Jersey Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements.

STATES OF JERSEY

JERSEY MULTI-AGENCY PUBLIC PROTECTION ARRANGEMENTS

Presented to the States on 12th July 2013 by the Minister for Home Affairs

STATES GREFFE

2013   Price code: B  R.82

REPORT

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, 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  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 3.0  which  is applied in England and Wales. The JMAPPA Guidelines are in the process of being amended in order to ensure that they are relevant to the Island's needs. 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.

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 and Other Sexual Offenders This Category includes –

• Offenders  who  are  being  released  from  a  custodial  sentence  of  up  to 12 months 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 –

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 JMAPP 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.

JMAPPA Data

Management of Level 2 and 3 JMAPPA Subjects

The number of level 2 and 3 JMAPPA subjects dealt with by the JMAPPA process throughout 2012 was 61.

Re-offending by JMAPPA subjects in 2012 who are at level 2 or 3 in the JMAPPA Process:

54  (88.5%) JMAPPA  subjects  out  of  61  dealt  with  via  JMAPPA  have  not  been convicted for further offending. The 7 JMAPPA subjects who offended tended to commit  public  order-related  offences,  or  offences  of  violence.  One  Category 1 offender is pending sentence for further offences of indecent images of children. Sentences for further offences range from imprisonment to fines.

There  are  currently  27  JMAPPA  subjects  being  managed  at  level 1  by  various agencies: Probation, Police and Prison Services, as well as Health and Social Services.

During the process of monitoring offenders under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010, the Police Offender Managers have investigated 14 JMAPPA subjects regarding their adherence to Notification requirements or Restraining Orders. Three JMAPPA subjects  have  been  warned  regarding  their  adherence  to  the  conditions  of  the Notification  requirements.  One  failed  to  confirm  his  address  within  the  required timeframe and two failed to notify the Police of travel plans in the required timeframe.

Serious Incident Reviews

During  2012, two  Serious  Incident  Reviews  were  commissioned  by  the Strategic Management  Board.  The  reviews  were  conducted  by  Chief/Senior  Officers  from Customs  and  Immigration  and  the  Probation  Service.  JMAPPA's  Strategic Management Board are grateful to the authors for their diligent and thorough reviews.

Whilst  the reasons  behind  a  Serious  Incident  Review  (SIR)  generally  relate to  a specific incident of concern, a key purpose of the review is to monitor the quality of the JMAPPA process and to review whether public protection arrangements can be improved in the future. There were some key learning points from both the reviews, which include communication issues, together with agencies' clarity of role, purpose and  function.  However,  overall  both  reviews  commented  positively  on  the  work undertaken by the agencies involved.

Serious Incident Review 1:

This was commissioned due to a non-registered sex offender living in a flat in a family estate. Actions undertaken with reference to the recommendations include –

• The  Supported  Housing  Group  has  undertaken  changes  to  policies  and procedures including information provided at the point of referral.
• A proposal has been made in relation to the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 being  reviewed  and  considering  whether  the  existing  judicial  discretion regarding notification for offences of gross indecency should be removed where the victim is a child or non-consenting adult.
• Consideration should be given for cases to be referred to JMAPPA prior to sentence (as PDP cases) if public protection may otherwise be compromised.

Serious Incident Review 2:

This was commissioned due a level 2, Category 2 JMAPPA subject being arrested for a violent offence. The conclusion of this review identified –

• All evidence revealed that risks to X and the public were correctly identified at an early stage and communicated to all agencies.
• Communication between the agencies was generally excellent.
• X showed no signs of wishing to modify his behaviour or attitudes.
• Agencies did what they could, without any statutory supervision, to attempt to rehabilitate X and protect the public from risk.

JMAPPA Quality Assurance Review

JMAPPA's Annual Report 2011 identified that to ensure a quality service provision, the JMAPPA SMB arranged an independent review of its first year in operation which was achieved by the end of 2011.

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.

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 were accepted for action by the Strategic Management Board. The majority have been completed either in full or part; the 3 outstanding actions relating to the recommendations that –

• 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.

• This proposal remains under active consideration.

• 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 JMAPPA Co-ordinator is researching qualitative methods that may  be  beneficial  to  monitor  the  success,  or  otherwise,  of  the JMAPPA process.

• The Jersey Child Protection Committee (JCPC) 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.

• JCPC are in the process of making arrangements for an appropriate person to undertake this task.

These issues are continuously monitored by the SMB to ensure that JMAPPA is an effective and efficient process.

Training

During  2012,  a  two-tiered  training  programme  was  devised  and  delivered by  the Co-ordinator. The first tier focused on the basic concepts of JMAPPA, whilst the second  tier  focused  on  best  practice  with  regard  to  risk  assessment  and  risk management. This training was well attended, not only by Responsible Authorities and Duty to Co-operate Agencies, but also by a range of Interested Parties.

The Co-ordinator also delivered Basic Awareness training to particular teams. Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme

In July 2012, the Minister for Home Affairs tabled a proposal at the States' Children's Policy Group (CPG) to introduce a Child Sex Offenders Disclosure Scheme (Sarah's Law). The CPG supported this proposal and the scheme went live in January 2013. Effectively, this scheme allows any parent, guardian or carer who has concerns about a third party who has access to children, to approach the Police to ask for background checks. Any disclosure will be managed through JMAPPA.

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. Criminal Justice agencies in Jersey have staff qualified to use accredited risk assessment tools for particular offences. These tools were used as a basis of the multi-agency assessments in 83.6% of cases. Of the 10 JMAPPA subjects not subject to complete, formal assessment as a part of the Criminal Justice Process, this relates to limited co-operation or the unavailability of a recognised/accredited  risk  assessment  tool  for  that  particular  offender  profile, i.e. female sex offenders and offenders with mental health problems. However, the lack of co-operation or an accredited risk assessment tool did not prevent JMAPPA partners from actively managing these individuals.

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  agency's  or  an  individual's responsibility  with  regard  to  their  own  risk  management  practices.  Overall,  the JMAPPA  process  is  characterised  by  excellent  co-ordination,  supported  by  the commitment of member agencies to make a positive contribution to Jersey's public safety.

July 2013