Jersey Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (JMAPPA) Annual Report 2017

Jersey Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements

Annual Report 2017

March 2018

R.58/2018

JMAPPA Annual Report 2017

The total number of offenders subject to sex offender notification arrangements in Jersey is 130, with 28 new registrations during 2017. 29 of these people are in custody, 85 in the community and 16 are residing outside of Jersey on a temporary/permanent basis. The majority of these individuals are being managed by a single agency, whilst 54 are being managed through these partnership arrangements.

During the seventh year of operation of these arrangements, due to changes introduced in 2016 to make our risk assessment process more effective and efficient, the number of offenders now being jointly managed through the higher levels of this multi-agency process has levelled out at 54 and similar to the 48 jointly managed throughout 2016.

It is noteworthy that the number of individuals entering the JMAPPA process each year has remained broadly consistent: 63 in 2017, 66 in 2016 compared to 67 in 2015. The majority of these cases are managed at JMAPPA level 1 (single agency) with a resultant demand on the resources of those single responsible agencies – primarily the Police with a smaller number being managed by both Probation and Prison. Specifically, in relation to offenders convicted of sexual offences, 2017 saw a net increase of 29 such individuals being managed – consistent with 2016, where there were 26.

The re-offending by this cohort of individuals who are being managed through this multi-agency process also remains consistently low – just 6 offenders were re-convicted in 2017 (same figure as for 2015  and  2016)  for  offences  including  Assault,  Malicious  Damage,  Breach  of  Restraining  Order (computer-related) and non-recent sexual abuse.

Finally, it is also appropriate to acknowledge the hard work of frontline professionals working in both the statutory and voluntary sector who play such a vital role in JMAPPA. The ongoing success of JMAPPA is testament to the hard work and dedication of those professionals at enhancing public protection through this partnership work.

It is important to note that risk can never be completely eradicated, but the effective work of JMAPPA partners goes a long way to contributing towards this highly effective partnership in keeping Jersey safe.

Stewart J. Gull, Q.P.M. Detective Superintendent Chair of JMAPPA SMB

March 2018

What is JMAPPA?

Jersey's Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements ("JMAPPA") were implemented in 2011 when the  Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 came into force. In pursuance of Article 28 of that Law, arrangements to assess and manage sexual, violent and dangerous offenders, together with potentially dangerous persons were made. The purpose of JMAPPA is to protect the Public by reducing the offending behaviour of sexual and violent offenders.

These arrangements were made with the agreement of the Ministers of the departments and with the co-operation of Office Holders', departments who have a Duty to Co-operate' and Interested Parties' as detailed in the aforementioned Law.

The Office Holders are the Chief of Police, Chief Probation Officer, Prison Governor and the Chief Officer of Customs and Immigration. The Ministers of the departments who are identified as agencies who have a Duty to Co-operate' are Home Affairs, Health and Social Services, Education and Social Security. Interested Parties' includes, but is not restricted to, the Connétable s, Comité des Chefs de Police, together with organisations that provide rented housing accommodation, accommodation for the homeless, support for children in need or at risk, for victims of domestic and sexual violence.

JMAPPA is not a statutory body; rather it is a mechanism through which agencies can, in a co-ordinated manner, discharge their statutory responsibilities and wider obligations with reference to protecting the public.

The JMAPPA Guidelines were premised on the MAPPA Guidance which is applied in England and Wales. The JMAPPA process is overseen by the Strategic Management Board ("SMB") which consists of Chief Officers from the Police, Prison and Probation Services, Customs and Immigration, Social Security, Strategic Housing Unit and Education Departments together with the Community and Social Services Departments.

How JMAPPA works

JMAPPA-eligible offenders are identified and information about them is shared by the agencies in order to inform the risk assessments and risk management plans of those managing or supervising them.

There are 4 categories of JMAPPA-eligible offenders: Category 1 Offenders: Registered Sex Offenders

This Category includes offenders convicted of a relevant offence as defined in Article 2 of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 and those required to comply with the notification requirements under Articles 13 and 14 of this Law.

Category 2 Offenders: Violent Offenders

This Category includes offenders sentenced to 12 months in custody or longer for their most recent violent offence.

Category 3 Offenders:

This category is comprised of offenders, not in either Category 1 or 2, but who are considered by the referring agency to pose a risk of serious harm to the Public which requires active inter-agency management.

To register a Category 3 offender, the referring agency must satisfy the Co-ordinator that:

1. the person has committed an offence which indicates that they are capable of causing serious harm to the Public; and
2. reasonable consideration has indicated that the offender may cause serious harm to the Public, which requires a multi-agency approach at level 2 or 3 to manage the risks.

The offence may have been committed in any geographical location, which means that offenders convicted abroad could qualify.

Any agency can identify an offender who may qualify for Category 3. Category – Potentially Dangerous Persons ("PDPs"):

Association of Chief Police Officers (2007) – Guidance on Protecting the Public: Managing Sexual and Violent Offenders defines a PDP as:

" .a person who has not been convicted of, or cautioned for, any offence placing them in one of the three JMAPPA categories (see above), but whose behaviour gives reasonable grounds for believing that there is a present likelihood of them committing an offence or offences that will cause serious harm".

Serious harm can be defined as an event, which is life threatening and/or traumatic, from which recovery, whether physical or psychological, can be expected to be difficult or impossible. Risk of serious harm is the likelihood of this event happening. It should be recognised that the risk of serious harm is a dynamic concept and should be kept under regular review.

Management Levels

There are 3 management levels intended to ensure that resources are focused upon the cases where they are most needed. Although there is a correlation between the level of risk and the level of JMAPPA management, the level of risks do not equate directly to the levels of JMAPPA management. This means that not all high-risk cases will need to be managed at level 2 or 3. Level 1 involves single agency management (i.e. no JMAPPA meetings or resources); Level 2 is where the active involvement of more than one agency is required to manage the offender, but the risk management plans do not require the attendance and commitment of resources at a senior level. Where senior management oversight or an exceptional amount of resource is required, the case would be managed at Level 3.

2017 Developments

The JMAPPA team produced a new set of guidance in 2017 which were ratified by the Strategic Management Board and came into full effect in January 2018. The guidance incorporates the changes and developments to the JMAPPA process that had been implemented during the course of 2016. These changes were based on the recommendations made in the comprehensive 5-year review conducted by the joint heads of MAPPA for the UK.

Amongst the notable changes was the introduction of the screening' process and the 4 pillars' risk management structure. The 4 pillars helps to ensure a comprehensive risk management plan that addresses Supervision, Monitoring and Control, Interventions and Treatment and Victim Safety Planning.

These developments enhanced how JMAPPA really works; through agencies working in collaboration to identify eligible offenders and to share information in order to inform the risk assessments and risk management plans of those managing or supervising them.

In 2017, JMAPPA partner agencies signed the new Information Sharing Agreement ("ISA") and signified their ongoing commitment to public protection and the JMAPPA process.

During 2017, we also welcomed a new JMAPPA co-ordinator to this partnership. We said goodbye and thanks to James Lynch and welcomed Chay Pike – a seconded Probation Officer – to this role.

Registered Sex Offenders

At the time of writing, there are 130 individuals subject to notification requirements under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 more commonly known as Registered Sex Offenders'. 29 of these people are in custody, 85 in the community, and 16 are residing outside Jersey on a temporary/permanent basis.

All of these individuals are subject to the JMAPPA process with the majority managed at JMAPPA Level 1 under single agency risk management arrangements.

130

Total Individuals

28 New Registered Sex Offenders in 2017

5 Persons Deregistered

In the course of 2017, 28 people were convicted of relevant offences under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 and were made subject to notification requirements. Over the same period, 5 successfully applied to have their notification requirements removed and were deregistered'. Although this is a significant increase from previous years, there continues to be a net increase in registered sex offenders that need to be managed.

Management of JMAPPA Subjects during 2017 People

48  54

2016  2017

The total number of individuals dealt with via the higher JMAPPA levels (2 and 3) in 2017 was 54, an increase from 48 in 2016 (12%). The number of referrals remained almost static, with 63 cases being referred in 2017, compared to 66 in 2016.

Meetings

82  74

The number of Level 2 and Level 3 multi-agency meetings to manage these individuals for 2017 was 74 and in 2016, there were 82. The last 2 years has seen a significant reduction in meetings from previous years. Indeed, in 2015 there were 135 meetings.

This reduction is the result of the formalised screening of JMAPPA referrals as recommended in the 2015 5-year review, and the guidance that JMAPPA cases should be managed at the lowest defensible management  level.  The  aim  is  to  ensure  that  only  individuals  whose  assessed  risk  requires management at the higher levels progress to this stage, thereby limiting the over-management of cases and the unnecessary allocation of multi-agency resources through the JMAPPA process.

Person Profile

The  following  outlines  the  demographic, offending  and  risk  characteristics of  the  54 individuals managed at the higher JMAPPA levels (2 and 3) in 2017.

Place of Birth

66%  19%  15%

The overwhelming majority of offenders (36 of 54) w%ere born in Jersey. Ten had the UK identified as their place of birth, with the remaining 8 being born elsewhere in the world.

15% of offenders (8) were aged under 25, and 2 of the 54 individuals were female.

35% of individuals (19) out of the 54 managed during 2017 were subject to notification requirements under sex offender legislation, more commmonly known as being a registered sex offenders.

This is a breakown of the 54 individuals managed by JMAPPA during 2017:

Offender Assessment

The following summarises the risk indicators or flags' identified in the assessment of each individual case. Each case will have a number of risk areas flagged; for example, an individual being managed due to an alcohol-fuelled domestic assault, who is reliant on temporary accommodation, would be flagged for substance abuse, domestic violence and unstable accommodation. The flagging process also allows for the consideration of positive/protective factors such as employment, family support and co-operation with services (labelled in green below).

Reviewing the assessment flags, of note is the high number of cases (35 of 54) where substance abuse was flagged as a risk factor. Child protection issues also featured significantly (28 of 54), as did domestic abuse (25 of 54) and weapons (29 of 54).

In terms of protective factors, it is noteworthy that at the point of assessment a sixth (9 of 54) of people were in employment.

Re-conviction

Six  offenders  were  re-convicted  during  2017  while,  or  within  3 months  of  being,  subject  to JMAPPA management at levels 2 or 3; this represents 11.1% of all such offenders. Those that did go on  to  re-offend  included offences of  Grave and  Criminal  Assault, Malicious Damage,  Breach of Restraining Order (computer-related) and non-recent Sexual Abuse.

During 2016, there were 2 cases of note who were under JMAPPA management and re-entered the criminal justice system. The first involved an offender managed at JMAPPA level 2, who is currently undergoing prosecution for a serious offence and is remanded in a mental health facility in the UK. The case remains sub judice and, as such, the details are not discussed in this report. Nonetheless, in light of the gravity of the allegation, a Serious Incident Review ("SIR") was commissioned by the SMB and completed in early 2017.

The second case involved a registered sex offender committing offences of making, possessing and distributing indecent images of children. In this case, the mandatory level for a SIR was not met, but the JMAPPA co-ordinator carried out an internal review.

From both the SIR and internal review, several recommendations were made. They included issues around the provision of accommodation for both offenders and victims, additional case meetings for the few highest priority sex offenders, and joint training for frontline agencies on online sexual offending. These recommendations were discussed by the SMB and some actions taken.

Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferencing ("MARAC")

A MARAC is a meeting where information is shared on the highest risk domestic abuse cases between representatives of a number of agencies: Police, Health, Social Security, Probation, Social Services, Education, Andium Homes, Alcohol and Drugs, The Refuge, Independent Domestic Violence Advisers and other statutory and voluntary sectors. After sharing all relevant information they have about a victim, the representatives discuss options for increasing the safety of the victim and turn these into a co-ordinated action plan. The primary focus of the MARAC is to safeguard the victim.

MARAC meetings continue to be chaired by the JMAPPA Co-ordinator with the purpose of providing a greater synergy between the 2 different multi-agency forums.

Since its introduction in January 2014, the Jersey MARAC has become the established multi-agency process for the safeguarding of domestic abuse victims.

Conclusion

The  risks  posed  through  serious  violent  and  sexually  harmful  behaviour  can  never  be  entirely eliminated. Nevertheless, all evidence indicates that the assessment and management of those risks is best achieved through the co-ordinated drawing together of information, expertise and action from all available sources; this is the overarching aim of JMAPPA.

It is important to remember that whatever the external support efforts in place, individuals remain responsible for their decisions and behaviour. As such, JMAPPA will always actively promote the inclusion of the individual in the JMAPPA process and the positive management of their own life.

2017 saw the developments of the JMAPPA process of the previous year fully embedded. This included particular emphasis on the concentration of effort on the individuals assessed as posing the greatest level of risk to the wider community. Through the commitment and co-operation of its partners, the JMAPPA process continues to make a vital contribution to Jersey's public safety.

March 2018