Nottinghamshire

Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements

Annual Report 2002-3
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 government’s 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
Government’s 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.
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 – who 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 Directorate’s 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
Area’s 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 5 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) are 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
offenders’ 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 Service’s website
www.probation.homeoffice.gov.uk (under the public protection
section) with all of them being available once the last Area has
published its annual report in September.
1. Area Summary

Multi-agency Arrangements for public protection have been

established in Nottinghamshire since 1998. Building on the strong
inter-agency working arrangements for child protection, and under the
auspices of the local Area Child Protection Committees, a protocol
was established and launched as “The Inter- Agency Framework and
Procedures for the Risk Management of Potentially Dangerous
People in Nottinghamshire” in 1998.

In 2000, criminal justice agencies in Nottinghamshire, with partner

agencies in the fields of child protection, social and health care and
housing agreed to develop and fund a Multi-Agency Public Protection
post: the MAPP Manager/Co-ordinator. A further framework: “The
Nottinghamshire Public Protection Protocol, Policy, Guidance and
Procedures” was produced. These procedures, for the management
of individuals who pose a risk of harm in Nottinghamshire, have been
in place since the launch of the Protocol in January 2001. The first
Nottinghamshire MAPPA Annual Report in 2001/2 contains an
account of the setting up of the protocol and procedures which now
constitute our framework for the MAPPA arrangements under the
Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000.

The MAPP Manager co-ordinates the arrangements for risk

management, and this post continues to be funded by the original
agencies: Nottinghamshire Police, National Probation Service –
Nottinghamshire Area, Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire
County Council, Nottingham and North Nottinghamshire Health
Authorities and the Nottinghamshire Healthcare Trust. These funding
arrangements are based on the strong commitment that the agencies
all have towards the principle that the community is best safeguarded
by an inter agency approach to the assessment and management of
those individuals who pose a risk of harm to others.

Police and Probation staff in Nottinghamshire (the Responsible

Authority under Section 67 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services
Act 2000) lead the arrangements, working closely in assessing and
managing the risk of all relevant offenders. However, the
management of those who pose a high or very high risk of harm
needs the commitment of partner agencies in the statutory and
voluntary sectors. Information needs to be shared to formulate risk
management plans and thus put into place the necessary actions for
their particular roles in risk management.

The agencies involved in the arrangements approach public

protection work from different perspectives, and undertake different
roles. However, public protection is both strengthened by these
varying perspectives and roles and is enhanced by staff who hold
complementary skills, knowledge and expertise. In the last three
years of multi-agency working, agencies have developed a greater
understanding of each other’s values and ethics, and have
established shared objectives that are centred on protecting children,
vulnerable people and the community in general. Staff working on
public protection understand that safeguarding the community (“risk
reduction”), is a process which involves not only accurate information
sharing and assessments, but a complementary mix of prevention,
rehabilitation and control.

Underpinning the values of all agencies is a shared understanding of

the need to balance the rights and responsibilities of the offenders
with the right of the public to be protected. Consequently we have
been able, through these arrangements, to share information and
make detailed and specific action plans to manage individuals.
These action plans both enable the offenders to engage in work
designed to help them reduce their risk through treatment
interventions (either in custody or in the community) and, allow the
responsible agencies to monitor and interrupt their behaviour through
external controls such as statutory conditions, orders or recall to
prison.

During the past year public protection work with individuals has
included a more diverse set of agency staff including:

ƒ Victim Contact
ƒ Community mental health teams
ƒ Outreach services to the homeless
ƒ Forensic services in the sphere of low, medium and high security
ƒ Social care services with vulnerable adults, those with learning
difficulties, and those with young people and children
ƒ Housing authorities and housing providers in the independent
sector
ƒ Young offender institutions and the adult prison estate
ƒ Youth offending teams
ƒ Health providers in hospitals and general practice and in the
community e.g. occupational health
ƒ Police in local communities and in specialist provision such as
child abuse investigation, domestic violence and the sexual
exploitation of children
ƒ Benefit agency and employment services
ƒ Education welfare
ƒ Leisure services

In the next year, in order to implement the Home Office MAPPA

Guidance, further liaison and negotiation between the MAPP
Manager and these agencies should lead to a series of “memoranda
of understanding” or brief protocols which can become part of the
re-written Nottinghamshire Protocol.

The 2001/2 MAPPA Annual Report describes the operation of the

Sections 67 & 68 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000
in Nottinghamshire. The assessment procedures within police and
probation remain as described, however the police and probation
services have developed operational structures during the past year,
which reflect the heightened need to centre services around risk
assessment and management.

The vehicles to manage offenders who are assessed as high and

very high risk of harm remain the Risk Strategy Meeting (RSM) and
the Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel (MAPPP).

In general, the vast majority of sexual and violent offenders can be

managed at the level of the single agency, usually either police or
probation, with assessment based on shared information between
appropriate agencies.
Those whose risk of harm is assessed at a higher level, need greater
levels of resource and intervention. In the city, the probation service
has restructured in order to create a team of specialist probation staff
to manage the high-risk offenders at a more intensive level. This
team works in close liaison with the Dangerous Persons Management
Unit (DPMU) who are police officers based within CID. Together, the
two agencies lead the public protection work on these offenders,
bringing in many other partner agencies to share information and
manage the risks presented. In the city and county, specific days are
set aside for Risk Strategy Meetings on offenders, so that staff time is
more efficiently and effectively managed in both the police and
probation services.

