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 (JMAPPA): ANNUAL REPORT 2013
Presented to the States on 26th March 2014 by the Minister for Home Affairs
STATES GREFFE
2014 Price code: C R.39
Jersey Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements
Annual Report 2013
January 2014
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, the 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 –
- 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 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.
JMAPPA Data 2013
Management of Level 2 and 3 JMAPPA Subjects during 2013
During 2013, a total of 103 JMAPPA meetings have been held, 96 were level 2 and 7 were level 3. In addition, there have been 12 meetings on travelling registered sex offenders and 7 Practitioner Meetings.
The number of level 2 and 3 JMAPPA subjects dealt with by the JMAPPA process throughout 2013 was 66.
JMAPPA subjects managed at level 2 or 3 in the JMAPPA Process:
56 (85%) individuals out of 66 managed throughout 2013 as part of JMAPPA have not been convicted for further offending. The 10 JMAPPA subjects who re-offended during 2013 tended to commit public order-related, or offences of violence, both in the domestic and public settings. One Category 1 offender was sentenced to imprisonment for further offences of indecent images of children. Sentences for further offences range from imprisonment to fines.
Under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010, during 2013 the Police Offender Managers have monitored all registered offenders in accordance with nationally recognised guidelines. The timeframes for unannounced home visits vary from monthly to annually, depending upon the assessed risk of the offender.
All registered sex offenders serving custodial sentences and due for release in 2013, were visited at H.M. Prison La Moye prior to their release into the community. This ensured that the offenders were fully apprised of the responsibilities, requirements and expectations of the Court orders.
Four JMAPPA subjects have been warned regarding their adherence to the conditions of the notification requirements and restraining orders (3 for late notification regarding travel, and one for suspected breach of Restraining Orders). Two registered sex offenders have been investigated regarding Internet-related offending, one of which is an ongoing enquiry.
In the 3 years that JMAPPA has been operational, a total of 205 people have been managed via the JMAPPA process. Of these, 80 have been Category 1 offenders (20 from off-Island), 79 Category 2 offenders, 28 Category 3 offenders and 18 have been PDPs.
Serious Incident Reviews
During 2013, no Serious Incident Reviews were commissioned by JMAPPA's Strategic Management Board. The recommendations from the Serious Incident Reviews commissioned in 2012 have been undertaken.
JMAPPA Quality Assurance
In 2011, approximately one year after JMAPPA was implemented, an independent review was commissioned. The Report made various recommendations, all of which were accepted for action by the Strategic Management Board. All recommendations that fell within the remit of the Strategic Management Board have now been
completed. Notwithstanding this however, the issues continue to be monitored by the SMB to ensure that JMAPPA is an effective and efficient process.
In 2013, discussions were held with the Safeguarding Partnership Board about undertaking an audit of JMAPPA cases to ensure that Child Safeguarding measures are being appropriately considered and actioned. It is anticipated that this review will be completed by mid-2014.
Training
Training continues to be an integral part of the JMAPPA process. Multi-agency training delivered by the Co-ordinator continued throughout the year, with 60 attendees from partner agencies participating in the Key Concept and Best Practice training programme. In addition, 47 attendees from the range of partner agencies attended awareness training on the updated JMAPPA Guidance. Basic Training to specific agencies and groups was also undertaken.
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.
There was one application under the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme in 2013. Change of JMAPPA SMB Chair
Following a highly successful tenure of some 3 years since inception of JMAPPA in late 2010, Mr. Mike Cutland – Assistant Chief Probation Officer – stood down as the JMAPPA SMB Chair at the end of 2013. JMAPPA has become a well-established and highly regarded multi-agency partnership in no small part due to the strong leadership of Mr. Cutland. Whilst he has stood down as JMAPPA Chair, he will continue to represent the Probation Service at a strategic level.
Mr. Cutland is succeeded as JMAPPA SMB Chair by Detective Superintendent Stewart J. Gull – Head of Crime Services with the States of Jersey Police. D.S. Gull has been a member of JMAPPA since July 2011, bringing with him UK MAPPA experience.
Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferencing (MARAC)
In January 2014, as part of the Island's Domestic Abuse Strategy, a MARAC process was introduced for the first time. The primary aim of MARAC is to enhance partnership safety plans for domestic abuse victims and prevent/reduce incidents of repeat offending. Many JMAPPA subjects have a history of domestic abuse, and the JMAPPA Co-ordinator has worked, and will continue to work, closely with the MARAC process throughout 2014 and beyond, as this new process establishes itself.
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.
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, it is important to remember that whilst it is important that agencies work together to assess and manage risk, individual departments still have a responsibility to use their own expertise to maximum effect. Neither does this remove an individual's responsibility with regard to their own risk management practices. A central tenet of JMAPPA is trying to work with offenders in order to promote their own responsibility for their behaviour whilst receiving appropriate support from member agencies. Overall, the JMAPPA process is characterised by excellent co-ordination, supported by a commitment of member agencies to make a positive contribution to Jersey's public safety.