Jersey Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (JMAPPA): Annual Report 2014.

STATES OF JERSEY

JERSEY MULTI-AGENCY PUBLIC PROTECTION ARRANGEMENTS (JMAPPA): ANNUAL REPORT 2014

Presented to the States on 2nd June 2015 by the Minister for Home Affairs

STATES GREFFE

2015   Price code: C  R.68

Jersey Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements

Annual Report 2014

February 2015

JMAPPA Annual Report 2014

Whilst I have been a member of JMAPPA Senior Management Board (SMB) since 2011, having assumed the chair of JMAPPA from the Assistant Chief Probation Officer in January 2014, I am pleased to be able to write the forward to 2014 JMAPPA Annual Report.

It will be noted from the 2014 report that JMAPPA has seen a growth in demand this last year,  both  in  terms  of  individuals  being  managed  and  supported  by  JMAPPA  and consequently the number of case conferences to ensure rigorous case assessment and strong risk management plans.

The reoffending by this cohort of individuals who are being managed through this multi- agency process also remains consistently low – just 8 offences in 2014. Sadly, one of these offences was serious (rape) and the SMB commissioned an independent Serious Incident Review (SIR) in order to learn any lessons from this incident. Nine recommendations from this review have been addressed. The offender was subsequently sentenced to 6 years imprisonment in January 2015.

Following the first year of operation for the Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferencing (MARAC) I am also pleased to report the success of this partnership between MARAC and JMAPPA in respect of reducing and combatting domestic abuse, protecting the public and preventing further victimisation of known victims.

Finally, it is also appropriate to acknowledge the hard work of front line professionals working in both the statutory and voluntary sector who play such a vital role in JMAPPA. The on-going  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 QPM Detective Superintendent Chair of JMAPPA SMB

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 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. 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 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 are being released from a custodial sentence up to 12 months or more for an offence of violence
• 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 three 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.

Management of Level 2 and 3 JMAPPA Subjects during 2014

The total number of individuals dealt with via JMAPPA in 2014 was 77, an increase from 66 in 2013 (16%).

The total of level 2 and level 3 multi-agency meetings to manage these individuals for 2014 was 143, an increase on 2013 of 24 (20.17%). Referrals have reduced by 19, from 86 to 67, since 2013 (22%).

An explanation for the increase in numbers of individuals is releases from custody to level 2 management, and an increase in the number of Category 1 offenders from 62 to 69 (an increase of 10%).

The increase in the number of meetings suggests that the cases under level 2 and 3 JMAPPA management require ongoing multi-agency intervention. The decrease in the number of referrals suggests that agencies continue to refer only the highest risk cases, and that they are more confident in partnership working and managing the risks due to their experience with the JMAPPA process. The increase in the number of meetings could reflect the necessity for longer periods of active multi-agency management. Category 3 and PDP cases are generally archived after approximately three months of unproblematic management to level 1 single agency management.

JMAPPA subjects managed at level 2 or 3 in the JMAPPA Process – Re-offending:

During 2014, 8 JMAPPA subjects were sentenced for offences committed when they were subject to level 2 management, or had been level 2 in the 28 days prior to the offence. This means that 89.6% of JMAPPA subjects were not reconvicted during 2014. The offence type ranged from rape (see SIR page 10, 11) and offences of violence in a public place (3) domestic abuse (3) and drug-related offences (1). Sentences imposed included financial penalties, community sentences (Probation Orders and/or Community Service Orders) and custodial sentences.

Registered Sex Offenders

Under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010, during 2014 the two Police Offender Managers have monitored all registered sex offenders (RSOs), 54 of who were resident in the community at 18 December 2014. In accordance with nationally recognised guidelines, unannounced home visits are undertaken, the time frames for which vary from potentially monthly to annually, depending upon the assessed risk of the offender.

During 2014 there has been an increase in the number of Category 1 offenders from 62 to 69 (an increase of 10%) many of whom are now being managed in the community at level 1 by the Police. Some of this case management is undertaken in partnership with the Probation Service, who throughout 2014 statutorily supervised six RSOs, but were in regular contact with another ten.

All registered sex offenders serving custodial sentences and due for release in 2014, were visited at HMP La Moye prior to their release into the community. This ensures that the offenders are fully apprised of the responsibilities, requirements and expectations of the Court Orders. Early

engagement with the RSOs has proved beneficial for ongoing management within the community, this could be seen to be reflected in the lower number of post-release investigations for breach of requirements. Nine RSOs were released from HMP La Moye in 2014, there are currently 15 RSOs continuing to serve the custodial sentence.

There were 23 known UK Registered Sex Offenders (RSOs) visiting the Island in 2014 who were contacted and reminded about their requirements whilst visiting the Island. Upon their arrival in Jersey, they are required to sign in at the Police Station, at which time they are advised that they are subject to local legislation requirements that mirror their UK Orders and requirements.

One local RSO was arrested and charged for failing to notify a change of address in 2014. Two RSO's were stopped from travelling off of the Island after failing to give enough notice of intended travel.

In November 2014, upon application, the Royal Court revoked Notification requirements on a RSO. As most RSOs are subject to Notification requirements for a minimum of five years, this was the first application of this kind. Another RSO withdrew his application due to the public nature of the hearing. As most RSOs are subject to notification requirements for a minimum of five years, there are only three other RSOs currently eligible to apply for revocation.

In the four years that JMAPPA has been operating, a total of 257 subjects have been managed through the process. Of these, 92 have been Category 1 offenders (RSOs).

JMAPPA Data 2014

People

Referrals

Level 2 and 3 meetings

JMAPPA level 1 individual agency case management 2014

Reconvictions

Serious Incident Reviews

During 2014, a mandatory Serious Incident Review (SIR) was commissioned by JMAPPA's Strategic Management Board (SMB). The criterion for a mandatory SIR is:

• The JMAPPA subject (in any category) was being managed at level 2 or 3 when the offence  was  committed  or  at  any  time  in  the  28  days  before  the  offence  was committed.
• The offence is murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape, or attempted rape.

The JMAPPA subject concerned, Mr X, was released from custody in January 2014 having been sentenced to more than 12 months imprisonment for offences including Grave and Criminal Assault. As is standard practice, a level 2 multi-agency meeting was convened prior to the Mr X's release and a review planned for a few weeks after his release in February 2014. Upon release Mr X was not subject to any Orders or statutory requirements but had agreed to maintain voluntary contact with the Probation Service. At the review meeting, it transpired that he had not maintained contact and there was no contact with other agencies.

The victim, who was known to Mr X, subsequently disclosed the offence of rape immediately to an Independent Domestic Violence Advisor (IDVA), having been introduced to her through the JMAPPA risk assessment process, committed approximately seven weeks after Mr X was released from La Moye. Mr X was arrested and charged with the offence of rape, subsequently being remanded in custody until he was sentenced to six years imprisonment by the Superior Number of the Royal Court in January 2015. Mr X was also made subject to Notification requirements and recommended for deportation.

The SIR was undertaken by an independent safeguarding expert who has knowledge of the key differences between Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements as they operate in England and Wales and Jersey.

The recommendations from this Serious Incident Review that are within the remit of the SMB have been accepted and acted upon. The author of the Review identified nine key actions, the completion of which was confirmed by the SMB in January 2015, although many actions had been completed mid-2014. Key issues identified related to improving the voice of the victim and victim engagement in the JMAPPA process, together with highlighting the lack of statutory post-custodial supervision to support public protection endeavours.

During 2014 there has been significant improvement in the specific victim aspect of the JMAPPA process. This is due to the strengthening of the Victim Notification Scheme and good liaison between the Police Witness Care Unit and Victim Support, as well as the development of the IDVA Service. The benefit of the IDVA posts with reference to the benefits for the high risk victims of domestic violence has been recognised, and both posts are now full-time.

JMAPPA Quality Assurance

Quality assurance has been an important element of the JMAPPA process since its inception. In 2011, approximately one year after JMAPPA was implemented, an independent review was commissioned. The Report made various recommendations; all of those that fell within the remit of the Strategic Management Board (SMB) were completed. The issues continue to be monitored by the SMB to ensure that JMAPPA is an effective and efficient process.

The commissioning of Serious Incident Reviews means that significantly harmful behaviour has been displayed (Serious Incident Reviews can be commissioned when a behaviour or incident does not lead to a conviction), the Serious Incident Review process helps to identify aspects of the process(es) that are working well, and those that require some attention or development. As set out above, one SIR took place in 2014. This was the first mandatory SIR, as detailed in the Annual Report for 2011, two discretionary SIRs were commissioned by the SMB.

2014 Audit

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. This audit was undertaken and its six main recommendations were accepted and acted upon by the Strategic Management Board. The completion of these actions was confirmed by the SMB in January 2015, although many actions had been completed during 2014.

Key issues identified in this Audit was that JMAPPA risk assessments and risk management plans are transparent and defensible, safeguarding referrals and enquiries have been made as appropriate. The Audit also identifies the importance of consistency in the support offered to victims (adult and children). As stated earlier, this is an area that has been significantly improved upon by a range of JMAPPA partner agencies and departments.

The Strategic Management Board would like to express thanks to those members of staff from Family Nursing and Home Care, Education, Jersey Family Court Advisory Service and the National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children who undertook the audit.

The JMAPPA Guidance is currently under review to incorporate the changes required following the learning points from the SIR and Child Safeguarding Audit.

Training

Training continues to be an integral part of the JMAPPA process. Multi-agency training designed delivered by the Coordinator continued throughout the year with 88 attendees from partner agencies participating in the Key Concept and Best Practice training programme. This is an increase of 28 from 2013) a rise of 32%.

Since 2012, a total of 242 training places have been provided. These numbers exclude bespoke training offered to various agencies, organisations or departments.

Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme

In July 2012, the Home Affairs Minister 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 2014.

Domestic Abuse Disclosure Scheme

In 2014 the States of Jersey Police introduced the Domestic Abuse Disclosure Scheme, often referred to as Claire's Law' in the UK. The aim of the scheme is to provide members of the public with a formal mechanism to make enquiries about an individual with whom they are in a relationship, or who is in a relationship with someone they know, if there is a concern that the individual may be abusive towards their partner.

The scheme aims to enable potential victims to make an informed choice on whether to continue the relationship, and provides help and support to assist the potential victim when making that informed choice.

The Domestic Abuse Disclosure Scheme is primarily the responsibility of the Police, but they may ask other agencies to provide information on the subject(s) of the external enquiry and any decision to disclose will be managed by JMAPPA.

In 2014 there were 2 application(s) under the Domestic Abuse Disclosure Scheme.

Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferencing (MARAC)  

In January 2014 as part of the Islands 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 and will continue to work closely with the MARAC process  throughout  2014  and  beyond  as  this  new  process  establishes  itself.  A  MARAC  is  held monthly and three referrals to JMAPPA have been made directly from MARAC in 2014.

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. 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 coordination supported by a commitment of member agencies to make a positive contribution to Jersey's public safety.

February 2015