At the same time, the Nottinghamshire Police have recognised the

need to re-structure around public protection. This planned re-
structuring will be implemented from April 2003, when the DPMU,
whose role is the management of Registered Sex Offenders along
with other sexual and violent offenders, are brought alongside the
Child Abuse Investigation Unit (CAIU) and the Anti-Vice Squad under
a Detective Superintendent, Detective Chief Inspector and Detective
Inspector responsible for public protection. This more effective
working arrangement recognises the interrelated strands of protection
and management in the work of the police.

The MAPP Manager remains pivotal in public protection, co-

ordinating information sharing and interventions not only between
police and probation, but also with the different agencies, outlined
above, who are involved in providing a service to both victims and
offenders and the community of Nottinghamshire in general.
2. Roles and Responsibilities: Who is involved and what they do
The Nottinghamshire Police and
Nottinghamshire Probation area (as
the Responsible Authority) work
together in the identification,
assessment and management of
relevant sexual and violent
offenders, as described in the
Criminal Justice and Court Services
Act 2000 Sections 67 and 68.
In practice, risk assessment and
management is carried out by police
and probation officers through the
operation of risk of re-conviction and
risk of harm tools, and the
procedures detailed in the
Nottinghamshire Protocol.
MAPP arrangements are in place,
operated via the Protocol to manage
offenders at different levels:
offenders who are assessed as
posing a lower risk are managed at
single agency level, following the
collation of information from other
agencies e.g. SSD, prison, mental
health services. Those who are
identified as presenting a higher risk
need to be managed by processes
involving more agencies and
detailed co-ordination, through the
vehicles of the Risk Strategy
Meeting (RSM) or the Multi-Agency
Public Protection Panel: the MAPPP.
i. Police
In Nottinghamshire the police role of
identification and assessment of
sexual and violent offenders remains
within the remit of the specialist unit,
the Dangerous Persons
Management Unit (DPMU). The
unit is responsible for maintaining
the register of sex offenders who are
obliged to notify the police of their
details, and any changes. The unit
is also responsible for initiating
prosecutions for failures to comply
with the Sex Offenders Act 1976.
The unit therefore carries out the
responsibilities of the police under
the Criminal Justice and Court
Services Act 2000.
The risk assessments undertaken by
detectives in the DPMU, in
conjunction with senior police
officers, are done in close
collaboration with colleagues in
probation and social service
departments who are actively
involved in the issues of child
protection, child sexual exploitation,
protection of vulnerable adults,
others in the care sector and the
field of mental and physical health.
The DPMU maintains responsibility
for managing all offenders whose
shared risk assessment indicates
that they are at either “high” or “very
high” risk of re-offending seriously.
The DPMU aims to continually
consider all offenders who pose a
high risk of serious harm, and to
monitor their situation.
Those sex offenders subject to the
Sex Offenders Act 1997, who are
assessed as posing a low or medium
risk of re-conviction, are managed at
a Local Area Command level. This
means that officers can use their
local knowledge to monitor the
situation and liaise with the DPMU.
The Multi-Agency Public Protection
Manager works alongside the
detectives in the DPMU. In this way
professional expertise, information,
risk assessment and management is
shared on an immediate day-to-day
basis.
ii. Probation
A risk of harm assessment is
undertaken on all individuals in
contact with the service, by
probation staff in Nottinghamshire.
This process starts pre-court where
information is shared with police,
social service or health staff as
appropriate. In respect of the
relevant offenders detailed in the
Criminal Justice and Court Services
Act 2000, the risk assessment
informs court reports, sentence
planning in prisons, pre-release
planning, and in the supervision
planning of community orders.
Across the National Probation
Service a new and detailed offender
assessment system (OASys) has
been developed and implemented.
This assessment tool is used to
assess the factors which have a
bearing both on an individual’s
offending, and on the factors directly
related to the risk of harm they pose
if they should re-offend. OASys is
now being used to assess levels of
risk and develop risk management
plans. It complements the police
risk of re-conviction tool (Risk Matrix
2000). Both assessment systems
use the same four levels of risk: low,
medium, high and very high. From
this year, OASys will be introduced
throughout the prison system. This
will produce more consistency in
assessment and definition across
the criminal justice system.
All assessments are made using
information from other agencies, and
reviewed at key stages in their
sentence or order. Those offenders
who pose a high or very high risk of
harm are ‘risk-registered’ within the
probation service systems and
managed through the framework of
the Risk Strategy Meeting and/or
MAPP Panel, as outlined in the
Nottinghamshire Protocol.
iii. Partners in Risk
Management
Police and probation work together
within the Nottinghamshire MAPP
Arrangements on a day-to-day basis.
In the main, there needs to be no
more inter-agency action than
sharing information and making a
multi-agency risk assessment. Most
offenders are managed by one
agency on the basis of that shared
information and assessment.
However the sharing of information
and formulation of risk of harm
assessments, and the management
of the high and very high risk
offenders depends on the
collaboration and co-operation of a
number of other agencies involved in
the area of care and control.
iv. Social Services
Departments
In Nottinghamshire the social
services departments are committed
to working with the criminal justice
agencies in protecting different
groups within our communities.
Child Protection Teams are used to
working together with police and
probation officers, and relevant
partner agencies in accordance with
area child protection procedures.
Other teams within the social
services are now following this
model within the multi-agency public
protection procedures. In Risk
Strategy Meetings and Panels,
social workers (with responsibility for
