The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.
The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.
STATES OF JERSEY
JERSEY MULTI-AGENCY PUBLIC PROTECTION ARRANGEMENTS: ANNUAL REPORT 2011
Presented to the States on 25th April 2012 by the Minister for Home Affairs
STATES GREFFE
2012 Price code: B R.55
Jersey Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements
Annual Report 2011
March 2012
JMAPPA Annual Report 2011
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 as detailed in Article 28 of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010, and with the cooperation of Office Holders', departments who have a Duty to Cooperate' 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 Cooperate' are Home Affairs, Housing, Health and Social Services, Education, Sport and Culture, 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 coordinated manner, discharge their statutory responsibilities and wider obligations with reference to protecting the public.
The JMAPPA Guidelines were premised on the MAPPA Guidance 3.0 which is applied in England and Wales. This was a considered decision due to the research and developments of best practice, which can be utilised in Jersey even though there are significant legislative differences.
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, Housing and Education Departments together with the Community and Social Services Departments.
At the beginning of November, an independent Review of JMAPPA and its processes and procedures was undertaken by Tim Beach. Mr Beach's experience as an Independent Chair of Children Safeguarding Board in London, Member of London Safeguarding Board, (representing Chairs) and as an Independent Serious Case Review Report Writer for East of England for Multi- Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA), meant that his expertise and knowledge were wholly relevant to undertaking this review.
The overall result of this review was that even though JMAPPA is in the early stages of development, there has been significant progress in how the island's agencies work together to manage those people identified as a risk to the public.
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 four 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 and Other Sexual Offenders
This Category includes:
- Offenders who have been sentenced to 12 months custody or more
- A small number of offenders, where the sexual offence itself does not attract registration or where the sentence does not pass the threshold for registration
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:
- the person has committed an offence which indicates that they are capable
of causing serious harm to the public; and
- 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 three management levels intended to ensure that resources are focused upon the cases where they are most needed; generally those involving the higher risks of serious
harm. 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.
JMAPPA Data
The number of JMAPPA subjects dealt with by the JMAPPA process throughout 2011 = 71.
Reoffending by JMAPPA subjects in 2011 who are in the JMAPPA Process:
67 (94.6%) JMAPPA subjects out of 71 dealt with via JMAPPA have not been convicted for further offending.
None of the convictions for offences committed by JMAPPA individuals during 2011, fell within the criteria for a Serious Further Offence as detailed in the MAPPA Guidance 2009, Version 3.0. They related mainly to offences of indecent exposure and assaults by three JMAPPA individuals.
With regards to the monitoring of offenders under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010, one JMAPPA subject has been convicted of a breach of a Restraining Order in that there was contact with named persons. Another JMAPPA subject who has been convicted for other offences (as above) has also been convicted for a breach of the Notification requirements, in that he failed to provide the Police with details of his address.
JMAPPA Quality Assurance Review
The JMAPPA SMB had always planned to complete an independent review of its first year in operation and to achieve this by the end of 2011 was a significant achievement. The review author spent a full week in Jersey and engaged with all JMAPPA agencies, and attended a number of JMAPPA meetings with the full co-operation of the SMB and its officers.
Undertaking a review of the JMAPPA process prior to its first anniversary, highlights the importance that is placed upon ensuring that quality and effectiveness are attained and maintained by JMAPPA.
The review highlighted some key issues, notably the support and commitment of the agencies involved, who value and acknowledge the importance of this work. It commented on the active multi-agency and partnership working, and the endeavours that are made to work with the JMAPPA subjects. It also highlighted that JMAPPA does not have the legislative underpinnings that the MAPPA processes in other jurisdictions' have, which supports and enhances the range of risk management strategies that are devised in order to enhance Public Protection.
The Report made various recommendations all of which have been accepted for action by the Strategic Management Board. Key recommendations include:
- In order to progress the management of a greater proportion of JMAPPA subjects at level one it may assist to allocate ownership of all JMAPPA subjects to a named police offender manager.
- Active consideration should be given to creating a legislative framework to support JMAPPA work with violent offenders and to provide Probation with post sentence statutory involvement with offenders.
- A review of the management levels of JMAPPA subjects should be undertaken in conjunction with the adoption of police offender managers owning each of the JMAPPA subjects on the ViSOR system.
- The Key Performance Indicators outlined within the JMAPPA Guidance should be supplemented with some additional measures which will allow a measure of the outcomes of the JMAPPA processes.
- The Jersey Child Protection Committee should consider undertaking a multi-agency audit of a range of JMAPPA cases to ensure that child protection and safeguarding is being dealt with appropriately.
Conclusion
Assessing and managing risk is not an infallible science and it is therefore imperative that risk assessments are rigorously undertaken. Jersey has a range of staff trained and qualified to use various specialised assessment tools that have been developed including those for domestic violence, violence and sexual offenders. Once the risks have been assessed, then a Risk Management Plan is devised that needs to be implemented and monitored, with adjustments being made as required. Risk assessment and management is a continual process, and assessment and management plans may require changing at any time.
It is important to remember that risk cannot be eliminated in its entirety, and a key function of JMAPPA is therefore to endeavour to manage the risks that a JMAPPA subject poses. However, this does not remove an individual's responsibility with regards to their own risk management practices.
March 2012