and Senior managers have been appointed and other
balanced services for hostel provision across London. staff have been selected to take up additional
posts from April 2003. 17
LPA restructuring and co-located
working practices National MAPPA Guidance
At the same time as the statutory duty to jointly At the end of the year we commenced a series
manage these offenders was created, the LPA has of seminars for key police and probation staff
been restructuring following the bringing together to introduce the new MAPPA Guidance Manual
of five former London services. The new design for introduced by the National Probation Directorate
the LPA prioritises resources according to the risk on April 1st 2003. Some of our staff assisted in the
to the public. The need to jointly undertake public production of this guidance. This is an important
protection has over the year stimulated the ground- document, as it sets out procedures to be adopted
breaking concept of co-locating police and by agencies across the country in delivering this
probation in the same building. This is happening work. Our staff will be adapting their procedures
in an increasing number of boroughs, and has led over the coming months to fall in line with this
to greatly improved communication and sharing new guidance, and will introduce it to their MAPPA
of information. We expect this drive towards partner agencies locally.
co-location to continue over the following year.
You can obtain this guidance from your local
PPU or probation contact or on the Internet at

Who we are – Summary of roles

and responsibilities

The most effective work to protect following the Sex Offenders Act 1997. The primary
role is dealing with the registration of sex offenders
the public from these offenders
who have been convicted of relevant sexual offences
happens when other relevant and told by the Court they are required to register.
agencies, with their various functions They also deal with offenders when they are
within the community, also play their released from prison for such offences, and
increasingly deal with violent offenders and other
part. The MAPPA in London have, to
persons who are referred to them as likely to cause
varying degrees, engaged with the serious harm. Their role is to gather all available
following agencies, in addition to intelligence about a person, not just from police
the statutory partners of police files, but by making contact with the other agencies
involved in MAPPA to establish what is known about
and probation.
the offender. They work very closely with probation.
Social Services; Health Services (predominantly More of their work can be found in the section
Mental Health and Forensic Psychiatric Services); What We Do – The Operation of MAPPA.
Housing (Local Authority/Voluntary/Independent
housing providers); Prisons (through police Prison Probation service
Intelligence Officers and Prison Probation Dept.);
The probation service in London deals with
Youth Offender Teams (YOTS); Education and
offenders from first court appearances to
Victim Support Services.
completion of sentences, with the aim of reducing
We summarise below the roles of some of the re-offending and protecting the public.
agencies performing key functions in MAPPA.
■ LPA work to national standards and are
Police service accountable to the Home Office.

The primary objective of an efficient police service ■ LPA work in the courts, in prisons and in the
is the prevention and detection of crime. Clearly community. In the criminal courts, we provide
public protection falls within that remit, and the expert advice on sentencing options.
MPS currently employs a total of about 100 police ■ LPA work with prisoners during sentence and
staff in Public Protection Units across London. These after release. In the community, staff supervise
officers work exclusively in managing the offenders offenders sentenced to community punishment,
under this legislation. They grew out of the initial community rehabilitation or community
Sex Offender Registration Units which were formed

punishment and rehabilitation orders. Within their families, older people, disabled people and
each borough specific teams manage offenders those with mental health needs. The services
according to the risk that they present. Those promote safety and welfare which balances the
assessed as high risk are predominantly dealt needs and wishes of individuals with the safety
with by Public Protection Teams, who have of the wider community.
carefully controlled workloads. Staff are
Social services have wide ranging experience
specifically skilled in this area of work.
gathered over many years of working together
■ Probation staff challenge offenders' behaviour within the Area Child Protection Committees (ACPC)
and attitudes to achieve real change in people's which operate across London. There are clear links
lives. The central aim is to protect the general between the work of the ACPC and the MAPPA.
public. We make careful assessments of risk A social services and/or police Child Protection Unit
to the public and work closely with other (CPU) member is involved in local MAPPA and panel
organisations to prevent reoffending. meetings. SSD make a significant contribution to
■ We liaise with victims of serious crimes. risk assessment and monitoring of children in the

■ Offenders who do not keep to the terms of following ways:

their orders, including attending appointments ■ Information sharing within MAPPA over concerns
and courses, are returned to the courts and risk about potential victims or offender’s behaviour.
being sentenced to prison.
■ Ensuring that any change of circumstances
More information about probation work can be which increase the likelihood of re-offending are
found in the case studies in the section entitled reported by specialist child protection staff.
‘What We Do – The Operation of MAPPA’. ■ Managing the child protection register and case
conferences, aimed at providing support for
Social Services Departments children at risk of significant harm.
The key role and responsibilities of social services
■ Initiating or assisting with child protection
departments (SSD) is to provide services to
investigations where it is believed that a child
vulnerable individuals, both adults and children,
in their area is suffering or likely to suffer
and to protect them from significant harm.
significant harm.
Because of the statutory duty imposed upon SSD
■ Providing assessment, treatment and therapeutic
by the Children’s Act 1989, they are the lead
help to children displaying inappropriate sexual
agency for child protection.
behaviour, as well as support for parents
Each Local Authority has a Social Services of abusers.
Department (SSD), carrying a wide range of
■ Conducting assessment of need and formulating
statutory responsibilities, including the provision
management plans for youth offenders, both to
of services, which sustain and contribute to the
meet their need and manage their risk.
quality of life for individuals and communities.
This incorporates services to children in need and

Housing There will, of course, be some young people who

do become involved in crime. The secondary aims,
We recognise that the provision of suitable
therefore, are to ensure that, for the victims, we
accommodation can be crucial to supporting risk
reduce the traumatic impact of those crimes.
management plans for the most high risk offenders.
The development of the strategy has involved
In relation to housing needs all the London
lengthy and detailed consultation with the full range
Boroughs have their own objectives and
of partners; thus, the strategy articulates not just
procedures to meet their duties towards the
what the MPS itself will aim to do but also what
housing of homeless people, the care of existing
activity we should stimulate amongst our partners –
tenants and staff, and the protection of vulnerable
in Government, Local Authorities, the voluntary
groups. In addition the voluntary sector, including
sector and elsewhere and there are specific
Housing Associations, are increasingly important
commitments from probation concerning
in assisting in public protection. They are all
treatment programmes.
committed to ensuring that people's housing
needs are assessed with the other MAPPP Health Services
agencies to identify and manage the risks that
The various Mental Health NHS Trusts in London
particular individuals may pose to communities.
provide a full range of services to meet the needs
Many of the local MAPPPs have representation
of service users, carers and local communities. They
from housing agencies.
are increasingly referring those considered to be

20 Youth Offending Teams particularly dangerous to MAPPPs for multi-agency

(YOTs) intervention. In many Boroughs a representative
attends all risk management meetings to share
YOTS work with young offenders (mainly under 18),
information and provide professional consultation.
their families and victims in respect of all offending
We are convinced that increased and improved
behaviour. They also provide pre-sentence reports to
involvement of health services in MAPPA across
Courts and supervise community orders and post-
London will enhance the protection of the public
custodial licences. This incorporates intensive
which we must deliver together. At the same time
supervision and monitoring programmes for
we respect the rights of individuals to live their
selected persistent young offenders.
own lives and for other agencies to help them to
The MPS launched a Youth Justice Strategy for do this. It is important that we support them in
2003 to 2008 in March 2003. The primary aim of integrating within society without offending
the strategy is to reduce the chances of children against their fellow citizens.
and young people becoming involved in crime,
As MAPPA plays an increasingly important role in
either as offenders or victims. If this can be
the multi agency management and supervision of
achieved, London will be a safer, better place not
offenders in the community, this is likely to become
just for the young people themselves, but also
a major avenue for local criminal justice agencies to
for the wider community.
seek psychiatric advice and consultation from their

local Mental Health Trusts on the management of that all agencies work together in this context to
mentally disordered offenders. Requests for the understand and manage risk.
preliminary examination of mentally disordered
As already indicated the Prison Service is due to
offenders in the community under the proposed
become a statutory MAPPA partner and further
Mental Health legislation are likely to be channelled
guidance is being developed to set out improved
through MAPPA. It is therefore important to ensure
working practices, information sharing and risk
that Trusts are represented by senior clinicians
assessment. This will include forging the links
who can provide expert advice, both to divert
between prisons and public protection units/teams
inappropriate referrals and to ensure that psychiatric
in relation to the management of the highest risk
opinion is provided wherever necessary.
offenders, not just when they are released but
The Strategic Management Board will have a role during their time in prison. This way, risk
to play in ensuring that local MAPPA develop assessments will always be up to date.
effective links with Health agencies.
Not all agencies referred to above are full time
Prisons MAPPA partners in every borough, but can certainly
be called upon, along with others, in specific cases
Whilst there are eight prison establishments
to provide information about offenders and
in London, London offenders can end up in any
available services where appropriate. We are sure
prison throughout the country. The prison has an
that extensive agency involvement is crucial to
important role in identifying prisoners who present
improving the sharing of information and providing
a significant risk on release. During the sentence
a full range of services and opportunities to prevent 21
prisoners are assessed and intelligence is collated.
and reduce reoffending. We therefore look forward
This helps to determine what programmes and
to the proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill imposing
treatment the offender should receive both before
a duty to co-operate on relevant agencies (see The
and after release. For example, sex offenders will be
National Picture) being enacted next year and
transferred to those prisons where Sex Offender
becoming more a widespread reality.
Treatment Programmes are provided so that
this offending behaviour is addressed This would For further details of the efforts which are being
then be reinforced when the offender is released. made at strategic level to secure the engagement
of as a wide a range of relevant agencies as
The MPS has a dedicated Prison Intelligence Officer
possible, please refer to the section entitled
(PIO) for each prison establishment responsible for
Monitoring Progress – The Strategic
liaison across agencies and for intelligence
Management of MAPPA.
gathering. LPA also have probation officers
seconded to prisons who are also responsible for
keeping risk assessments up to date, treatment
programmes and release arrangements. Health
services, particularly mental health and psychiatry
are also closely involved in prison life, and it is vital

What we do – The operation of MAPPA

In addition to the day to day week and in others, police and probation work
collaboratively within the same building on a full
work of individual organisations
time basis. As we reported was likely last year,
outlined earlier in this report, this approach is being developed further.
we have developed multi-agency
Once a thorough risk assessment has been made,
arrangements within all boroughs
the “critical few” most dangerous offenders are
for the assessment and management identified and referred to the MAPPP. There are
of sexual, violent and other 32 panels within the London area, covering all
dangerous offenders. These should the boroughs. These meet on a 4-6 week basis.
Additionally, emergency meetings are convened
reflect and be responsive to the
when the need arises.
diversity of the local community.
In advance of each meeting an agenda, drawn
up by either the police or probation service, is
The MAPPA structure enables all agencies to work
sent out confidentially to all MAPPP participants.
together sharing relevant information about
Each will check for other information held about
offenders, planning and implementing intervention
22 the subjects of the meeting by their own agency.
strategies to effectively protect the public. We
All MAPPPs will have in attendance staff from
recognise the need to provide opportunities for
the police and probation services as well as
offenders to reintegrate into society without fear of
representatives from social services, health,
retribution or reprisal. This multi-agency approach
local authority housing, young offender teams,
reinforces the positive impact that treatment
employment, prisons, customs and excise and
programmes, proactive law enforcement, monitoring
other local agencies e.g. accommodation
and working with offenders can have on reducing
providers, including close liaison with the victim
crime rates. This translates into fewer victims of
services. Meetings are chaired by either police or
violent crime, which is what we are about.
probation. The aim is to of ensure the participation
Whenever a joint or multi-agency approach would of as many agencies as possible within this
improve public protection, police, probation and confidential setting. Minutes are taken,
any other relevant agency e.g. housing, health, documenting decisions made on each case,
social services etc, will share information and including the allocation of responsibility for key
formulate risk management plans. The organisation tasks. A review process is identified to monitor
of this may vary from borough to borough. For progress in each case and a date is set for
example, in some boroughs a probation officer is a MAPPP review unless circumstances demand
seconded to the local police PPU for part of the an earlier meeting.

Risk management plans vary according to individual The majority of cases can be dealt with by agencies
circumstances and will reflect a balance between acting alone, after information sharing has been
the need to impose conditions and controls on the carried out (and maintained at intervals). Other case
offender with the provision of treatment through can be dealt with at a local inter-agency risk
relevant programmes and services to reduce their management meeting.
The following are some examples of how offenders
In line with recently published guidance, only the are managed:
most critical cases will be dealt with at the MAPPP.

‘Dave’ has been harassing his victim, a local resident with whom he had become fixated, over
a number of years. This is commonly known as ‘stalking’. His unwelcome behaviour became
increasingly erratic and worrying, so the police Community Safety Unit used powers under the
Protection from Harassment Act to obtain a restraining order. This effectively prevents him from
making any sort of contact with the victim. His behaviour continued and he was eventually
sentenced to a year’s imprisonment.

Probation Services and Mental Health Services became involved, but he was not assessed
as suffering from any treatable mental illness. Probation arranged for Dave to be placed in a
hostel upon his release and sophisticated licence arrangements were put in place covering his
movements from prison to the hostel. The licence reiterated the victim non-contact conditions 23
in the restraining order which effectively meant that he was not allowed to enter a large
part of south London. Probation worked closely with the police public protection unit and
arrangements were made for ‘Dave’ to be followed from prison on his release. He entered the
area from which he had been excluded and police, obviously concerned as to his intentions,
effected an arrest for the breach. Probation then made urgent arrangements for a recall
notice to be produced, which resulted in the offender being returned to prison within hours
of his release.

The victim was constantly updated by police and probation as to progress of the case, including
while the offender was in prison. Additional security measures were provided at the victim’s
home to give her additional protection and reassurance. These measures can all be used again
when ‘Dave’ is released.

Further information about ‘stalking’ can be found in a guide entitled:

Stalking and other forms of harassment. An investigator’s guide from the MPS address
at the front of this report; or from or

Further information about the Victim Liaison Unit can be found in the section of this report
entitled ‘Working With Victims’.

Brian and Richard had both been resident at a probation hostel. Brian was a registered sex
offender whilst Richard had convictions for sex offences. They took up accommodation
together. Prior to their release prison intelligence had revealed that they had maintained
contact with each other during sentence. Prisons also confirmed that they were in contact with
a third sex offender and there were plans to sexually assault a child. They were kept under
police surveillance. Emergency MAPPP meetings were held to manage the case, which included
housing representatives. Initial agreement was that they should be permitted to live together
for a period, which would facilitate the surveillance. Thereafter a condition was put in Brian’s
licence banning contact with Richard and the pair were split up with encouragement and
support from police and probation, including assistance in gaining housing provision.

Where there is continued cause for concern about tailored to the specific risks the offender presents.
a person's behaviour in the community, the police They cannot require an offender to do something,
are empowered to apply to a Magistrates' Court but to refrain from specific activity. They are quite
for a Sex Offender Order. These are reserved an unusual measure, however in London this year
for the most serious situations where the police are we have trebled the number of applications for
able to satisfy the Court that a person who already these Orders, all but one of which have been
has a conviction for a sexual offence is engaging in granted by the Courts. Sometimes they are not
24 recent behaviour giving concerns that he/she could even contested by the offender, and they are seen
offend causing serious harm. The Orders can restrict as a powerful way of managing the most risky
offenders from engaging in the behaviour which is cases. Breaching an Order can result in a maximum
causing the concern. Very often this includes not penalty of five years, and they can last for as long
associating with children in any place, whether as necessary.
indoors or out, at places like swimming pools, parks,
leisure centres. They can be very specific and are

Michael is a very high risk offender and predatory homosexual paedophile. He was
managed by a local PPU where he resided in a probation hostel. Because of his present
behaviour and previous convictions, police decided that it was necessary to apply for a Sex
Offender Order at the local Magistrates’ Court. On the material presented, the Order was
granted. He moved to another Borough where the PPU took over his management. After a
short while Michael was seen talking to a young boy at a fairground. Subsequent enquiries
with the PPU, discussions with Michael and securing CCTV ensured that there was sufficient
evidence to prosecute him for breaching one condition of his order, namely that he should
not approach children.

Continued on page 25

Continued from page 24

He was sentenced to two years imprisonment. The judge commented that it was a serious
breach, occurring only eight weeks after it’s imposition, and not least because Michael
understood the seriousness of what he was doing.

When he is released from prison, he will be under probation supervision and police will coninue
to monitor him with the benefit of the Order still being in place in order to prevent reoffending
against children.

Not all the work of the MAPPP concerns sex offenders are an important area of responsibility.
offenders. Violent and other potentially dangerous The following two cases demonstrate this.

Trevor was attending a Domestic Violence Intervention Programme as a condition of his

supervision arrangements following release from prison. Programme tutors were concerned
about the attitudes expressed in the group, including threatening comments concerning the
victim of the offences, his former partner. Following liaison with the Probation victim worker
attached to the DVIP, it was established that he had contacted the victim and threatened
to harm her. The case was referred to the MAPPP because of the escalating risk; Effective 25
collaboration between Probation, Police and Victims workers ensured that a victim protection
plan was put in place, which included non-contact from the offender.

He was subsequently charged with criminal offences arising from threats he had made
This enforcement action took place before any physical harm could be caused to the victim.

Ian had been unable to work following a back injury and was becoming increasingly depressed.
He began to drink heavily which contributed to escalating marital discord. He became obsessed
by the belief that his wife was being unfaithful with a neighbour. Matters came to a head and
he physically assaulted his wife as well as causing extensive damage to both his and the
neighbours property. His sentence included a requirement to attend DVIP. A multi-agency
meeting was held enabling input to be provided by various agencies including mental health
services, alcohol counselling and an Employment Education and Training assessment. Brian has
made excellent progress and is now retraining for suitable employment. His alcohol use is under
control and there have been no further incidents of domestic violence since he has been
successfully reunited with his wife.

The following case study shows how police and service, work together to manage the release off
probation, with close co-operation from the prison difficult offenders.

‘Alan’, a convicted serial rapist, was due for release on licence having served almost two-thirds
of a substantial sentence for rape. He was serving his sentence at a prison in the Midlands,
having committed offences in London. The prison service had details of his treatment and
behaviour whilst in prison, which gave cause for concern that he still posed a threat towards

Under current legislation, ‘Alan’ would be eligible for automatic release after serving two-thirds
of his actual sentence. It was therefore important to try to manage any risk which he would still
pose on release as effectively as possible, to prevent reoffending.

However, it is important to recognize that we can never completely eliminate risk. In the words
of Hazel Kemshall, an academic researcher in this area;

“Risk management should be understood as harm reduction either through the reduction
of the likelihood of the risk occurring or the reduction of its impact should it occur”.

It was agreed that ‘Alan’ would be accommodated at an Approved Premises (probation) hostel
in London, well away from the area where he had committed his crime. Police, working closely
26 with the LPA Victim Liaison Service, contacted his previous victims to consider their needs. They
informed them of the situation and, taking into account their views, LPA arranged for exclusion
conditions to be put into his release licence. These meant that he could not go anywhere near
where his victims lived or worked.

Special measures were put in place at the hostel where he would stay, to ensure the safety of
female staff, and the National Probation Directorate’s Public Protection Unit helped with the
provision. A high level MAPPP, chaired by a police Commander, was convened to oversee ’Alan’s’
release arrangements. This ensured effective co-operation between the different elements of
the police, probation and prison services responsible for him.

Curfew conditions, reinforced by electronic monitoring (‘tagging’) services were built into his
licence. The prison service agreed to transfer ‘Alan’ to a London prison to facilitate his effective
release. Staff from the local police PPU enjoyed excellent working relationships with the hostel
and visited ‘Alan’ in prison to consider his release arrangements, working closely with probation
inside and outside the prison. This ensured that ‘Alan’ was fully involved in his release plans.

Following release, he was supported in his rehabilitation into the community by hostel staff, his
probation case worker and the police PPU. He was required to submit to regular random drug
and alcohol testing, which he failed after a relatively short period of release. His licence was
revoked and he was immediately returned to custody.
Continued on page 27

Continued from page 26

Whilst services have effectively intervened with ‘Alan’ for a short time, he will ultimately be re-
released. This case indicates the levels of support and intervention which will be necessary to
reduce the risks he poses and to successfully reintegrate him into community life. This will
undoubtedly include help in gaining employment and suitable accommodation.

Under proposed new legislation, offenders who are still considered to be dangerous to any
section of the public will not be eligible for release until those risks have been reduced.

During the last year there has been ongoing work MAPPP agencies, particularly probation. Apart from
to explore the new joint statutory responsibility and an individual's right to privacy we have to consider
to promote a consistent approach in the operational the impact of disclosure upon that person and the
arrangements throughout London. As has been potential risks to which they may be exposed. In
mentioned previously, this is a developmental particular we will examine closely the reason for
process and we will continue to develop and refine disclosure and the benefits we aim to achieve.
our procedures in line with the national standards, We will look at the person's offending history
which have just been introduced. and behaviour, together with all available current
information in reaching a decision.
Where are they? –
We are helped by the case of R-v-Chief Constable
North Wales Police (1998) in which it was held that
The disclosure of personal information about
in LIMITED circumstances the police could release
offenders, in particular registered sex offenders
factual information about individuals if it was very
(RSOs), is a sensitive and complex subject. Whilst
strongly in the public interest to do so. That strong
there is an apparent desire amongst communities
public interest exists where it is necessary for the
to know of the presence and whereabouts of
prevention or detection of crime, or for the
offenders in their locality, we have to balance this
protection of young or other vulnerable people.
against the rights of offenders to privacy, particularly
Additionally, the Association of Chief Police Officers
under human rights legislation. There is no blanket
has produced guidelines which are referred to in
provision of such information nor is it envisaged
reaching a decision whether or not to disclose.
that there will be in the future.
The new national guidance also spells out the
‘Disclosure’ is often referred to as ‘community considerations that need to be made before
notification’, but in this context that may be too disclosure is used in exceptional circumstances.
broad a description.
The foregoing are just a few examples of how
Providing details, such as a photograph, address limited disclosure to selected sections of the
or convictions of an offender to the community or community is used in serious cases to protect those
targeted sections therein is a serious step, usually communities. We will continue to use our discretion
undertaken by the police in consultation with other in exercising disclosure on a case by case basis.

Robert is a potentially dangerous offender with numerous convictions for gross indecency and
a recent offence of indecent assault on a female. He is a user of mental health services in the
area he resides. Those services shared information with the multi-agency panel that he had
told them that he had fantasies of having sex with children.

Robert is currently on probation supervision for his recent offence. He told his probation
officer that he had booked to go on holiday to a particular place, and subsequent enquiries
revealed that the travel company had banned him previously due to an act of gross indecency.
The MAPPP agreed that disclosure of the current information to this company was necessary
and his booking was therefore cancelled.

Several months later mental health services shared information that he planned to re-book
his holiday using a false name. Again the MAPPP ensured that further disclosure was made
including the provision of recent photos. Such disclosure, initiated by responsible and
appropriate information sharing between agencies, has, thus far ensured that reoffending
does not take place.

Steve is a registered sex offender with convictions for, amongst others, indecent assault
28 on a girl, making and possessing indecent photographs of children and outraging public
decency. He had been attending a sex offender treatment programme but had failed to
successfully complete this. He had been under probation supervision. His employment
brought him into contact on a regular basis with children, since his employer’s facilities
were used for primary school parties and he had unsupervised access to the areas
they used.

His employers informed the local police PPU of these facts when they became aware
that he had convictions for sex offending. They wanted to know whether he was on
the sex offender register and whether he currently presented a risk to children. Police
reviewed the matter and established that he had not informed the PPU of his current
employment situation nor had he informed his employers of his offending background,
which police and probation considered do suggest that he presents a risk
to children.

After careful deliberation of the pros and cons of disclosure, a senior police officer granted
a documented authority for disclosure to take place. The employer was told but police and
probation were conscious that appropriately supervised employment is one useful way of
managing his risk. There had been no untoward incident during his employment and a joint

Continued on page 29

Continued from page 28

decision was taken that he be allowed to continue his voluntary work, which included labouring
and gardening, but under close supervision at all times, i.e. that another adult would always be
able to see him.

Following a more detailed risk assessment, the employers told Steve that he would only be
able to work on days when there were only other adults present; they also agreed to provide
a reference for him to another employer in an IT post, on the basis of his good work. He has
taken up this additional voluntary work, reassembling computers for charity and again these
employers are aware of his background with regard to his possession of indecent images.

Steve has accepted the situation and, by being gainfully employed, with the employers aware
of his position, no further offending has taken place.







Monitoring progress – The strategic

management of MAPPA

The MPS and LPA jointly convene The Board commissioned some work through
a sub-group, led by the NSPCC because of their
a strategic group that oversees the
expertise, to examine how we might be able to
work of the MAPPA across London. stimulate community education and awareness,
This is a statutory requirement placed not just of the work under MAPPA, but about sex
upon each Responsible Authority. offending generally and measures which can be
taken to protect children. A paper setting out
This Group (the Strategic Management Board) proposals for a project has been produced and
has met on four occasions over the year. The the Board will be looking at progressing this by
meetings are chaired by the LPA Director of way of a pilot during the next year.
Public Protection. Membership has remained
At each of the four meetings held, attendance
consistent since the group first met in July 2001,
has averaged two thirds of the membership,
with representatives as set out in the
around fifteen of the twenty possible. The Strategic
table overleaf.
Management Board will be standardised during
30 The work of the group is to evaluate and audit 2003/04 as the Responsible Authority extends to
MAPPA activities and consider issues that may be the Prison Service and the duty to co-operate is
problematic between participating agencies, with also extended to other agencies.
a view to resolving them. The group should model
Lastly, the Board will be meeting specifically to
good practice and share information amongst
establish how it will operate in accordance with
members in the same way that locally, at borough
the standards and procedures set out in the new
level, risk information is shared and exchanged.
national Manual of MAPPA Guidance. We are
Both the MPS and the LPA are continuing to
confident that this guidance will help shape the
develop more expertise in managing high risk
role of the Board, making it more effective in
individuals. This task is now a shared one and,
monitoring and sharing the good efforts of so
increasingly, police and probation colleagues are
many MAPPPs in London and promoting changes
actively working together to improve practice.
to improve public protection.
Creating effective partnerships with, for example,
Housing, Mental Health colleagues, at strategic
level as well as locally, Victim Support workers
and Social Services is a very important ingredient
in striving to achieve a safer community for
all Londoners.

The Strategic Management Board of MAPPA

Director of Community Protection LPA Head of Service Delivery, Risk & Victims, LPA

MPS Lead – Child Protection and MAPPPs MPS MAPPA Support & Co-ordination Unit

MPS Borough Commander MPS Consultancy Group

Metropolitan Police Authority Prison Governors Association

Chief Exective Penrose Housing Association Chief Executive Victim Support London

Forensic Policy Advisor Department of Health Senior Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist West London
Mental Health NHS

Social Services Inspectorate Policy Advisor NSPCC

National Probation Directorate, Public Protection Unit Sentence Enforcement Unit

HM Prison Service
Camden Council - Manager of Supporting People Senior Policy Advisor Youth Justice Board

Working with victims

Section 69 of the Criminal Justice referral point for all new cases and undertakes the
tracing work in liaison with the police prior to a
& Courts Services Act, 2000 places
victim liaison officer being appointed.
a statutory duty upon the probation
People do move on, of course, after a period of
service to consult with victims of
time and in London the population is particularly
sexual and violent offences where transient. It is, therefore, impossible to contact
an offender has been sentenced to every victim, but the service is working successfully
12 months’ imprisonment or more. towards meeting the National Probation Service
targets for victim contact.
(In the past, probation was required
to act in cases of offenders sentenced It is crucial to link the work of the victim
liaison service with local MAPPA arrangements,
to 4 years or more.)
especially in cases where there is a significant risk
of re-victimisation. Here is an example of how
This consultation takes place before
this works:
an offender is released and helps to
determine the conditions imposed in
32 the offender’s licence on release. A probation officer and victim liaison
officer referred a case to the local
Since April 2001, the LPA has reorganised and
MAPPP where the offender and victim,
expanded its victim contact and liaison services
both female, had lived in close proximity
in line with that duty. Taking into account the
to each other prior to sentence. There
restructuring required as a result of the
had been a history of friction between
amalgamation of the previous five probation
them. Since the offender had been
services covering London, the LPA has formed
imprisoned for an offence on the victim
the Victim Liaison Service. The estimated number
of grievous bodily harm with intent, her
of victims who are eligible for the services in cases
property had been repossessed and there
sentenced by the London courts per year has risen
was a strong likelihood of revictimisation
to 3,500.
as the offender was holding the victim
There is a current staff establishment of 23 victim responsible for this.
liaison officers and 7 administrators managed by
Following contact with the MAPPP, the
3 senior probation officers and a head of service
offender was referred for a mental
delivery who holds joint responsibility for risk
management and victims. Staff are located in Continued on page 33
5 offices across London. One office is the central

assessment process, and the development of risk

Continued from page 32 management and victim safety plans.

health assessment and alternative All joint police/probation briefing events on public
housing on release was pursued with protection have a victim dimension to them to
the Housing Department. Enquiries reinforce its importance. Over the past year in
were made of Social Services about the London, we have run a series of dedicated events
welfare of the offender’s child and there for police and probation, called “Think Victims”.
was liaison with the Housing Association These have promoted the role of the victim liaison
about the possible risk to the new tenant officer in the assessment and management of
in the offender’s former property. dangerousness.
The victim liaison officer contacted the We will continue to strive to locate victims, consider
police about household security for the their fears and needs, and work together to provide
victim and her family, and there were appropriate and adequate measures to reduce the
extra conditions inserted into the risk of revictimisation.
offender’s post-release licence to
minimise further risk to the victim by Victim liaison service
restricting the offender’s movements. contact points
For individual cases:
Tel: 020 7323 7020/020 8262 6927.
The LPA has produced clear guidelines on the 33
role of the victim liaison officers in ensuring that For information on policy and service development:
information about the victim is included in the risk Tel: 020 7323 7009.

Victim support services

Victim Support is the national charity Survivors UK

For male victims of sexual abuse.
for people affected by crime. It is an
Tel: 0845 1221201
independent organisation, offering a Website:
free and confidential service, whether
or not a crime has been reported. Women’s Aid International
For victims of domestic violence.
Trained staff and volunteers at local Tel: 0845 7023468
branches offer information and Website:
support to victims, witnesses, their
NSPCC Child Protection Helpline
families and friends. For anyone concerned about a child at risk
of abuse.
Victim Support also provides the Witness Service,
Tel: 0800 8005000
based in every criminal court in England & Wales,
to offer assistance before, during and after a trial.
Further information for victims and details of local ChildLine
34 services and other relevant organisations are For children, about any problem, at any time.
available as follows: Tel: 0800 1111
Victim Support Service Helpline
Tel: 0845 3030900 MIND
Website: For mental health issues.
Tel: 0845 7660163
Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre
Providing a London service for women Southall Black Sisters
and girls who have been raped or sexually abused, Services for black, Asian and other
no matter when it happened. minority women.
Tel: 0208 683 3300 Tel: 0208 571 9595

Appendix A – Statistical information

(i) The number of registered sex offenders (RSOs) in the community on 31 March 2003
This represents 28 offenders per 100,000 population (London population 7,375,065
Census 2001). 2085

(ii) The number of RSOs who were either cautioned or convicted for breaches of the requirement,
between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003 97

(iii) The number of Sex Offender Orders applied for and gained between 1 April 2002
and 31 March 2003:
total applied for 16
granted 13
not granted 1

(iv) The number of Restraining Orders issued by the courts between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003
for offenders currently managed within MAPPA 9

(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) of the Act 4754

(vi) The number of ‘other offenders’ dealt with under MAPPA during the year 1 April 2002 35
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 two categories, as defined by
section 67 (2b) 451

(vii) For each of the three categories of offenders covered by the MAPPA (“registered sex offenders”,
“violent and other sex offenders” and “other offenders”), the number of offenders that are or
have been dealt with by:
MAPPP – registered sex offenders 61
MAPPP – violent and other sex offenders 40
MAPPP – other offenders 18

(viii) Of the cases managed by the MAPPP during the reporting year the number of offenders:
(a) Returned to custody for breach of licence 54
(b) Returned to custody for breach of a Restraining Order or Sex Offender Order 1
(c) Charged with a serious sexual or violent offence 9

1 This figure does NOT include: offenders who have failed to register; those with a registration requirement but who have not yet
registered as they are currently in custody; nor those who have registered but are in custody for a further offence.a

2 This figure is made up of 2678 offenders in custody, 970 offenders on licence and 1106 new sentences over the period of this report.

Commentary on statistics
(i) this figure represents an increase of 238 registered sex offenders (or 13%) compared with last year’s
total of 1847. This is entirely consistent with the national average increase of 16% and was expected.
It is anticipated that the figure will continue to grow annually until 2004 and 2007 when a number of
offenders will be eligible for deregistration (provided they have not been reconvicted for a relevant
offence). During the last year a number of offenders have been deregistered after five years, the
minimum period (except for youths, where the registration period is halved);

(ii) The national figure is 40.6 offenders per 100,000 population, this represents a drop of 28 (or 22%)
compared with last year’s figure of 125 offenders prosecuted. Likely contributory factors are better
offender compliance with registration requirements and more effective use of warnings as an
enforcement measure;

(iii) this is an increase of ten applications, almost three fold, compared with last year’s total of six
applications. This is because of increased understanding of the benefits of such Orders;

(iv) this is a rather low number and a greater awareness of this power continues to be promoted amongst
police investigators, probation report writers, Crown Prosecution Service and the judiciary;

(v) this figure represents an expected increase;

(vi) this is an increase of 42 (or 10%) compared with last year’s figure of 409 and would suggest better
identification of relevant offenders by the Responsible Authority and other agencies;

(vii) these figures were not provided last year, but they represent the most difficult cases, referred to as
the ‘critical few’. They amount to about 1.6% of the total number of offenders falling to be managed;

(viii) (a) whilst 54 out of 119 offenders (45%) have breached their licence conditions, this figure
indicates good identification and robust enforcement action;

(b) this figure would suggest that the overwhelming majority of offenders have been compliant with
the restrictions contained within Orders made against them, preventing reoffending;

(c) this figure represents about 13% of the offenders dealt with at MAPPP and whilst it is of
course a concern that nine offenders have gone on to commit very serious offences with serious
consequences, this is an absolutely miniscule number compared with the total number of offenders.
The quote attributed to Kemshall earlier in this report concerning ‘zero risk’ is pertinent in
this context.
This report is produced by the directorate of Public Affairs,
Metropolitan Police, New Scotland Yard