areas across the board such as
people with learning difficulties,
physical disabilities and mental
health problems and those working
in hospitals or residential settings),
have taken part in devising risk
management plans, and agreed to
actions designed to protect potential
victims.
v. The Health Service
Health services cover a huge range
of provision. In particular, in the
field of specialist forensic mental
health and learning disabilities, drug
and alcohol treatment practitioners
have played their part in public
protection through participation in
multi-agency plans to minimise risk
to patients, staff and the public.
vi. Youth Offending education, environmental and
Service licensing departments working
through community safety
partnerships and forums.
The Youth Offending Teams are part
of the criminal justice system, and as
In particular the housing sector
such they manage the young
(including the independent sector)
offenders who may present a risk to
has played an essential role in the
others. However these children and
management plans drawn up by the
young people are also themselves
agencies to deal with individuals who
sometimes very damaged by their
current childhood experiences, and
are already living in the community
or who need to be resettled after
may have been the victims of
release from institutions. The
offenders also being managed by
provision of appropriate
the police and probation services.
accommodation, which minimises an
The Youth Offender Teams are
individual’s risk to others, is one of
therefore important in the working
the most important risk management
together process between child
tools we have available. When a
protection, police and probation
person is housed as safely as
services and take part in the Risk
possible it becomes easier for
Strategy Meetings and Panel
partner agencies to monitor them
processes where young people may
and put further actions in place such
be the subject of a management
as electronically monitored curfews
plan, or are indeed, victims who
or exclusion conditions. Housing
need further protection.
authorities are drawing up local
strategies for providing services for
vulnerable people. Housing those
vii. The Prison Service individuals who are at a high risk of
Agency re-offending are part of these
strategies, and are a vital part of the
The role of prisons in the risk commitment to protecting the public.
management of offenders has been
critical in the past year. The prison
service is an integral part of the ix. Outreach Service Teams
Panel, and it is expected that
relevant prison staff attend meetings
Teams who are part of the provision
at either Risk Strategy Meeting or
of outreach services to the
Panel level. Information about
homeless, whether in the field of
prisoners’ behaviour in prison, their
accommodation, physical and
attitudes, contacts and their
mental health or drug and alcohol
participation in any therapeutic
programmes has been invaluable in
treatment have also played their part
in the management of high risk
planning the safer resettlement of
individuals in the community in the
high-risk offenders.
city and county.
All this risk management work will be
viii. City and County further developed in the coming year
Councils in response to government
legislation and guidance.
All local authority departments have
participated in the implementation of
risk management procedures.
Involvement has come from leisure,
3. The Operational of the MAPPA: How the arrangements work
The probation and police services,
by the nature of their statutory
duties, take the lead role in the
assessment and management of the
relevant offenders within our MAPP
Arrangements, as described in the
previous section.
Although the figure of almost 700
offenders who came within the
arrangements appears large, the
majority of these individuals are
managed at the lowest levels of
normal single agency management.
Under one third of these offenders,
who are the responsibility of the
probation service, need to be
referred to higher levels. In the
same way, one third of the
registered sex offenders might be
assessed as needing to be managed
centrally. The rest remain the
responsibility of police local area
command to monitor.
The high-risk sexual and violent
offenders, who are the statutory
responsibility of the probation
service, are supervised closely
according to national standards;
managing their risk of harm is
prioritised in plans for their
supervision. In the case of
registered sex offenders who pose
high risk of re-conviction, the DPMU
prioritise home visits and monitoring.
The Risk Strategy Meeting and
Panel meetings provide the vehicles
for the assessment and
management of these offenders.
Their objectives are the same: to
share information between agencies,
make multi-agency risk assessments
and develop multi-agency risk
management plans. Both sets of
meetings therefore follow the same
agenda, taking into account
information on the offender and
his/her behaviour from various
sources, including the experience
and concerns of the victims. Most
high-risk offenders are the subjects
of Risk Strategy Meetings; only 39
offenders were subjects of the
highest level of management i.e. the
MAPP Panel. Attendance at these
meetings comprises representatives
from all agencies and departments
that have a part to play in the public
protection process. There is a core
membership on the Panel, which
meets monthly on a pre-determined
date. It is convened and chaired by
the MAPP manager and has the
services of an Administrator. Any
agency can refer an individual to the
Panel if they meet the criteria of
highest risk of serious harm.
The Panel
The MAPP Panel comprises senior
managers representing; police,
probation, child protection services,
health, forensic psychology, local
authority housing, prison and the
youth offending services, covering
the city and county. There is a
process for the inclusion of senior
managers from other departments,
projects or agencies on particular
cases such as education, welfare,
health commissioning services,
community mental health services,
drug/alcohol treatment or psychiatric
services. Senior management is
necessary at Panel level because of
the level of decision making
necessary e.g. in terms of
resourcing, speed of response to a
situation, or specialist information.
Each month individual cases are
presented to the Panel by a referring
agency, such as the probation
service. A probation officer
accompanied by a senior probation
officer would then present the case
to the panel. The Panel comes to a
joint assessment of what risks are
posed and devises a risk
management plan. The proceedings
and the decisions taken, are noted
by the Administrator who acts as
secretary to the Panel. The Panel
also decides whether the individual
meets the criteria for registration on
the Public Protection Register.
Only 14 cases remain registered at
the end of 2002/03. These cases
comprise individuals whose risk are
assessed as the most serious and
difficult to manage, and includes also
cases who are the subject of intense
media interest (as this carries with it
associated risk to others and the
public in general). The Public
Protection Register is held, in
confidence, by the MAPP Manager.
The role of the MAPP Manager is to
manage and co-ordinate the
operation of the Panel on behalf of
all the agencies involved.
Risk Strategy Meetings operate on
the level below the Panel, however
attendance mirrors the Panel, but at
team management and practitioner
level. During 2002/03 with
probation, essential agencies such
as housing, mental health, social
services, prison, and police (either
from the DPMU or local area
command) have consistently
attended Risk Strategy Meetings.
Both Panels and Risk Strategy
Meetings operate the MAPP
Arrangements by devising and
acting on risk management plans.
Such plans contain a series of
actions for the different agencies,
and a number of tools that can be
used to manage the different risks
presented. Since 1991 public
protection legislation has been
enacted which allows us to monitor
and control, to some extent, an
offender’s behaviour. We can never
eliminate risk, but we can seek to
reduce the likelihood of an event
happening and/or the seriousness of
such an event.
Other controls
External and internal controls can be
used. We have more offenders now
who were sentenced to lengthier
sentences and longer periods of
supervision post-release. This has
allowed prisons to work with
offenders on Sex Offender
Treatment Programmes, and
probation to work with these
individuals on licence supervision on
relapse prevention strategies. In
the community, there has been a
rollout of tested, effective
Community Sex Offender
Programmes and these are used on
community orders or during
extended periods of licence
supervision. These treatment
programmes, alongside effective
treatment delivered by partner
psychiatric and psychological
services, allow high-risk offenders to
develop internal strategies for
preventing re-offending. In the
same way, conditions in licences
and on community orders which
bring offenders into drug or alcohol
programmes, work on giving
offenders responsibility for
controlling their offending behaviour,
and lead to sanctions such as recall
if the offender does not co-operate.
Other ways of managing offenders
include the imposition of more
external controls, for example
conditions in licences which exclude
or ban offenders from forms of
employment, or places or areas, or
from contacting their victims or those
with whom they offended. The
electronically monitored curfew (tag)
has been used on a number of
occasions with high-risk offenders in
order to interrupt their pattern of
behaviour and protect particular
categories of victim such as children.
We have found in managing risk
effectively one of the most important
factors (particularly on release from
prison), is suitable accommodation.
Conditions of residence are
commonly used in licences, often to
approved hostels or other residential
units, which might offer specific
treatment or offending behaviour
programmes. Most importantly,
local authority housing departments
have worked within the public
protection arrangements to house
individuals in accommodation
appropriate to their risks and needs.
This is unquestionably a sensitive
issue for many councils and
authorities, but without stable
accommodation the agencies cannot
monitor offenders and offenders
themselves cannot access the
programmes which promote them
taking responsibility for their
offending, and to work towards some
level of rehabilitation. Evidence
demonstrates that individuals are
much more likely to become
vulnerable and to offend, if they
cannot access housing provision.
The Crown Court has yet to make
use of the restraining order on sex
offenders. This order is made at the
time of sentence and is designed to
prevent sex offenders, on release or
during custody, from re-victimising
their victims or behaving in ways
which could lead to offending. On
the other hand, the Magistrates’
Courts have now made 23 Sex
Offender Orders in Nottinghamshire,
and 6 have been imposed on
individuals during 2002/03. The
Sex Offender Order was introduced
in the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act.
It is civil order, applied for and
managed by the police. It is a
preventative order. This means it is
used to prevent offending rather than
as a punishment for an offence that
has been committed. It is used
primarily with offenders who have
come to the attention of agencies
because their inappropriate
behaviour is causing concern. An
offence has not been committed, but
the individual’s behaviour may be
mirroring their previous pre-offending
behaviour.
The decision to pursue a Sex
Offender Order in order to manage a
sex offender is always taken on a
multi-agency basis, at a Risk
Strategy Meeting or Panel meeting.
The final decision is made at senior
officer level in the police service.
The DPMU officers work with the
police service Solicitor in applying for
the order.
The DPMU officers are responsible
for managing the sex offender
orders. They do this through visiting
the offender at their home and
monitoring local intelligence. The
Sex Offender Order itself sometimes
works as an internal control for some
offenders; it acts as a constant
reminder to them that they must not
put themselves in risky situations. It
is also an effective method of
external control; offenders are
prevented from doing things, or
going to places where they are more
likely to offend. Any breach of one
of the Order’s conditions constitutes
an offence, punishable by up to 5
years in prison. In 2002/03, 7
offenders were returned to custody
for breach of the Sex Offender
Order. One offender was sentenced
to the maximum of 5 years
imprisonment; others were
sentenced to shorter periods of
imprisonment.
In addition to managing the Sex
Offender Orders, the DPMU manage
the higher risk registered sex
offenders and liaise with local areas
on the lower risk registered sex
offenders. The police have limited
powers under the Sex Offenders Act
1997, but they home visit to ensure
the presence of offenders at their
registered addresses, and take
further appropriate actions if they
receive intelligence which is of
concern on any registered sex
offender in Nottinghamshire. After
statutory periods of offender
supervision come to an end, the
police are often the key agency
involved in public protection. They
will use the skills of the beat officer,
community police and any
surveillance evidence to monitor
behaviour and pass concerns to the
DPMU if necessary.
A further risk management device is
the use of disclosure of information.
The police have an important and
general power to disclose
information for the prevention,
detection and reduction of crime.
All agencies who are part of the
public protection framework have
agreed a set of principles with
respect to disclosure. The main
principle is that disclosure should
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
4. The Strategic Management of MAPPA
The MAPP Arrangements are
overseen by a strategic
management Steering Group. The
Steering Group was set up under the
Nottinghamshire Protocol and has
been renamed the Strategic
Management Board and has been
reviewed, within the framework of
the Criminal Justice and Court
Services Act 2000.
The Strategic Management Board
has historically represented at
strategic level, the member agencies
that have made a commitment to the
multi-agency management of
potentially dangerous people in
Nottinghamshire. In 2002/03, senior
staff from the health service,
covering both the city and county,
police, probation and the offices of
the City and County Councils’ Chief
Executives have attended meetings.
increase a potential victim’s ability to
protect themselves or others, and it
should be part of an agreed strategy
with clear boundaries, and within a
risk management plan. Decisions to
disclose information are made on a
case by case basis and any
recommendation to disclose must be
approved by the police at Assistant
Chief Constable level.
In Nottinghamshire, disclosure as a
protective device has been made to
individuals either directly affected by
the risk of harm or to those who hold
a level of responsibility towards
others and have an ability to act on
the information to protect themselves
or others. Disclosure has been
made to particular employers,
schools, parents and projects in the
past year. The probation service
The Strategic Management Board
functions to agree and review the
effective operation of the MAPPA. It
has been chaired, and sits within the
remit of, the Chief Probation Officer
for the Nottinghamshire Probation
Area.
The Strategic Management Board
has met quarterly in the last year
and received reports from the MAPP
Manager on the function of the
arrangements; it is strategically
responsible for the preparation of
this MAPPA Annual Report 2002/03.
As a result of the increased
demands of proposed legislation
concerning MAPPA (i.e. the closer
working arrangements that need to
be negotiated with agencies and
local authority departments who will
have a “duty to co-operate” with the
has a statutory duty to share the
risks that certain offenders present
with the employment services, and
this is done routinely to prevent
individuals working in jobs which
could make others vulnerable to
them.
All these risk management devices,
(which can be very intrusive in a
person’s life), are imposed only after
a thorough risk assessment. They
have therefore to be both
appropriate to the individual case
and proportionate to the risks posed
bearing in mind the rights and
obligations of all concerned in the
process i.e. agencies, offender and
victim.
MAPPA), associated MAPPA
guidance, and to further legislation
concerning sexual offences, the
Strategic Management Board have
agreed the creation of an additional
MAPP manager post.
The new post of “MAPPA Strategy
and Policy Officer” is an innovative
response to the Strategic
Management Board’s strategic
function and the “Responsible
Authority’s” statutory duty to put in
place effective arrangements in
respect of the management of
sexual and other violent offenders,
and to review and evaluate the
workings of the MAPPA. The
Strategic and Policy Officer’s key
role is to service the Strategic
Management Board in ensuring that
the arrangements are compliant with
legislation for the protection of the
public and that all agencies involved
are able to implement the
arrangements. The dedication of a
full-time officer to the strategic
development of the MAPPA will
ensure that links will be made across
agencies and committees involved in
the protection of the public and
vulnerable groups e.g. the Area
Child Protection Committees and the
Nottinghamshire Committee for the
Protection of Vulnerable Adults; that
lessons and recommendations from
reports and enquiries will be
pursued; and that the Responsible
Authority can carry out an effective
on-going review and evaluation of
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
5. Victim Work
The Nottinghamshire Probation Area
is committed to enhancing the
position of victims of crime within the
criminal justice system; there is also
a strong link between the statutory
victim contact service provided by
probation, and victim support
schemes locally.
In practice, direct victim contact work
is undertaken by a specialist team of
probation staff who are located
throughout the county. A detailed
policy and practice guidance are in
place which direct the work of the
probation Victim Contact Unit.
The victim contact staff have aligned
their practice with the duty imposed
on them by the Criminal Justice and
Court Services Act 2000, Section 69.
Under this section more victims of
sexual and violent offences have
had their concerns recognised and
often allayed through receiving
accurate and timely information.
Victims are given the opportunity to
be kept informed about a custodial
sentence, of expressing any
how we are carrying out the public
protection function as laid down in
current and forthcoming legislation.
The original post of MAPP Manager,
within which the growing area of
policy development was carried out,
can then be wholly devoted to
operational matters. The MAPP
Manager will continue to be
responsible for the operation of the
MAPP Panel, and the joint working
arrangements for the management
of relevant sexual and violent
offenders. They will also be able to
develop the post in line with the
further MAPPA Guidance and work
concerns about the offender’s
eventual return to the community,
and to make representations
concerning conditions which could
be attached to a prison licence. In
Nottinghamshire, in response to the
Criminal Justice and Court Services
Act 2000, every victim of a sexual or
other violent crime (where the
offender is sentenced to 12 months
imprisonment or more) is contacted
by the Victim Contact Unit within two
months of the offender receiving the
prison sentence. Victims are offered
a home visit, with an appointment
date; if a person does not want
contact, that is clearly respected.
Some victims do not want home
visits at that early stage, but want to
be kept informed about release
times and any future possibility of
meeting accidentally with their
perpetrator. Some home visits are
done on a multi-agency basis in
conjunction with staff from Victim
Support and the police service.
Many victims who have experienced
serious physically and emotionally
closely with the Strategy and Policy
Officer on reviewing and evaluating
the performance of the
arrangements.
The Strategic Management Board
has decided that both public
protection posts will be multi-agency
funded, which is a strong and
tangible message that across the
health, probation and police services
and the City and County Councils
there is an on-going commitment to
protecting the community in
Nottinghamshire from harm.
damaging assaults retain
understandable fears about what
may happen to them in the future,
depending on what happens to the
offender who has hurt them. Their
concerns often centre around
whether the offender could escape
from custody, concerns for their
safety if they are forced to give
evidence at a trial and the
perpetrator can then recognise them,
and on-going fears of harassment
when the offender is released, or
fear of the offender returning to live
in the victim’s home area.
Positioning victim contact within the
probation service’s work has meant
that staff working with the
perpetrators, take into account when
assessing and planning to manage
the risks presented, the victim’s
experience, fears and concerns.
Systems are in place to ensure that
at strategic points in an offender’s
sentence, probation officers can use
firm information to make more
informed judgements. Sharing
information both empowers victims
and protects them. In Risk Strategy
Meetings and Panels, information
from the Victim Contact Unit is fed in
via the probation officers. This
informs any pre-release actions, and
risk management plans, and enables
us to work pro-actively on behalf of
past victims as well as any potential
future victims. We can include in
post custody licences, a number of
conditions, which can address for
the victims’ fears e.g. conditions of
residence, exclusions from specific
areas or conditions of non-contact
with past victims. Any breaches of
these types of condition normally
results in the offender being returned
to custody. Whilst the probation
officers dealing with the perpetrator
work on behalf of victims in this way,
alongside other agencies such as
police and housing, different
probation staff working within victim
contact work can directly re-assure
and empower victims by informing
them of the measures being taken to
meet their personal concerns.
Information from victims has
enhanced the work done within the
MAPP Arrangements. It has
enabled agencies to take direct
action to minimise the risk of re-
victimisation, and because of its
particular perspective, victim
information has proved invaluable in
the process of assessment, thus
contributing directly to the risk
management plan and the protection
of future victims.
Often working in conjunction with
probation Victim Contact, Victim
Support is the charity for people
affected by crime. It is an
independent organisation, offering a
free and confidential service,
whether or not a crime has been
reported. Trained staff and
volunteers at local branches offer
information and support to victims,
witnesses, their families and friends.
Victim Support provides the Witness
Service, based in every criminal
court in England and Wales, to offer
assistance before, during and after a
trial. You can also call the Victim
Support Line – 0845 30 30 900 – for
more information and support and
details of local services and relevant
organisations.
Victim Contact and Victim Support
Scheme details are provided at the
end of this report.
.
6. Case Studies
CASE STUDY ONE:
Importance of health and housing
involvement in the MAPPA
An offender who had been recalled
to prison for breaching a condition of
his licence was due to be re-
released without statutory
supervision.
Background
ƒ Long history of violent offending
coupled with history of alcohol
abuse.
ƒ Present sentence for sexual and
other violence.
ƒ No evidence of any positive
change in attitudes or behaviour
during prison sentence.
ƒ Disruptive behaviour in prison,
subject to outbursts of anger,
loss of control and threatening
behaviour towards staff.
ƒ Previous psychiatric diagnosis of
depression and an untreatable
personality disorder
ƒ Lost accommodation when
originally sentenced;
accommodated with family on
previous release but this option
is no longer available.
ƒ Recalled to prison the day after
release on licence for breach of
condition of non-contact with
victim.
ƒ Housing project assessed
offender as too high risk to be
housed with other vulnerable
people; still claiming symptoms
of psychopathy.
Risk and Assessment
ƒ High risk of serious
sexual/violent assault on
previous victim.
ƒ High risk of violent assault on
others as a result of deterioration
in his mental health and/or
alcohol abuse, lack of stable
accommodation or access to GP
or psychiatric intervention.
Risk Management Plan
ƒ Liaison with health service to
ensure early access to GP with
knowledge of risks to victim and
others.
ƒ Consultant psychologist agreed
to re-refer offender to forensic
mental health allocations
meeting to secure timely
psychological/psychiatric
intervention.
ƒ Housing agreed to prioritise
housing application for time of
release.
ƒ Risks flagged on police
intelligence system for fast
response. DPMU involvement.
ƒ Victim to be visited by police re
safety systems to be put in
place.
ƒ DPMU to plan visits under Sex
Offender Act 1997 to monitor
offender and alcohol use.
Outcome
ƒ Housing department prioritised
the application and an
appropriate address was
allocated on release.
ƒ GP allocated by health services.
ƒ Mental health assessment
undertaken; community
psychiatric nurse allocated to the
case.
ƒ Consultant psychiatrist and
psychologist engaged offender
in treatment, motivated to work
on violent offending.
ƒ Offender notified details of
address to police.
ƒ DPMU visited at different times
to monitor situation.
ƒ Victim helped to move address
under the appropriate legislation;
new GP and new address
checked in order that offender
and victim’s home area were not
the same.
Although the offender complied
initially with his registration
obligations, he then moved without
notifying his details, and moved once
again and complied. Visits by the
DPMU lead to prosecution under the
Sex Offender Act 1997. However,
since this offender’s risks have been
greatly reduced and he became
stabilised with psychiatric oversight
and a settled address, all agencies
involved in the court process worked
towards a non-custodial sentence as
the best risk management plan.
CASE STUDY TWO: Risks Outcome
Surveillance and control
ƒ Very high risk of serious sexual ƒ Surveillance enabled the
Two offenders were referred to the assaults against children. offenders to be tracked to
MAPP Panel by the police service. Nottingham.
ƒ High risk of the offenders
Background disappearing immediately and ƒ DPMU visited, having prioritised
being unmonitored in the this very high-risk case.
community.
ƒ Both offenders were prolific,
ƒ Fail to register the address
entrenched, predatory
ƒ Risk Management Plan within the permitted time was
paedophiles with a history of
pursued.
sexual offences, who had met
ƒ Nottinghamshire police service
within the prison system.
were to liaise with other services ƒ Sex Offender Orders were
in the area of offender’s release, imposed on both offenders.
ƒ Evidence from prison security
and with prison from which
revealed plans to meet and
offender was to be released. ƒ Sex Offender Orders also
commit serious sexual offences
imposes sex offender
against children.
ƒ Police to track the progress of registration on the second
both men together across the offender.
ƒ One offender was due to be
country.
released from prison
ƒ Disclosure to the relevant church
unconditionally, following recall
ƒ Police to visit wherever authorities enabled them to
for breach of licence conditions.
offenders eventually settled. protect their congregations.
ƒ Risks were seriously heightened
ƒ Information on current church ƒ One offender accommodated in
by association with each other.
involvement to be gained. a way that minimises the risks to
children.
ƒ Neither offender was subject to
ƒ MAPP Manager to inform the
any statutory supervision or
Diocesan Child Protection ƒ Both offenders vigorously
oversight by any agency.
Officer, for involvement by the monitored.
Church.
ƒ Only one offender was a
ƒ Both sex offenders arrested for
registered sex offender, subject
ƒ Possible disclosure discussed breach of their sex offender
to notifying his details to the
and put before Assistant Chief orders and are currently
police.
Constable. remanded in custody.
ƒ Community religious groups had
ƒ Evidence of behaviour mirroring
been used in the past as a way
previous pre-offending behaviour
of gaining credibility in the
to be collected.
community and targeting families
with young children.
ƒ Application for Sex Offender
Order discussed as an external
ƒ It was not clear where these two
control method, and way of
men would travel, but they had
separating the offenders.
transport and intended to
immediately meet up.
ƒ Housing department agreed to
look at appropriate
accommodation for one offender
to enable the separation.
CASE STUDY THREE:
Importance of close liaison
between police and probation
This offender was referred to the
MAPP Panel by the probation
service.
Background
ƒ Previous offences for sexual
assault of young boys.
ƒ Pattern of offending indicated an
ability to groom children over a
long period of time; used various
devices to gain their interest and
trust.
ƒ Gained positions in the
community, which brought trust
and kudos e.g. volunteer and
charity work.
ƒ On a community order he failed
to comply with any conditions
willingly: avoided reporting,
giving information and did not
comply with the sex offender
treatment programme.
ƒ Networking with other known
offenders who were in his
address when police visited.
ƒ History of other dishonesty on
going; abuse of vulnerable
people and their identification
cards for different services.
ƒ Community order was revoked
and no statutory supervision was
then in place.
ƒ Accommodation was unsettled
as the local authority had been
the subject of his dishonesty; in
hostel accommodation.
Risks
ƒ High risk of serious sexual
abuse of vulnerable children in
vulnerable families by
ingratiating himself and
assuming the role of trusted
adult.
Risk Management Plan
ƒ Accommodation issues were to
be managed by police and
MAPP Manager liaison with the
homeless hostel.
ƒ The offender’s behaviour at the
hostel was to be monitored
closely to prevent grooming of
staff to obtain access to their
families.
ƒ Settled accommodation was
necessary in order to better
monitor the offender and
manage his risks: the hostel
project would refer to housing
associations.
ƒ Disclosure to any housing
association that agreed to
consider the offender was
sought from the ACC.
ƒ Sex offender order was
discussed at the Panel and it
was agreed to look at evidence
for an application by the police.
ƒ The probation service agreed to
write reports for court on various
offences of dishonesty and on
breach, proposing sentences
which could result in an
opportunity for the offender to
engage in treatment
programmes in prison.
ƒ The police would monitor any
employment and risk, frequently,
under the Sex Offender Act
1997.
Outcome
ƒ The MAPP Manager wrote to
Housing Associations alerting
them to the need to refer to the
Housing Panel member for
information on the offender if he
should apply to them.
ƒ Accommodation was allocated
via a housing association which
enabled monitoring by
management and minimised his
risk locally, as there were no
families with children in the
complex.
ƒ His employment and activities
were monitored by the DPMU in
liaison with child protection
services and probation.
ƒ A sex offender order was applied
for and granted.
ƒ DPMU sent out information and
‘flagged' the offender on their
system.
ƒ DPMU visited the home and
supported the housing
association in managing the
offender.
ƒ Whilst in custody for further
offences of theft, his
circumstances were
investigated.
ƒ Liaison with SSD child
protection, police child abuse
investigation officers and DPMU
led to information that the
offender was in a relationship
with a woman with small
children, and through her he had
groomed a further family into
allowing him supervisory access
to young children.
The offender was prosecuted for
breach of the sex offender order and
sentenced to the maximum prison
sentence of five years.
7. Statistical Information No. of Offenders

i. The number of registered sex offenders on 31 March 2003 607

ii. The number of sex offenders having a registration requirement who were either 10
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 7

(b) The total number granted 6

(c) The total number not granted 1

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

v. The number of violent and other sexual offenders considered under MAPPA 701
during the year 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003 (as defined by section 68 [3],
[4] and [5])

vi. The number of "other offenders" dealt with under MAPPA during the year 16
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 26

b) MAPPP - violent and other sex offenders 8

c) MAPPP - other offenders 5

viii. Of the cases managed by the MAPPP during the reporting year what was the
number of offenders:
a) who were returned to custody for breach of licence
b) who were returned to custody for breach of a Restraining Order or Sex
Offender Order
c) charged with a serious sexual or violent offence
The information contained in
Section 7 builds on the statistics
published in last year’s Annual
Report, and includes more detailed
information on the individuals who
have been assessed as posing the
highest risk of serious harm and
have therefore been managed at
MAPP Panel level.
The overall number of offenders
dealt with during the year, through
the MAPP Arrangements is
contained in Sections (v) and (vi).
The figure 683 at Section (v) is
made up of all the probation area’s
caseload of sexual and violent
offenders who were serving a
sentence of 12 months or more, or
who were released on licence
supervision following such a
sentence. It also includes young
people supervised by the Youth
Offending Service. The total figure
will include some of the same
offenders as last year in this
category, as it counts all those
people still serving a long
sentence, which may have been
imposed prior to 1st April 2002.
This total figure is less than the
number appearing under the same
category in last year’s Annual
Report. This is because we
counted RSOs and those
offenders released on licence
during the year, all of whom had
already been counted in the figures.
Taking this into account the number
of “other sexual and violent
offenders” dealt with under MAPPA
has risen by about 92 individuals in
actuality, representing an increase of
15%.
In addition to the relevant sexual and
violent offenders, there are a small
number of individuals who came to
the notice of an agency e.g.
probation, police, SSD, health, and
who are assessed as posing a high
risk of serious harm which then
necessitates management at a
higher level. This is the relatively
small number of ‘other offenders’
(Section 67 (2) (b) Criminal Justice
and Court Services Act 2000)
contained in Section (vi), who are
managed through the Panel or at
RSM level.
A total of 39 individuals were
managed through the Panel between
1st April 2002 and 31st March 2003,
and Section vii contains a
breakdown of the category into
which they fall. A number of these
panel cases were de-registered for
different reasons: if they were
returned to custody, transferred to
another area, or if the level of risk
they continued to present had
successfully been managed, and
7
7
1
they were reviewed and assessed
as no longer needing management
through the Panel.
At the end of the year 31st March
2003, we have only 14 individuals
who are registered at MAPP Panel
level. The figure of 39 in total is
not made up of all new cases,
some individuals will have
remained at Panel level from the
previous year, and some will have
been re-referred on release
following a period of recall to
custody. In addition, the Panel
members are gaining experience
and expertise in their defensible
decision making, and are able to
de-register more individuals in the
knowledge that the RSM level can
appropriately manage them. The
Panel Register increasingly only
includes those who meet the
Home Office criteria of ‘the critical
few’.
Section (viii) describes ways in
which the Responsible Authority,
through the Panel, has carried out
the function of public protection in
a number of cases, through
effective risk management plans,
close supervision and monitoring
of post custody licences and Sex
Offender Orders. The result of
these actions is evidenced in the
14 offenders who were either
recalled to custody for breach of a
condition in their licence, or
sentenced to custody for breaching
a condition in their Sex Offender
Order. These outcomes are the
result of preventative actions by
the agencies, so that further
offending by these 14 individuals
was pre-empted by vigorous
action. Although the agencies can
take all professional steps to limit
the likelihood of an offender
repeating their offences, or to
reduce the seriousness and impact
of any further offending, risk
cannot be completely eliminated.
Only 1 MAPPA Panel case went
on to re-offend in the year. He
was, however, quickly
apprehended and brought to
justice as a result of the close
oversight of the Panel.
The number of registered sex
offenders in the county has
increased by 15 this year. This
increase is smaller than in many
other areas. It can be accounted
for in a number of ways:
ƒ by a more accurate and
refined processing of police
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
information on RSOs in
Nottingham which has been
dependent on other areas’ action
in registering ex-
Nottinghamshire offenders’
details
ƒ by the fact that a number of
offenders have moved out of the
county following increased police
activity in their cases
ƒ by offenders being returned to
custody for breach of their sex
offender orders or failure to
notify their details, constituting
further offences
ƒ by “natural wastage” i.e. some
offenders who were required to
register their details in 1997/8 at
the start of the Sex Offender Act
have reached the end of their
registration period and they no
longer appear on the RSO
database.
The level of compliance nationally
with the requirements of the Sex
Offender Act 1997 is very high, and
in the county there have been only
10 cautions for breaching the
requirement. The police monitor
the registration of individuals by
visiting the homes of registered
sex offenders, either at divisional
level or by the DPMU. The
Nottinghamshire police have
applied for and been granted
another 6 Sex Offender Orders this
year: this brings the total number
still operative to 23. These
orders are monitored by the
specialist officers in the DPMU, in
close liaison with beat officers and
other agencies. They have proved
to be a positive external control
measure that we can use as part
of an overall risk management
plan. In addition, a number of
offenders who have been
breached, have been given prison
sentences within which treatment
interventions have been started.
Sex Offender Order applications
are only recommended through
risk strategy plans because of their
serious and intrusive nature;
however we have found them a
very useful risk management tool.
Contacts

MAPPP Protocol Address Phone

National Probation Service, Nottinghamshire Area Head Office 0115 840 6461
Marina Road
Email: Castle Marina
general.enquiries@nottinghamshire.probation.gsx.gov.uk Nottingham
NG7 1TP

Nottinghamshire Police Service Service Headquarters 0115 9420999

Sherwood Lodge
Arnold
Nottingham
NG5 8PP

Gedling PCTC Carlton House Clinic 0115 840 5921

61 Burton Road
Carlton
NG4 3DQ

Chief Executive’s Office County Hall 0115 982 3823

Notts County Council
West Bridgford
Nottingham
NG2 7QP

Chief Executive’s Office The Guildhall 0115 915 5555

Nottingham City Council
South Sherwood Street (switchboard)
Nottingham
NG1 4BT

City Social Services Directorate 14 Hounds Gate 0115 915 5500

Nottingham
Victim Services Address Phone

Nottinghamshire Probation Area

County Victim Contact Team 46 Nottingham Road 01623 460843

Mansfield
NG18 1BL

City Victim Contact Team 2nd Floor 0115 859 9423

Albion House
5-13 Canal Street
Nottingham
NG1 7EG

Victim Support Scheme

National Support Line 0845 30 30 900

Local Victim Support Scheme

2 King Edward Court 0115 852 3507

Area Office King Edward Street
County Manager Nottingham
NG1 1EL
Email: victimsupportnot@onetel.net.uk

Manager – Outreach Service 0115 844 5095

Mansfield & Ashfield 01623 450 088

Nottingham City 0115 844 5993

North & East Nottinghamshire 01909 500 455

(Bassetlaw, Newark & Sherwood)

South Nottinghamshire 0115 844 6070

Witness Service Address Phone

Manager – Witness 1 Queens Road 0115 986 9924

Service Nottingham
British Transport Police NG2 3AS
Email: witnessservice.centre@virgin.net
 Police Probation
Logo to go here Logo to go here

Printers details to go here