L e i c e s t e r , L e i c e s tMulti-Agency

e r s h i rPublic
e & Rutland
Protection Arrangements
Annual Report 2004–5

Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland MAPPA

working together to protect the public
Contents
Foreword p. 1

Introduction p. 2

Understanding the MAPPA p. 4

A View from the Chair p. 5

Key Developments p. 6

The Role of Lay Advisors p. 8

How the MAPPA operates locally p. 10

Information Exchange p. 12

Risk Management p. 16

Case Studies p. 18

Statistical Information p. 24

Appendix 1 p. 30

Appendix 2 p. 32
FOREWORD
Ministerial Foreword by Baroness Scotland

The work being undertaken to improve the safety of communities through the Multi-Agency Public Protection

Arrangements (MAPPA) is vitally important and a priority for government. The annual reports for 2004/5 provide

evidence of that active engagement. Violence and sexual abuse are unacceptable wherever they occur and it is

evident that through MAPPA such offenders are identified and better managed than ever before. As the number of

offenders within MAPPA continues to grow as expected there is clear evidence that the Responsible Authority, that is

the local Police, Probation and the Prison Service, is addressing these additional demands by strengthening local

partnerships, using new statutory powers to restrict the behaviour of offenders, returning offenders to custody where

they breach their licence or order, and using the findings of research and inspection to strengthen national guidance

and local practice. Although it is never possible completely to eliminate the risk posed by dangerous offenders,

MAPPA is helping to ensure that fewer people are re-victimised.

The active implementation of the Criminal Justice Act (2003) during the last year has clearly enhanced the ability of a

number of agencies including health, social services and housing to work collaboratively with the Responsible

Authority in assessing and managing those sexual and violent offenders in our communities who pose the highest risk

of serious harm. For the continued success of MAPPA this collaboration together with the scrutiny of policy and

practice must become the hallmark of these arrangements. Similarly MAPPA must integrate with other public

protection mechanisms dealing with child abuse, domestic abuse and racial abuse.

For me, one of the most exciting developments in this arena in the last 12 months has been the appointment of lay

advisers to assist the Responsible Authority in the oversight of the arrangements. As ordinary members of the public

these lay advisors represent a diverse, able and committed group of people who are now helping the statutory

agencies to oversee the work being undertaken through MAPPA and communicate with the public more effectively.

Without a growing sense of public knowledge and confidence about this work much of the benefits of the public

protection arrangements will be lost.

I hope this annual report will be useful, informative and re-assuring to local communities. The agencies and individuals

who have contributed to the achievement of MAPPA locally are to be commended.

1
INTRODUCTION

This is the fourth Annual Report which covers the work of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements –

the MAPPA – in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland during the last twelve months.

We have a well-established multi-agency partnership in the field of Public Protection which is reflected at all

levels within the MAPPA structure, from the Strategic Management Board to the collaborative inter-agency

work which takes place at an operational level.

We are totally committed to maintaining this partnership in order to ensure that the protection of the public

remains the highest priority for all members. A joint approach ensures that the agencies involved are working

to the best of their abilities to reduce further offending and to prevent the re-victimisation of individuals.

To this end we have now approved the agreement of a Memorandum of Understanding, confirming our

commitment to multi-agency work, and an Information Sharing Protocol to cover the exchange of relevant

information on all offenders who fall within the remit of the MAPPA.

We are committed to keeping our practices and procedures under review, to ensure that the MAPPA within

Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland operate as effectively as possible. However, we believe that this report

demonstrates the solid base of good practice and expertise which we have developed in this area of public

protection work.

2
 Chief Constable - Matt Baggott

Chief Officer of Probation - Heather Munro

Area Manager East Midlands South – HM Prison Service – Bob Perry

Leicestershire Youth Offending Service - Phil Hawkins

Leicester City Youth Offending Team - Mary Campagnac

Chief Executive Melton, Rutland & Harborough PCT - Wendy Saviour

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

Director of Social Services, Leicestershire County Council - Tony Harrop

Chief Executive, Leicestershire Partnership Trust - Dr Maggie Cork

Corporate Director of Housing, Leicester City Council - Mike Forrester

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

3
UNDERSTANDING THE MAPPA

The Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements, or MAPPA, provide a framework for identifying,
assessing and managing those offenders in the community whose previous offences or current
behaviour suggest that they could pose a risk of harm to others.

There are three categories of offenders who fall with the MAPPA:

All Registered Sex Offenders in the community (MAPPA Category 1)

All offenders on post-custody licence, having been sentenced to 12 months or more custody for an
offence of violence (MAPPA Cat 2)
Any other offender, i.e. not in either of the above categories, whose previous offending and current
behaviour suggests he/she may pose a risk of harm to others (MAPPA Cat. 3)

All MAPPA offenders must be assessed and regularly reviewed regarding potential risk of harm to
others (low, medium, high or very high) and, commensurate with that risk assessment, managed
within a three-tier risk management framework:

Single agency management (MAPPA Level 1)

Middle tier Inter-Agency Management (MAPPA Level 2)
Higher tier Multi-Agency Management, the Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel or MAPPP
(MAPPA Level 3)

On 1st April 2001, it became a statutory responsibility, jointly, on all Police and Probation areas in
England and Wales, who were designated the ‘Responsible Authority’, to establish local MAPPA.
The implementation of the Criminal Justice Act (2003) on 5th April 2004 has now included the
Prison Service with the Responsible Authority.

The Responsible Authority in every area was also required to seek to involve other key local
agencies, such as Health, Social Services and Housing in the MAPPA, a feature which has been
formalised by the recent legislation, which places a statutory ‘duty to co-operate’ on such
organisations. This is important since a key part of the MAPPA involves the exchange of information
and the pooling of knowledge and expertise between agencies in assessing and managing MAPPA
offenders.

The MAPPA in every area must be overseen and managed by a Strategic Management Board
(SMB) comprising senior staff of the Responsible Authority and ‘duty to co-operate agencies. The
Criminal Justice Act has also required the recruitment of two ‘Lay Advisors’ in each area to
sit on the MAPPA SMBs.

