Jersey Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (JMAPPA) Annual Report 2015

STATES OF JERSEY

JERSEY MULTI-AGENCY PUBLIC PROTECTION ARRANGEMENTS (JMAPPA) ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Presented to the States on 21st April 2016 by the Minister for Home Affairs

STATES GREFFE

2016  R.40

Jersey Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements

Annual Report 2015

March 2016

JMAPPA Annual Report 2015

During the fifth year of operation, whilst the number of offenders being managed through this multi- agency process saw a slight reduction (9) when compared with 2014, the consequence of this is the number of offenders being managed at level 1 (single agency) increased by 16% or a total of 16.

A total of 185 offenders are now being managed either by single agency - 117 or 68 by JMAPPA.

The reoffending by this cohort of individuals who are being managed through this multi-agency process  also  remains  consistently  low  –  just 6  offenders  in  2015,  for  offences  including  Public Disorder, drugs, violence and acquisitive crime.

Following the second full 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. A reduction in repeat offending is always a good measure of success and the partnership was able to report a 4% reduction in 2015.

An  independent  review  of  JMAPPA  was  commissioned  and  completed  in  2015,  led  by  the  UK National  leads  for  MAPPA.  Their  report  was  received  in  October  2015,  which  included  27 recommendations,  many  of  which  have  already  been  addressed  and  are  complete,  whilst  the remainder will be actioned through 2016.

In 2015, JMAPPA welcomed a new co-ordinator to post from Probation – James Lynch and said goodbye and thanks to the outgoing co-ordinator Adelaide Ormesher.

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, Health and Social Services, Education, Sport and Culture 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 coordinated 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 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 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 (ie 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 5 year review

In 2015 the JMAPPA Strategic Management Board (SMB) commissioned a comprehensive five year review of the JMAPPA arrangements; the last review having been completed in 2011. The 2015 review was conducted by Sally Lester and Duncan Sheppard, the joint heads of MAPPA for the UK. The reviewers visited Jersey for three days in June 2015 during which time they interviewed front line staff and managers from a number of agencies, observed JMAPPA meetings and reviewed the JMAPPA records.

The final review document was published in September 2015. In broad terms, the reviewers praised the progress made since JMAPPA's inception, the positive buy in' from involved agencies and the thoroughness of the JMAPPA process.

The reviewers also provided guidance on the development of JMAPPA over the coming years and made a total of 27 recommendations to the SMB covering strategic and operational areas.

The recommendations have been accepted and actioned by the SMB resulting in some immediate changes to practice, the piloting of other developments and the implementation of longer term strategic plans.

Management of JMAPPA Subjects during 2015

The total number of individuals dealt with via the higher JMAPPA levels in 2015 was 68, a decrease from 77 in 2014 (11%).

The total of level 2 and level 3 multi-agency meetings to manage these individuals for 2015 was 135, a decrease on 2014 of 8 (5%). Referrals reduced by 5, from 67 to 62, compared to 2014 (2%).

In summary, 2015 saw a reduction in the numbers of individuals managed through the higher JMAPPA levels with a subsequent reduction in the number of multi-agency meetings required to consider those individuals. The most likely explanation for this reduction is the introduction in November 2015 of a formalised screening of JMAPPA referrals as recommended in the 2015 five year review. The aim of this screening is to ensure that only individuals whose 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.

Figures 1, 3 and 4 provide a breakdown of the offence types dealt with through the JMAPPA process. As reflected in the data, the core business of JMAPPA remains the management of sexual and serious violent offending. Of note is the overlap between non-domestic and domestic violence offenders; 18% of JMAPPA meetings featured offenders with both domestic and non-domestic violent histories. Overall, domestic violence featured in 28% of all JMAPPA level 2 and 3 cases.

Figure 2 outlines the referral source for JMAPPA cases. Unsurprisingly, the overwhelming majority of cases enter the JMAPPA process through the criminal justice system with over half of all referrals being in relation to prisoners approaching release.

Figure 5 outlines the number of cases by agency being managed at JMAPPA Level 1 at the end of 2015.

JMAPPA Data 2015

Offending Profile

Figure 1

Referrals

Figure 2

Figure 3

Level 2 and 3 meetings

Figure 4

Level 1 Nominals

Figure 5

Serious Incident Reviews (SIR)

The JMAPPA guidance requires the SMB to commission a mandatory Serious Incident Review (SIR) if the following criteria are met:

• 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.

During 2015 there were no instances of offending which met the above criteria and no SIRs, either mandatory or discretionary, were commissioned.

Reconvictions

Figure 6

Over the 2015 period there were instances of reoffending by six individuals subject to the level 2 JMAPPA  process.   These  offences  covered  a  range  of  categories  including  public  order,  drugs, violence and acquisitive crimes.

This  represents  a  9%  reconviction  rate  for  level  2  JMAPPA  cases  in  2015.   This  rate  does  not significantly  vary  from  previous  years;  the  average  annual  reconviction  rate  since  JMAPPA's introduction being 10%.

While any instance of reoffending is of concern, none of the cases of reoffending in 2015 could be considered to be at the higher end of the scale of seriousness and, as stated, none warranted the commissioning of a SIR.

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, IDVA's 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 coordinated action plan. The primary focus of the MARAC is to safeguard the victim.

Since its introduction in January 2014, the Jersey MARAC has become the established multi-agency process for the safeguarding of domestic abuse victims. In 2015 the Jersey MARAC underwent a review  by  the  UK MARAC  umbrella  organisation  Safelives';  the  feedback  from the  review  was overwhelmingly positive and highlighted the rapid progress made in establishing the process.

There remain very close links between the JMAPPA and MARAC processes; the JMAPPA coordinator is a standard attendee at the monthly MARAC meeting and is a sitting member of the MARAC steering group.

Figure 7  Figure 8

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 coordinated 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.

2015 was a year of review and development for the JMAPPA process set against the challenges of increased financial and resource constraints for all agencies. Despite these challenges, through the commitment of member agencies, the JMAPPA process continues to make a vital contribution to Jersey's public safety.

March 2016