Jersey Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (JMAPPA) Annual Report 2019

2020  R.38

Jersey Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements

Annual Report 2019

March 2020

JMAPPA Annual Report 2019

It is my pleasure, as the JMAPPA Chair to submit and introduce the annual report for 2019.

JMAPPA was created in 2011 following the provisions made under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010. Since that time, JMAPPA has overseen the management of the island's most serious violent and sexual offenders. In 2019, JMAPPA continued to consolidate and make changes to the forum in an effort to improve its ability to help coordinate the support and challenge of offenders and ultimately help support and protect victims from further harm. Some of these changes are as highlighted in the developments' section.

During 2019, JMAPPA coordinated the multi-agency risk management plans of 70 individuals. This number is similar to those in 2014 but is a significant increase by comparison to the previous two years. In 2018 there were 48 individuals and in 2017, 54. The increase in number was a result of the increase in referrals from partner agencies and the increase in convictions of those committing sexual offences.

The total number of individuals entering the JMAPPA process during 2019 was 59.

The total number of offenders subject to sex offender Notification Orders in Jersey at the end of 2019 was 164, with 31 new registrations during 2019. 40 of these people were in custody, 84 in the community and 40 were residing outside of Jersey on a temporary/permanent basis. At the time of writing, the majority of these individuals were being managed by a single agency, whilst 26 were being managed through the partnership arrangements.

At  the end  of  2019, a  total  of  193  individuals  were  being managed  at  all  levels  of  JMAPPA,  44 individuals (including individuals subject to Notification Orders) were actively managed at JMAPPA level 2 or 3. The majority of these cases were managed at JMAPPA level 1 (single agency) with a resultant demand on the resources of those lead agencies. This responsibility has largely fallen to the Police with a smaller number being managed by Probation, Prison and other partnership agencies. The majority of referrals made into JMAPPA come from the Probation Service who write the Social Enquiry Reports and undertake specialist assessments for the Courts.

The number of reconvictions during 2019 for those clients managed through this multi-agency process remained  consistently  low  with  just  eight  offenders  committing  further  offences.  None  of  these offences were so serious to require a Serious Incident Report. This does not minimise the impact upon victims of these further criminal behaviours committed by those subject to JMAPPA arrangements.

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.

As JMAPPA Chair it is important to acknowledge and thank, all front line professionals from 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 in enhancing public protection through this partnership forum.

Stewart J Gull QPM

Detective Superintendent

Chair of JMAPPA SMB March 2020

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 coordinating the management of individuals assessed as posing a risk of serious harm to others.

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 Head of Service of Jersey Customs and Immigration. The Ministers of the departments who are identified as agencies who have a Duty to Cooperate' are Justice and Home Affairs, Health and Community Services, Children, Young People, Education and Skills and Customer and Local Services. 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 and support for victims of domestic and sexual abuse.

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 or their representatives from the Police, Prison, Probation, Customs and Immigration, Customer and Local Services (CLS), Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance (SPPP), Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES), and Health and Community 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 (Sex Offenders): All offenders subject to notification requirements under Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010.

Category 2 Offenders (Violent Offenders): An offender who has been sentenced for their most recent violent offence to:

12 months in custody or longer or a Treatment Order (with or without restrictions) or a Guardianship Order under the Mental Health (Jersey) Law 2016.

Category 3 Offenders: Individuals with a criminal conviction (current or historic) or a defendant who does not have capacity to participate effectively in court proceedings as determined under the Mental Health (Jersey) Law 2016

and

is assessed as posing a risk of serious harm but does not meet Category 1 or 2 criteria.

Potentially Dangerous Persons (PDPs): Individuals with no criminal conviction but assessed as posing a risk of serious harm.

The criteria for Category 1 and 2 cases is unambiguous. All offenders within these categories must be identified as JMAPPA cases and managed through the JMAPPA process at one level or another.

The thresholds for Categories 3 and PDP are more subjective and are based on the referring agency's assessment of the risk of serious harm posed.

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 ascending levels of JMAPPA management – 1, 2 and 3.

The level of management reflects the current assessment of risk of serious harm in the case combined with the intensity of intervention required to manage that risk.

The management level does not directly correspond with severity of offending behaviour. There are many cases involving serious harmful offending that are managed at the lowest JMAPPA level – Level 1.

Level 1 Management

At any one time, the majority of JMAPPA cases are managed at Level 1.

There should be the same level of cooperation and information sharing between partners at Level 1 as there is at the higher management levels (2 and 3).

At Level 1 management, it is assessed as defensible for the case to be managed within the risk management protocols of one identified agency. Typically, this will be the States of Jersey Police, Jersey Probation and Aftercare Service and the States of Jersey Prison Service though other agencies may be identified as the lead agency on a case-by-case basis.

It is important to highlight that the Level 1 lead agency is not solely responsible for the risks posed by the identified individual. Regardless of the management level and identified lead agency, all partner agencies at all times retain their full statutory responsibilities and obligations to public protection.

Level 2 Management

At Level 2, the level of risk is assessed as sufficiently high to require a coordinated information sharing, assessment and risk management approach. Level 2 management arrangements are framed around a formal multi-agency meeting structure. The purpose of the JMAPPA Level 2 meeting is to enhance, not override, the continuous multi-agency risk management of a case. It is vital that professionals are empowered to react to dynamic changes in circumstances and risk regardless of JMAPPA status or management level.

Level 3 Management

Level 3 is the highest level of JMAPPA management and is reserved for the management of the critical few very high-risk public protection cases.

The key difference between Level 2 and Level 3 is the requirement for exceptional resource allocation or strategic level intervention in the risk management arrangements. Attendees at Level 3 are senior management level – e.g. Detective Superintendent of the States of Jersey Police, Chief Officer or Team Manager of the Jersey Probation and Aftercare Service and member of the Jersey Prison Service Management Board.

2019 Developments

During the course of 2019, the JMAPPA SMB has overseen and been involved in several ongoing developments and changes.

In 2019, JMAPPA accepted its first offender sentenced to a Treatment Order under the Mental Health (Jersey) Law 2016 as enacted in 2018. To reflect the law and the management needs, the JMAPPA Guidance was amended. Partnership arrangements with both MAPPA colleagues and a mental health establishment within the UK were further strengthened.

Other new partnerships were formed with non-statutory agencies involved in the management and support of JMAPPA clients. These partnerships continue to be invaluable to increase the level of assessment and management of clients.

The commitment from all partnership agencies was confirmed by the signing of the new and amended Information Sharing Agreement. Several agencies also committed staff members to undertake the JMAPPA training delivered by the JMAPPA coordinator throughout the year.

JMAPPA agencies always look to achieve the best possible management of Jersey's most serious violent and sexual offenders. There is however, no current statutory supervision of prisoners post release for adults. Engagement with Probation (and other agencies) post-release is therefore done on a voluntary basis. Jersey is highly unusual in this regard compared to other jurisdictions.

To address this issue, the Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance (SPPP) team, on behalf of the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs liaised with and chaired a stakeholders group exploring the feasibility of statutory post custodial supervision (PCS). Included in the group were the JMAPPA SMB Chair and other JMAPPA SMB members including the Governor and Head of the Prison Service and Chief Probation Officer.

A paper was presented to the Council of Ministers in February 2020 and in-principle support was given to develop a pilot (PCS) scheme. It is believed that implementing such a scheme will lead to more robust risk management plans and by doing so, better protect the public, including children.

Putting children first is a government strategic priority. The improved services to children is likely to have a significant impact upon offending behaviours in the future. JMAPPA agencies are becoming increasingly aware of the longitudinal impact that Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE's) have upon the welfare and behaviours for clients throughout their life and are incorporating this knowledge into their work with both offenders and victims.

Management of JMAPPA Subjects during 2019 People

48

2018

70

2019

The total number of individuals dealt with via the higher JMAPPA levels (2 and 3) in 2019 was 70, a 45.8% increase from 2018. The number of referrals during 2019 was 59. The increase in number was a result of the increase in referrals from partner agencies and the increase in convictions of those committing sexual offences.

Meetings

92  70

The number of Level 2 and Level 3 multi-agency meetings to manage these individuals for 2019 was 70 and in 2018, there were 92. A decrease of approximately 24%.

When including screening meetings, the total number of JMAPPA meetings for 2019 was 121.

The screening process consists of a brief structured meeting attended by the JMAPPA Coordinator and Level 2 representatives from States of Jersey Police, Jersey Probation and Aftercare Service, States of Jersey  Prison  Service  and  Children's  Service  as  a  minimum.  Representatives  from  other  involved partner agencies may attend on invitation or by request.

Screening attendees consider the referral information, make an initial assessment of risk and agree on the level of management at which the case enters the JMAPPA process. Screening meetings aim 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.

The total number of individuals who were subject to any level of the JMAPPA process was 93. This includes anyone actively managed at levels 2 or 3 and any case which underwent a screening meeting. From those 93 cases, 53 were Sex Offenders and 40 were ostensibly violent or domestic violent offenders.

Original Offence for Referral

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Registered Sex Offenders

At the end of 2019, there were 164 individuals subject to notification requirements under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 more commonly known as Registered Sex Offenders' (RSO). 40 of these people were in custody, 84 in the community and 40 reside outside of Jersey on a temporary or permanent basis.

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

164

Total Individuals

Breakdown of RSOs by Level of Management

160

140 135

120

100

80

60

40 26

20

2  1

0

1 2 Screening Court Proceedings

40  40

Custody

Community

Resident outside Jersey

84

31 New Registered Sex Offenders in 2019 6 Persons Deregistered

In the course of 2019, 31 people were convicted of offences under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 and were made subject to notification requirements. Over the same period, 9 people applied to have their notification requirements removed. 6 of these applications were successful.

At the end of 2019 there were 38 Registered Sex Offenders who were eligible to apply to the Court to have their Notification Orders removed but have chosen not to make this application.

The age range of these offenders spans from 17 to 79 years and with one exception, all are male.

When comparing these figures to 2018, there has been a net increase of eleven new registered sex offenders and three fewer deregistered sex offenders.

As a prescribed jurisdiction under the law, registered sex offenders travelling to Jersey from the United Kingdom also require statutory management with the Police Offender Management Unit as lead agency.

Violent Offenders

43%  of  clients  who  were  overseen  by  JMAPPA  during  2019  were  violent  offenders.  23%  were categorised as general violence and 20% as domestic violence/abuse. The categories of these offence types although useful, does not reflect a clients' full profile. Many offenders will for example commit both domestic and generalised violence and their risk management plans will need to address all such behaviours to protect the victims.

The category composition of offenders managed at level 2 and 3 by JMAPPA during 2019, excluding Registered Sex Offenders.

Individuals managed in 2019 Categories 2, 3 and PDP

25

20

15

10

5

0

Category 2 Category 3 Category PDP

Violent Offenders DV Offenders

Person Profile

The  following  outlines  the  demographic,  offending  and  risk  characteristics  of  the  70  individuals managed at the higher JMAPPA levels (2 and 3) in 2019.

Place of Birth

51%  33%  16%

Approximately half of the total number of offenders (36 of 70) were born in Jersey. 23 had the UK or Northern Ireland identified as their place of birth with the remaining 11 being born elsewhere in the world, including 7 in Europe.

13%

87%

25 or under Over 25

43%

57%

Registered Sex Offender Other

13% (9) of offenders were aged 25 or under and 4 of the 70 individuals were female. 2 individuals were under 18.

57% (40) of individuals out of the 70 managed during 2019 were subject to notification requirements under sex offender legislation, more commmonly known as being a registered sex offender.

Offender Assessment

The following summarises the risk indicators or flags' identified in the assessment of each individual. Each case will have a number of risk areas flagged, for example a person being managed due to a domestic  assault,  aggravated  by  alcohol,  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.

Assessment Areas

Employed 17

Cooperative 28

Family Support 44

Risk to Staff 20

Self-Harm 25

Weapons 26

Unstable Accomodation 28

Domestic Abuse 31

Violence 38

Substance Abuse 47

Child Protection 51

Previous Convictions 55

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Number of individuals flagged

When reviewing the assessment flags, the most significant risk indicator is that of an offender having previous convictions, unstable accommodation and substance misuse issues. Flagged issues around child  protection,  violence  and  domestic  abuse  were  also  significant.  These  factors  are  largely consistent with previous years.

In relation to protective factors, it is noteworthy that at the point of assessment less than a quarter of all clients had employment as a protective factor and several had limited family support. The listed factors do not explicitly identify Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE's) but agencies working with offenders are becoming increasingly aware of the impact ACE's have on behaviours and are trying more to incorporate this into their work with offenders.

Reconviction

JMAPPA endeavours to manage and reduce serious risk presented by certain individuals. The risks posed through serious violent and sexually harmful behaviour can never be entirely eliminated. In the event that a serious further offence is committed such as that of murder, manslaughter or rape, a Serious Incident Review would be required by the Strategic Management Board.

It is positive that during the course of 2019, there were no such serious offences committed by clients managed under JMAPPA.

All Reconvictions 2011 - 2019

80

69

70 67  62  62

59

60 54  56

50 47

41

40 Not reconvicted 30 Reconvicted

20

10  8  10  8

10 4  7  6  6  6

0

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Whilst being managed or within three months of being subject to JMAPPA management at levels 2 or 3, there were a total of eight offenders who committed some type of further offence. The nature of these included assaults, domestic violent assaults, breach of a sexual offence notification court order and larceny. This 2019 reconviction figure is broadly similar in percentage terms to previous years.

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, Justice and Home Affairs, Health and Community Services, Children,  Young  People,  Education  and  Skills,  Customer  and  Local  Services,  Andium  Homes,  The Refuge, Independent Domestic Violence Advisors 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.

MARAC meetings continue to be chaired by the JMAPPA Coordinator with the purpose of providing a greater synergy between the two different multi-agency forums.

Since its introduction in January 2014, the Jersey MARAC has become the established multi-agency process for the safeguarding of domestic abuse victims.

11%

29%

60%

Referrals from partner agencies - 24 Police referrals - 135 Repeat referrals - 65

8%

92%

Male - 13 Female - 146

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.

Jersey is fortunate to have the commitment of a large number of agencies from both statutory and non-statutory agencies. Its partners include those that work with both offenders and victims including children. Through their ongoing commitment and cooperation, the JMAPPA process continues to make a vital contribution to Jersey's public safety.

March 2020