4

A VIEW FROM THE CHAIR....
I became Chair of the MAPPA
Strategic Management Board in
December 2004, following Davina
Logan’s promotion to Deputy Chief
Constable in another area.
My first task is to thank Davina
Logan for her clear, focused and
supportive leadership of the MAPPA
in Leicester, Leicestershire and
Rutland during the last two years,
and to wish her well in her new post.
Overall, I think the past twelve
months has been a period of both
change and consolidation for
our MAPPA.
We have welcomed our two Lay
Advisors, who were appointed at the
end of the year and who are
completing a process of induction.
They have already attended two
SMB meetings and I feel that our
collective oversight of the continuing
development and evolution of the
MAPPA can only benefit from the
important lay, community
perspective that they will bring to
the process.
We have also fully incorporated the
inclusion of the Prison Service as
part of the Responsible Authority.
This move cements an established
and very positive relationship in the
field of public protection.
5
Krystyna Findley
Assistant Chief Officer, Leicestershire
& Rutland Probation Area
Chair – Leicester, Leicestershire &
Rutland MAPPA Strategic
Management Board
We have recently agreed a Finally, I would like to express my
Memorandum of Understanding that thanks to the local agencies who are
formalises the existing commitment not part of the Responsible Authority
of all key local agencies to the multi- but continue to help to fund and
agency approach, which is so vital operate the MAPPA – the Leicester
for the effectiveness of the MAPPA. City Council, Leicestershire County
We have also agreed a protocol with Council, Rutland County Council
all relevant partners to share and the Melton Rutland &
relevant information on all offenders Harborough Primary Care Trust
who fall within the MAPPA. (representing all six local PCTs.)
I believe their contributions ensure a
Whilst we continue to employ a meaningful and effective local multi-
full-time, dedicated MAPPA agency partnership.
Co-ordinator, we have also
increased the MAPPA administrative I would also like to thank the staff,
support from a part time to a full especially frontline staff, of all
time post. partner agencies for their
conscientious and dedicated work in
During the next twelve months I look seeking to protect the public from
forward to the interesting challenges potentially dangerous offenders.
that we shall meet in the developing
field of Public Protection. Whilst I am
confident about the robustness of
our local Arrangements, we will look
to develop more comprehensive
quality assurance systems and
strengthen our links with other key
bodies. These organisations and
agencies include the Local Criminal
Justice Board, the Crime Prevention
& Reduction Partnerships, the
current Area Child Protection
Committees and the planned
Children’s Safeguarding Board. We
will also be looking at ways in which
we can provide more regular
feedback to the whole community on
the workings of the local MAPPA.
KEY DEVELOPMENTS
WITHIN THE LAST
12 MONTHS
During the last twelve months, the
relevant sections of the Criminal
Justice Act, 2003 have largely been
implemented in Leicester,
Leicestershire and Rutland in
accordance with National Guidance
issued by the Home Office.
These have included :
- The recruitment of two Lay
Advisors to sit on the MAPPA
Strategic Management Board in
order to provide a community-based
perspective on our policies and
practice.
- The agreement of a Memorandum
of Understanding, confirming the
commitment of all key local agencies
to work in partnership within the
MAPPA framework.
- The signing of an Information
Sharing Protocol by all relevant local
agencies governing the process for
the sharing of relevant information
on MAPPA offenders.
- The re-designation of the MAPPP
Manager’s post to that of dedicated
MAPPA Co-ordinator.
- The employment of a full-time
MAPPA Administrative Assistant,
replacing the previous half-time
MAPPP administrator.
- The implementation by
Leicestershire Constabulary of the
VISOR database, a national
database in relation to all Registered
Sex Offenders.
- The appointment of a full-time
Administrative Assistant to the
Police’s Sex and Dangerous
Offender Unit, replacing the previous
half-time post.
- The implementation of MAPPA
Level 2 (middle tier) “Risk Concerns
Meetings” by Leicestershire Forensic
Mental Health Service to assess and
manage mentally disordered
offenders who are not subject to any
other form of MAPPA management
process.
- The review and updating of the
Probation Service MAPPA Level 2
“Risk Assessment & Management
Panels” (RAMPs) to take account of
recent legislative changes.
- The development of formal links
between local MAPPA and Area
Child Protection procedures, with
specific guidance in relation to
offenders who are dangerous and
who may have contact with children.
Since the last Annual Report was
published, the following key staff
have moved from their previous
involvement with Leicester,
Leicestershire and Rutland to
new appointments:
Mrs. Davina Logan, previously
Assistant Chief Constable with
Leicestershire Constabulary and
Chair of the MAPPA Strategic
Management Board, to take up a
new post as Deputy Chief Constable
of Northamptonshire Constabulary.
Mr. David Walmsley, previously
Governor, HMP Ashwell, who served
for over two years as HM Prison
Service representative on the
MAPPP. David retired in April 2004.
Ms. Sarah Baraclough, OASys
Implementation Manager, HM Prison
Service, East Midlands Region, who
succeeded David as the Prison
Service’s MAPPP member before
moving to another post within the
Prison Service.
Mr. Robert Nisbet, Service
Manager, Leicestershire Forensic
Mental Health Service, who served
as the Health Service representative
on both the MAPPP and the MAPPA
Operational Management Group for
several years. Robert, at the end of
April 2005, left to pursue a new
career as an independent trainer.
Superintendent Graham Thomas,
who represented the Leicestershire
Constabulary on the MAPPA
Operational Management Group for
the last three years has now been
replaced by Supt. Chris Tew.
6
Q : Why is there a need for a national MAPPA framework ?
A : A national system is a more effective system that offers increased protection to the public. A countrywide approach ensures that all areas adopt the same procedures in
this priority area of work with potentially dangerous offenders. A consistent method of management also helps agencies when handling the movement of offenders between
different areas. The national framework enables the Home Office to have an accurate and comprehensive picture of what is happening around the country and, when there is
a need to change things, any changes can be implemented across the board throughout England and Wales.
County Hall, Leicester - MAPPP meeting venue
Y
OP
FC
PD
R
FO
NK
LA
XB
BO
RE
TU
PIC
THE ROLE OF LAY ADVISORS IN MAPPA
PIC
TU

LAY ADVISOR
RE

Name: Caroline Hall

BO

Background information:
XB

A nurse practitioner in
LA

Primary Care, Mrs Hall, who

NK

has two children, is involved

FO

in a range of activities in
R
PD

connection with her

FC

children’s schools.
OP
Y

“I have only recently been appointed to sit on the Strategic Management Board (SMB) that oversees
the MAPPA for the management of sex and dangerous offenders in the community.

“As a mother involved in various community activities, I have a keen interest in how our public
protection arrangements are met to ensure not only the safety of our children, but the safety of all
of us that live peacefully within our respective communities.

“The role that I undertake as a Lay Advisor means that I do not have involvement or direct contact in
the management of individual cases or with offenders, but bring to the board meetings a lay person’s
perspective. I like to think that my contribution is about introducing an aspect of common sense
when discussing quite demanding cases concerning the offenders assessed as the ‘critical few.’
However the professionals ultimately take responsibility for the day to day management of this
group of offenders.

“The post is voluntary, but to date I have received excellent training which has given me insight into
the complexities of the decision making with this small but very significant group of offenders. My
current training is on-going so by next year I will be less of a novice in the area of public protection.
I have full involvement in my training programme and choose to an extent what the opportunities are.
I intend to leave no stone unturned in my quest to understand public protection and look forward to
the challenges ahead.

“I welcome any comments from the public on reading this informative Annual Report.”

8
Q : The number of offenders on the Sex Offender Register seems to keep rising every year.
Should the public be alarmed by this?
A : The short answer is no. The number of offenders on the Sex Offender Register will continue to rise for many years. The minimum registration time for an adult is two
years, while the more serious sex offenders will be on the register for the rest of their lives. The purpose of the register is to allow the Police to keep track of sex offenders in
the community. For this reason, the legislation deliberately makes sex offenders subject to registration for long periods of time. Therefore, there is a significant cumulative
aspect to the annual total of offenders on the register. Another factor in the increased numbers is that the register only became operational towards the end of 1997, and it is
only recently that certain offenders are now completing their registration periods and coming off the register. An additional element has been that during recent years the
detection rate for certain crimes has been increasing. For example there has been a significant expansion in the conviction of offenders who have been using the internet to
publish or exchange indecent images of children. This increase reflects the more sophisticated methods of detecting this type of offending and obtaining convictions.

“We have gone through the training and the induction. I have attended two

“I feel as a Lay Advisor that my role is to provide an overview, and ensure

“I applied to become a Lay Advisor because I felt this role was a logical
progression for me. I am very much involved in community life, and my

that individual agencies are pulling together. My fellow board members

know that I am a magistrate, and I was recently asked my view on an
aspect of sentencing. I hope that I can contribute to the process in a
Mother of three, Mrs Roberts is a school governor and a former
and is a non-executive director of a Primary Health Care Trust.

knowledge of the legal system and the work that is carried out with
lives in Leicestershire. She has been a magistrate for 15 years

offenders. I understand the roles of each of the agencies involved.

experiences gained as a magistrate means I have a good working
Background information: Mrs Roberts was born and currently

board meetings that have enabled me to get to know the people

concerned and understand the funding arrangements.
Name: Mrs Caroline Roberts
Y
OP
FC
PD
R
FO

parish councillor.

constructive way.”
LAY ADVISOR
NK
LA
XB
BO
RE
TU
PIC

9
HOW THE MAPPA OPERATES LOCALLY

The multi-agency approach to assessing and managing offenders who may pose a risk of harm to others is
now well-established in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.This dates back to the establishment of our
Public Protection Panel in 1998, a body which foreshadowed our Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel
(MAPPP) in 2001 and the subsequent development of the full Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements
(MAPPA) framework.

The key operational partner agencies in our current MAPPA are :

The Leicestershire Constabulary

National Probation Service, Leicestershire & Rutland Area
HM Prison Service, East Midlands Region
Leicester City Council – Social Care & Health Dept.
Leicester City Council – Housing Dept.
Leicestershire County Council - Social Services Dept.
Leicestershire Forensic Mental Health Service
Rutland County Council – Social Services & Housing Dept.
Leicester City Youth Offending Team
Leicestershire Youth Offending Service.

COMMENTARY
“The inception of the MAPPA has seen a formalised
recognition of the old adage ' the Police alone
cannot solve everything '. With it we have also seen
a form of collaborative working previously unheard
of. It is without doubt that the MAPPP has gone
a long way in preserving the rights of some of the
most vulnerable people within society from the
most dangerous.”
DCI Philip Taylor,
Specialist Crime Investigation Department,
Leicestershire Constabulary

10
What follows is a brief overview of the way in which the MAPPA
operate within Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland, followed by some
anonymous, but real case studies to illustrate how the MAPPA work in practice:

Information Exchange :
In order for the MAPPA to work The aim is to ensure that staff from
effectively, it is necessary to have a any agency that has contact with an
system which facilitates the offender will be able to discover :
exchange of relevant information
between agencies. The sharing of - whether or not the offender
information ensures that offenders’ is currently under MAPPA
risk assessments remain up-dated, management
and the risk management is a co-
COMMENTARY
ordinated process. - which MAPPA category the
offender falls within “There are sometimes
In most cases, the relevant details of links between high
the offender will be available via the - at which level the offender is being risk offenders under
Police VISOR database, or managed the management of
Probation’s information system the MAPPA and child
called CRAMS. - the name and contact details of the protection concerns.
MAPPA key worker In such cases the
links between the two
In Leicester, Leicestershire and
- whether there are immediate, systems are vital in
Rutland, we have developed a
serious concerns to be aware of order to ensure that
system in which :
(e.g. risks to children). all the relevant
information is shared
- All local agencies have nominated
amongst all the
a member of staff to act as a single
agencies involved,
point of contact for enquiries from
and that an agreed,
other MAPPA agencies.
consistent approach
to risk management
- The MAPPA Co-ordinator operates
is adopted.”
a “clearing house” facility for cases
where it is not known whether, and if
Bob Parker,
so which, other agencies may be
Service Manager,
actively involved with an offender.
Child Protection,
Leicestershire Social
Services Department

11
Risk Assessment :
Leicestershire Constabulary has
the responsibility for assessing all
Registered Sex Offenders in the
community (MAPPA Category 1).
This assessment is carried out by
the specialist officers working in the
Sex and Dangerous Offender Unit.
The risk assessment is based on the
Risk Matrix 2000 assessment tool,
which is used by forces throughout
the country.
Leicestershire & Rutland Probation
Area is responsible for the risk
assessment of all cases under its
supervision, including all adult
MAPPA Category 2 offenders, i.e.
those on post-custody licence,
having served a prison sentence of
12 months or more for a violent or
sexual offence. The risk assessment
process is based on the OASys
assessment tool, which is used
nationally by the Probation and
Prison Services.
Leicestershire Youth Offending
Service and Leicester Youth
Offending Team are also involved
with a small number of MAPPA
offenders, and will undertake risk
assessments using the Youth
Offending Board’s ASSET
assessment tool.
There are a small number of MAPPA
offenders who are neither subject to
the requirements of the Sex
Offender Register, nor are they
subject to Probation or YOS
supervision. This group may include
individuals under the management
of the Leicestershire Forensic
Mental Health Service, who will
undertake their own risk
assessments and liaise with other
relevant agencies. The local Health
Service has now developed a formal
policy which incorporates the
MAPPA into their Care Programme
Approach (CPA) procedures.

COMMENTARY
“As a recent new member to the Panel, representing
the East Midlands Area, it gives me a number of
useful quality checks to apply to the work in my own
prison so that I know we are operating a
complementary and joined up system. “
Moira Bartlett, Governor of Stocken Prison,
representing HM Prison Service
(East Midlands Area)

12
Q : What does “Risk Management” actually mean ?
A : There are two key components to risk management. First, it is important to try to maximise and enhance internal control mechanisms – i.e. helping the offender to control
his or her own behaviour. This can include giving high risk offenders priority access to sex offender treatment or drug or alcohol programmes. Secondly, it is important to
consider what external controls may be necessary and appropriate. This may include a requirement to reside in a supervised Probation hostel; a ban to prohibit them from
contacting previous victims; or excluding the offender from some geographical areas. In all cases, both internal and external controls are planned to be proportionate to the
degree of risk and to meet the number one priority of protecting the public. Regular communication between all agency staff underpins the two key components. These
discussions ensure a consistent, co-ordinated approach so that each risk assessment and risk management plan can be kept under review in the light of any changed
circumstances.
Bob Petrie chairing a recent MAPPP meeting staged at County Hall, Leicester.
Assessing and managing risk -
Y
OP
FC
PD
R
FO
NK
LA
XB
BO
RE
TU
PIC
The Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel (MAPPP) is reserved for the ‘critical few’
offenders who are assessed as posing the highest, most imminent risk of harm to
others, and or those offenders who require further intensive resources for their
effective management.

PIC
PIC

TU
TU

RE
RE

BO
BO

XB
XB

LA
LA

NK
NK

FO
FO

R
R

PD
PD

FC
FC

OP
OP

Y
Y

PIC
PIC

TU
TU

RE
RE

BO
BO

XB
XB

LA
LA

NK
NK

FO
FO

R
R

PD
PD

FC
FC

OP
OP

Y
Y

COMMENTARY
“LRPA has its own dedicated Victim Contact Team which has a renowned
reputation, nationally, as an example of good practice. In close liaison with
all other relevant agencies, the work of the Victim Contact Team is
essentially to offer information, support and advice to victims of serious
crime. As such, we obviously benefit from having an involvement in the
MAPPA process, and are routinely invited to MAPPA Level 2 and Level 3
meetings. We attend in cases where we have current or previous
information from victims and this input can be very important in helping to
inform risk assessments and to shape risk management plans. We are
then able to provide feedback and often reassurance to victims that the
perpetrators of offences against them are being effectively monitored and
managed when they are released from custody.”
Alan Gray MBE, Senior Probation Officer and
Manager of the Victim Contact Team, NPS

14
Q : Who decides how the MAPPA system should operate ?
A : This is primarily the responsibility of the Home Secretary who is advised by staff of the Public Protection and Courts Unit of the National Probation Directorate in the
Home Office. This staff group, with other professionals, play a key role in monitoring the effectiveness of the Arrangements. Their responsibilities also include consulting with
the people who are involved in operating the MAPPA at a local level, and identifying and promoting the wider dissemination of best practice. Having said that, the national
framework is sufficiently flexible to allow for variations in practice to reflect local circumstances and conditions. Each area has a MAPPA Strategic Management Board (SMB)
that decides in detail how the Arrangements can be tailored to effectively meet the needs of the area.
The MAPPA aims to protect the public throughout Leicester,
Leicestershire and Rutland.

Y
OP
Y OP
FC OP
Y FC
PD PD
R FC R
FO PD FO
NK FO
R NK
LA LA
NK XB
XB LA BO
BO XB RE
RE BO TU
TU RE PIC
PIC TU
PIC
Y
OP Y Y
FC OP OP
PD FC FC
R PD PD
FO R R
NK FO FO
LA NK NK
XB LA LA
BO XB XB
RE BO BO
TU RE RE
PIC TU TU
PIC PIC

15
Risk Management:
MAPPA Level 1 –
Single Agency Management
All Registered Sex Offenders
(MAPPA Category 1) assessed as
low or medium risk are managed by
the Local Policing Unit (LPU) which
covers the area where they live.
All Violent & Other Sex Offenders
(MAPPA Category 2) who are not
assessed as high risk are managed
COMMENTARY
“I have found MAPPA
invaluable to the
assessment and
management of offenders
who are deemed to pose
a risk to the community.
The knowledge and
expertise of each agency
significantly contributes to
the Probation Service's
ability to manage such
offenders more
effectively. MAPPA is
testament that the multi-
agency approach offers a
more comprehensive
mechanism to manage
offenders who pose a risk
to the public.”
Jackie Wilson, Senior
Probation Officer and
Manager of the
Resettlement Team,
LRPA
either by the Probation Service or
the Youth Offending Service.
MAPPA Category 3 offenders (Other
Dangerous) are, by definition,
assessed as high risk and are
therefore unsuitable for single
agency management.
MAPPA Level 2 –
Multi-Agency Management
All MAPPA offenders, of whichever
MAPPA category, who are under
the statutory supervision of the
Leicestershire and Rutland
Probation Area, and who require
Level 2 management will be
overseen via Probation’s Risk
Assessment and Management
Panels (RAMPs). Front line staff
from other agencies who are
involved with the offender are
also invited.
All MAPPA offenders, of whichever
MAPPA category, who are subject to
statutory supervision by the Youth
Offending Service and who require
Level 2 management are similarly
managed by YOS Risk
Management Conferences.
The small number of MAPPA
Level 2 offenders who are solely
under the management of the
Health Service are managed by the
Risk Concerns Meetings convened
by the Forensic Mental Health
Service under the Care Programme
Approach (CPA) procedures.
Any other MAPPA offender
requiring Level 2 management
will be managed via Local
Policing Unit MAPPA Level 2
inter-agency meetings.
MAPPA Level 3 Management : The
Multi-Agency Public Protection
Panel - the MAPPP
The MAPPP, and its forerunner, the
“Public Protection Panel”, has been
operating in Leicester, Leicestershire
and Rutland since 1998. The
MAPPP is reserved for “the critical
few” offenders who are assessed as
posing the highest, most imminent
risk of harm to others, and /or those
offenders who require further
intensive resources for their
effective management.
Referrals may be made by any
partner organisation, but a strict
“gate keeping” system is employed
to ensure that only cases which
require this level of scrutiny are
considered. Most offenders reviewed
by the MAPPP will already have
been subject to a MAPPA Level 2
meeting, sometimes prior to their
release from prison.
16
 are not willing to change, are often deterred when they realise that their behaviour is under close scrutiny.
prevent him or her from doing so. However, our experience of the MAPPA indicates that most offenders are motivated to avoid re-offending and even the small number, who
attracted the attention of any criminal justice agency. Even for those who are identified as high risk, if an offender is intent on committing a crime it may not be possible to
not possible to provide absolute guarantees of safety. There are some serious offences that are committed by people who have no previous convictions, and have not
A : The MAPPA provides the most effective approach to ensure that serious re-offending is kept to the minimum. Unfortunately, we do not live in a risk free society, and it is

Q : Can you guarantee that the MAPPA is the best way to protect the public?
The MAPPP is chaired by the independent MAPPP Manager/MAPPA
Co-ordinator. MAPPPs are held every month and are usually all day
meetings. As with Level 2 meetings, all staff working with the offender are
invited to attend, but key decisions are taken by designated managers of
the partnership agencies, who act as Core Panel Members.

The purpose of the MAPPP is to exchange information and pool

knowledge on each new and on-going case presented to the panel.
A collective decision is taken on whether MAPPP management is
required or should continue. The work is directed by a formal risk
management plan, and a key worker co-ordinates the implementation
of risk management measures.

MAPPP managed cases are regularly reviewed to determine whether

continued MAPPP management remains necessary. Cases downgraded
by the MAPPP will automatically revert to MAPPA Level 2 management.

The MAPPP will typically consider between four and eight cases at each
meeting. First time cases are usually allocated between one and one and-
a-half hours depending on their complexity. Reviews of current MAPPP
managed cases take between 30 to 45 minutes. Detailed, confidential
minutes are taken to ensure an “audit trail” of the information considered
and decisions taken.

COMMENTARY
“Being involved in MAPPA over several years has taught me what
real joint working and sharing responsibility for public protection is
about. It has to be. There can be no room for just rhetoric on this
matter. No individual agency can do this alone. Without a firm
commitment to working together, and supporting each other as
agencies with a common purpose, there could be disastrous
consequences. I am sure our communities would wish to see no
other approach from its public services.”
Robert J.Nisbet, Project Manager,
Mental Health Improvement Partnership

17
THE MAPPA AT WORK -
SOME CASE STUDIES

The following case studies have been chosen to demonstrate the range and
effectiveness of the MAPPA in operation during the past 12 months. The
names of the offenders have been changed, but the case studies are real
examples of high risk cases that have been managed at MAPPA Level 3 that
is, by the Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel.

