You are on page 1of 30

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

Working arrangements were formalised by the establishment of a Public

Protection Panel in 1998. This Panel, subsequently re-designated as the Multi-
Agency 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 Chief Officer of Probation

Matt Baggott Linda Jones

Corporate Director, Corporate Director of Housing,

Social Care & Health Directorate, Leicester City Council
Leicester Social Services Mike Forrester
Andrew Cozens

Director of Social Services, Director of Social Services & Housing,

Leicestershire County Council Rutland County Council
Tony Harrop Colin Foster

Chief Executive Officer – Chief Executive Melton, Rutland

Leicestershire Partnership Trust & Harborough PCT
Dr Maggie Cork 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

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 Multi-
Agency 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 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 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

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
(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


• 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 Multi-

Agency 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 arrangements, which were being subsequent National Guidance on
inter-agency co-operative working in established around the country at the development and framework for
Leicester, Leicestershire and that time, in that its membership MAPPA, in order to facilitate greater
Rutland (in the field of child comprised senior managers from consistency of practice in this field of
protection for example) the origins of partner organisations who came with work throughout the country.
formal collaboration on work with the authority to make decisions and
potentially dangerous offenders can to commit resources on behalf of To a very great extent this Guidance
be traced to the establishment of their respective agencies. incorporated the framework which
what was then the Public Protection we had developed locally, and in
Panel in 1998. The Public Protection Panel was particular advocated the
designed to complement, rather than establishment of a tiered approach
This Panel, which arose as a result replace, other risk management to risk assessment and
of an initiative by the Criminal structures which individual agencies management, with only the most
Justice Steering Group, whose already had in place; the Panel serious cases - ‘the critical few’ -
membership comprised Chief represented an additional, ‘higher being considered by a high level
Officers of agencies working in this tier’ forum where cases considered Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel
arena, was established to provide a were treated as very high priority by or MAPPP.
forum in which relevant information partner agencies dealing with them.
could be shared, and the risks It was therefore very important that Therefore, whilst the legislation and
assessed and managed on the small rigorous gate keeping ensured that national guidance required relatively
number of very serious, high risk only the most serious cases were little change in our local structures
offenders who were seen to pose an managed by the Panel. This, in turn, and procedures, it was necessary for
imminent and serious risk of harm to required that ‘lower tier’ risk the Public Protection Panel to be re-
others. meetings acted as a filter for designated as the ‘Multi-Agency
referrals to the Panel, as well as Public Protection Panel for Leicester,
The Public Protection Panel, initially continuing to assess and manage Leicestershire and Rutland’ on 1
established as a three year pilot, offenders who posed a significant, May 2001.
was unique at that time in that it was but lower risk.
jointly funded by its partner Less serious cases, albeit those
organisations and because it In 1999 the Public Protection which also caused concern, were
employed a dedicated full time arrangements in Leicestershire and required to be managed by lower tier
independent co-ordinator whose role Rutland were, along with five other inter-agency risk meetings, whilst
was to service the Panel, process models in different parts of the cases assessed as low risk
referrals, gather relevant information country, examined by Professor remained subject to single agency
on cases referred to it, convene and Hazel Kemshall of DeMontfort management.
chair Panel meetings and to ensure University and Professor Mike
the production and circulation of Maguire of Cardiff University as part This Guidance also supported the
minutes. The Panel’s operations of a review commissioned by the Criminal Justice and Courts Services
were underpinned by an Inter- Home Office in order to compare Act 2000, Sections 67 & 68 of which
agency Protocol and a formal their relative effectiveness and placed a new statutory responsibility
Consortium Agreement, which efficiency. on local Police and Probation Areas
confirmed the funding and strategic to put MAPPA in place in all areas of
management arrangements. Their report, which concluded that the country. The legislation,
the Leicester, Leicestershire and implemented on 1 April 2001, also
The Panel was also unusual, Rutland model represented the most required all areas to produce an
compared with other, similar effective arrangements, was highly Annual Report.
influential in the production of
3. Which agencies are involved in MAPPA in Leicester,
Leicestershire & Rutland?
The statutory responsibility to put • Leicestershire Constabulary Additionally, since 2001, the local
MAPPA in place falls jointly upon the area of the Prison Service, the East
Police and Probation Service, who • Leicestershire & Rutland Midlands - South Region, has been
comprise ‘The Responsible Probation Area a co-opted partner into the MAPPA.
• Leicester City Council In the forthcoming year it is
The Responsible Authority is anticipated that the Prison Service
required, however, to actively • Leicestershire County Council and the two local Youth Offending
engage with, and arrange for the Teams will become full members of
involvement of, other key agencies • Rutland County Council, and the MAPPA structure.
within the criminal justice field.
• Leicestershire Health Services The funding partners for Health are
In fact such arrangements have (Primary Care Trusts and the the six local Primary Care Trusts, but
largely been in place locally for Leicestershire NHS the co-ordinating role for this has
several years through our joint Partnership Trust). been delegated to the Melton,
funding and joint management Rutland and Harborough Primary
arrangements in respect of the In practice, the involvement of the Care Trust. However the operational
Public Protection Panel, or MAPPP. three local councils is delegated to involvement in MAPPA is
their Social Services Departments undertaken by the Forensic Mental
The partner agencies jointly and and, in the case of Housing, Health Service, an arm of the
collectively involved in MAPPA Leicester City Council Housing Leicestershire Partnership NHS
within Leicester, Leicestershire and Department which represents all the Trust.
Rutland are:- housing providers throughout the
whole area.


4. What principles underpin the MAPPA?

The MAPPA have been established areas of Child Protection and ensure that such offenders are
on the premise that any public Mentally Disordered Offenders, have identified and assessed as
service agency, whose work in any consistently concluded that serious accurately and comprehensively as
way involves dealing with offenders, harm is more likely to occur in cases possible and that interventions are
will occasionally encounter someone where key agencies do not appropriate and proportionate to the
who poses a potential threat of harm communicate with each other, do not level of risk identified. MAPPA
to others. Equally, in such cases it is exchange relevant information on provides a framework to achieve
very likely that such people will be risk and do not work together in a these objectives.
most comprehensively assessed and systematic and co-ordinated
managed by more than one manner. MAPPA exist to seek to This is also important with regard to
organisation working together in a reduce the possibility of such lack of the delicate balance between the
planned and structured way. co-ordination and, thereby to reduce inherent rights of individuals who fall
the likelihood of serious re-offending within the MAPPA and the rights of
Whilst it will never be possible to and better protect the public. the community as a whole to expect
eradicate all serious offending that agencies working with such
against the person, a whole series of Since resources are, of course, offenders will do all within their
Public Inquiries, particularly in the limited and finite, it is necessary to
power to protect them from serious of which are provided by the proportionate to the degree of
harm. Probation Service, sometimes in risk
partnership with other specialist
For this reason, it is right that the agencies, (see section on • Information exchange must be
often sensitive and detailed personal Leicestershire & Rutland Probation governed by a strict code of
information which relevant agencies Area, below) or compliance with confidentiality
may hold on such offenders is medical or psychiatric treatment
governed by a strict code of programmes, etc. Secondly, in many • Interventions should seek to
confidentiality. It follows, therefore, cases, awareness by the offender inform and engage with
that information may only be that they are assessed as posing a offenders whenever possible
exchanged between agencies risk to others and that their
having regard to what is behaviour will be monitored can and • Interventions should, wherever
proportionate and necessary to does act as a deterrent against re- possible, include enhancing and
protect others. offending. maximising ‘internal controls’
(i.e. measures that the offender
Similarly, whenever possible and In a small number of cases, him or herself can work upon to
appropriate, it is desirable that the particularly where it is felt that the reduce their risk to others)
offender him or herself has an awareness by the offender of the
awareness of and an engagement process and the measures being • ‘External controls’ (i.e. those
with the MAPPA process. implemented may increase the risks, imposed or implemented by
and/or where the offender patently is agencies working with such
This can be helpful in two ways; first, not prepared to co-operate nor offenders) must be proportionate
many offenders who fall within the engage, it may be agreed, following to the level of risk assessed and
MAPPA are prepared and motivated very careful consideration, that the demonstrably necessary in order
to work with the authorities to reduce subject is not informed. to increase the protection of
the risks they are seen to pose to others.
others. This can involve agreement With all this in mind, the following
to undertake specialist assessment principles underpin the operation of By adhering to these principles, the
or therapies, for example in the form the MAPPA:- MAPPA aim to benefit the offender,
of sex offender treatment courses, staff working with him or her,
domestic violence programmes, • Exchange of information must be previous or potential future victims
cognitive behavioural programmes, limited to what is relevant to and the community as a whole.
drug or alcohol programmes, many protect others from harm and


5. Roles and responsibilities:

In this section of the report, the roles central duty to seek to prevent and Offenders Register and the
and responsibilities of the key investigate crime in all forms, to assessment and monitoring of those
agencies involved in MAPPA in apprehend offenders and to initiate offenders required to register with
Leicester, Leicestershire and the process of bringing them to them in accordance with The Sex
Rutland and the distinct contribution, justice. It is clear, therefore, that the Offender Act, 1997.
which they each make, will be briefly police locally have a vital stake and
This legislation requires most sex
outlined. crucial role in our MAPPA.
offenders to register with the police
either at time of sentence, if subject
The Police: As well as their involvement with
to a community penalty, or upon
MAPPA offenders as part of their
release from custody and places
Along with all police services core business, the police also have a
certain requirements upon them
throughout the country, specific and unique responsibility in
such as informing the police if they
Leicestershire Constabulary has a the administration of the Sex
change their address. The minimum In many cases, Registered Sex involved in the management or
period of registration for an adult Offenders may initially be under the supervision of the case.
who falls within this legislation is for supervision of the Probation Service
five years, whilst the most serious or Youth Offending Teams, either RAG Meetings were convened at
offenders will be registered following release from prison or, in monthly intervals during the period
indefinitely. This group of offenders less serious cases, when subject to covering this report, during which
comprise the MAPPA Category 1. Community Supervision. In such over 100 Registered Sex Offenders
circumstances, the supervising were assessed or reviewed.
In order to fulfil this duty, a dedicated Probation Officer or YOT Worker will However it may well prove
Sex Offender Unit was established be consulted as part of the initial risk necessary to increase the frequency
by Leicestershire Constabulary when assessment process, which also of these meetings during the
this legislation was first involves visiting the offender at his or forthcoming year.
implemented. her home, liaison with the original
arresting police officer and the The police Sex and Dangerous
On 1 November 2002, the Unit was utilisation of the ‘Risk Matrix 2000’ Offender Unit is also now tasked
expanded from a detective sergeant assessment tool. with overseeing and co-ordinating
and two, to four detective constables the police’s contribution to the
to take account of the responsibility In cases, where there are Child management of all the highest risk
to contribute to the management of Protection issues involved in the cases registered by the Multi-Agency
all MAPPA category cases and was assessment, liaison will also occur Public Protection Panel, whichever
re-designated as the Sex and with the relevant Social Services MAPPA category such offenders
Dangerous Offender Unit. It was also Department and the police’s own may fall within.
decide to physically locate the dedicated Child Protection Unit. In a
MAPPP Manager and Administrative small number of cases contact with Finally, the police play a crucial role
Officer to the same office base in the Health Service is necessary, in the management of the Multi-
order to facilitate the easier particularly if the offender has Agency Public Protection Panel in
exchange of information and experienced mental health problems that they are represented on the
intelligence and to provide all or suffers from a learning disability MAPPP by a detective chief
agencies involved in the MAPPA and it is occasionally important to inspector, Specialist Crime
with one central focal point for the liaise with the housing provider. Investigation Department, and on the
co-ordination of this area of work. Operational Management Group by
This combined Unit also has access Once the initial risk assessment has a detective superintendent, whilst an
to the police’s local and national been completed, each case is Assistant Chief Constable chairs the
intelligence databases, as well as considered by the Risk Assessment MAPPP Management Committee.
Probations national Case Records Group (RAG), a monthly meeting
and Administration System (CRAMS) between key staff from the Police The Probation Service:
database for relevant cases and the and Probation Service, which is also
interim version of the Violent and attended by the Multi-Agency Public Since the protection of the public is a
Sex Offender Register database Protection Panel Manager. primary aim of the National
(VISOR), which will build into a joint Probation Service, the Leicestershire
Police/Probation national database At the RAG all the information and & Rutland Area has always afforded
on all MAPPA category offenders. intelligence is reviewed and the high priority to its involvement in
initial risk assessment is either local MAPPA, as witnessed by its
In relation to the police’s specific endorsed or amended. Cases continued secondment of a Senior
responsibilities towards Registered assessed as ‘very high’ are Probation Officer to fulfil the role of
Sex Offenders, an inter-agency automatically referred to the MAPPP the Multi-Agency Public Protection
approach to the key tasks of the and these together with ‘high’ risk Panel Manager/Co-ordinator.
assessment and monitoring of these cases are retained by the Unit for
cases has been developed. This monitoring and regular review. More generally, the Probation
involves the routine and ongoing ‘medium’ and ‘low’ risk cases are Service has a key role in relation to
liaison with staff of all agencies that subsequently managed by the Local all MAPPA Category 2 offenders i.e.
may have an involvement with or Policing Unit (LPU). In all cases those sentenced to custodial
knowledge of individual Registered liaison will continue with the sentences of 12 months or more for
Sex Offenders. probation officer, YOT worker, social violent or sexual offending (except
worker or any other professional
those who are Registered Sex the licence being revoked and the higher tier, the Multi-Agency Public
Offenders, who fall within Category offenders return to prison. Protection Panel. If this is not felt
1). appropriate at this stage, further,
As well as its fundamental review RAMPs may be planned to
All Category 2 offenders will be responsibilities in respect of continue the oversight and
allocated as statutory cases by the supervision of offenders and in management of the case at this level
Probation Service at the point of monitoring behaviour, the following release.
sentence. At this stage, if it has not Leicestershire & Rutland Probation
already been undertaken during the Area provides a whole raft of It should also be borne in mind that
preparation of a Pre-Sentence measures aimed at enhancing many Registered Sex Offenders are
Report, a risk assessment will be ‘external’ controls on behaviour. also subject to statutory supervision
undertaken, using the Probation and These can include, for example a by the Probation Service. In such
Prison Services joint risk requirement to reside in approved cases, risk assessments will be
assessment tool, the Offender Probation hostel premises. undertaken jointly by the Police and
Assessment System (OASys). This Probation and, as well as the case
is a comprehensive screening tool The Probation Service also provides being considered by the Risk
which will assess the offender as interventions geared to developing Assessment Group, as outlined
‘low’, ‘medium’, ‘high’ or ‘very high’ in greater ‘internal’ controls i.e. helping above, higher risk cases are also
relation to the risk of him or her the offender take more control of and likely to be managed under the
causing harm to others either whilst responsibility for his or her own RAMP framework.
in custody or in the community. behaviour. These specialist
interventions include the Community During the 12 months covered by
The nominated Probation Officer will Sex Offender Treatment Group this report, the Probation Service
then maintain oversight of the case (CSOG), the cognitive behavioural convened over 80 RAMPs.
throughout the duration of the Enhanced Thinking Skills
sentence, linking and liaising with Programme (ETS), both of which Finally, as is the case for all
relevant staff in the Prison Service have been assessed and accredited partnership organisations within the
establishment where the sentence is by the Home Office and other local MAPPA, the Leicestershire &
being served. This community or interventions such as those targeting Rutland Probation Area deploys a
‘home’ Probation Officer will be domestic violence and drug or senior manger as its permanent or
centrally involved in key decisions in alcohol abuse. ‘core’ member of the Multi-Agency
the planning and management of the Public Protection Panel, and is
sentence as well as in the process of Prior to their release, those Category represented by an Assistant Chief
updating the risk assessment prior to 2 MAPPA offenders who are Officer at both levels of the MAPPP
the offenders release. assessed as posing a high risk will strategic management structure.
normally be considered by a
Having regard to the risk Leicestershire & Rutland Probation The Prison Service:
assessment, release plans will Area ‘middle tier’ inter-agency
typically take account of matters meeting, the Risk Assessment and Although clearly the primary
such as victim issues, Management Panel (RAMP). responsibility of the Prison Service is
accommodation, and how to contain offenders in humane,
interventions begun during the RAMPs always involve the police as secure conditions and to seek to
sentence, such as the Sex Offender well as any other agency, which may rehabilitate and reform those placed
Treatment Programme (SOTP), may have an interest or an involvement, in their care whilst they are serving
be continued, further developed or and will involve the sharing of custodial sentences or are held on
consolidated upon following release. information and intelligence, remand, it also has a key
particularly, of course, from the contribution to make in risk
As all offenders in this MAPPA prison where the offender is serving assessment and in helping to plan
category will be subject to his or her sentence, and will agree and prepare for offenders’ safe and
supervision by the Probation Service and finalise the risk management secure re-introduction into the
on licence, the release plan is often plan. community.
incorporated into conditions or
requirements of the licence, such The RAMP will also consider To this extent, it is vital that there are
that the offender is obliged to whether the risks are sufficiently clear and effective channels of
comply; failure to do so will result in serious as to warrant referral to the communication between Prison
Service establishments and the key Panel. As a result of this, the three The Social Services Departments
agencies that assume responsibility respective Social Services also have a key role in a small
for the management of offenders Departments have become centrally number of cases where either the
following their release. involved in the MAPPA process, and victim(s) or the subject(s) of the
each is represented on the MAPPP concerns is a vulnerable adult.
Within Leicester, Leicestershire and Management Committee at Director
Rutland, an excellent working or Assistant Director level. Finally, in cases involving young
relationship exists between the people subject to the MAPPA
Prison Service regional management Each department has also framework, Social Services may well
and the community based agencies designated a Service Manager in the have an involvement in providing
involved in our local MAPPA, field of Child Protection as a core therapeutic interventions and/or in
epitomised by the fact that the panel member, and this has proved providing residential care. In such
Prison Service regional management particularly helpful in facilitating an cases, clearly, their role in risk
headquarters is physically located effective link with the two local Area assessment and management is
within the Leicestershire & Rutland Child Protection Committees central.
Probation Area HQ. (ACPCs).
The Health Service:
Similarly, our local Multi-Agency Whilst the remit and focus of the
Public Protection Panel was one of ACPCs and the MAPPA are, of As is the case with Social Services,
the first in the country to have a course, different and distinct, such the Health Service locally was a
representative of the Prison Service, links are vitally important where founder partner agency in the
the governor of one of our area’s there is a degree of overlap in that establishment, management and
prisons, to participate as a core some MAPPA offenders will have funding of the Multi-Agency Public
panel member. This has proved to abused children and/or could pose a Protection Panel and remains
be of particular value in, for example, future risk of doing so. Therefore, in centrally involved in MAPPA.
arranging for the transfer of a small respect of previous or potential
number of particularly high risk future victims, the local Social Since the recent re-organisation of
Leicestershire prisoners, who were Services Departments are often able the Health Service within
serving sentences in prisons in other to provide crucial information and Leicestershire and Rutland, the
areas of the country, to local make a vital contribution to risk funding responsibility now rests with
institutions prior to their release, so assessments and the formulation of the six local Primary Care Trusts,
that their discharge could be risk management plans and the and the co-ordination has been
planned, managed and monitored protection of possible victims. delegated to the Melton, Rutland and
more easily. Harborough Primary Care Trust.
There is also clear local guidance in However, in practice, the most
There are also highly effective links place which determines that in cases frequent interface with the MAPPP’s
with individual Prison Service where a particular identified child or operations has been with the
establishments within the children is or are felt to be at risk, Leicestershire Partnership Trust’s
Leicestershire and Rutland area. All then the child protection procedures Forensic Mental Health Service by
have seconded Probation Service take precedence and are instigated virtue of their responsibility to identify
staff working within them and this without delay in order to secure the and manage the small but significant
provides a crucial link in facilitating safety of the child or children in number of mentally disordered
the transfer of relevant information, question. offenders who pose a potential
which informs risk assessments, and threat to others.
release and risk management plans In such cases a Strategy Meeting or
on MAPPA offenders. Child Protection Conference will Some of this small group of patients
consider whether the alleged or may, therefore, fall into the MAPPA
Social Services: potential perpetrator poses a more Category 3, ‘other dangerous’
general risk to others and therefore offenders. It is, however, worth
As indicated earlier in this report, the whether he or she should be referred emphasising in this context that a
three local councils - Leicester City, into the MAPPA framework, if he or significant proportion of this small
Leicestershire County and Rutland she has not already been identified group have not been diagnosed as
County - are partner and funding as a MAPPA offender. suffering from any treatable form of
agencies in respect of our local mental illness. Rather, it is more
Multi-Agency Public Protection typical that their behaviour results
from serious personality disorder Operational Management Group of of high risk offenders whilst they
which, if not deemed treatable, does the MAPPP. establish themselves in independent
not fall within the remit of currently accommodation. This scheme, which
applicable mental health legislation. Clearly identifying and providing is jointly funded and managed by the
appropriate and safe Probation Service, has now been
Nonetheless, the Health Service accommodation either for victims or, established for over two years and
locally has always accepted the where appropriate and necessary, has been vital in enhancing both
need to work in co-operation with for MAPPA cases, will sometimes external and internal controls on a
other agencies in order to contribute play a crucial role in the formulation small group of offenders and
effectively to the overall goal of and subsequently in the preventing possible relapse into
public protection and has effectiveness of a risk management serious offending and/or to provide
consistently sought to prioritise their plan. The risks which offenders may reliable, timely assessments when
responsibility to identify and assess pose to others are demonstrably risks have been seen to be
such offenders. To this extent, the increased if they are homeless or increasing.
Forensic Service provides an without a secure base, whilst the
assessment service both within all difficulties of the authorities in The MAPPA within Leicester,
local prisons and a similar facility to monitoring and managing such Leicestershire and Rutland,
the local Magistrates’ Court. Through people are correspondingly therefore are very well served by the
such processes, several MAPPA increased in such circumstances. inclusion of the Leicester City
cases have been identified who may Similarly it is occasionally necessary Housing Department as a full and
otherwise have slipped through the to offer to re-house previous victims very valuable partner organisation.
net. in order to protect them from further
harm. Youth Offending Teams:
Furthermore, the Forensic Mental
Health Service has also consistently In all of these respects, the Leicester There are two Youth Offending
sought to engage with and monitor City Housing Department has Teams (YOTs) within our local area,
through voluntary contact MAPPA consistently adopted a positive and with respective responsibility for
cases in this category for whom helpful approach, on the basis that offenders up to the age of 18 within
there are no identifiable treatment increased public safety benefits the the Leicester City and the
options. community as a whole. Leicestershire and Rutland Areas.

This commitment is reflected also in In order to maximise the YOTs are staffed by a combination
the designation of the Service effectiveness of the provision of of workers from local Police,
Manager of the Forensic Mental appropriate accommodation, the Probation, Social Services, Health
Health Service as a core panel Leicester City Housing Department and Education Services agencies
member of the MAPPP, and by the has been primarily responsible for who are mainly involved in MAPPA
representation at Director level on two initiatives which are particularly in their own right. Futhermore,
the Panel’s Management Committee. worthy of note, and which have because of the relative youth of the
made, and continue to make, a very offenders with whom they work, only
Housing: valuable contribution to the MAPPA a very small number have been
and to overall community safety. assessed as posing a high risk of
As a department of Leicester City serious harm to others. For these
Council, the Leicester City Housing First, the City Housing Department reasons, YOTs have not, up to this
Department has been centrally initiated and subsequently brokered point, been formal partners in the
involved in MAPPA since its a regional protocol with neighbouring provision of the Multi-Agency Public
inception locally, and plays a key counties, which allows for the re- Protection Panel.
role, not only in its own right, but as housing of victims out of area,
a link with other housing providers, whenever this is necessary, on a Nonetheless, they do, of course,
both statutory and voluntary, within reciprocal basis. rigorously risk assess all of their
the area as a whole. This is reflected cases using the ASSET assessment
by the fact that a senior manager sits Secondly, the City Housing tool, produced by the Youth Justice
on the Multi-Agency Public Department identified the need for Board, and used by all Youth
Protection Panel, and a Service high risk outreach workers to provide Offending Teams. They have made
Director sits on the Management an intensive level of both practical a small number of referrals to the
Committee and chairs the assistance and additional monitoring MAPPP. In such cases, as well as
the front line YOT staff dealing with cases, the role of YOTs in the overall A diagram showing the MAPPA for
the offender in question, the provision and management of public Leicester, Leicestershire and
respective YOT Manager has been protection arrangements is under Rutland is included as Appendix 1 of
invited to attend Panels. review and will be addressed within this report.
the forthcoming year.
However, since the expansion of the
framework to include all MAPPA


6. The operation of MAPPA:

From the previous section, it will be again, whilst other agencies are very Therefore, although during the
seen that the MAPPA framework likely to also be involved in the period covered by this report, 19
within Leicester, Leicestershire & assessment and management of Category 3 offenders were
Rutland represents an interrelated some of these offenders, the considered by Probation Service
structure in which all key agencies Probation Service will almost RAMPs (Probations middle tier risk
have a clear and distinct role to play. invariably take the lead role. meeting) and a total of 10 offenders
This structure provides for the in this category were referred to the
identification of offenders who fall Offenders identified within MAPPA Multi-Agency Public Protection
within the remit of MAPPA, their risk Category 3 (‘others considered Panel, this picture represents the
assessment and the consequent dangerous’) are likely to be more total number of ‘other dangerous’
decision as to which of the three diverse; some may be sex offenders offenders identified.
tiers (single agency, middle tier or whose registration period has
higher tier) each case should be expired, but who are felt to still pose In contrast to MAPPA Category 3
most appropriately managed. a risk; others may be sex offenders offenders, the overwhelming majority
whose offending pre-dated the of Category 1 and 2 offenders will
To place these arrangements in their legislation which introduced the Sex not be assessed as high risk.
proper context, it is worth Offender Register in 1997; some
remembering that, of the three may have completed their period of With regard to Category 1
MAPPA categories of offenders:- statutory supervision with the (Registered Sex Offenders) for
Probation Service; some may be example, empirical evidence from
The Police have a statutory mentally disordered offenders, whilst the use of the Risk Matrix 2000
responsibility to identify and assess others may be offenders about assessment tool suggests that less
all Registered Sex Offenders whom it is felt that, for whatever than 20% of sex offenders will be
(MAPPA Category 1) and whilst reason, the nature and type of their assessed as high risk of re-
other agencies, particularly the previous offending does not fully offending, and substantially less than
Probation Service, are likely to have reflect the risk they are assessed as this proportion will be assessed as
an involvement with many for at posing to others. high risk of re-offending in a serious
least some of the time such way. If this appears surprising, it is
offenders will remain registered and, It is worth bearing in mind two worth remembering that the
as such, they will be involved in the factors with regard to Category 3 requirement to register applies to the
assessment and management offenders, however. First they are vast majority of people convicted of
process, the Police will play the likely to be small in number an offence of a sexual nature,
central role with this category. compared with the other two encompassing the whole range of
categories. Secondly, those offences; from very serious offences
The Probation Service has a offenders identified within Category such as rape at one end of the
statutory involvement with all 3 are by definition assessed as high spectrum, to teenagers having
offenders sentenced to 12 months or risk and therefore unlikely to be consentual, but under age sex at the
more in custody for violent or sexual suitable for single agency other.
offending (MAPPA Category 2) and, management.
This diversity is reflected locally in they will typically be chaired by a collated, identify any possible gaps
that, of the 413 Registered Sex middle manager and will be attended in relation to their own agency’s
Offenders within Leicester, by the relevant front line current or previous involvement and
Leicestershire & Rutland on 31 professionals from all agencies thereby to ensure that missing or
March 2003, less than 20% were involved with the offender under incorrect information can be
being managed by the Police’s Sex consideration. obtained and presented to the Panel.
and Dangerous Offender Unit – the
remainder, having been assessed as The purposes of all middle tier The attendance of Core Panel
lower risk, were being managed by arrangements are to exchange members at MAPPPs is important for
the relevant Local Policing Unit. relevant information, to assess the two further reasons. First, by virtue
Additionally, only 24 cases in this level of risk, to agree a risk of the experience and expertise that
category had been subject to a management plan and to decide Core Panel members bring to
Probation Service RAMP whether the risks are of sufficient MAPPPs, they can ensure that
(Probations middle tier provision) seriousness and imminence as to decisions made are appropriate,
and only 16 had been referred to the justify a referral to the higher tier, the proportionate and necessary in order
Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel Multi-Agency Public Protection to prevent harm to others. This is
during the previous twelve months. Panel. frequently enhanced by the balance
and objectivity brought to this
Similarly, of the 346 Category 2 The major difference between the process by Core Panel members
offenders dealt with by the Probation various middle tier meetings and the whose agency may not have any
Service or Youth Offending Teams higher tier i.e. the MAPPP, is that the current involvement in the case
who were in the community at any latter is independently chaired by the under consideration.
time during the year covered by this MAPPP Co-ordinator and that,
report, (excluding the 244 who spent although the same front line Having heard and considered all the
the whole period in custody), 20 professionals who attend middle tier relevant information and agreed
were subject to RAMPs, and only meetings will also be present, key upon the nature, seriousness and
seven were referred to the MAPPP. decisions will be taken by senior imminence of the risks posed, the
managers representing the MAPPP key decision made by Core Panel
It can be seen, therefore, that the partner organisations who attend all members is whether the offender
vast majority of MAPPA offenders, Panel meetings as ‘Core’ Panel should be registered on the MAPPP
having been rigorously assessed, members. Register. If registration is agreed by
can be effectively managed by a a majority of the Core Panel
single agency - often the police in MAPPPs are convened every month members present, then the Panel
respect of Category 1 offenders, and and will typically consider between will need to formally adopt a risk
the Probation Service or the Youth three and five cases, either initial management plan, which the
Offending Teams in Category 2, with referrals or reviews of cases MAPPP will periodically review.
relevant information exchange, currently under the MAPPP
where necessary, with other management. Each new case will be The second reason, therefore, why it
agencies that may have a part to allocated a time slot of between one is desirable to have as many Core
play in the management of the case. and one and-a-half hours, depending Panel members as possible
It is also worth stressing that for on the level of complexity, whilst attending is that they come with the
cases subject to single agency reviews usually take between a half authority to make decisions and
management, the risk assessment is and three-quarters of an hour. commit resources on behalf of their
reviewed at regular intervals and/or respective organisations, thus
where there is a significant change Dates for MAPPP meetings are set helping to ensure that MAPPP
in the offender’s personal well in advance to ensure that as registered cases are treated with
circumstances. many Core Panel members as due priority and that risk
possible are able to attend every management plans agreed, are
A common feature of middle tier Panel meeting. They will have deliverable and are, in fact,
arrangements (Probation’s RAMPs, received a briefing dossier, prior to delivered.
Police’s RAG, YOTs’ Risk the Panel and will therefore not
Management Meetings, and, when come to the case ‘cold’. These Risk Management Plans agreed at
convened on MAPPA cases, dossiers also provide the opportunity MAPPP meetings seek to develop
Health’s CPA Meetings and Social to check the accuracy of the and maximise internal controls
Service’s Strategy Meetings) is that information, which has been wherever possible and to agree
whatever external controls appear The two case examples summarised hopefully serve to demonstrate how
necessary and proportionate in order on the following pages are real risk assessments are undertaken
to best protect potential victims cases considered by the MAPPP and how risk management plans are
and/or the general public. within the last 12 months. They will agreed and implemented.


7. Case 1 – Mr. X
Background: It was at this point that the Probation the basis of the information provided,
Service referred his case to the the Probation Psychologist felt it
Mr. X was sentenced to nine years MAPPP. likely that Mr. X would score ‘high’
imprisonment for a series of sexual on the Psychopathy Check List
offences committed in a The Panel meeting was attended by (PCL/R).
neighbouring county. Police and Probation staff from his
home area as well as local Probation Specifically the risk was agreed as:
His offending began with indecent staff, including the hostel manager
exposure on women unknown to and a psychologist, and the manager • Very high risk of serious sexual
him, but quickly escalated in of Leicestershire Constabularys Sex assault on adult females.
seriousness to indecent assaults and Dangerous Offender Unit, who
involving touching women outside of would have the responsibility to • Very high risk of serious physical
their clothes and culminated in two assess Mr. X and monitor his assault on adult females.
very serious offences in which he behaviour because of his
threatened victims with a knife, took requirement to register on the Sex Risk Management Plan:
them to secluded areas and Offender Register.
seriously sexually assaulted and The following risk management plan
abused them. Risk Assessment: was agreed by the MAPPP:

It is noteworthy that Mr. X always The Police and Probation staff from • Endorse decision to reside at
denied his guilt and refused to Mr. Xs home area outlined the Probation Hostel. Additionally to
engage in treatment programmes details of his offending, including be subject to curfew and hostel
during his prison sentence. He was graphic information from his victims staff to log his movements in and
not granted parole and released at who, in his most serious offences, out of the hostel and to note his
the statutory point of having clearly feared for their lives. clothing on a daily basis.
completed three-quarters of his
sentence, on licence to the Mr. X scored ‘high’ using the • Referral to Probation
Probation Service. Probation Services OASys risk Psychologist for updated
assessment tool, but only ‘medium’ assessment specifically in
Prior to his release, it had been on the Police’s Risk Matrix 2000, relation to suitability for Sex
agreed that he should be required to these somewhat surprisingly low Offender Treatment Group.
reside in a Probation Hostel so that assessments reflecting the fact that
his behaviour could be monitored. Mr. X had no previous convictions • Flag-up as high risk on
Unfortunately, the only such hostel in prior to the index offences. Leicestershire and home area
his home area was located close to Nonetheless, such scores are Police Intelligence Systems.
the homes of several of his victims always used only as a basis on
and so it was therefore agreed that which to inform professional • Put in place facility for fast track
he be placed in a hostel in Leicester judgement, and Police and Probation application for revocation of
until suitable, safe accommodation staff from both areas agreed that Mr. licence and recall to prison in the
could be identified in his home X represented a very high risk, a event of serious escalation of
county. view endorsed by the MAPPP. On risk.
• Establishment of core group to He was assessed by the Probation visited a charity clothes store and,
monitor case comprising hostel psychologist who confirmed his high whilst ostensibly trying on clothes,
key worker, Police Case Officer PCL/R score. As such, he was was seen to wander around the shop
from Sex and Dangerous deemed unsuitable for the wearing only his boxer shorts. The
Offender Unit, supervising Community Sex Offender Groupwork shop was staffed by a lone female at
Probation Officer and Probation Programme – there is substantial this time. On observing this
Officer from his home area. evidence that psychopaths derive no behaviour a plain clothes police
benefit from such programmes, and officer entered the shop, purporting
• Inform Mr. X of his MAPPP participation may even increase the to be a customer, and Mr. X dressed
Registered status, the reasons risk of re-offending. and left without making any
for this and the implications that purchase.
his behaviour would be Mr. X subsequently obtained
monitored very closely and the employment via a personal friend. This development was immediately
need for him to co-operate if he His work involved driving throughout considered by the core group who
wished to reduce the risks he the Midlands. The core group felt concluded that Mr. Xs behaviour was
was deemed to pose to others. concerned about this development causing sufficient concern as to
and so arrangements were made for justify grounds for application for
Outcome: a surveillance exercise to be immediate revocation of his licence
undertaken. and recall. The Sentence
Mr. X was released to the Probation Enforcement Unit at the Home Office
Hostel where he lived uneventfully This revealed that, on a trip to agreed with this assessment and Mr.
for several weeks. another town in the Midlands, Mr. X X was recalled to prison.


8. Case 2 – Mr. Y
Background: There was an allegation of a serious Mr. Y was also alienated from his
sexual assault on a particularly family and so he was likely to be
Mr. Y was referred to the MAPPP by vulnerable female patient, although, homeless on release. Furthermore,
the Forensic Mental Health Service following investigation, the police since he was serving a prison
shortly before his release from a 10- concluded that there was insufficient sentence of less than 12 months, he
month prison sentence. This had evidence to press charges. There would not be subject to supervision
been imposed for offences of affray were also strong suspicions that Mr. on licence by the Probation Service
and criminal damage at the low Y had been stalking a member of the following release.
secure residential psychiatric unit unit’s staff.
where he was then living. Risk Assessment:
Although subject to Enhanced Care
At this unit, his behaviour had been Programme Approach (CPA) At the MAPPP, it was confirmed that
causing serious concern for some psychiatric and psychological Mr. Y scored high on the
time due to his general level of assessment confirmed that Mr. Y Psychopathy Check List (PCL/R).
aggression and, in particular, his was suffering from a serious The risk assessment was therefore
extreme sexual disinhibition – personality disorder, which was agreed as:
grossly inappropriate sexual unlikely to respond to any further
advances towards adult females, treatment. For this reason, it would • Very high risk of serious sexual
both members of staff and other not be possible to legally detain him assault on adult females,
patients. He appeared either not to in hospital under the terms of the particularly vulnerable women.
hear or to ignore rebuffs to his Mental Health Act and, in any event,
advances and, when challenged, further admission to hospital would • High risk of violence towards
became aggressive and violent. have put staff and patients at risk. staff dealing with him.
Risk Management Plan: • Mr. Y to be informed of his been allocated a council tenancy
MAPPP registered status and and he was assisted to move into
The MAPPP agreed the following implications. this. However he returned to his ex-
risk management plan: partner’s home on several occasions
• Establishment of core group to where he was abusive and
• City Housing Department agreed manage case, chaired by FMHS aggressive. This resulted in charges
to facilitate fast track application Service Manager. in relation to threatening behaviour
for council accommodation. and public order.
• Allocation to High Risk Outreach Mr. Y also visited the Social Services
Team (jointly funded by In the event Mr. Y went to live with a Department, where again, he was
Probation & City Housing Dept.) young woman whom he had known threatening and abusive, which
to support him through previously. She had a young child, resulted in further charges, including
application process, settling into which necessitated Social Services one of criminal damage. The next
tenancy - liaison with Benefits to undertake a risk assessment re: day he was arrested for criminal
Agency, Public Utilities. possible child protection issues. damage following an altercation with
a taxi driver and for going equipped
• Social Services agreed to The core group therefore had to for theft.
expedite Social Care consider issues of disclosure to this
assessment. young woman, in that, although the As a result of this series of offences,
relationship was apparently he was remanded in custody for the
• Psychiatric Social Worker and consentual, she needed to be aware preparation of a Pre-Sentence
Community Psychiatric Nurse of the inherent risks to herself and, Report by the Probation Service. In
allocated to the case. potentially to her child. this report, the Probation Officer
explained the background to the
• Risks flagged up on Police The Social Worker persuaded Mr. Y offending and the reasons for Mr. Y
Criminal Intelligence System, that he needed to inform his new being MAPPP Registered.
and agreed to raise Operational partner of his MAPPP registered
Order on address, when known. status (or the authorities would do Mr. Y was sentenced to six months’
so), which he subsequently did in the imprisonment.
• Case allocated to Police Sex Social Worker’s presence. Mr. Y also
and Dangerous Offender Unit. admitted the indecent assault on the He is pleading ‘not guilty’ to the
psychiatric patient and, following alleged indecent assault on the
• Police agreed to re-visit alleged discussion with the police, he was psychiatric patient and this case is
indecent assault on psychiatric charged with this offence. pending trial at the Crown Court. Mr.
patient prior to present prison Y is also under investigation in
sentence. Within a short time, Mr Y’s new relation to separate allegations of
partner decided to end their harassment on a female neighbour.
relationship. He had, by this stage


9. The strategic management of MAPPA

The multi-agency management Police and Probation Service year in order to take account of the
arrangements of MAPPA within currently manage the vast majority of responsibility to develop a multi-
Leicester, Leicestershire and cases who fall within MAPPA agency approach to the
Rutland are, at present, formally Categories 1 and 2 respectively. management of all MAPPA
restricted to those, which are in offenders.
place in respect of the Multi-Agency There are, however, plans to review
Public Protection Panel since the these structures in the forthcoming
So far as the arrangements in • Budget formulation, allocation The MAPPP Manager/Co-ordinator
respect of the MAPPP are and control. reports both to the Management
concerned, there is a two-tier Committee and the Operational
management structure in place. The lower tier management of the Management Group by producing
MAPPP is provided by the written reports, which contain
The higher tier, which has ultimate Operational Management Group, information on the MAPPP’s
authority for the MAPPP is a which meets four times a year. In performance, including a statistical
Management Committee, which most, but not all cases for partner breakdown of referrals, cases
comprises senior manager agencies, the Core Panel Member registered, together with information
representatives of the local funding also represents that agency on the regarding outcomes.
agencies, in some cases involving Operational Management Group.
staff at chief officer level (a full list of Since its inception in 1998 the
representatives at all levels within The Operational Management Group MAPPP has received over 180
the MAPPP can be seen in Appendix has specific responsibility for:- referrals, considered by over 50
2). The Chair of the Management Panel Meetings, which have
Committee rotates and is currently • Process issues and review registered 65 cases.
held by Davina Logan, Assistant
Chief Constable (Crime). • Operational Monitoring The current annual budget for the
MAPPP is some £68,000 per year,
The Management Committee • Inter-agency liaison which is met by the contributions of
currently meets twice a year and, the six funding agencies. However,
specifically has responsibility for:- • Operational issues. this figure does not take account of
the staff time of Core Panel
• Overall Strategic Management As is the case for the Management Members, of front line staff who
Committee, the chair of the attend panels or of the agency
• Policy formulation Operational Management group representatives on the management
rotates. The current incumbent is structure.
• Strategic Review, and Ms. Pat Hobbs, Service Director,
Leicester City Housing Department.


10. Work with victims:

A very high priority is attached to members of staff. The Victim Contact aggravated offences, as a result of
work with victims within the overall Team is based at the main Leicester which the offenders receive any
MAPPA framework within Leicester, Probation Office at 38 Friar Lane, length of sentence, are also offered
Leicestershire & Rutland. Leicester. contact.

The two main agencies involved in The work of this Team has recently There are two main objectives of
this work are the Probation Service been identified as an example of contact with victims. First, to keep
and the Police. best practice by the National them informed of the progress of the
Probation Service. case in which they were involved,
Since 1995, the Probation Service specifically with regard to the legal
has had a statutory responsibility to The responsibilities of the Victim process, the sentence and its
incorporate contact with victims in its Contact Team are to initiate and implications and the offenders
work. In order to fulfil this duty, the offer contact to all victims of violent progress through the prison system.
Leicestershire & Rutland Probation or sexual offending where the Secondly, the Victim Contact Team
Area has a dedicated Victim Contact perpetrator was sentenced to has a responsibility to report to the
Team, which comprises one Senior custody of 12 months or more. In relevant authorities, the comments
Probation Officer and four other addition, the victims of racially and views of victims when key
decisions are made about the The Victim Contact Team has close, supervision process. The Team has
offender such as whether to grant established links with other local been involved in several joint training
parole or in relation to release plans. organisations such as Victim initiatives with the police, including
Support, an independent the training of Police Victim Liaison
During the period covered by this organisation that offers a confidential Officers, and of Police Officers
report, the Victim Contact Team support service to victims of any dealing with the families of victims of
undertook over 250 separate crime, whether or not this has been offences of causing death by
contacts with victims within reported to the police. It also offers dangerous driving.
Leicester, Leicestershire and support to victims families and
Rutland. witnesses during court proceedings. So far as the police are concerned,
every Local Policing Unit has a team
Since many cases in which the Probation’s Victim Contact Team of Victim Liaison Officers who offer
Victim Contact Team is involved also has responsibility for the contact to victims who may be
relate to high risk offenders, the training and development of the particularly vulnerable, offering
team is always invited to attend both whole Probation Service staff group advice, support and practical help,
Probation Service RAMPs and and has been involved in training such as the installation of police
notified of all cases to be considered staff in other relevant agencies, alarms in victims’ homes.
by the MAPPP. In both cases, a notably the police. Within the last 12
representative of the Victim Contact months, for example, the Team has As and when they have a current or
Team will attend if there are current, run a course for Probation Officers recent involvement, Police Victim
pertinent victim issues, which need involved in the front-line supervision Liaison Officers are also invited to
to be taken into account in the risk of offenders, to ensure that RAMPs and MAPPP meetings.
assessment or in the formulation of a consideration of victims issues and
risk management plan. needs remain central to the


11. Statistical information:

What follows is the statistical of Registered Sex Offenders during most serious offenders, whose
information regarding the MAPPA, the 12 months covered by this report requirement to register is for life
which the Responsible Authority is is 60. irrespective of their age), the
statutorily required to produce within majority of registered sex offenders
the Annual Report. It is important, As described earlier, the Sex are adults.
however, to provide some points of Offender Act introduced the
explanation and clarification in order requirement to register in 1997. The From this it can be seen, therefore,
to understand the bold statistics in essential purpose of this legislation that it was not until last year that the
their proper context. was to allow the police to keep track first adult offenders completed their
of the movements of sex offenders, registration periods. Since new
The following points may be of and, for this reason, the length of the offenders are also required to
assistance in this respect: period of registration was register every year, it can be seen
necessarily substantial; the length of that the total number of Registered
Registered Sex Offenders: this period varies, dependent on the Sex Offenders represents a largely
seriousness of the offence, but for cumulative figure.
The overall total of 413 registered adult offenders, the minimum
sex offenders within Leicester, registration is for five years. Finally, whilst the overall figure may
Leicestershire and Rutland as at 31 seem alarming it is worth pointing
March 2003 does not represent the Although the fixed registration out that these offenders, the majority
number who have been required to periods are halved in respect of of whom, as explained earlier, are
register during the previous year. In offenders under the age of 18 at time not assessed as high risk, would
fact the net increase in the number of sentence, (excepting those for the exist in the community whether or
not the Sex Offender Register had to MAPPP will not actually be month period, relate to a total of 43
been introduced. The fact that it has considered by the Panel. There can cases (i.e. 28 new referrals
been provides an important way in be several reasons for this; either considered, seven de-registered
which the police, working with other the offender may move out of area during the year and eight cases,
relevant agencies, can better or may receive a custodial sentence previously registered who remain
identify, assess and monitor these before the MAPPP takes place; or so).
offenders and is, therefore, an he or she may not fulfil the
important contribution to overall seriousness threshold for the The MAPPP Register comprised 22
community safety. MAPPP, and may be more cases at 31 March 2003.
appropriately managed at the middle
In fact, the number of Registered tier level. Therefore, whilst 34 cases Of the two offenders managed by
Sex Offenders within Leicester, were referred to the MAPPP during the MAPPP during the period of this
Leicestershire and Rutland at the the year covered by this report, only report who committed serious
time of last years Annual Report 28 cases were actually considered offences of harm against the
corresponded almost exactly with by the Panel. person*, it is worth pointing out that
the overall national average and in one case, this conviction
there is no reason to believe that this It must also be remembered that the represents offences committed
situation has changed. MAPPP has been operating for before the MAPPP referral. Only one
almost five years and, during this offender, then, during this period re-
Violent and other Sex Offenders. time, it has registered a total of 65 offended seriously whilst under the
offenders on the MAPPP Register. MAPPP’s management.
Again, this figure requires some Offenders remain on the MAPPP
explanation. Register for various lengths of time, * For the purposes of this report, the
and will only be removed if they are Home Office National Guidance
First it is important to remember that sentenced to a significant period of defines a serious offence of harm
the overall total of Category 2 custody (in which case the offender against the person as one of the
offenders contains a very significant will be referred again prior to following:-
number (244) convicted of violent or release), if they move out of the area
sexual offending, but who spent the (in which cases the receiving area • murder
whole period covered by this will be notified) or if the Panel is
report in custody serving, what in satisfied that the risks have been • attempted murder
some cases, will be lengthy prison reduced to the extent that the
sentences. offender concerned can be managed • arson with intent to endanger life
at the middle tier level.
However, the vast majority of this • manslaughter
category is not assessed as high risk Therefore, whilst 34 offenders were
and they are removed from the referred to the MAPPP and 28 cases • rape
MAPPA framework when they have were considered by the Panel during
completed their period of post- this 12-month period, additionally • armed robbery involving a
custody licence. The small number eight offenders, who were registered firearm
still assessed as high risk at this before 1 April 2002 remained on the
stage remain within the system, but MAPPP register throughout the year, • assault with a deadly weapon
are re-classified as MAPPA and seven others, who were also
Category 3 offenders. registered at an earlier date, were • hostage-taking or abduction
de-registered at some point during
Offenders referred to the MAPPP the year. • any other serious offence of
harm attracting serious
Here it is important to bear in mind The figures, then for offenders dealt community concerns.
that some of the offenders referred with by the MAPPP during the 12-
12. Statistical information No. of offenders

i. The number of registered sex offenders on 31 March 2003 413

ii. The number of sex offenders having a registration requirement who 8

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 0

(b) The total number granted 0
(c) The total number not granted 0

iv. The number of Restraining Orders issued by the courts between 1 April 0
2002 and 31 March 2003 for offenders currently managed within

v. The number of violent and other sexual offenders considered under 590
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 29
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 22

b) MAPPP - violent and other sex offenders 6
c) MAPPP - other offenders 15

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 12
b) who were returned to custody for breach of a Restraining Order or 0
Sex Offender Order
c) charged with a serious sexual or violent offence 2
Appendix 2



Chair: Davina Logan, Assistant Chief Constable (Crime)

Leicestershire Constabulary

Andrew Cozens Director, Leicester City Social Services Department

Neil Dhruev Director of Adult Mental Health, Leicestershire NHS Partnership Trust
Krystyna Findley Assistant Chief Officer, Leicestershire & Rutland Probation Area
Colin Foster Director of Social Services & Housing, Rutland County Council
Pat Hobbs Service Director, Leicester City Housing Department
Wendy Saviour Chief Executive, Melton, Rutland & Harborough Primary Care Trust
Flick Schofield Assistant Director of Leicestershire County Council Social Services Dept.

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

Chair: Pat Hobbs, Service Director

Leicester City Council Housing Department

Steven Attwood Head of Service, Children & Families Department

Rutland Social Services
Krystyna Findley Assistant Chief Officer, Leicestershire & Rutland Probation Area
Robert Nisbet Forensic Service Manager, Forensic Mental Health Service
Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust
Pat Nawrockyi Service Manager, Leicester City Social Services Dept
Bob Parker Service Manager Leicestershire County Council Social Services Dept.
Graham Thomas Detective Superintendent, Leicestershire Constabulary

® Process Review
® Operational Monitoring
® Inter Service/Departmental Liaison
® Operational Issues


Steven Attwood Head of Service, Children & Families Department Rutland Social Services
Krystyna Findley Assistant Chief Officer, Leicestershire & Rutland Probation Area
Pat Nawrockyi Service Manager, Leicester City Social Services Dept.
Robert Nisbet Forensic Service Manager, Forensic Mental Health Service Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust
Bob Parker Service Manager Leicestershire County Council Social Services
Suki Supria Contracts Manager, Housing Department, Leicester City Council Dept.
Chris Thomas Detective Chief Inspector, Specialist Crime Investigation Dept., Leicestershire Constabulary
David Walmsley Governor, HMP Ashwell

Bob Petrie Multi-Agency Public Protection Unit Manager
Christine Campbell Admin Officer
National Probation Service Address Phone

Ms Krystyna Findley 2 St. John Street 0116 251 6008

Assistant Chief Officer Leicester LE1 3BE

Leicestershire Constabulary Address Phone

Graham Thomas Specialist Crime Investigation Dept. 0116 222 2222

Superintendent Wigston Police Station Ext. 5569 Bull Head Street
LE18 1WX

MAPPP Unit Address Phone

Bob Petrie Wigston Police Station 0116 222 2222

MAPPP Manager Bull Head Street Ext. 5506 Wigston
LE18 1WX
Printed by Leicestershire Constabulary.
Published by The Leicestershire and Rutland Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel.