Surrey Probation Area

Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements

Annual Report 2003-4
In this report
Page

3: The risks that cannot be ignored

Foreword by Denis O’Connor and Karen Page

4 / 5: How many Cs in MAPPA ?

5: Case file: Soothing a village’s fear of fire

6 / 7: Management by MAPPA

7: Case file: The horrified victim who threatened to tell

8 / 9: Beef up the board

by Howard Barlow and Carol Parsons

9: Case file: The sinister face of a baby-sitter’s friendship

10: Keeping the critical few critical

11: Working together builds confidence and trust

by Jenny Guven

Case file: The night away that ended in jail

12: Tightening the deadlines

by Paul Falconer

Case file: MAPPA nips a network in the bud

13: ViSOR keeps offenders in view

by Paul Falconer

Why we are pleased to be aboard

by Caroline Hewlett and Simon Smith

14: High Down fast-tracks serious offenders

by Simon Langston

Case file: Explosives and alcohol trigger MAPPA alert

15: Statistics

16: Contacts
The risks that cannot be ignored
This is the third annual report on the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements
(MAPPA) for Surrey. It highlights the achievements made as a result of effective
collaboration between the criminal justice agencies.

At the heart of MAPPA is the desire to prevent future victims by assessing risk thoroughly,
by working together to manage risk and wherever possible, by engaging offenders to reduce
their own risks by working on their offending behaviour.

At a strategic level, Surrey has been fortunate in having the benefit of lay members to offer
independent oversight of MAPPA and help move initiatives forward. In addition, the co-
operation of the prison service, who have recently joined police and probation in the
‘responsible authority’ for this multi-agency work, has added value to reintegrating offenders
into the community. We are also fortunate this year to be able to look forward to even more
help and cooperation from a wide range of other agencies.

We live in a society that is constantly being told of the latest risk, whether to our health,
wealth or waistlines. Often as individuals we choose to ignore some such warnings but as
a society, there are some risks that cannot be ignored.

The MAPPA are a positive step to learn from the lessons of the past and build something
that helps to protect the most vulnerable in our communities. The progress made by the
Surrey MAPPA is illustrated in this report and represents an enormous amount of hard work,
endeavour and commitment by those involved. We are sure they will continue to build on
that foundation in the year to come.

Denis O’Connor Karen Page

Chief Constable Chief Officer
Surrey Police National Probation Service
Surrey

3
How many Cs in MAPPA ?
Four - and the first is C for co-operation
he Multi-Agency Public
T Protection Arrange-
ments, or MAPPA, in
Surrey are proving to be
one of the most significant
steps ever taken between
agencies to protect the public
against offenders who threaten
most harm.
While other agencies are
involved, it is particularly true
b e t we e n t h e p o l i c e a n d
probation services. Regular and
rapid communication has been
established in an atmosphere of
trust and confidence.
Targeted
offenders
This partnership has been
further strengthened in the last
year by the launching of a
targeted offender’s scheme.
This concentrates on persistent
offenders but can target serious
o n e s t o o. Ta r g e t i n g a l s o
depends on sharing information
and working together.
MAPPA is the responsibility of
the Responsible Authority,
which is set up by law. (See
Keeping the critical few critical
Page 10). It was made up
originally of police and
probation and now includes the
prison service.
T h e a u t h o r i t y ’s S t r a t e g i c
Management Board meets
four times a year. It consists
of senior police and probation
managers. They were joined
earlier this year by the,
governing governor of HMP
High Down near Banstead.
Also represented are local
authorities, social services,
housing, and the county’s youth
offending team. Representation
is still settling into a consistent
pattern.
Threat in
proportion
Other accounts in this report
give the details of activity
within the MAPPA. Of the
410 cases dealt with within
MAPPA in the county last
year, only 14 or 3.5%
r e q u i r e d a c t i o n by M u l t i
Agency Public Protection
Panels, or MAPPPs. These
panels are the highest level of
management for the most
serious cases. That figure
helps to keep the actual threat
to the public in proportion.
Ninety per cent of cases dealt
with by the MAPPA are
registered sex offenders. The
remainder have been con-
victed of other sex or violent
offences. As expected, the
number of registered sex
offenders has continued to
rise, increasing from 277 to
371. (See Management by
MAPPA, Page 6).
Eventual
effects
The increase is not due to an
explosion of sex offending in
4
Surrey – in fact recorded sex
offences fell slightly during
2003–2004 to 585 from the 598
of the previous year.
It is due to the fact that
offenders are joining the
register faster than they leave
it. This is due in part to the long
periods of registration which
can be for life. Although
eventually, the size of the
register is expected to level out,
nobody yet knows when.
Additionally, the eventual
effects of the 2003 Sexual
Offences Act are uncertain.
Statistically, Surrey is one of
the safest counties. However, it
has borne its share of tragedy
through crime in the last four
years particularly with the
deaths of Milly Dowler who
lived in Walton and Sarah
Payne who lived in Hersham.
Sarah’s death was also a
tragedy for Sussex where she
lost her life.
Critical
friends
Sarah’s case in particular led
to demands for more public
participation in the management
of offenders who cause serious
harm. Government responded
by appointing lay members to
Strategic Management Boards.
Surrey was chosen as one of
eight pilot sites.
Throughout the year, our lay
members, Howard Barlow and
Carol Parsons have been
playing the role of “critical
friends”. Mr. Barlow and
Ms. Parsons have made
recommendations about the
working of the system. Their
own report of their mixed
observations at strategic and
operational level can be read
on Pages 8/9.
Earlier this year, the Home
Secretary extended the lay
members scheme across the
country. They are to be known
as lay advisors.
Chart way
forward
Two more developments
intended to further strengthen
the MAPPA operation have
been the appointment by the
board of a MAPPA administrator
and by Surrey Probation of a
public protection manager.
The Strategic Management
B o a r d fa c e s t wo m a j o r
challenges in 2004/05. The first
is adjusting to its increased
responsibilities in the 2003
Criminal Justice Act. These are
fully described on Page 10.
Among other things, they
involve the Board making
arrangements to assess and
manage the risks caused by
offenders who have received
12 months or more custody for
any one of 153 violent or
sexual offences. Working out
strategy to accomplish this will
be a priority for the board.
The second is engaging with
the wide range of other
agencies which are now duty-
bound to cooperate.
These include the health ser-
vice, social security, education,
housing, social services and
social landlords.
In some agencies, duty to
cooperate may raise conflicts,
particularly around confiden-
tiality of information. However,
in Surrey co-operation is
already good. Housing and
social ser vices managers,
psychiatrists, forensic psy-
chologists, community mental
health workers and even Surrey
Fire and Rescue Service
already attend the lower tier
Risk Assessment and
Management Panels or
RAMPs either regularly or
as required. (See Manage-
ment by MAPPA, Page 6).
A meeting of chief executives
is planned for mid-summer
2004 to char t the way
forward.
Consensus
preferred
MAPPA brings together three
criminal justice and now a
range of social agencies into
what is essentially a co-
operative of care for the public
and control for those who offer
undue harm.
It does not override agencies’
authority nor take over their
responsibility. It asks them to
cooperate together and co-
ordinate their activity. It does not
impose decisions but seeks
consensus wherever possible.
It seeks only commitment to
decisions jointly made.
The four Cs of MAPPA are
therefore - Co-operation, Co-
ordination, Consensus and
Commitment. They are its
strength and pillars of protection.
5
Soothing
a village’s
fear of fire
Residents of a Surrey village
worried at the thought of
Y. returning home from jail.
He had been given seven
years for a spate of arson
attacks. The most serious
was on the local shop with
flats above. Everybody was
evacuated; luckily nobody
was hurt.
Relative
He used his time in prison
well including completing
major programmes in anger
control and reasoning skills.
He also admitted other
offences he had previously
denied.
During sentence, his family,
the local police beat officer
and probation officer kept in
contact.
Before his release, arrange-
ments were made for him to
live with a relative in another
part of the county.
Fire service
He was released on parole at
the earliest opportunity. He
was assessed as unlikely to
cause further serious harm
unless his circumstances
changed and the case was
monitored by the RAMP. The
close liaison between family,
police beat officer, probation
officer and other agencies
continued and they all met
with Y. to discuss his future.
Surrey Fire and Rescue
ser vice gave him eight
sessions on fire awareness
and safety. He still lives away
from home but gradually, he
is being introduced into his
own community, safely and
successfully.
Management by MAPPA
Vigilance protects the public through
Surrey’s MAPPPs and RAMPs
lmost every week
A somewhere in Surrey,
staff from the police
and probation services, hous-
ing departments, social ser-
vices and other agencies
meet in a police station or
probation office.
Their purpose is to review the
behaviour and progress of more
than 400 offenders in the county
subject to the Multi-Agency
Public Protection Arrangements
(MAPPA).
Lower level
The meetings are Risk
Assessment and Management
Panels or RAMPs. They form
the lower level of MAPPA pro-
tection and deal with offenders
whose risk to others is either rel-
atively low or under control.
The meetings are chaired by the
inspectors in charge of the vul-
nerable persons’ units of Surrey
police’s four divisions. They are
attended by their Registration
and Assessment officers,
(RAOs), the local probation
manager and social services
and housing managers.
Whenever possible, probation
case managers handling cases
under discussion also attend.
Risk matrix
Other agencies attend by
request. They include forensic
psychology, community mental
health, hostel staff, probation
victim workers and the youth
offending team. Information is
shared and risk is assessed by
the actuarial Thornton 2000
Risk Matrix used by the police.
The probation service use the
national Offender Assessment
System (OASys) soon to be
adopted by the prison service.
Ninety per cent of the cases dis-
cussed in the RAMPs are regis-
tered sex offenders. The remain-
der are offenders usually on
probation supervision who have
committed violent serious harm
and might repeat it.
Offenders thought to pose the
highest risk are reviewed most
frequently. In 2003-2004 staff
held 700 case reviews - dis-
cussing many cases several
times.
Added faster
They concluded that more than
half the offenders had a medium
or low risk of re-offending
according to the police risk
assessment tool.
However, the risk of re-offending
of a third - according to the
police assessment method - was
high. Seventeen offenders in the
system were in custody when
their cases were reviewed.
Only fourteen offenders com-
pleted their sex offender regis-
tration in the county during the
year. This mainly accounts for a
34% increase from 277 to 371
6
on the register as offenders
were added faster than they
were taken off. Sex offender
registration starts at the point of
conviction. Its length depends
on sentence length and can
be from five years to life.
Juveniles serve half the adult
registration period.
Pose most risk
The register is expected to go
on growing until more cases
are eligible for removal.
Removals of the first five year
registrations began in 2002.
This year the first seven-year
registrations will expire.
Surrey RAMP meetings have
evolved from the previous multi-
agency reviews of offenders on
the sex offenders’ register.
They are being used increas-
ingly frequently as an efficient
opportunity to include first-tier
meetings of Multi-Agency
Public Protection Panels or
MAPPPs on offenders who
pose most risk.
Little warning
This has been made possible
mainly by probation case man-
agers identifying very high risk
prisoners well before release.
However, where such offenders
move into Surrey with little warn-
ing or where the threat level
increases in a previously lower
risk case, MAPPP meetings are
called at short notice - some-
times as little as a day or two.
They are given priority by all the
agencies. Police and probation
attend them all as do usually,
housing and social services.
Other agencies with an interest
- or with information - are also
invited to contribute. Levels of
cooperation and understanding
are high.
Critical few
Offenders discussed at MAPPP
meetings have been described
as “the critical few “ who create
most risk. Generally, they are
offenders who have committed
“serious” life-threatening harm
and are assessed as likely to do
so again. They may also be
notorious offenders likely to
attract the attention of the media
or arouse public concern.
(See Keeping the critical few
critical, Pages 10/11)
MAPPP meetings are usually
chaired by a probation manager,
otherwise by a police detective
chief inspector.
Threat subsides
The MAPPP continues to meet
as often as is needed until the
risk of committing serious harm
subsides. Then the case can
be referred back to the level
two RAMP for monitoring and
review.
In the year ending March
30, fourteen offenders were dis-
cussed at 40 MAPPP meetings
across Surrey. One offender
was the subject of nine MAPPP
meetings and three others were
each the subject of five.
The horrified victim
who threatened to tell
The young rape victim was
horrified to learn that F., the
man who attacked her and
another girl, was being
considered for parole. He was
less than five years into his
seven year sentence. She
wrote an impassioned letter to
the Parole Board describing
her distress and threatening to
publicise the case “by any
means “should he be freed
near her.
Hive of activity
F. had wanted to return to the
area where he had lived,
where his offences were
committed - and where both
the victims lived.
There followed a hive of
activity between the various
agencies involved in the
management of this case.
In particular probation and
probation victim liaison,
police, housing and a hostel
coordinated their work through
MAPPP meetings.
Victims’ safety
Luckily, one of the police
Registration and Assessment
Officers (RAOs) had been
involved in the original case
and knew the victim who wrote
the letter.
Priority was to ensure the
safety of the victims and
reassure them. Parole licence
conditions, drafted in con-
sultation with the other
agencies, excluded F. from
parts of three towns where he
might meet the victims.
7
F. had bad health and was
partly disabled. A local hostel
and a local authority housing
department offered short term
accommodation - which also
ke p t h i m u n d e r b e t t e r
surveillance. Later, he was to
be offered a longer-term home
which met his health needs
but kept him well away from
children. Managers prepared a
media statement just in case.
Probation victim workers and
the police RAO visited the
victims and their families to
explain the measures taken to
protect them. The victims felt
reassured.
F. was released in December
2003 when arrangements
were in place. There was no
publicity.
Instant recall
All agencies worked extremely
hard to ensure the safety of
the victims and reassure them
so they did not feel the need
for the protection of the press.
F. did not try to contact them;
he was told it would have
meant instant recall to prison.
He has settled into his new
home where his is trying to
rehabilitate himself.
This case highlights the close
working relationship which
has developed between all
agencies that form part of the
MAPPA process. This has
been brought about by the
greater understanding of each
other’s roles and the trust
that has developed over
time between the individuals
involved.
 n the last 12 months, the Howard Barlow and Carol Parsons were appointed lay

I operational staff from the

agencies represented in
the Responsible Authority in
members of the Surrey Strategic Management Board
18 months ago as part of a pilot project to involve the
public in MAPPA. This year the scheme went nation-
Surrey and others have al. They find MAPPA works well - but that the board
continued to work positively needs more resources. Their advice is
and effectively to monitor the
list of people who fall within
the MAPPA remit.

Beef up
As lay members, we have
observed a number of routine
monthly reviews ( RAMPs) in
all the police divisions of
the county.

Effective
exchange

We have found there is an

effective exchange of information
within the Responsible Authority
agencies and with other agencies
who have attended. We have
advised police and probation of
this positive effort and
recommended a standard format
for all divisional RAMPs. This
standard is in process of being
introduced in the coming year.
Areas to
improve
Our attendance at Multi-Agency
Public Protection Panel meet-
ings (MAPPPs) has been fairly
limited due to the small
number held and their timing.
Our experience of these has
also been of positive communi-
cation and effective information
sharing.
At a strategic level, we feel that
there are some areas that could
be improved upon. There are
some key agencies in the
the board
community that we would like
to see represented on the
Strategic Management Board
(SMB). Their inclusion, we
believe, will strengthen working
together by the agencies. We
also believe they have an impor-
tant perspective to give.
Inevitable
delays
We also observe that of the
agencies who do attend the
board now, somewhat incon-
sistent attendance by some has
meant that progress between
one board meeting and the next
has been painfully slow at times.
Both probation and police have
appeared to be too shor t
o f resource in the senior
management area to fully
implement the SMB activities
and needs.
The resource, be it people or
budget, has always been
constrained and has inevitably
delayed both the development
and the implementation of
strategic actions. Additionally,
the ability to enhance rep-
resentation on the SMB with
people from agencies outside
the Criminal Justice System to
date has been affected by the
lower priority given to the
MAPPA by those agencies.
Significant
improvements
We hope that the implementa-
tion of the Duty to Cooperate
by key organisations will, in
addition, increase the interest
and contribution at this strategic
level of process.
That said, in the last quarter of
the year, representation has
improved and it is hoped that a
full SMB will make significant
improvements strategically in
the coming year.

8
 Wholehearted
involvement
We hope that the recent
recruitment of a public protection
manager by the probation service
will have a significant impact on
the senior management time
available for MAPPA issues.
During the coming year, we plan
to continue to enhance our
knowledge and understanding
of the Arrangements through
education and attendance at all
levels of meetings. This will
include attending more
MAPPPs and some RAMPs.
We plan to continue with
regular contact with advisors
in other areas so that Surrey
can continue to receive the
benefits from the exchange of
ideas. We remain convinced
that wholehearted involve-
ment from all the relevant
agencies at every level is the
most effective way of reducing
the likelihood of re-offending
in the often-complex cases
dealt with in this process.
Thanks
also to Tim Bryan, Karen
Cairns, Lesley Cross, Bob
Jenkin, James Jolly, Sally
Jones, Brenda Lane, Alison
Mileson, Tom Ruddy, Jill
Shipp and Kate Windless
for their contributions or
other help in producing
this report.
The sinister face of
a baby-sitter’s friendship
G. is now 70. He was
convicted in 1996 for a number
of indecent assaults on girls
under 16. He was sentenced
to five years and is on the sex
offenders’ register for life.
G. befriended a family. Whilst
baby-sitting he groomed a
nine year old by allowing her to
watch pornographic videos.
Media interest
He indecently assaulted her
many times over several
years. G.’s conviction resulted
from an historical allegation
from one of his victims.
Following that, numerous
allegations were received from
other females. There was also
some media interest.
G. was released from prison
on a licence to the proba-
tion service, which required
him to complete the pro-
bation sex offender treat-
ment programme. He com-
pleted it but made no
significant progress. G.
completed his licence and
moved to Surrey.
Family contact
G. became subject to Multi
Agency Public Protection
Arrangements (MAPPA) and
was assessed as being at
high risk of re-offending. He
was monitored by the police
and reviewed frequently by
9
police, probation, housing
and social services.
In July 2003 during a review,
the local authority disclosed
that they had heard that
G. was involved with local
families. Limited disclosure
approved by the MAPPA was
made to key persons within the
families in order to safeguard
the children.
Police enquiries showed later
that G. had regular contact
with several children. In
October 2003, a MAPPP
meeting agreed unanimously
that a sex offender order was
needed. Statements and
reports were obtained and
further enquiries made by
all agencies involved.
Working closely
In January 2004, a court
granted a 10 year sex offender
order prohibiting G. from con-
tact with children and associa-
tion with any location or activ-
ity where children might be.
This successful case required
the close co-operation of
police, probation, social
services and local authority
housing. It demonstrates how
well in Surrey the agencies in
the Responsible Authority are
already working closely with
other agencies within the
MAPPA.
Keeping the critical few critical
Why MAPPA takes serious harm so seriously
he priority of the Multi-
T Agency Public Protection
Arrangements (MAPPA)
is to identify offenders who
create an exceptional risk to
others - the critical few - and
concentrate attention on them.
But the task of the Responsible
Authority, made up of the police,
probation and from April 2004,
the prison service, is wider and
has been made wider still by the
2003 Criminal Justice Act.
Assess and
manage the risks
The Act requires the
Responsible Authority to
establish arrangements to
assess and manage the risks
posed by offenders subject to
sex offender registration. Also
included are other offenders
who have received 12 months or
more custody or detention for
any one of 65 violent offences
including murder and 88 sexual
offences. They are specified in
Sch 15 of the Act. Anyone else
the Responsible Authority
considers may cause serious
harm due to offending is also its
responsibility.
Recovery
impossible
“Serious harm” is defined by the
Act as “death or serious
personal injur y, whether
physical or psychological”. In
the probation service’s Offender
Assessment System, OASys, it
is defined as harm that is “ life-
threatening and/or traumatic
whether physical or psycho-
logical, and from which
recovery, can be expected to be
difficult or impossible”. It has
been characterised as harm
that is life taking, life
threatening, life violating or
life changing.
Violence to
children
Examples of “serious harm”
offences include homicides;
rape; violence causing per-
manent injury; sexual offences
and violence against children,
young people or other vulner-
able people; arson which
endangers life; kidnapping and
hostage taking; aggravated
burglary; offences involving
lethal weapons and conspiracy
or attempts to commit these
offences.
Extra public
concern
As referred to in earlier articles,
MAPPA divides into three levels
of management. These are level
one relatively-low risk cases
handled by a single agency,
higher risk cases handled by the
level two RAMPs and the most
serious managed by level three
MAPPPs.
In order to concentrate on “the
critical few”, the threshold for
10
MAPPP management is that the
offender must have caused
serious or potentially serious
harm. Also the offender must
be more likely than not to cause
it again either imminently or at
any time.
Cases likely to arouse extra
public concern or media interest
also go to the MAPPPs to
decide strategy. Senior man-
agers from the agencies attend
the panels in case extra
resources are needed.
The 14 Surrey offenders
managed by MAPPPs last year
had been convicted of armed
robbery, indecent assaults and
gross indecency involving chil-
dren, rape, arson, man-
slaughter, forced imprisonment
and threats to kill.
Help with
accommodation
A minority of MAPPP-level
offenders who are excep-
tionally risky or notorious and
are likely to attract the
attention of the national media
are referred to the Public
Protection and Courts unit
of the National Probation
Directorate as Critical Public
Protection Cases. They have
been dubbed “the critical few
of the critical few”.
The unit can offer extra funding
for specialised accommodation,
the shortage of which is often a
serious problem.
The night away
that ended
back in jail
P. was sentenced to a long
period of imprisonment for a
series of grave sexual
offences. He moved into
Surrey after the completion
of his licence and was
monitored on the Sex
Offender register. We were
able to find some back-
ground information on him.
Pornography
P. was seen leaving his car
overnight at an address
which he had not registered
with the police. The police
Registration and Assessment
officers investigated. They
eventually removed P.’s
computer on which was
discovered downloaded child
pornography. He was later
jailed for this offence and for
conspiracy to indecently
assault a child.
Probation hostel
MAPPPs were called before
and after release. P. left
prison earlier this year for a
local probation hostel.
Eventually, safe private
accommodation was
a p p r ove d by the MAPPP.
P. was allowed to move in.
He remains under super-
vision on licence and is
reviewed regularly at RAMP
meetings although MAPPPs
will be called again if there is
any suspicion that risk may
have increased.
Working together builds
trust and confidence
It also shares the load avoiding exhaustion
and mistakes, says Jenny Guven.
y job involves attend-
M ing the monthly Risk
Assessment and
Management Panel (RAMP) for
the Woking area.
Over a period of time my
team and I have developed
excellent working relationships
with our police Registration and
Assessment officers (RAOs).
Highest protection
It has enabled a higher level of
monitoring of sex offenders and
potentially dangerous offenders
on our shared caseloads.
The RAMPs allow for a multi-
agency involvement in the assess-
ment and management of risk.
This allows a comprehensive
plan to be developed that will
provide the highest level of
public protection.
Spirit of trust
Understanding the roles and
responsibilities of the other
agencies makes it easier to dis-
cuss the offender issues that
cause anxiety within a spirit of
trust. This multi-agency
approach means that no one
person is left carrying all the
responsibility and concerns
regarding a high risk offender
which can lead to emotional
exhaustion and the potential for
mistakes to be made.
11
We have found that there is a
great deal to be gained by the
first post release licence
appointment for sex offenders
and other offenders threatening
serious harm to be conducted
jointly with a police RAO. This
allows tight boundaries to be set
regarding reporting and
behaviour and demonstrates a
joint approach to risk
management.
To illustrate, a sex offender
disengaged from drug and
alcohol services. He failed to
keep an appointment with his
s u p e r v i s o r a n d wa s n o t
answering his door.
Speedy breach
A call to the RAO resulted in
police gaining access and
finding him heavily under the
influence of alcohol - a trigger to
his offending - and speedy
breach action followed.
The close and trusting working
relationships developed through
the RAMPs has allowed us to
respond speedily to situations of
increased risk. It delivers, I
believe, the sort of protection
that the public deserves and in
which it can have confidence.
Jenny Guven is probation
court and community super-
vision manager at Woking.
Tightening the deadlines
Paul Falconer of Surrey Police’s Public Protection Strategy
Unit reviews the effects of the 2003 Sexual Offences Act
he Sexual Offences
T Act, implemented in
M ay, t i g h t e n s u p
restrictions on registered sex
offenders which make up 90%
of the Surrey Multi-Agency
Public Protection caseload.
The Act modernises the law
and closes loopholes.
The time given to sex offenders
to tell the police of changes
in their circumstances has
been cut from 14 days to three.
Offenders have to disclose
any address they stay at for
more than seven days in a year,
halving the previous threshold.
Spiking drinks
Newly-registered offenders will
have to disclose their National
Insurance numbers. Offenders
already on the register will
have to disclose theirs when
they comply with another new
requirement, obliging them to
confirm their details annually.
For the first time, a conditional
discharge will be considered a
conviction for purposes of
registering. The Act creates 80
new offences including
meeting children after
grooming them; trafficking for
sexual exploitation; spiking
drinks with intent to commit an
offence under the Act and
voyeurism.
Travel orders
The Act has also special
provisions to protect vulnerable
people. Some offences have
sentencing thresholds triggering
registration.
The Act also introduces a raft of
new orders. They include
Notification Orders obliging
people who offend abroad to
notify their details as if they had
offended in this country. Sexual
Offences Prevention Orders
replace the previous Sex
Offender Orders. Such orders
can be made by a court at the
time of conviction or on
application by the police.
Breaches can no longer be dealt
with by conditional discharges.
Foreign travel orders can stop
offenders travelling abroad to
harm children. Risk of Sexual
Harm Orders are designed to
restrict grooming for sexual
activity.
Two years’ delay
The new offences and orders
are not expected by the Home
Office to increase the MAPPA
caseload much, at least not for
the first two years. This is
largely because offenders
convicted of some of the new
offences would also have been
convicted of the old offences
and would have entered the
caseload anyway. Additionally,
the Act will only apply to
offences committed after May 1
2004. The effect will only be felt
as offenders come to court and
are given community sentences
or are released from prison.
12
Bigger impact
However, the caseload
is expected to increase until
expiring orders balance new
ones. The Home Office
though is expecting a much
bigger impact from improved
policing, changes in police
priorities and big operations
into Internet crime such as
Operation Ore.
MAPPA nips
a network
in the bud
J. posed a high risk to
children. After a lengthy
prison sentence it became
apparent on licence that
he was still interested in
children. He was discussed
at a RAMP. The probation
officer and police
Registration and Assessment
Officer visited him together.
Police and probation moni-
tored him closely and shared
disclosures. We suspected
he was developing a network
of like-minded men and we
called a MAPPP. We are now
working towards a Sex
Offender Prevention Order.
The speedy exchange of
infor mation has helped
contain J.’s behaviour. He
knows he is being monitored
by both the police and the
probation service.
ViSOR
keeps
offenders
in view
by Paul Falconer
he Violent and Sex
T Offender Register or
ViSOR computer system
will help the risk assessment
and management of such
offenders.
It will be a central national
application with links into the
Police National Computer
(PNC). Surrey police are
already using an interim version
and the final version is expected
later this year.
ViSOR will enable both police
and probation services to
register offenders and maintain
an up-to-date, shared store of
information on these offenders,
including risk assessments and
their movements.
By users for users
It will also provide an audit trail
so that the authorities can
ensure effective offender
monitoring is taking place.
ViSOR has been designed by
users for users and is based
around familiar web-based
technology. Its introduction will
reduce administration as
information will only need to be
entered once.
The database complies with
current legislation, including
the Human Rights Act and the
Data Protection Act. It also
supports MAPPA.
Why we are pleased
to be aboard
Caroline Hewlett and Simon Smith
explain why forensic mental health teams
should be working with MAPPA agencies
o some of the public,
T patients suffering from
mental disorders, -
psychosis, personality dis-
order, or the disorders of
sexual desire - represent the
greatest threat to public safety.
The reality is though that the
majority of sexual and violent
offenders are not suffering from a
mental disorder within the mean-
ing of current mental health legis-
lation and would not be treated
by mental health services.
Stopped medication
Where patients suffering from
psychosis offend, they have
often stopped medication. The
victims are often people nearest
to them such as their family and
friends. That said, mental health
patients occasionally pose a
threat to public safety and for
some years we have worked
with colleagues from other
agencies to support the patient
and protect others.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003
imposes ‘a duty to co-operate’
and gives greater clarity to the
role of the NHS in public
protection. Closer working rela-
tionships between the forensic
teams and criminal justice
agencies need to be developed in
order to meet this duty.
There are three forensic mental
health teams based in Surrey -
13
at Chertsey, at Redhill and our
own based at the Ridgewood
Centre in Camberley.
Currently the teams operate as
separate entities within their
own NHS Trusts.
Single trust
On 1st April 2005 the mental
health Trusts will reconfigure to
form a single mental health
Trust for the people of Surrey,
North-east Hampshire and
Croydon.
In Surrey/Hampshire Borders
we have accepted the need for
an identified link between
criminal justice agencies includ-
ing MAPPA and the Trust. This
liaison and advisory role
between the criminal justice
agencies and mental health
teams for risk management of
the few cases has been identi-
fied within the Community
Forensic Service.
Over the year the Trust has taken
the ‘duty to co-operate’ seriously
and will continue to develop joint
working with MAPPPA in accor-
dance with the Act.
Simon Smith is a consultant
forensic clinical psychologist;
Caroline Hewlett is a senior
approved social worker practi-
tioner and acting team man-
ager of the Surrey/ Hampshire
Borders forensic team.
High Down fast-tracks
serious offenders
by Simon Langston
risons can make a sig-
P
nificant contribution to
the MAPPA process and
HMP High Down takes its new
role as part of the Responsible
Authority very seriously.
Senior Officer Jill Shipp has
been appointed as High Down’s
Public Protection Manager. She
oversees and co-ordinates our
multi-disciplinary risk reduction
procedures for offenders convic-
ted of harassment, violence or
sexual offences.
High Down’s Public Protection
strategy has three main elements:-
Identifying offenders who
r e q u i r e P u bl i c P r o t e c t i o n
m e a s u r e s. A l l t h e p r i s o n
disciplines take part.
Reducing the risk in custody.
This involves making sure
offenders are prevented from
causing distress to a previous
victim or grooming a future
one. This can include mail
monitoring, telephone and visit-
ing restrictions and intelligence
gathering.
Transfers
We also make sure these offen-
ders benefit from the specific
prison accredited programmes
designed to reduce risk. We
prioritise them for Sentence
Planning and Jill Shipp works
closely with Sentence Manage-
ment to arrange transfers
to prisons which offer the
programmes.
Planning for release. Partner
agencies including health,
police, probation and social
services are invited to risk
management meetings. The
offender’s community and cus-
todial history is discussed and
risk reduction strategies are
agreed to prepare for release.
We are also attending more and
more MAPP panels in the com-
munity and we are always
pleased to be invited.
Underpinned
In prison, we are able to
observe with whom prisoners
associate, with whom they
maintain contact outside and
how they conduct themselves
every day.
The whole strategy is under-
pinned by our monthly multi-
discipline public protection meet-
ings. Case reviews are carried
out on every offender who
creates a public protection risk.
High Down enjoys an estab-
lished and constructive rela-
tionship with both Surrey police
and probation but half our
prisoners are released to other
areas. We are working with
them to make sure our links are
just as good.
Simon Langston is Head
of Resettlement at HMP
High Down.
14
Explosives and
alcohol triggers
MAPPA alert
H. is fascinated by weapons
and explosives. He has
convictions for possessing
firearms and ammunition. He
has also a long history with
the mental health services
and an alcohol problem.
He has been assessed as a
high risk of serious harm to
the public. He was the
subject of a MAPPP and is
monitored by the RAMP.
Mini bombs
He sees his probation officer
frequently and regularly and
sees the forensic community
mental health team. His risk
to the public is monitored by
frequent liaison between
probation, mental health
staff, police and fire service.
He knows the agencies
work together.
Earlier this year, his mental
health deteriorated. He
appeared very low in mood
with persistent thoughts of
causing harm.
He bought some camping
gas canisters and implied he
could use them as mini
bombs. The MAPPA agen-
cies reacted urgently, con-
cerned at the combination of
mental instability, alcohol
misuse and explosives. H.
was admitted to hospital as
an emergency and later
detained under a section of
the Mental Health Act for
more than a month.
Statistical Information No. of Offenders
2002–2003 2003–2004

i. The number of registered sex offenders on 31 March 277 371

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

were either cautioned or convicted for breaches of the requirement, 4 6
between 1 April and 31 March

iii. The number of Sex Offender Orders applied for and gained between
1 April and 31 March

(a) The total number of Sex Offender Orders applied for 2 1

(b) The total number granted 0 1

(c) The total number not granted 2 0

iv. The number of violent and other sexual offenders considered under
MAPPA during the year 1 April 2003 and 31 March 2004 (as defined by 77
section 68 [3], [4] and [5])

v. The number of “other offenders” dealt with under MAPPA during the year
1 April and 31 March as being assessed by the Responsible Authority as
9 4
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])

vi. 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 16 8

(b) MAPPP – violent and other sex offenders 9 6

(c) MAPPP – other offenders 3 0

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 4 3

(b) who were returned to custody for breach of a Restraining Order or Sex
0 0
Offender Order

(c) charged with a serious sexual or violent offence 1 1

15
Contacts
Organisation Address Phone

Surrey Probation Area Bridge House 01483 860191

Director of Operations and Public Flambard Way
Protection Manager Godalming
Surrey GU7 1JB

Surrey Police Mount Browne 01306 676803

Public Protection Strategy Unit Sandy Lane
Guildford
Surrey GU3 1HG

Surrey Women’s Aid 01483 776822

and Domestic Violence Helpline

Prison Service Surrey & Sussex Room 604 02072 172538

Printed by A3 Design & Print (01252) 737222

Area Office Cleland House
Page Street
London SW1P 4LN

Youth Offending Team Churchill House 01483 723922

Mayford Green
Woking
Surrey GU22 0PW

Victim Support Scheme Addresses and Telephone Numbers

East Surrey VSS Epsom & District VSS Waverley VSS

Reigate Police Station The Pines 8 Dolphin Close
79 Reigate Road 2 The Parade Haslemere
Reigate RH2 0RY Epsom KT18 5DU GU27 1PU
01737 766323 01372 743650 01252 573351

Esher & District VSS Guildford VSS Runnymede & Elmbridge VSS
Claygate Centre PO Box 26 c/o Adlestone Police Station
Elm Road Guildford Garfield Road
Cobham KT10 0EH GU1 4XN Addlestone, KT15 2NW
01372 470690 01483 503173 01932 855110

Mole Valley VSS North West Surrey VS Staines & Woking

c/o Dorking Police Station 80a Rydens Way Magistrates Court Witness Service
Moores Road Old Woking Staines Magistrates Court
Dorking RH4 2BQ Woking GU22 9DN Knowle Green
01306 875866 01483 770457 Staines TW18 1XH
01784 492299

16