CASE STUDIES

Philip’s case was referred to the MAPPP when he was nearing

the end of a ten-year prison sentence imposed for burglary with
intent to rape. He was due to be released at the point in his
sentence when he could no longer be lawfully detained.
He was going to be released on a non-parole licence under
the supervision of the Probation Service.

He had a serious history of previous offences, including one for the rape of a schoolgirl. His risk was assessed as
“high” using Probation’s OASys assessment tool and “Very High” on the Police’s Risk Matrix 2000. In view of this, the
MAPPP decided that it would oversee the management of the case, and nominated the supervising Probation Officer
as the key worker.

The risk management plan included a requirement that Philip would reside at a Probation Hostel on release,
where he would be subject to a curfew, and where his behaviour could be more easily monitored. A core group was
set up that included his supervising Probation Officer, his caseworker in the hostel and a Detective Constable from
the Police’s Sex and Dangerous Offender Unit. Frequent, sometimes daily, liaison took place between these three
members of staff. Philip was informed that his case was under MAPPP management and that his behaviour would
be closely monitored.

Initially, Philip appeared to have settled well into the community. He was co-operative and compliant. He obtained
voluntary work in a charity shop, as preparation for full-time paid employment. He formed a relationship with Monica,
a local woman. Both his supervisor at the shop and his new partner were made aware of the relevant issues in
Philip’s past.

It soon became apparent that Philip’s new partner had a fifteen-year-old granddaughter who visited Monica at her
home. This fact obviously caused some concern, and it was considered whether it was justified to inform Monica’s
daughter about the potential risks posed by Philip to the young girl.

18
When these issues were discussed with Monica, she was concerned that such a disclosure may result in her losing
contact with her family. Monica insisted that if her daughter was told, she would end the relationship with Philip. She
was also quite clear that Philip would not be present when her granddaughter visited. Monica said that she would
never put her granddaughter in a position where she could come to any harm.

This development placed the authorities in something of a dilemma. Philip’s relationship with Monica, to which they
both appeared very committed, was seen as an important source of stability for him and a significant risk-reducing
factor. On balance, it was decided to closely monitor the situation and to reassess at the next MAPPP review meeting.

Police from another area of the country then arrested Philip. Officers were investigating allegations of historical
abuse by him upon his niece. Philip vehemently denied any involvement in such abuse, claiming that the allegations
were malicious and had their origins in a long-standing family feud. He was released on Police bail whilst the
investigation continued.

Consideration was given at this stage to revoking Philip’s licence, but it was felt that this would not succeed as he had
not been charged with any offence. Nonetheless, it was recognised that this inquiry was increasing Philip’s stress and,
therefore, his risk. The decision was taken to further increase the level of monitoring on Philip. As a result, it was
discovered that Philip had been present at Monica’s home during a visit by her granddaughter. Both Philip and Monica
were informed that the authorities now felt that they must alert the girl’s mother to the potential risks in this situation.

A few days later, the supervisor of the charity shop contacted the Police to express concern that a fellow worker, a
woman in her early thirties, had received indecent text messages on her mobile phone. Philip was named in the text
messages.

The Police immediately began an investigation into the matter. They quickly concluded that, whilst it was not possible
to identify the source of the text messages, there were clear grounds to suggest that Philip may have been
responsible. This discovery was immediately shared with the Probation Service, who concluded that the risks had now
become unacceptable and instigated an urgent revocation of Philip’s licence. He was arrested and returned to prison.

The vast majority of offenders subject to the MAPPA are motivated to avoid
re-offending, and to co-operate fully with the authorities. However, the real
value of the Arrangements is in enabling agencies to identify and concentrate
upon those offenders who pose the highest risk.

19
CASE STUDIES
Cathy’s case was referred to the MAPPP shortly before she was about to be released from
a four year prison sentence for several offences. Her crimes included perpetrating a bomb
hoax and assaulting both a Police Officer and a security guard.
Cathy has a history of disturbed and
dangerous behaviour including
offences of violence and arson. She
has also been known to the mental
health services for many years,
although the consistent diagnosis
has been that she does not suffer
from any treatable form of mental
illness. Cathy is therefore not
detainable under the terms of mental
health legislation. She is considered
to have a personality disorder. Cathy
was assessed as high risk of harm
using the OASys assessment.
Representatives attending the
MAPPP were told that before her
prison sentence, Cathy had been
living with an elder sister who had
three children.
It was Cathy’s intention to return to
this address on release. At least one
of her previous convictions had
involved a local shopkeeper, whom
she threatened with a knife while her
elder niece had been with her.
As well as the obvious concerns in
relation to violence and arson, the
MAPPP’s risk assessment identified
possible child protection issues
involving the children of Cathy’s
sister. The consensus of opinion
was that Cathy’s behaviour could
put the children in situations where
they may be at risk of physical or
emotional harm.
The MAPPP requested that Social
Services undertake an immediate
risk assessment of this matter, prior
to Cathy’s release from prison.
Following the risk assessment, the
decision was taken that Cathy
should reside in a Probation hostel
and not at her sister’s home. A
further condition was that Cathy’s
contact with her sister’s children
would be supervised and monitored
by Social Services.
Within three weeks of her release,
Cathy was recalled to prison
following threats to hostel staff, other
hostel residents and causing a
considerable amount of damage to
her room. By this stage she had
seen her sister’s children three
times. During each occasion she
had appeared menacing and
intimidating to the social workers
who had been supervising them.
Two months later Cathy was re-
released again on licence. It was no
longer considered safe to place her
in a hostel. She had requested
independent accommodation and a
suitable tenancy was identified,
and allocated to her. Her case was
also referred to the high risk
outreach support team, who
specialise in helping vulnerable or
high risk offenders adjust to
independent living.
Unfortunately, Cathy refused to live
in this accommodation, failed to
keep appointments with her
Probation Officer and was again
recalled to prison.
The present situation is that Cathy
remains in prison after her appeal
against her recall was dismissed.
She is likely to be released at the
end of the summer, but will not be
on licence. The MAPPP will maintain
oversight of her case because of the
risk she poses to others. A local
voluntary group, specialising in
supporting people with mental health
problems, has agreed to work with
her and her Probation Officer. This
group has had contact with Cathy in
the past. It is hoped that suitable
accommodation can be provided for
Cathy before her release. She will
remain subject to monitoring by the
Police. Social Services have sought
and obtained an injunction
preventing her from having
unsupervised contact with her
sister’s children.
20
Q : Do offenders know that they are subject to the MAPPA ?
A : Current legislation such as the Data Protection Act requires us to advise offenders that they are subject to the MAPPA. For the majority of offenders in this group, who are
motivated to avoid re-offending, this poses no problem. Active MAPPA management can also act as a very effective deterrent particularly for the small number who are
unconcerned about maintaining a lawful lifestyle. They know that we are “on their case” and if they do re-offend, they will almost certainly be quickly apprehended. There are
a very small number of offenders where it is advisable not to tell them that they are under MAPPA management. One reason is that such a disclosure would put other people
at an even greater risk of harm than is already the case. In such circumstances, after very careful consideration, the decision may be taken not to reveal this information. In
all cases, however, offenders will not have access to any information which is likely to put a third party, such as a previous or potential future victim, at risk.
Y
OP
FC
PD
R
FO
NK
LA
XB
BO
RE
TU
PIC
CASE STUDIES
David was sentenced to five years imprisonment
for an offence of grievous bodily harm.

He had originally been charged with attempted murder. The offence involved a vicious drunken knife attack on a man
who he knew vaguely and against whom he bore a grudge. A few weeks earlier the victim had intervened to prevent
David from bullying a young Asian girl.

David had been released previously from this sentence, but had been recalled to prison for failing to attend an anger
management programme and being charged with possession of a bladed weapon.

He had a history of violent behaviour, and much of his previous offending had clear links with alcohol abuse. He was
known to regularly carry knives and to harbour extreme racist views. He had a poor record of co-operating with the
authorities and had openly boasted that his next prison sentence would be for a life term. During his prison sentence
he had been in trouble for acts of violence towards other prisoners and threats to staff.

David’s case was referred to the MAPPP a few weeks before his release for the second time on a non-parole licence.
It was agreed that he should be allowed to return to his mother’s address on release, but there was a geographical
exclusion in his licence preventing him from going near the victim’s home. The victim also had a Police panic alarm
installed in his house.

At that time David’s partner was pregnant, and the MAPPP was clearly concerned to ensure that the child would not
be at risk from him. Social Services subsequently undertook an assessment in relation to David’s partner, who lives
with her own parents. Social Services have monitored the situation following the baby’s birth, and they have no
grounds for current concern in relation to the child.

Contrary to all fears and expectations, David has co-operated and responded very well on licence. It would appear
that becoming a father has had quite a profound effect on David’s world view. He appears to have matured and now
feels that he has developed a good working relationship with his Probation Officer, who is a black woman. He has fully
co-operated with a psychological assessment, which identified key issues of immaturity and low self-esteem. He is
undertaking basic skills work in relation to literacy and numeracy and is actively seeking employment. He is also
regularly seeing an alcohol advisor.

It is now almost ten months since David’s release from prison and he has not re-offended nor caused any concern
with regard to his behaviour. At the last MAPPP review, it was agreed to consider downgrading his management to
MAPPA Level 2 when his case is next considered if his present progress is maintained.

22
 MAPPA process by the Victim Contact Team and taken into account in the formulation of risk management measures.
licence conditions, such as excluding the offender from particular geographical areas. Where the victim has taken up this offer of contact, their views will be fed into the
information such as when the offender may be considered for parole or when s/he is about to be released. They are also able to put forward their own views or requests for
A : Yes, every victim of a serious crime committed by an offender in this area is contacted by Probation’s Victim Contact Team. Through this contact, victims can access

Q : Do victims have a voice in the MAPPA process and are they heard?
CASE STUDIES
Michael is a Registered Sex Offender with a history of
abusing pre-pubescent and adolescent boys.

He had been identified as a high risk offender and been subject to MAPPP
management in his home area in the Southwest. He moved to Leicester
more than eighteen months ago. Whilst it was never entirely clear why he
moved here, there was some suggestion that he may have been “outed” as a
paedophile at his previous address.

A short time after his arrival, he was convicted of minor offences of

dishonesty and was made subject to a Community Rehabilitation Order.
When his case was considered at the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland
MAPPP, the exchange of information revealed a pattern of behaviour.
Michael formed close relationships with families with young male children in
order to “groom” potential victims. The MAPPP agreed that Police, Probation
and Social Services would need to work very closely together to protect any
children he may have contact with. It was also hoped that any such instances
would provide grounds to apply to the court for a Sexual Offending
Prevention Order. Breach of this Order would render Michael liable to arrest
and carries a maximum punishment of five years imprisonment.

Michael was also referred to Probation’s psychologist for assessment in order

to establish his suitability to attend the Community Sex Offender Treatment
Programme.This assessment concluded that Michael had a psychopathic
personality, and would be unlikely to benefit from treatment. Evidence now
suggests that a psychopath’s risk of re-offending may actually be increased
by putting them through treatment programmes.

Over the next few months Michael changed his address on several
occasions, moving in and out of the city. On each move a fresh risk
assessment was undertaken. Three separate families were identified, whom
Michael had sought to befriend, and all had young or teenage male children.
The families were warned that Michael could pose a risk to their children.

As a result of this pattern of behaviour, the Police applied to the Court for a
Sexual Offending Prevention Order, with a requirement that Michael should
not have unsupervised contact with children under the age of eighteen.
Michael resisted this application, but the Court, having originally made an
interim order, has recently made a full SOPO for fifteen years.

Michael’s Community Rehabilitation Order has now expired, but he remains

under MAPPP management and subject to Police monitoring as a high risk
registered sex offender.
23
STATISTICAL INFORMATION
Every year the Responsible
Authority is required to provide
statistical information on the
MAPPA. The statistics for 2004/5
are printed overleaf. They include,
for the first time, a breakdown of the
number of offenders managed under
MAPPA Level 2 arrangements, and
the outcomes of that management –
previously the requirement was only
to provide detailed statistics in
relation to MAPPA Level 3
management i.e. the Multi-Agency
Public Protection Panel (the
MAPPP).
This, more detailed statistical
analysis may help the public to
understand the range, scope and
effectiveness of the MAPPA in
Leicester, Leicestershire and
Rutland. In order to best interpret
and understand the statistics, the
following may be helpful.
Number 1 refers to the total number
of Registered Sex Offenders in the
community (MAPPA Category 1
offenders) in Leicester,
Leicestershire and Rutland on 31st
March 2005. The total of 508
represents an increase of some 5%
from last year’s figure of 484.
It is important to remember that this
figure does not represent the
number of sex offenders required to
register with the Police over the last
twelve months.
The Sex Offender Register was
introduced towards the end of 1997
and, the minimum registration period
is two years.
For most offenders the registration
period is far longer and a substantial
proportion will remain registered
indefinitely. Therefore there is a
strong cumulative element to the
figure of 508.
It is predicted that the number of
MAPPA Category 1 offenders will
continue to rise for several years to
come. However, for Leicester,
Leicestershire and Rutland, both the
number of Registered Sex Offenders
(RSOs) and the proportion of the
overall population represented by
this figure have remained around
the national average.
It is also worth remembering that the
vast majority of Registered Sex
Offenders are not considered to be
high risk. Of the overall total of 508,
only 56, or 11%, were under Level 2
management at any point during the
past year, whilst only 19 or slightly
fewer than 4% were managed by
the MAPPP. No Registered Sex
Offender, under Level 2 or 3
management during the period
01/04/04 – 31/03/05, was charged
with a further serious offence.
The number of MAPPA Category 2
offenders in the community during
the period covered by this annual
report was 340, a very significant
increase on last year’s figure of 236
– a rise of some 30%.
There are two likely explanations for
this increase. First, Home Office
guidance has changed in relation to
which categories of offence must
now be included. This change has
effectively “widened the net”.
The figure now includes offenders
whose crimes range from assault
occasioning actual bodily harm
to murder at the opposite end of
the spectrum
Secondly, the figure of 340 will
include many offenders sentenced
in the past to varying lengths of
imprisonment, from 12 months
upwards, who were released on
licence at some point during the
last year. Clearly, there are likely
to be annual variations in this
number reflecting historical
sentencing patterns, which are
difficult to predict.
It is important to remember that the
majority of MAPPA Category 2
offenders are not considered to be
high risk. Only 53, or approximately
15% of the 340 total were subject to
Level 2 management. An even
smaller proportion of nine cases,
or 2.5 % of the total number, were
managed by the MAPPP.
Overall, it should be stressed that
the substantial increase in the
number of MAPPA Category 2
offenders does not equate to a
dramatic increase in violent crime in
Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland
over the past twelve months.
24

The total of 89 MAPPA Category 3
offenders (“Other Dangerous”), is
again a very significant increase on
last year’s figure of 53.
However, 13 cases in this category,
one third of the total increase, were
identified and managed by the Youth
Offending Teams and Forensic
Mental Health Service. The increase
may suggest that all agencies are
now more clearly focussed on
identifying offenders who may pose
a risk of harm to others.
Since all MAPPA Category 3
offenders are, by definition,
assessed as “high risk” they were all
subject to Level 2 or 3 management.
However, only 14, or 15%, of the
offenders within this category were
assessed as requiring Level 3, or
MAPPP management.
The total number of all MAPPA
offenders, of whichever category,
who were managed at Level 2,
represents less than 20% of the
overall number of offenders who
were subject to the MAPPA during
the past year.
25
Service, Health Service and our three local councils, Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.
During 2004/5, the cost of the MAPPA Unit was approximately £70,000, which was paid, jointly by our local MAPPA partner agencies – the Police, Probation Service, Prison
Panel (MAPPP) Manager/MAPPA Co-ordinator, with admin support. The MAPPP manager chairs the MAPPPs to help assess and manage the most dangerous offenders.
has seen this work become more co-ordinated and focussed. A large percentage of the annual bill pays for the employment of a dedicated Multi-Agency Public Protection
A : The work to manage and supervise dangerous offenders in the community was being undertaken by different agencies before the MAPPA was introduced. The MAPPA
Q : How much do the MAPPA cost?
The total number of offenders
managed by the MAPPP at Level 3,
is significantly lower than this at just
below 5%.
The total figure of MAPPP managed
cases stands at 42, and is almost
exactly the same as last year.
This figure represents the number
of offenders who were managed at
this level at some point during the
last twelve months. In fact the
maximum number of offenders that
have been subject to MAPPP
management at any given time
during the last year is 26.
Finally, no offender subject to Level
2 or Level 3 management has been
charged with a serious further
offence during the past year.
Some offenders were ‘breached’ and
returned to prison. These included
10 MAPPP managed offenders, and
32 offenders managed at Level 2.
Whilst there can be no room for
complacency, these local statistics
suggest that the Multi-Agency Public
Protection Arrangements are being
operated effectively and rigorously
and that they play an important part
in protecting the people living in
Leicester, Leicestershire and
Rutland.
Bob Petrie
MAPPA
Co-ordinator
STATISTICAL INFORMATION

No. of Offenders
1. Category 1 MAPPA offenders: Registered Sex Offenders (RSO)

i. The number of RSOs living in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland 508

on 31st March 2005.
i(a) The number of RSOs per 100,000 head of population. 54

ii. The number of sex offenders having a registration requirement who 11

were either cautioned or convicted for breaches of the requirement,
between 1st April 2004 and 31st March 2005.

iii. The number of (a) Sexual Offences Prevention Orders (SOPOs) (a) 1
applied for (b) interim SOPOs granted and (c) full SOPOs (b) 1
imposed by the courts in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland (c) 0
between 1st May 2004 and 31st March 2005.

iv. The number of (a) Notification Orders applied for (b) interim (a) 1
Notification Orders granted and (c) full Notification Orders imposed (b) 0
by the courts in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland between (c) 0
1st May 2004 and 31st March 2005.

v. The number of Foreign Travel Orders (a) applied for and (b) imposed (a) 0
by the courts in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland between (b) 0
1st May 2004 and 31st March 2005.

2. Category 2 MAPPA offenders: Violent offenders and

Other Sexual offenders (V&OS)
340
The number of violent and other sexual offenders (as defined by
Section 327 (3), (4) and (5) of the Criminal Justice Act (2003))
living in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland between 1st April 2004
and 31st March 2005.

26
STATISTICAL INFORMATION

No. of Offenders
3. Category 3 MAPPA offenders: Other Offenders (OthO)

vii. The number of ‘other offenders’ (as defined by Section 325 (2)(b) of 89
the Criminal Justice Act (2003)) between 1st April 2004 and
31st March 2005.

4. Offenders managed through Level 3 (MAPPP) & Level 2

(local inter-agency management)

viii.The number of MAPPA offenders in each of the three Categories Level 3 Level 2
(i.e. (1)- RSOs, (2)- V&O and (3)- OthO above) have been managed RSO 19 56
through the MAPPP (level 3) and through local inter-agency risk V&O 9 53
management (level 2) between 1st April 2004 and 31st March 2005. OthO 14 75

ix. The number of the cases managed at levels 3 or 2 Level 3 Level 2

(a) who were returned to custody for breach of licence a) 10 32

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

27
POST SCRIPT . . .

It must be remembered that behind every statistic there is a victim with his or her own story to tell. It is
important that we don't lose sight of this fact. What follows is one victim’s story.

“This is my story. I can sum it up in few short words: I was raped. I am a victim of crime.

The man who raped me was caught. He pleaded Not Guilty but he was found Guilty. We then learned
that he had raped another women in the past. I had put my life on hold until the court case was over.
The day I saw him sentenced, I felt like a big weight had been lifted.

The man who raped me was sentenced to 18 years in prison, but his sentence was later reduced to
15 years. The reduction to his sentence hit me hard.

I have suffered sleepless nights: nights spent trying to fall asleep in the armchair rather than the bed.
I even put cups and saucers on the window sills so if anyone tried to get in, I would hear the
crockery rattle.

Time has gone by and I eventually approached Probations Victim Contact Team to find out about his
release. Probation staff have kept me informed and up-to-date with any developments. It was
important for me to know what was happening.

My family and I wanted certain conditions on his licence, and they were granted. I know that he is well
managed and well monitored now he is living in the community. That’s something. I have not allowed
him to ruin the rest of my life.”

28
Q : How do you know which offenders pose the highest risk to the public ?
A : Exhaustive assessments are carried out that determines an offender’s level of risk. Remember all MAPPA qualifying offenders are risk assessed, and all of these risk
assessments are regularly reviewed, even for low risk offenders. Risk assessments follow a standardised process that involves the use of at least one method that has been
specifically designed for this purpose. The Police use a system called Risk Matrix 2000 (RM 2000) for all registered sex offenders, and the National Probation Service has a
system called the Offender Assessment System (OASys). As well as using these methods, it is also crucial for the agencies involved in the risk assessment process to be
able to pool and exchange up-to-date information on the offender.
Y
OP
FC
PD
R
FO
NK
LA
XB
BO
RE
TU
PIC
APPENDIX 1
THE ROLE OF THE
PRISON SERVICE IN MAPPA
One of the important ways in which
the Criminal Justice Act (2003)
strengthened the MAPPA was to
make the Prison Service part of the
Responsible Authority with police
and probation in each of the 42
Areas in England and Wales. The
Prison Service has been given this
enhanced role in recognition of the
important part it plays in protecting
the public by keeping offenders in
custody; helping them to address
the causes of their offending
behaviour; and by undertaking
other work to assist their successful
resettlement.
As part of the Responsible Authority
the Prison Service is now
represented on each of the Strategic
Management Boards (SMBs) in the
42 Areas. The Prison estate is
configured differently from
Police/Probation areas in that its
establishments are contained within
only 12 geographical areas and two
functional areas – the High Security
estate, and Contracted Prisons. For
this reason arrangements for Prison
Service representation on SMBs
vary across the country, but each
Prison Service Area Manager has
entered into an agreement with the
SMBs on how the Service will
contribute both strategically and
operationally to the MAPPA.
The main focus of the Prison
Service contribution is at an
operational level. A number of
measures have been put in place
across the prison estate to ensure
that this will be effective
and result in:
- Prompt identification of MAPPA
offenders so that their details can be
used in sentence planning
arrangements, including
interventions to manage and
reduce risk.
- Regular monitoring of the
behaviour of those assessed as
presenting the highest risk, and
sharing information with police
and probation colleagues.
- All relevant risk management
information being provided to multi
agency meetings which help plan
an offender’s release.
- At least three months notification to
police and probation of the expected
release dates of those offenders
who have been referred to the multi-
agency public protection panel
(MAPPP), and at least six weeks
notification of those being managed
at level 2 risk meetings.
- No changes to release dates or
arrangements being made without
prior consultation with police
and probation.
- Playing an effective role in the
multi agency risk management of
MAPPA offenders requires good
communication between criminal
justice partners. The Prison Service
has taken steps to ensure that there
are dedicated points of contact for
public protection at both Area level
and in every prison establishment,
and that these are published
together with police and probation
contacts to ensure better
communication across the
Responsible Authority.
With the ever increasing MAPPA
population, and proportion of those
received into prison likely to grow
with the introduction of the new
public protection sentences, the
inclusion of the Prison Service as
part of the Responsible Authority
will continue to be vital in protecting
the public.
30
31
APPENDIX 2
AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES IN THE
LEICESTER, LEICESTERSHIRE AND
RUTLAND MULTI-AGENCY PUBLIC
PROTECTION ARRANGEMENTS

THE MAPPA STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT BOARD

Krystyna Findley, Assistant Chief Officer, National Probation Service, Leicestershire and Rutland, (Chair)

Chris Eyre, Assistant Chief Constable, Leicestershire Constabulary

Hilary Fielder, Area Resettlement Co-ordinator, HM Prison Service, East Midlands Region

Andrew Cozens, Director, Leicester City Council Social Care and Health Department

Neil Dhruev, Director of Adult Mental Health, Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust

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

Pat Hobbs, Service Director, Leicester City Council Housing Department (1)

Wally Holynski, Commissioning Manager, Melton, Rutland and Harborough Primary Care Trust (2)

Wendy Poynton, Director of Development and Operational Practice, Leicestershire Youth Offending Service (3)

Flick Schofield, Assistant Director, Leicestershire County Council Social Services Department

Mick Studley, Director, Leicestershire and Rutland Victim Support

Caroline Hall, Lay Advisor

Caroline Roberts, Lay Advisor

1 Representing all Social Housing Providers, Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland

2 Representing the Leicestershire Health Services Primary Care Trusts

3 Representing Leicester City and Leicestershire Youth Offending Services.

32
 THE MAPPA OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT GROUP
Pat Hobbs, Service Director, Leicester City Council Housing Department (Chair)

Steven Attwood, Head of Service, Children and Families Department, Rutland County Council

Krystyna Findley, Assistant Chief Officer, National Probation Service, Leicestershire and Rutland Area

Pat Nawrockyi, Service Manager, Child Protection, Leicester City Council Social Care and Health Department

Paul Dempsey, Acting Service Manager, Forensic Mental Health Service, Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust

Bob Parker, Service Manager, Child Protection, Leicestershire County Council Social Services Department

Chris Tew, Detective Superintendent, Leicestershire Constabulary.

MAPPP CORE PANEL MEMBERS

Steven Attwood, Head of Service, Children and Families Dept., Rutland County Council

Moira Bartlett, Governor, HMP Stocken, HM Prison Service, East Midlands Region

Krystyna Findley, Assistant Chief Officer, National Probation Service, Leicestershire and Rutland Area
Pat Nawrockyi, Service Manager, Child Protection, Leicester City Council Social Care and Health Department

Paul Dempsey, Acting Service Manager, Forensic Mental Health Service, Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust

Bob Parker, Service Manager, Child Protection, Leicestershire County Council Social Services Department

John Thomson, Neighbourhood Housing Manager, Leicester City Council Housing Department

Chris Redfern, Detective Chief Inspector, Leicestershire Constabulary.

MAPPP MANAGER/MAPPA CO-ORDINATOR

Bob Petrie, Senior Probation Officer, National Probation Service, Leicestershire and Rutland Area (seconded).

MAPPP MANAGER/MAPPA CO-ORDINATOR

Jo Brown, Administrative Officer, Leicestershire Constabulary.

33
Electronic versions of the report are available from the following websites:
www.leics.police.uk
www.leicsprobation.co.uk
www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk

Questions or comments concerning the MAPPA can be sent to the Lay Advisors:
Lay Advisor
c/o MAPPA Co-ordinator
Leicestershire Constabulary HQ
Enderby
Leicestershire LE19 2BX

Any comments or questions will be shared with the Strategic Management Board.

34
 All general pictures featured in this report have been
used to give a pictorial representation of the work of
the MAPPA in Leicestershire and Rutland. No person
shown in street scenes or pictured commercial or
council buildings are connected with the MAPPA.

35
Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland
Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements

Contacts

National Probation Service Address Phone

Ms Krystyna Findley 2 St John Street 0116 251 6008

Assistant Chief Officer Leicester LE1 3BE
Krystyna.Findley@leicestershire.probation.gsx.gov.uk

Leicestershire Constabulary Address Phone

Chris Tew Specialist Crime Investigation Dept. 0116 222 2222

Superintendent Leicestershire Constabulary HQ,
chris.tew@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk Enderby
Leicestershire LE19 2BX

HM Prison Service Address Phone

Ms Hilary Fielder East Midlands South Area Office 0116 281 4000
Area Resettlement Co-ordinator Empriss House, Unit C
hilary.fielder@hmps.gsi.gov.uk Harcourt Way, Meridian Business Park
Leicester LE19 1WP

MAPPA Unit Address Phone

Bob Petrie Leicestershire Constabulary HQ 0116 222 2222

MAPPA Co-ordinator Enderby extension 5293
Bob.Petrie@leicestershire.probation.gsx.gov.uk Leicestershire LE19 2BX