Prolific Offenders Unit

Offender Profile THE SUBJECT, born 24.11.65, CRO 126639/81D On the 6th February 2004 THE SUBJECT was released from HMP Leyhill, on parole, having been sentenced at Bristol Crown Court on the 7th May 2002 to four years imprisonment for burglary. Upon his release, THE SUBJECT was immediately taken on by the Prolific Offenders Unit at Bath. THE SUBJECT’S first conviction was at the age of twelve and since then, he has had 32 court appearances for which he has been convicted of 93 offences. Many of these offences relate to dwelling burglary. Intelligence states that these offences were committed in order to fund a drug addiction that was mostly based on heroin, but also included the use of crack cocaine. This addiction at times was costing THE SUBJECT several hundred pounds each day. On the 23rd March 2001, THE SUBJECT was released from prison after a sentence relating to dwelling burglaries. Almost immediately, he resumed his drug addiction that quickly spiralled out of control. Within a short time of his release, there was a dramatic increase in the number of dwelling burglaries in Bath (illustrated by the attached graph). Analysis of these crimes indicate a common M.O in the vast majority of offences. During the relevant period, 141 intelligence reports (Form 78d) were received, indicating that THE SUBJECT was responsible for most of the burglaries. When this intelligence was combined with the analysis of the burglary M.O’s, it became possible to identify offences for which THE SUBJECT was responsible, reasonably accurately. Over the following months, until his eventual arrest, it was estimated that THE SUBJECT was committing between two and four dwelling burglaries a day. Many of these offences were night-time “creeper” burglaries, often with the householders asleep in the premises. THE SUBJECT would steal cash, jewellery and cash point cards with PIN numbers if he could find them. That same night he would go to a cash-point and withdraw the maximum amount of cash permitted (usually £300). Latterly during this period, he would also steal the householder’s car, using keys he would find in the premises. It is a conservative estimate that during this period of liberty, THE SUBJECT was responsible for the theft of well in excess of £100,000’s worth of property. During the analysis of the burglary M.O’s, it also became obvious that THE SUBJECT was very forensically aware. He always covered his shoes, to avoid leaving shoe marks and would wipe surfaces to remove finger marks or biological evidence. There were no forensic enquiries available in relation to any of the offences.

After identifying THE SUBJECT as the most likely suspect for these offences, a number of operations were set up in order to effect his arrest. This would involve the following methods: i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. Targeted patrols. Tasking of C.H.I.S’s (resulting in reward payments). Warrants executed at the addresses of drug dealers/handlers to recover property. Surveillance on THE SUBJECT’S home address. Technical enquiries (surveillance on cash points). Forensic examination of recovered STOVECS. Night-time, plain clothes operations.

All of these methods were very personnel intensive and resulted in considerable financial expenditure by the force. Owing mainly to the fact that THE SUBJECT was random in selecting areas of Bath to commit burglaries, the fact that identifiable property was quickly disposed of and the timings of the offences, close surveillance was difficult. These enquiries were fruitless. In December 2001, another surveillance operation was mounted, incorporating the Force Targeting Team. In total, twenty-five officers were involved. As the result of this operation THE SUBJECT was seen to commit a night-time burglary and was subsequently arrested. Case Management On the 7th May 2002, THE SUBJECT was convicted of two dwelling burglaries and was sentenced to four years imprisonment. During his time in prison, THE SUBJECT began to make efforts towards rehabilitation and went on to engage with the Bath Prolific Offenders Unit. He was accepted on to the Avon and Somerset Prolific Offender Scheme on the 18th July 2003. He was visited on a monthly basis by both Eamann DEVLIN Probation Officer for E and J Districts and Mike LYNCH of DHI Drug Services. Work was undertaken to prepare THE SUBJECT for release, including drug testing. The POU were involved in the Parole Assessment Process. Upon release THE SUBJECT was taken to a London Clinic and received a NALTRAXONE implant which will last 6 months. NALTRAXONE is a chemical implanted underneath the skin which effectively blocks the intake of any form of opiate. Owing to his criminal history, THE SUBJECT was extremely anti-police, which would often result in confrontation. On the 28th January 2004, a Detective from Bath was attached to the district Prolific Offenders Unit. Initially, THE SUBJECT refused to

engage with this officer, but through persistent engagement by the officer and discussions with the Probation Service, THE SUBJECT has now accepted the officer’s involvement and freely engages with him. In fact, this is a good example of THE SUBJECT’S whole change of attitude towards figures of authority. He will also spend time reflecting on his approach to different situations and acceptance of responsibility for his own actions. The NALTRAXONE implant has eliminated THE SUBJECTS use of opiates. Following his release from prison, on one occasion during the first week, THE SUBJECT tested positive for crack cocaine in drug tests. However, since those tests, on six successive occasions, THE SUBJECT has given negative tests. In the first four weeks after his release, there has been no notable increase in the number of dwelling burglaries and although 16 intelligence reports on THE SUBJECT have been received, most relate to sightings and the results of drug tests. None relate to offences. If THE SUBJECT continues to engage with the Prolific Offenders Unit and does not revert to drug addiction, in time, he will be a shining example of what can be achieved by the Unit. Without doubt, THE SUBJECT was a major problem to Bath District in relation to dwelling burglaries. Success with him will result in a reduction in hundreds of victims of crime, the prevention of loss of hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of property and the redirection of police resources and funds.

Dwelling Burglaries on the Bath Sector between 1/12/2000 and 30/6/2001
120 Number of Offences 100 80 60 40 20 0 DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN Month of Offence
2000/01

Dwelling Burglaries on Bath Sector for the 4 weeks prior to Boswell's last 2 prison releases, and the 4 weeks immediately after.
25

Number of Burglaries.

20

15

2001

2004
10

5

0 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Weeks before or after his release date.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.