Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland

Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements Annual Report 2002-3

This second annual report outlines the multi-agency structures and arrangements in place in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, which are aimed at protecting the public from potentially dangerous offenders. The statutory responsibility for the preparation of the annual report falls, jointly, to the Chief Constable and the Chief Officer of Probation. However, locally there is an established and productive history of inter-agency working with regard to public protection, particularly involving the Social Services, Housing Departments and the Health Service who work very closely with the Police and the Probation Service. Working arrangements were formalised by the establishment of a Public Protection Panel in 1998. This Panel, subsequently re-designated as the MultiAgency Public Protection Panel, has always been a true Multi-Agency partnership, jointly funded by its partner organisations. These arrangements and structures, which have established a high standing and reputation nationally, will assist in further developing the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements, or MAPPA along the lines recently laid out by the Home Office.

The protection of the public is a top priority for each of our organisations and we want everyone to be confident of our commitment to continue working together to make our communities safer.

Chief Constable Matt Baggott

Chief Officer of Probation Linda Jones

Corporate Director, Social Care & Health Directorate, Leicester Social Services Andrew Cozens

Corporate Director of Housing, Leicester City Council Mike Forrester

Director of Social Services, Leicestershire County Council Tony Harrop

Director of Social Services & Housing, Rutland County Council Colin Foster

Chief Executive Officer – Leicestershire Partnership Trust Dr Maggie Cork

Chief Executive Melton, Rutland & Harborough PCT Wendy Saviour

Area Manager East Midlands South HM Prison Service - Bob Perry

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 Governments 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 Governments 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 wider context of the operation and development of the MultiAgency Public Protection Arrangements (the MAPPA). The most important work undertaken within the MAPPA is done locally, led by the police and probation – which 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 Directorates 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 Areas 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 five 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) is considered to pose such a high risk or management difficulty that they are referred to the highest level of the MAPPA – the Multi-Agency Public Protection Panels (the MAPPP). Figures alone do not, of course, tell the whole story. The anonymised case studies illustrate the practical work of the MAPPA, and demonstrate the preventive action, which can be taken. Prior to the MAPPA, action of this kind was mainly taken by one agency alone, with the effect that on occasion offender’s 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 Services website www.probation.homeoffice.gov.uk (under the public protection section).

1. Introduction: What are MAPPA?
MAPPA are the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements which the Police and Probation Service are required to put in place, in every area of the country, to work together with other key agencies who work in the criminal justice field on certain categories of offenders* who could potentially pose a risk to the public, in order to:• identify all the offenders who fall within the arrangements, • ensure that relevant information on them is shared, in order to • assess each case individually in respect of the risk he or she may pose, and • decide at which of three levels that risk should be monitored and managed. The three levels of risk management within the overall MAPPA structure are:• Single agency management with information sharing with other agencies when necessary, • Middle tier inter-agency risk meetings such as the Probation Services Risk Assessment & Management Panels (RAMPs), the Police’s Risk Assessment Group (RAG) or the Health Services Care Programme Approach (CPA), • Higher tier multi-agency meeting - The MultiAgency Public Protection Panel. This annual report will explain how these arrangements developed and are continuing to develop in Leicester,

Leicestershire and Rutland, how they are linked, who is involved and how they work in practice. It will also include some anonymised, but real case studies to provide examples of the arrangements and provide some detailed statistics on the number of cases managed by the arrangements during the year 1 April 2002 until 31 March 2003. -------------------------------------------------------------------------* There are three categories of offenders who fall within the MAPPA: • Category 1: all registered sex offenders, • Category 2: those who are sentenced to a custodial sentence of 12 months or longer for an offence of violence and those who receive a similar sentence for a sexual offence, excepting those who fall within Category 1 above, and • Category 3: any other offender who has been assessed as a potential danger to others.

2. The origins of MAPPA in Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland
Although there is a long history of inter-agency co-operative working in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland (in the field of child protection for example) the origins of formal collaboration on work with potentially dangerous offenders can be traced to the establishment of what was then the Public Protection Panel in 1998. This Panel, which arose as a result of an initiative by the Criminal Justice Steering Group, whose membership comprised Chief Officers of agencies working in this arena, was established to provide a forum in which relevant information could be shared, and the risks assessed and managed on the small number of very serious, high risk offenders who were seen to pose an imminent and serious risk of harm to others. The Public Protection Panel, initially established as a three year pilot, was unique at that time in that it was jointly funded by its partner organisations and because it employed a dedicated full time independent co-ordinator whose role was to service the Panel, process referrals, gather relevant information on cases referred to it, convene and chair Panel meetings and to ensure the production and circulation of minutes. The Panel’s operations were underpinned by an Interagency Protocol and a formal Consortium Agreement, which confirmed the funding and strategic management arrangements. The Panel was also unusual, compared with other, similar arrangements, which were being established around the country at that time, in that its membership comprised senior managers from partner organisations who came with the authority to make decisions and to commit resources on behalf of their respective agencies. The Public Protection Panel was designed to complement, rather than replace, other risk management structures which individual agencies already had in place; the Panel represented an additional, ‘higher tier’ forum where cases considered were treated as very high priority by partner agencies dealing with them. It was therefore very important that rigorous gate keeping ensured that only the most serious cases were managed by the Panel. This, in turn, required that ‘lower tier’ risk meetings acted as a filter for referrals to the Panel, as well as continuing to assess and manage offenders who posed a significant, but lower risk. In 1999 the Public Protection arrangements in Leicestershire and Rutland were, along with five other models in different parts of the country, examined by Professor Hazel Kemshall of DeMontfort University and Professor Mike Maguire of Cardiff University as part of a review commissioned by the Home Office in order to compare their relative effectiveness and efficiency. Their report, which concluded that the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland model represented the most effective arrangements, was highly influential in the production of subsequent National Guidance on the development and framework for MAPPA, in order to facilitate greater consistency of practice in this field of work throughout the country. To a very great extent this Guidance incorporated the framework which we had developed locally, and in particular advocated the establishment of a tiered approach to risk assessment and management, with only the most serious cases - ‘the critical few’ being considered by a high level Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel or MAPPP. Therefore, whilst the legislation and national guidance required relatively little change in our local structures and procedures, it was necessary for the Public Protection Panel to be redesignated as the ‘Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland’ on 1 May 2001. Less serious cases, albeit those which also caused concern, were required to be managed by lower tier inter-agency risk meetings, whilst cases assessed as low risk remained subject to single agency management. This Guidance also supported the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000, Sections 67 & 68 of which placed a new statutory responsibility on local Police and Probation Areas to put MAPPA in place in all areas of the country. The legislation, implemented on 1 April 2001, also required all areas to produce an Annual Report.

3. Which agencies are involved in MAPPA in Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland?
The statutory responsibility to put MAPPA in place falls jointly upon the Police and Probation Service, who comprise ‘The Responsible Authority’. The Responsible Authority is required, however, to actively engage with, and arrange for the involvement of, other key agencies within the criminal justice field. In fact such arrangements have largely been in place locally for several years through our joint funding and joint management arrangements in respect of the Public Protection Panel, or MAPPP. The partner agencies jointly and collectively involved in MAPPA within Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland are:• • Leicestershire Constabulary Leicestershire & Rutland Probation Area Leicester City Council Leicestershire County Council Rutland County Council, and Leicestershire Health Services (Primary Care Trusts and the Leicestershire NHS Partnership Trust). Additionally, since 2001, the local area of the Prison Service, the East Midlands - South Region, has been a co-opted partner into the MAPPA. In the forthcoming year it is anticipated that the Prison Service and the two local Youth Offending Teams will become full members of the MAPPA structure. The funding partners for Health are the six local Primary Care Trusts, but the co-ordinating role for this has been delegated to the Melton, Rutland and Harborough Primary Care Trust. However the operational involvement in MAPPA is undertaken by the Forensic Mental Health Service, an arm of the Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust.

• • • •

In practice, the involvement of the three local councils is delegated to their Social Services Departments and, in the case of Housing, Leicester City Council Housing Department which represents all the housing providers throughout the whole area.


4. What principles underpin the MAPPA?
The MAPPA have been established on the premise that any public service agency, whose work in any way involves dealing with offenders, will occasionally encounter someone who poses a potential threat of harm to others. Equally, in such cases it is very likely that such people will be most comprehensively assessed and managed by more than one organisation working together in a planned and structured way. Whilst it will never be possible to eradicate all serious offending against the person, a whole series of Public Inquiries, particularly in the areas of Child Protection and Mentally Disordered Offenders, have consistently concluded that serious harm is more likely to occur in cases where key agencies do not communicate with each other, do not exchange relevant information on risk and do not work together in a systematic and co-ordinated manner. MAPPA exist to seek to reduce the possibility of such lack of co-ordination and, thereby to reduce the likelihood of serious re-offending and better protect the public. Since resources are, of course, limited and finite, it is necessary to ensure that such offenders are identified and assessed as accurately and comprehensively as possible and that interventions are appropriate and proportionate to the level of risk identified. MAPPA provides a framework to achieve these objectives. This is also important with regard to the delicate balance between the inherent rights of individuals who fall within the MAPPA and the rights of the community as a whole to expect that agencies working with such offenders will do all within their

power to protect them from serious harm. For this reason, it is right that the often sensitive and detailed personal information which relevant agencies may hold on such offenders is governed by a strict code of confidentiality. It follows, therefore, that information may only be exchanged between agencies having regard to what is proportionate and necessary to protect others. Similarly, whenever possible and appropriate, it is desirable that the offender him or herself has an awareness of and an engagement with the MAPPA process. This can be helpful in two ways; first, many offenders who fall within the MAPPA are prepared and motivated to work with the authorities to reduce the risks they are seen to pose to others. This can involve agreement to undertake specialist assessment or therapies, for example in the form of sex offender treatment courses, domestic violence programmes, cognitive behavioural programmes, drug or alcohol programmes, many

of which are provided by the Probation Service, sometimes in partnership with other specialist agencies, (see section on Leicestershire & Rutland Probation Area, below) or compliance with medical or psychiatric treatment programmes, etc. Secondly, in many cases, awareness by the offender that they are assessed as posing a risk to others and that their behaviour will be monitored can and does act as a deterrent against reoffending. In a small number of cases, particularly where it is felt that the awareness by the offender of the process and the measures being implemented may increase the risks, and/or where the offender patently is not prepared to co-operate nor engage, it may be agreed, following very careful consideration, that the subject is not informed. With all this in mind, the following principles underpin the operation of the MAPPA:• Exchange of information must be limited to what is relevant to protect others from harm and

proportionate to the degree of risk • Information exchange must be governed by a strict code of confidentiality Interventions should seek to inform and engage with offenders whenever possible Interventions should, wherever possible, include enhancing and maximising ‘internal controls’ (i.e. measures that the offender him or herself can work upon to reduce their risk to others) ‘External controls’ (i.e. those imposed or implemented by agencies working with such offenders) must be proportionate to the level of risk assessed and demonstrably necessary in order to increase the protection of others.

By adhering to these principles, the MAPPA aim to benefit the offender, staff working with him or her, previous or potential future victims and the community as a whole.


5. Roles and responsibilities:
In this section of the report, the roles and responsibilities of the key agencies involved in MAPPA in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland and the distinct contribution, which they each make, will be briefly outlined. The Police: Along with all police services throughout the country, Leicestershire Constabulary has a central duty to seek to prevent and investigate crime in all forms, to apprehend offenders and to initiate the process of bringing them to justice. It is clear, therefore, that the police locally have a vital stake and crucial role in our MAPPA. As well as their involvement with MAPPA offenders as part of their core business, the police also have a specific and unique responsibility in the administration of the Sex Offenders Register and the assessment and monitoring of those offenders required to register with them in accordance with The Sex Offender Act, 1997. This legislation requires most sex offenders to register with the police either at time of sentence, if subject to a community penalty, or upon release from custody and places certain requirements upon them such as informing the police if they

change their address. The minimum period of registration for an adult who falls within this legislation is for five years, whilst the most serious offenders will be registered indefinitely. This group of offenders comprise the MAPPA Category 1. In order to fulfil this duty, a dedicated Sex Offender Unit was established by Leicestershire Constabulary when this legislation was first implemented. On 1 November 2002, the Unit was expanded from a detective sergeant and two, to four detective constables to take account of the responsibility to contribute to the management of all MAPPA category cases and was re-designated as the Sex and Dangerous Offender Unit. It was also decide to physically locate the MAPPP Manager and Administrative Officer to the same office base in order to facilitate the easier exchange of information and intelligence and to provide all agencies involved in the MAPPA with one central focal point for the co-ordination of this area of work. This combined Unit also has access to the police’s local and national intelligence databases, as well as Probations national Case Records and Administration System (CRAMS) database for relevant cases and the interim version of the Violent and Sex Offender Register database (VISOR), which will build into a joint Police/Probation national database on all MAPPA category offenders. In relation to the police’s specific responsibilities towards Registered Sex Offenders, an inter-agency approach to the key tasks of the assessment and monitoring of these cases has been developed. This involves the routine and ongoing liaison with staff of all agencies that may have an involvement with or knowledge of individual Registered Sex Offenders.

In many cases, Registered Sex Offenders may initially be under the supervision of the Probation Service or Youth Offending Teams, either following release from prison or, in less serious cases, when subject to Community Supervision. In such circumstances, the supervising Probation Officer or YOT Worker will be consulted as part of the initial risk assessment process, which also involves visiting the offender at his or her home, liaison with the original arresting police officer and the utilisation of the ‘Risk Matrix 2000’ assessment tool. In cases, where there are Child Protection issues involved in the assessment, liaison will also occur with the relevant Social Services Department and the police’s own dedicated Child Protection Unit. In a small number of cases contact with the Health Service is necessary, particularly if the offender has experienced mental health problems or suffers from a learning disability and it is occasionally important to liaise with the housing provider. Once the initial risk assessment has been completed, each case is considered by the Risk Assessment Group (RAG), a monthly meeting between key staff from the Police and Probation Service, which is also attended by the Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel Manager. At the RAG all the information and intelligence is reviewed and the initial risk assessment is either endorsed or amended. Cases assessed as ‘very high’ are automatically referred to the MAPPP and these together with ‘high’ risk cases are retained by the Unit for monitoring and regular review. ‘medium’ and ‘low’ risk cases are subsequently managed by the Local Policing Unit (LPU). In all cases liaison will continue with the probation officer, YOT worker, social worker or any other professional

involved in the management or supervision of the case. RAG Meetings were convened at monthly intervals during the period covering this report, during which over 100 Registered Sex Offenders were assessed or reviewed. However it may well prove necessary to increase the frequency of these meetings during the forthcoming year. The police Sex and Dangerous Offender Unit is also now tasked with overseeing and co-ordinating the police’s contribution to the management of all the highest risk cases registered by the Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel, whichever MAPPA category such offenders may fall within. Finally, the police play a crucial role in the management of the MultiAgency Public Protection Panel in that they are represented on the MAPPP by a detective chief inspector, Specialist Crime Investigation Department, and on the Operational Management Group by a detective superintendent, whilst an Assistant Chief Constable chairs the MAPPP Management Committee. The Probation Service: Since the protection of the public is a primary aim of the National Probation Service, the Leicestershire & Rutland Area has always afforded high priority to its involvement in local MAPPA, as witnessed by its continued secondment of a Senior Probation Officer to fulfil the role of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel Manager/Co-ordinator. More generally, the Probation Service has a key role in relation to all MAPPA Category 2 offenders i.e. those sentenced to custodial sentences of 12 months or more for violent or sexual offending (except

those who are Registered Sex Offenders, who fall within Category 1). All Category 2 offenders will be allocated as statutory cases by the Probation Service at the point of sentence. At this stage, if it has not already been undertaken during the preparation of a Pre-Sentence Report, a risk assessment will be undertaken, using the Probation and Prison Services joint risk assessment tool, the Offender Assessment System (OASys). This is a comprehensive screening tool which will assess the offender as ‘low’, ‘medium’, ‘high’ or ‘very high’ in relation to the risk of him or her causing harm to others either whilst in custody or in the community. The nominated Probation Officer will then maintain oversight of the case throughout the duration of the sentence, linking and liaising with relevant staff in the Prison Service establishment where the sentence is being served. This community or ‘home’ Probation Officer will be centrally involved in key decisions in the planning and management of the sentence as well as in the process of updating the risk assessment prior to the offenders release. Having regard to the risk assessment, release plans will typically take account of matters such as victim issues, accommodation, and how interventions begun during the sentence, such as the Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP), may be continued, further developed or consolidated upon following release. As all offenders in this MAPPA category will be subject to supervision by the Probation Service on licence, the release plan is often incorporated into conditions or requirements of the licence, such that the offender is obliged to comply; failure to do so will result in

the licence being revoked and the offenders return to prison. As well as its fundamental responsibilities in respect of supervision of offenders and in monitoring behaviour, the Leicestershire & Rutland Probation Area provides a whole raft of measures aimed at enhancing ‘external’ controls on behaviour. These can include, for example a requirement to reside in approved Probation hostel premises. The Probation Service also provides interventions geared to developing greater ‘internal’ controls i.e. helping the offender take more control of and responsibility for his or her own behaviour. These specialist interventions include the Community Sex Offender Treatment Group (CSOG), the cognitive behavioural Enhanced Thinking Skills Programme (ETS), both of which have been assessed and accredited by the Home Office and other interventions such as those targeting domestic violence and drug or alcohol abuse. Prior to their release, those Category 2 MAPPA offenders who are assessed as posing a high risk will normally be considered by a Leicestershire & Rutland Probation Area ‘middle tier’ inter-agency meeting, the Risk Assessment and Management Panel (RAMP). RAMPs always involve the police as well as any other agency, which may have an interest or an involvement, and will involve the sharing of information and intelligence, particularly, of course, from the prison where the offender is serving his or her sentence, and will agree and finalise the risk management plan. The RAMP will also consider whether the risks are sufficiently serious as to warrant referral to the

higher tier, the Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel. If this is not felt appropriate at this stage, further, review RAMPs may be planned to continue the oversight and management of the case at this level following release. It should also be borne in mind that many Registered Sex Offenders are also subject to statutory supervision by the Probation Service. In such cases, risk assessments will be undertaken jointly by the Police and Probation and, as well as the case being considered by the Risk Assessment Group, as outlined above, higher risk cases are also likely to be managed under the RAMP framework. During the 12 months covered by this report, the Probation Service convened over 80 RAMPs. Finally, as is the case for all partnership organisations within the local MAPPA, the Leicestershire & Rutland Probation Area deploys a senior manger as its permanent or ‘core’ member of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel, and is represented by an Assistant Chief Officer at both levels of the MAPPP strategic management structure. The Prison Service: Although clearly the primary responsibility of the Prison Service is to contain offenders in humane, secure conditions and to seek to rehabilitate and reform those placed in their care whilst they are serving custodial sentences or are held on remand, it also has a key contribution to make in risk assessment and in helping to plan and prepare for offenders’ safe and secure re-introduction into the community. To this extent, it is vital that there are clear and effective channels of communication between Prison

Service establishments and the key agencies that assume responsibility for the management of offenders following their release. Within Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, an excellent working relationship exists between the Prison Service regional management and the community based agencies involved in our local MAPPA, epitomised by the fact that the Prison Service regional management headquarters is physically located within the Leicestershire & Rutland Probation Area HQ. Similarly, our local Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel was one of the first in the country to have a representative of the Prison Service, the governor of one of our area’s prisons, to participate as a core panel member. This has proved to be of particular value in, for example, arranging for the transfer of a small number of particularly high risk Leicestershire prisoners, who were serving sentences in prisons in other areas of the country, to local institutions prior to their release, so that their discharge could be planned, managed and monitored more easily. There are also highly effective links with individual Prison Service establishments within the Leicestershire and Rutland area. All have seconded Probation Service staff working within them and this provides a crucial link in facilitating the transfer of relevant information, which informs risk assessments, and release and risk management plans on MAPPA offenders. Social Services: As indicated earlier in this report, the three local councils - Leicester City, Leicestershire County and Rutland County - are partner and funding agencies in respect of our local Multi-Agency Public Protection

Panel. As a result of this, the three respective Social Services Departments have become centrally involved in the MAPPA process, and each is represented on the MAPPP Management Committee at Director or Assistant Director level. Each department has also designated a Service Manager in the field of Child Protection as a core panel member, and this has proved particularly helpful in facilitating an effective link with the two local Area Child Protection Committees (ACPCs). Whilst the remit and focus of the ACPCs and the MAPPA are, of course, different and distinct, such links are vitally important where there is a degree of overlap in that some MAPPA offenders will have abused children and/or could pose a future risk of doing so. Therefore, in respect of previous or potential future victims, the local Social Services Departments are often able to provide crucial information and make a vital contribution to risk assessments and the formulation of risk management plans and the protection of possible victims. There is also clear local guidance in place which determines that in cases where a particular identified child or children is or are felt to be at risk, then the child protection procedures take precedence and are instigated without delay in order to secure the safety of the child or children in question. In such cases a Strategy Meeting or Child Protection Conference will consider whether the alleged or potential perpetrator poses a more general risk to others and therefore whether he or she should be referred into the MAPPA framework, if he or she has not already been identified as a MAPPA offender.

The Social Services Departments also have a key role in a small number of cases where either the victim(s) or the subject(s) of the concerns is a vulnerable adult. Finally, in cases involving young people subject to the MAPPA framework, Social Services may well have an involvement in providing therapeutic interventions and/or in providing residential care. In such cases, clearly, their role in risk assessment and management is central. The Health Service: As is the case with Social Services, the Health Service locally was a founder partner agency in the establishment, management and funding of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel and remains centrally involved in MAPPA. Since the recent re-organisation of the Health Service within Leicestershire and Rutland, the funding responsibility now rests with the six local Primary Care Trusts, and the co-ordination has been delegated to the Melton, Rutland and Harborough Primary Care Trust. However, in practice, the most frequent interface with the MAPPP’s operations has been with the Leicestershire Partnership Trust’s Forensic Mental Health Service by virtue of their responsibility to identify and manage the small but significant number of mentally disordered offenders who pose a potential threat to others. Some of this small group of patients may, therefore, fall into the MAPPA Category 3, ‘other dangerous’ offenders. It is, however, worth emphasising in this context that a significant proportion of this small group have not been diagnosed as suffering from any treatable form of mental illness. Rather, it is more typical that their behaviour results

from serious personality disorder which, if not deemed treatable, does not fall within the remit of currently applicable mental health legislation. Nonetheless, the Health Service locally has always accepted the need to work in co-operation with other agencies in order to contribute effectively to the overall goal of public protection and has consistently sought to prioritise their responsibility to identify and assess such offenders. To this extent, the Forensic Service provides an assessment service both within all local prisons and a similar facility to the local Magistrates’ Court. Through such processes, several MAPPA cases have been identified who may otherwise have slipped through the net. Furthermore, the Forensic Mental Health Service has also consistently sought to engage with and monitor through voluntary contact MAPPA cases in this category for whom there are no identifiable treatment options. This commitment is reflected also in the designation of the Service Manager of the Forensic Mental Health Service as a core panel member of the MAPPP, and by the representation at Director level on the Panel’s Management Committee. Housing: As a department of Leicester City Council, the Leicester City Housing Department has been centrally involved in MAPPA since its inception locally, and plays a key role, not only in its own right, but as a link with other housing providers, both statutory and voluntary, within the area as a whole. This is reflected by the fact that a senior manager sits on the Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel, and a Service Director sits on the Management Committee and chairs the

Operational Management Group of the MAPPP. Clearly identifying and providing appropriate and safe accommodation either for victims or, where appropriate and necessary, for MAPPA cases, will sometimes play a crucial role in the formulation and subsequently in the effectiveness of a risk management plan. The risks which offenders may pose to others are demonstrably increased if they are homeless or without a secure base, whilst the difficulties of the authorities in monitoring and managing such people are correspondingly increased in such circumstances. Similarly it is occasionally necessary to offer to re-house previous victims in order to protect them from further harm. In all of these respects, the Leicester City Housing Department has consistently adopted a positive and helpful approach, on the basis that increased public safety benefits the community as a whole. In order to maximise the effectiveness of the provision of appropriate accommodation, the Leicester City Housing Department has been primarily responsible for two initiatives which are particularly worthy of note, and which have made, and continue to make, a very valuable contribution to the MAPPA and to overall community safety. First, the City Housing Department initiated and subsequently brokered a regional protocol with neighbouring counties, which allows for the rehousing of victims out of area, whenever this is necessary, on a reciprocal basis. Secondly, the City Housing Department identified the need for high risk outreach workers to provide an intensive level of both practical assistance and additional monitoring

of high risk offenders whilst they establish themselves in independent accommodation. This scheme, which is jointly funded and managed by the Probation Service, has now been established for over two years and has been vital in enhancing both external and internal controls on a small group of offenders and preventing possible relapse into serious offending and/or to provide reliable, timely assessments when risks have been seen to be increasing. The MAPPA within Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, therefore are very well served by the inclusion of the Leicester City Housing Department as a full and very valuable partner organisation. Youth Offending Teams: There are two Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) within our local area, with respective responsibility for offenders up to the age of 18 within the Leicester City and the Leicestershire and Rutland Areas. YOTs are staffed by a combination of workers from local Police, Probation, Social Services, Health and Education Services agencies who are mainly involved in MAPPA in their own right. Futhermore, because of the relative youth of the offenders with whom they work, only a very small number have been assessed as posing a high risk of serious harm to others. For these reasons, YOTs have not, up to this point, been formal partners in the provision of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel. Nonetheless, they do, of course, rigorously risk assess all of their cases using the ASSET assessment tool, produced by the Youth Justice Board, and used by all Youth Offending Teams. They have made a small number of referrals to the MAPPP. In such cases, as well as

the front line YOT staff dealing with the offender in question, the respective YOT Manager has been invited to attend Panels. However, since the expansion of the framework to include all MAPPA

cases, the role of YOTs in the overall provision and management of public protection arrangements is under review and will be addressed within the forthcoming year.

A diagram showing the MAPPA for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland is included as Appendix 1 of this report.


6. The operation of MAPPA:
From the previous section, it will be seen that the MAPPA framework within Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland represents an interrelated structure in which all key agencies have a clear and distinct role to play. This structure provides for the identification of offenders who fall within the remit of MAPPA, their risk assessment and the consequent decision as to which of the three tiers (single agency, middle tier or higher tier) each case should be most appropriately managed. To place these arrangements in their proper context, it is worth remembering that, of the three MAPPA categories of offenders:The Police have a statutory responsibility to identify and assess all Registered Sex Offenders (MAPPA Category 1) and whilst other agencies, particularly the Probation Service, are likely to have an involvement with many for at least some of the time such offenders will remain registered and, as such, they will be involved in the assessment and management process, the Police will play the central role with this category. The Probation Service has a statutory involvement with all offenders sentenced to 12 months or more in custody for violent or sexual offending (MAPPA Category 2) and, again, whilst other agencies are very likely to also be involved in the assessment and management of some of these offenders, the Probation Service will almost invariably take the lead role. Offenders identified within MAPPA Category 3 (‘others considered dangerous’) are likely to be more diverse; some may be sex offenders whose registration period has expired, but who are felt to still pose a risk; others may be sex offenders whose offending pre-dated the legislation which introduced the Sex Offender Register in 1997; some may have completed their period of statutory supervision with the Probation Service; some may be mentally disordered offenders, whilst others may be offenders about whom it is felt that, for whatever reason, the nature and type of their previous offending does not fully reflect the risk they are assessed as posing to others. It is worth bearing in mind two factors with regard to Category 3 offenders, however. First they are likely to be small in number compared with the other two categories. Secondly, those offenders identified within Category 3 are by definition assessed as high risk and therefore unlikely to be suitable for single agency management. Therefore, although during the period covered by this report, 19 Category 3 offenders were considered by Probation Service RAMPs (Probations middle tier risk meeting) and a total of 10 offenders in this category were referred to the Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel, this picture represents the total number of ‘other dangerous’ offenders identified. In contrast to MAPPA Category 3 offenders, the overwhelming majority of Category 1 and 2 offenders will not be assessed as high risk. With regard to Category 1 (Registered Sex Offenders) for example, empirical evidence from the use of the Risk Matrix 2000 assessment tool suggests that less than 20% of sex offenders will be assessed as high risk of reoffending, and substantially less than this proportion will be assessed as high risk of re-offending in a serious way. If this appears surprising, it is worth remembering that the requirement to register applies to the vast majority of people convicted of an offence of a sexual nature, encompassing the whole range of offences; from very serious offences such as rape at one end of the spectrum, to teenagers having consentual, but under age sex at the other.

This diversity is reflected locally in that, of the 413 Registered Sex Offenders within Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland on 31 March 2003, less than 20% were being managed by the Police’s Sex and Dangerous Offender Unit – the remainder, having been assessed as lower risk, were being managed by the relevant Local Policing Unit. Additionally, only 24 cases in this category had been subject to a Probation Service RAMP (Probations middle tier provision) and only 16 had been referred to the Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel during the previous twelve months. Similarly, of the 346 Category 2 offenders dealt with by the Probation Service or Youth Offending Teams who were in the community at any time during the year covered by this report, (excluding the 244 who spent the whole period in custody), 20 were subject to RAMPs, and only seven were referred to the MAPPP. It can be seen, therefore, that the vast majority of MAPPA offenders, having been rigorously assessed, can be effectively managed by a single agency - often the police in respect of Category 1 offenders, and the Probation Service or the Youth Offending Teams in Category 2, with relevant information exchange, where necessary, with other agencies that may have a part to play in the management of the case. It is also worth stressing that for cases subject to single agency management, the risk assessment is reviewed at regular intervals and/or where there is a significant change in the offender’s personal circumstances. A common feature of middle tier arrangements (Probation’s RAMPs, Police’s RAG, YOTs’ Risk Management Meetings, and, when convened on MAPPA cases, Health’s CPA Meetings and Social Service’s Strategy Meetings) is that

they will typically be chaired by a middle manager and will be attended by the relevant front line professionals from all agencies involved with the offender under consideration. The purposes of all middle tier arrangements are to exchange relevant information, to assess the level of risk, to agree a risk management plan and to decide whether the risks are of sufficient seriousness and imminence as to justify a referral to the higher tier, the Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel. The major difference between the various middle tier meetings and the higher tier i.e. the MAPPP, is that the latter is independently chaired by the MAPPP Co-ordinator and that, although the same front line professionals who attend middle tier meetings will also be present, key decisions will be taken by senior managers representing the MAPPP partner organisations who attend all Panel meetings as ‘Core’ Panel members. MAPPPs are convened every month and will typically consider between three and five cases, either initial referrals or reviews of cases currently under the MAPPP management. Each new case will be allocated a time slot of between one and one and-a-half hours, depending on the level of complexity, whilst reviews usually take between a half and three-quarters of an hour. Dates for MAPPP meetings are set well in advance to ensure that as many Core Panel members as possible are able to attend every Panel meeting. They will have received a briefing dossier, prior to the Panel and will therefore not come to the case ‘cold’. These dossiers also provide the opportunity to check the accuracy of the information, which has been

collated, identify any possible gaps in relation to their own agency’s current or previous involvement and thereby to ensure that missing or incorrect information can be obtained and presented to the Panel. The attendance of Core Panel members at MAPPPs is important for two further reasons. First, by virtue of the experience and expertise that Core Panel members bring to MAPPPs, they can ensure that decisions made are appropriate, proportionate and necessary in order to prevent harm to others. This is frequently enhanced by the balance and objectivity brought to this process by Core Panel members whose agency may not have any current involvement in the case under consideration. Having heard and considered all the relevant information and agreed upon the nature, seriousness and imminence of the risks posed, the key decision made by Core Panel members is whether the offender should be registered on the MAPPP Register. If registration is agreed by a majority of the Core Panel members present, then the Panel will need to formally adopt a risk management plan, which the MAPPP will periodically review. The second reason, therefore, why it is desirable to have as many Core Panel members as possible attending is that they come with the authority to make decisions and commit resources on behalf of their respective organisations, thus helping to ensure that MAPPP registered cases are treated with due priority and that risk management plans agreed, are deliverable and are, in fact, delivered. Risk Management Plans agreed at MAPPP meetings seek to develop and maximise internal controls wherever possible and to agree

whatever external controls appear necessary and proportionate in order to best protect potential victims and/or the general public.

The two case examples summarised on the following pages are real cases considered by the MAPPP within the last 12 months. They will

hopefully serve to demonstrate how risk assessments are undertaken and how risk management plans are agreed and implemented.


7. Case 1 – Mr. X
Background: Mr. X was sentenced to nine years imprisonment for a series of sexual offences committed in a neighbouring county. His offending began with indecent exposure on women unknown to him, but quickly escalated in seriousness to indecent assaults involving touching women outside of their clothes and culminated in two very serious offences in which he threatened victims with a knife, took them to secluded areas and seriously sexually assaulted and abused them. It is noteworthy that Mr. X always denied his guilt and refused to engage in treatment programmes during his prison sentence. He was not granted parole and released at the statutory point of having completed three-quarters of his sentence, on licence to the Probation Service. Prior to his release, it had been agreed that he should be required to reside in a Probation Hostel so that his behaviour could be monitored. Unfortunately, the only such hostel in his home area was located close to the homes of several of his victims and so it was therefore agreed that he be placed in a hostel in Leicester until suitable, safe accommodation could be identified in his home county. It was at this point that the Probation Service referred his case to the MAPPP. The Panel meeting was attended by Police and Probation staff from his home area as well as local Probation staff, including the hostel manager and a psychologist, and the manager of Leicestershire Constabularys Sex and Dangerous Offender Unit, who would have the responsibility to assess Mr. X and monitor his behaviour because of his requirement to register on the Sex Offender Register. Risk Assessment: The Police and Probation staff from Mr. Xs home area outlined the details of his offending, including graphic information from his victims who, in his most serious offences, clearly feared for their lives. Mr. X scored ‘high’ using the Probation Services OASys risk assessment tool, but only ‘medium’ on the Police’s Risk Matrix 2000, these somewhat surprisingly low assessments reflecting the fact that Mr. X had no previous convictions prior to the index offences. Nonetheless, such scores are always used only as a basis on which to inform professional judgement, and Police and Probation staff from both areas agreed that Mr. X represented a very high risk, a view endorsed by the MAPPP. On the basis of the information provided, the Probation Psychologist felt it likely that Mr. X would score ‘high’ on the Psychopathy Check List (PCL/R). Specifically the risk was agreed as: • Very high risk of serious sexual assault on adult females. Very high risk of serious physical assault on adult females.

Risk Management Plan: The following risk management plan was agreed by the MAPPP: • Endorse decision to reside at Probation Hostel. Additionally to be subject to curfew and hostel staff to log his movements in and out of the hostel and to note his clothing on a daily basis. Referral to Probation Psychologist for updated assessment specifically in relation to suitability for Sex Offender Treatment Group. Flag-up as high risk on Leicestershire and home area Police Intelligence Systems. Put in place facility for fast track application for revocation of licence and recall to prison in the event of serious escalation of risk.

Establishment of core group to monitor case comprising hostel key worker, Police Case Officer from Sex and Dangerous Offender Unit, supervising Probation Officer and Probation Officer from his home area. Inform Mr. X of his MAPPP Registered status, the reasons for this and the implications that his behaviour would be monitored very closely and the need for him to co-operate if he wished to reduce the risks he was deemed to pose to others.

He was assessed by the Probation psychologist who confirmed his high PCL/R score. As such, he was deemed unsuitable for the Community Sex Offender Groupwork Programme – there is substantial evidence that psychopaths derive no benefit from such programmes, and participation may even increase the risk of re-offending. Mr. X subsequently obtained employment via a personal friend. His work involved driving throughout the Midlands. The core group felt concerned about this development and so arrangements were made for a surveillance exercise to be undertaken. This revealed that, on a trip to another town in the Midlands, Mr. X

visited a charity clothes store and, whilst ostensibly trying on clothes, was seen to wander around the shop wearing only his boxer shorts. The shop was staffed by a lone female at this time. On observing this behaviour a plain clothes police officer entered the shop, purporting to be a customer, and Mr. X dressed and left without making any purchase. This development was immediately considered by the core group who concluded that Mr. Xs behaviour was causing sufficient concern as to justify grounds for application for immediate revocation of his licence and recall. The Sentence Enforcement Unit at the Home Office agreed with this assessment and Mr. X was recalled to prison.

Outcome: Mr. X was released to the Probation Hostel where he lived uneventfully for several weeks.


8. Case 2 – Mr. Y
Background: Mr. Y was referred to the MAPPP by the Forensic Mental Health Service shortly before his release from a 10month prison sentence. This had been imposed for offences of affray and criminal damage at the low secure residential psychiatric unit where he was then living. At this unit, his behaviour had been causing serious concern for some time due to his general level of aggression and, in particular, his extreme sexual disinhibition – grossly inappropriate sexual advances towards adult females, both members of staff and other patients. He appeared either not to hear or to ignore rebuffs to his advances and, when challenged, became aggressive and violent. There was an allegation of a serious sexual assault on a particularly vulnerable female patient, although, following investigation, the police concluded that there was insufficient evidence to press charges. There were also strong suspicions that Mr. Y had been stalking a member of the unit’s staff. Although subject to Enhanced Care Programme Approach (CPA) psychiatric and psychological assessment confirmed that Mr. Y was suffering from a serious personality disorder, which was unlikely to respond to any further treatment. For this reason, it would not be possible to legally detain him in hospital under the terms of the Mental Health Act and, in any event, further admission to hospital would have put staff and patients at risk. Mr. Y was also alienated from his family and so he was likely to be homeless on release. Furthermore, since he was serving a prison sentence of less than 12 months, he would not be subject to supervision on licence by the Probation Service following release. Risk Assessment: At the MAPPP, it was confirmed that Mr. Y scored high on the Psychopathy Check List (PCL/R). The risk assessment was therefore agreed as: • Very high risk of serious sexual assault on adult females, particularly vulnerable women. High risk of violence towards staff dealing with him.

Risk Management Plan: The MAPPP agreed the following risk management plan:

Mr. Y to be informed of his MAPPP registered status and implications. Establishment of core group to manage case, chaired by FMHS Service Manager.

• • City Housing Department agreed to facilitate fast track application for council accommodation. Allocation to High Risk Outreach Team (jointly funded by Probation & City Housing Dept.) to support him through application process, settling into tenancy - liaison with Benefits Agency, Public Utilities. Social Services agreed to expedite Social Care assessment. Psychiatric Social Worker and Community Psychiatric Nurse allocated to the case. Risks flagged up on Police Criminal Intelligence System, and agreed to raise Operational Order on address, when known. Case allocated to Police Sex and Dangerous Offender Unit. Police agreed to re-visit alleged indecent assault on psychiatric patient prior to present prison sentence.

been allocated a council tenancy and he was assisted to move into this. However he returned to his expartner’s home on several occasions where he was abusive and aggressive. This resulted in charges in relation to threatening behaviour and public order. Mr. Y also visited the Social Services Department, where again, he was threatening and abusive, which resulted in further charges, including one of criminal damage. The next day he was arrested for criminal damage following an altercation with a taxi driver and for going equipped for theft. As a result of this series of offences, he was remanded in custody for the preparation of a Pre-Sentence Report by the Probation Service. In this report, the Probation Officer explained the background to the offending and the reasons for Mr. Y being MAPPP Registered. Mr. Y was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. He is pleading ‘not guilty’ to the alleged indecent assault on the psychiatric patient and this case is pending trial at the Crown Court. Mr. Y is also under investigation in relation to separate allegations of harassment on a female neighbour.

Outcome: • In the event Mr. Y went to live with a young woman whom he had known previously. She had a young child, which necessitated Social Services to undertake a risk assessment re: possible child protection issues. The core group therefore had to consider issues of disclosure to this young woman, in that, although the relationship was apparently consentual, she needed to be aware of the inherent risks to herself and, potentially to her child. The Social Worker persuaded Mr. Y that he needed to inform his new partner of his MAPPP registered status (or the authorities would do so), which he subsequently did in the Social Worker’s presence. Mr. Y also admitted the indecent assault on the psychiatric patient and, following discussion with the police, he was charged with this offence. Within a short time, Mr Y’s new partner decided to end their relationship. He had, by this stage


9. The strategic management of MAPPA
The multi-agency management arrangements of MAPPA within Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland are, at present, formally restricted to those, which are in place in respect of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel since the Police and Probation Service currently manage the vast majority of cases who fall within MAPPA Categories 1 and 2 respectively. There are, however, plans to review these structures in the forthcoming year in order to take account of the responsibility to develop a multiagency approach to the management of all MAPPA offenders.

So far as the arrangements in respect of the MAPPP are concerned, there is a two-tier management structure in place. The higher tier, which has ultimate authority for the MAPPP is a Management Committee, which comprises senior manager representatives of the local funding agencies, in some cases involving staff at chief officer level (a full list of representatives at all levels within the MAPPP can be seen in Appendix 2). The Chair of the Management Committee rotates and is currently held by Davina Logan, Assistant Chief Constable (Crime). The Management Committee currently meets twice a year and, specifically has responsibility for:• • • Overall Strategic Management Policy formulation Strategic Review, and

Budget formulation, allocation and control.

The lower tier management of the MAPPP is provided by the Operational Management Group, which meets four times a year. In most, but not all cases for partner agencies, the Core Panel Member also represents that agency on the Operational Management Group. The Operational Management Group has specific responsibility for:• • • • Process issues and review Operational Monitoring Inter-agency liaison Operational issues.

The MAPPP Manager/Co-ordinator reports both to the Management Committee and the Operational Management Group by producing written reports, which contain information on the MAPPP’s performance, including a statistical breakdown of referrals, cases registered, together with information regarding outcomes. Since its inception in 1998 the MAPPP has received over 180 referrals, considered by over 50 Panel Meetings, which have registered 65 cases. The current annual budget for the MAPPP is some £68,000 per year, which is met by the contributions of the six funding agencies. However, this figure does not take account of the staff time of Core Panel Members, of front line staff who attend panels or of the agency representatives on the management structure.

As is the case for the Management Committee, the chair of the Operational Management group rotates. The current incumbent is Ms. Pat Hobbs, Service Director, Leicester City Housing Department.


10. Work with victims:
A very high priority is attached to work with victims within the overall MAPPA framework within Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland. The two main agencies involved in this work are the Probation Service and the Police. Since 1995, the Probation Service has had a statutory responsibility to incorporate contact with victims in its work. In order to fulfil this duty, the Leicestershire & Rutland Probation Area has a dedicated Victim Contact Team, which comprises one Senior Probation Officer and four other members of staff. The Victim Contact Team is based at the main Leicester Probation Office at 38 Friar Lane, Leicester. The work of this Team has recently been identified as an example of best practice by the National Probation Service. The responsibilities of the Victim Contact Team are to initiate and offer contact to all victims of violent or sexual offending where the perpetrator was sentenced to custody of 12 months or more. In addition, the victims of racially aggravated offences, as a result of which the offenders receive any length of sentence, are also offered contact. There are two main objectives of contact with victims. First, to keep them informed of the progress of the case in which they were involved, specifically with regard to the legal process, the sentence and its implications and the offenders progress through the prison system. Secondly, the Victim Contact Team has a responsibility to report to the relevant authorities, the comments and views of victims when key

decisions are made about the offender such as whether to grant parole or in relation to release plans. During the period covered by this report, the Victim Contact Team undertook over 250 separate contacts with victims within Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. Since many cases in which the Victim Contact Team is involved relate to high risk offenders, the team is always invited to attend both Probation Service RAMPs and notified of all cases to be considered by the MAPPP. In both cases, a representative of the Victim Contact Team will attend if there are current, pertinent victim issues, which need to be taken into account in the risk assessment or in the formulation of a risk management plan.

The Victim Contact Team has close, established links with other local organisations such as Victim Support, an independent organisation that offers a confidential support service to victims of any crime, whether or not this has been reported to the police. It also offers support to victims families and witnesses during court proceedings. Probation’s Victim Contact Team also has responsibility for the training and development of the whole Probation Service staff group and has been involved in training staff in other relevant agencies, notably the police. Within the last 12 months, for example, the Team has run a course for Probation Officers involved in the front-line supervision of offenders, to ensure that consideration of victims issues and needs remain central to the

supervision process. The Team has been involved in several joint training initiatives with the police, including the training of Police Victim Liaison Officers, and of Police Officers dealing with the families of victims of offences of causing death by dangerous driving. So far as the police are concerned, every Local Policing Unit has a team of Victim Liaison Officers who offer contact to victims who may be particularly vulnerable, offering advice, support and practical help, such as the installation of police alarms in victims’ homes. As and when they have a current or recent involvement, Police Victim Liaison Officers are also invited to RAMPs and MAPPP meetings.


11. Statistical information:
What follows is the statistical information regarding the MAPPA, which the Responsible Authority is statutorily required to produce within the Annual Report. It is important, however, to provide some points of explanation and clarification in order to understand the bold statistics in their proper context. The following points may be of assistance in this respect: Registered Sex Offenders: The overall total of 413 registered sex offenders within Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland as at 31 March 2003 does not represent the number who have been required to register during the previous year. In fact the net increase in the number of Registered Sex Offenders during the 12 months covered by this report is 60. As described earlier, the Sex Offender Act introduced the requirement to register in 1997. The essential purpose of this legislation was to allow the police to keep track of the movements of sex offenders, and, for this reason, the length of the period of registration was necessarily substantial; the length of this period varies, dependent on the seriousness of the offence, but for adult offenders, the minimum registration is for five years. Although the fixed registration periods are halved in respect of offenders under the age of 18 at time of sentence, (excepting those for the most serious offenders, whose requirement to register is for life irrespective of their age), the majority of registered sex offenders are adults. From this it can be seen, therefore, that it was not until last year that the first adult offenders completed their registration periods. Since new offenders are also required to register every year, it can be seen that the total number of Registered Sex Offenders represents a largely cumulative figure. Finally, whilst the overall figure may seem alarming it is worth pointing out that these offenders, the majority of whom, as explained earlier, are not assessed as high risk, would exist in the community whether or

not the Sex Offender Register had been introduced. The fact that it has been provides an important way in which the police, working with other relevant agencies, can better identify, assess and monitor these offenders and is, therefore, an important contribution to overall community safety. In fact, the number of Registered Sex Offenders within Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland at the time of last years Annual Report corresponded almost exactly with the overall national average and there is no reason to believe that this situation has changed. Violent and other Sex Offenders. Again, this figure requires some explanation. First it is important to remember that the overall total of Category 2 offenders contains a very significant number (244) convicted of violent or sexual offending, but who spent the whole period covered by this report in custody serving, what in some cases, will be lengthy prison sentences. However, the vast majority of this category is not assessed as high risk and they are removed from the MAPPA framework when they have completed their period of postcustody licence. The small number still assessed as high risk at this stage remain within the system, but are re-classified as MAPPA Category 3 offenders. Offenders referred to the MAPPP Here it is important to bear in mind that some of the offenders referred

to MAPPP will not actually be considered by the Panel. There can be several reasons for this; either the offender may move out of area or may receive a custodial sentence before the MAPPP takes place; or he or she may not fulfil the seriousness threshold for the MAPPP, and may be more appropriately managed at the middle tier level. Therefore, whilst 34 cases were referred to the MAPPP during the year covered by this report, only 28 cases were actually considered by the Panel. It must also be remembered that the MAPPP has been operating for almost five years and, during this time, it has registered a total of 65 offenders on the MAPPP Register. Offenders remain on the MAPPP Register for various lengths of time, and will only be removed if they are sentenced to a significant period of custody (in which case the offender will be referred again prior to release), if they move out of the area (in which cases the receiving area will be notified) or if the Panel is satisfied that the risks have been reduced to the extent that the offender concerned can be managed at the middle tier level. Therefore, whilst 34 offenders were referred to the MAPPP and 28 cases were considered by the Panel during this 12-month period, additionally eight offenders, who were registered before 1 April 2002 remained on the MAPPP register throughout the year, and seven others, who were also registered at an earlier date, were de-registered at some point during the year. The figures, then for offenders dealt with by the MAPPP during the 12-

month period, relate to a total of 43 cases (i.e. 28 new referrals considered, seven de-registered during the year and eight cases, previously registered who remain so). The MAPPP Register comprised 22 cases at 31 March 2003. Of the two offenders managed by the MAPPP during the period of this report who committed serious offences of harm against the person*, it is worth pointing out that in one case, this conviction represents offences committed before the MAPPP referral. Only one offender, then, during this period reoffended seriously whilst under the MAPPP’s management. * For the purposes of this report, the Home Office National Guidance defines a serious offence of harm against the person as one of the following:• • • • • • murder attempted murder arson with intent to endanger life manslaughter rape armed robbery involving a firearm assault with a deadly weapon hostage-taking or abduction any other serious offence of harm attracting serious community concerns.

• • •

12. Statistical information
i. The number of registered sex offenders on 31 March 2003

No. of offenders


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 0 0 0

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 12 0 2 22 6 15


Chair: Davina Logan, Assistant Chief Constable (Crime) Leicestershire Constabulary

Andrew Cozens Neil Dhruev Krystyna Findley Colin Foster Pat Hobbs Wendy Saviour Flick Schofield

Director, Leicester City Social Services Department Director of Adult Mental Health, Leicestershire NHS Partnership Trust Assistant Chief Officer, Leicestershire & Rutland Probation Area Director of Social Services & Housing, Rutland County Council Service Director, Leicester City Housing Department Chief Executive, Melton, Rutland & Harborough Primary Care Trust Assistant Director of Leicestershire County Council Social Services Dept.

Functions: ® Strategic Management ® Policy Formulation ® Strategic Review ® Budgetary Control


Chair: Pat Hobbs, Service Director Leicester City Council Housing Department
Steven Attwood Krystyna Findley Robert Nisbet Pat Nawrockyi Bob Parker Graham Thomas Head of Service, Children & Families Department Rutland Social Services Assistant Chief Officer, Leicestershire & Rutland Probation Area Forensic Service Manager, Forensic Mental Health Service Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust Service Manager, Leicester City Social Services Dept Service Manager Leicestershire County Council Social Services Dept. Detective Superintendent, Leicestershire Constabulary

Functions: ® Process Review ® Operational Monitoring ® Inter Service/Departmental Liaison ® Operational Issues CORE PANEL MEMBERS
Steven Attwood Krystyna Findley Pat Nawrockyi Robert Nisbet Bob Parker Suki Supria Chris Thomas David Walmsley Head of Service, Children & Families Department Rutland Social Services Assistant Chief Officer, Leicestershire & Rutland Probation Area Service Manager, Leicester City Social Services Dept. Forensic Service Manager, Forensic Mental Health Service Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust Service Manager Leicestershire County Council Social Services Contracts Manager, Housing Department, Leicester City Council Dept. Detective Chief Inspector, Specialist Crime Investigation Dept., Leicestershire Constabulary Governor, HMP Ashwell

Bob Petrie Christine Campbell Multi-Agency Public Protection Unit Manager Admin Officer

National Probation Service Ms Krystyna Findley Assistant Chief Officer Krystyna.Findley@leicestershire.probation.gsx.gov.uk

Address 2 St. John Street Leicester LE1 3BE

Phone 0116 251 6008

Leicestershire Constabulary Graham Thomas Superintendent graham.thomas@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk

Address Specialist Crime Investigation Dept. Wigston Police Station Bull Head Street Wigston Leicester LE18 1WX

Phone 0116 222 2222 Ext. 5569

MAPPP Unit Bob Petrie MAPPP Manager Bob.Petrie@leicestershire.probation.gsx.gov.uk

Address Wigston Police Station Bull Head Street Wigston Leicester LE18 1WX

Phone 0116 222 2222 Ext. 5506

Printed by Leicestershire Constabulary. Published by The Leicestershire and Rutland Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel.