Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland

Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements

Annual Report 2002-3
Preface

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 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

Foreword

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 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
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 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
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 Inter-
agency 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 re-
designated 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:-
______________________________________________________________________________________________
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
• 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).
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.
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
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.
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
______________________________________________________________________________________________
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
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 re-
offending.
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
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
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.
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 Multi-
Agency 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 re-
housing 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
______________________________________________________________________________________________
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,
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.
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.
A diagram showing the MAPPA for
Leicester, Leicestershire and
Rutland is included as Appendix 1 of
this report.
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 re-
offending, 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.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
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.
The two case examples summarised
on the following pages are real
cases considered by the MAPPP
within the last 12 months. They will
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
hopefully serve to demonstrate how
risk assessments are undertaken
and how risk management plans are
agreed and implemented.
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.
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 10-
month 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.
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
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.
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.
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:
• 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.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
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
• Mr. Y to be informed of his
MAPPP registered status and
implications.
• Establishment of core group to
manage case, chaired by FMHS
Service Manager.
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
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
been allocated a council tenancy
and he was assisted to move into
this. However he returned to his ex-
partner’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.
year in order to take account of the
responsibility to develop a multi-
agency 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
______________________________________________________________________________________________
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
• 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
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
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
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
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.
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 post-
custody 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 re-
offended 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 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
MAPPA

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

LEICESTERSHIRE & RUTLAND MULTI-AGENCY PUBLIC PROTECTION PANEL

MANAGEMENT

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.

Functions:
® Strategic Management
® Policy Formulation
® Strategic Review
® Budgetary Control
 OPERATIONS / STEERING GROUP

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

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

CORE PANEL MEMBERS

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

MAPPP UNIT
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
Krystyna.Findley@leicestershire.probation.gsx.gov.uk LE1 3BE

Leicestershire Constabulary Address Phone

Graham Thomas Specialist Crime Investigation Dept. 0116 222 2222

Superintendent Wigston Police Station Ext. 5569
graham.thomas@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk Bull Head Street
Wigston
Leicester
LE18 1WX

MAPPP Unit Address Phone

Bob Petrie Wigston Police Station 0116 222 2222

MAPPP Manager Bull Head Street Ext. 5506
Bob.Petrie@leicestershire.probation.gsx.gov.uk Wigston
Leicester
LE18 1WX
 Printed by Leicestershire Constabulary.
Published by The Leicestershire and Rutland Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel.