Jersey Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (JMAPPA) Annual Report 2016.

Jersey Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements

Annual Report 2016

March 2017

JMAPPA Annual Report 2016

During the sixth year of operation, due to changes introduced in 2016 to make our risk assessment process more effective and efficient, the number of offenders now being jointly managed through the higher levels of this multi-agency process has seen a reduction to 48 over the course of the year.

The reduction in offenders being managed on a multi-agency basis has also realised a saving and reduction in multi-agency meetings by 39%, or on average one fewer meeting per week (53).

The benefit of this broader change allows front line professionals to focus more on those identified high risk offenders.

It is noteworthy that the number of individuals entering the JMAPPA process each year has remained broadly consistent: 66 in 2016 compared to 67 in 2015. The majority of these cases are managed at JMAPPA level 1 with a resultant demand on the resources of those single responsible agencies. Specifically, in relation to offenders convicted of sexual offences, 2016 saw a net increase of 26 such individuals being managed.

The reoffending by this cohort of individuals who are being managed through this multi-agency process also remains consistently low – just six offenders in 2016 (same figure as for 2015) for offences including public disorder, drugs, violence and acquisitive crime.

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, all of which were actioned and completed in 2016.

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 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.

2016 Developments

In 2015 the JMAPPA Strategic Management Board (SMB) commissioned a comprehensive five-year review of the JMAPPA arrangements conducted by Sally Lester and Duncan Sheppard, the joint heads of MAPPA for the UK. The final review document contained a total of 27 recommendations, all of which were addressed in the course 2016.

Of greatest procedural relevance was the recommendation to review the JMAPPA process with the aim of concentrating the resources of the higher management levels on a smaller cohort of high risk offenders. This was actioned through the introduction of a structured screening process in November 2015 in which all referrals undergo a brief multi-disciplinary assessment to decide at which management level they enter the JMAPPA process. As outlined in the following data, this has resulted in significant changes to the number and types of cases being managed through JMAPPA in 2016.

Other recommended developments included the decision to replace the VISOR offender management software with a bespoke Jersey specific system, progress in improving accommodation provision for high risk offenders and work towards a simplification of the process for the deregistration' of sex offenders.

In February 2017 the SMB completed a final review of the 27 review recommendations and were satisfied that they had all been duly actioned and completed.

Finally, 2016 saw a move towards a greater synergy between the different multi-agency forums by extending the role of the JMAPPA coordinator to include the chairing of the monthly MARAC domestic abuse risk management meeting.

Management of JMAPPA Subjects during 2016 People

68  48

2015  2016

The total number of individuals dealt with via the higher JMAPPA levels (2 and 3) in 2016 was 48, a decrease from 68 in 2015 (29%). The number of referrals remained almost static with 66 cases being referred in 2016 compared to 67 in 2015.

Meetings

135  82

The number of level 2 and level 3 multi-agency meetings to manage these individuals for 2016 was 82, a decrease of 53 from 135 (39%) in 2015.

In summary, 2016 saw a significant 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. As stated, this reduction is the result of the 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 assessed 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.

Person Profile

The following outlines the demographic, offending and risk characteristics of the 48 individuals managed at the higher JMAPPA levels (2 and 3) in 2016.

Place of Birth

75%  17%  8%

The overwhelming majority of offenders (36 of 48) were born in Jersey. Eight had the UK identified as their place of birth with the remaining four being born elsewhere in the world.

19% (9) of offenders were aged under 25; only two of the 48 individuals were female.

29% (14) of the individuals were subject to notification requirements under sex offender legislation, more commmonly known as being registered sex offenders.

Offender Assessment

The following summarises the risk indicators or flags' identified in the assessment of each individual case. Each case will have a number of risk areas flagged, for example an individual being managed due to an alcohol fuelled domestic assault, who is reliant on temporary accommodation would be flagged for substance abuse, domestic violence and unstable accommodation. The flagging process also allows for  the  consideration  of  positive/protective  factors  such  as  employment,  family  support  and cooperation with services (labelled in green below).

Reviewing the assessment flags, of note is the high number of cases (39 of 48) where substance abuse was flagged as a risk factor. Child protection issues also featured significantly (30 of 48) as did domestic abuse (28 of 48) and unstable accommodation (30 of 48).

In terms of protective factors, it is noteworthy that at the point of assessment less than a quarter (11 of 48) of people were in employment.

A high number of offenders had a history of previous conviction.

Reconviction

Six offenders were reconvicted during 2016 while, or within three months of being, subject to JMAPPA management at levels 2 or 3; this represents 12.5% of all such offenders.

The instances of reconviction in 2016 covered a range of categories including public order, drugs, violence and acquisitive crimes. While any instance of reoffending is of concern, none of the cases of reconviction in 2016 could be considered to be at the higher end of the scale of seriousness and no instance of reconviction in 2016 met the criteria for a JMAPPA Serious Incident Review (SIR).

During  2016  there  was  one  relevant  allegation  of  offending  by  an  individual  under  JMAPPA management. This matter involved an offender managed at JMAPPA level 2, who is currently undergoing prosecution for a serious offence and is remanded in custody. The case remains sub judice and as such the details are not discussed in this report. Nonetheless, in light of the gravity of the allegation an SIR was commissioned by the SMB and completed in early 2017. The details of the case, findings and recommendations of the review will be contained in the 2017 Annual Report.

Registered Sex Offenders

At the time of writing there are 116 individuals subject to notification requirements under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010; more commonly known as registered sex offenders'. 33 of these people are in custody, 83 in the community.

All of these individuals are subject to the JMAPPA process with the majority being managed at JMAPPA Level 1 under single agency risk management arrangements.

116

Total Individuals

Location

Custody Community

27 New Registered Sex Offenders in 2016

1 Person Deregistered

In the course of 2016, 27 people were convicted of relevant offences under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 and were made subject to notification requirements.

Over  the  same  period,  one  person  successfully  applied  to  have  their  notification  requirements removed and was deregistered'.

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.

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.

2016 saw the continued development of the JMAPPA process with a particular emphasis on the concentration of effort on the individuals assessed as posing the greatest level of risk to the wider community. Through the commitment and cooperation of its partners, the JMAPPA process continues to make a vital contribution to Jersey's public safety.

March 2017