Jersey Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements: Annual Report for 2022. [R.57/2023]

JMAPPA

JERSEY MULTI AGENCY PUBLIC PROTECTION ARRANGEMENTS

Annual Report

2022

R.57/2023

Contents   Page

JMAPPA 2022 Infographic  4

1. Introduction by the JMAPPA SMB Chair    5

1. What is JMAPPA?  6
2. Who is managed under JMAPPA?  7
3. JMAPPA Management Levels  7
4. JMAPPA Governance 8
5. JMAPPA Global Impact  9
6. Budget 9
7. Annual Audit  9

2. Key Findings  13
3. JMAPPA 2022 Management  14

1. Category 1 – Registered Sex Offenders   15
2. Category 2/3/PDP Offenders  15

4. JMAPPA Process  16

1. JMAPPA Referrals  16
2. JMAPPA Meetings  17
3. Individuals subject to JMAPPA  17

5. Reoffending  18

1. General Reconvictions  18
2. Breaches of Notifications Requirements for RSOs  18
3. Serious Further Offending  18

6. Risk Register 19
7. JMAPPA Coordinator's Summary  20

1. Integrated Offender Management (IOM)  20
2. JMAPPA Guidance  20

3. Multi Agency Tasking and Co-ordination (MATAC)  20

7. Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferencing (MARAC)   21
8. Conclusion   22

Jersey Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements 2022 JMAPPA

During 2022, JMAPPA coordinated the  multi-agency risk management plans  of 72 individuals

8 individuals were (re)convicted whilst under active JMAPPA

Ongoing Demand management during 2022

25 Referrals to

JMAPPA during 2022,  

18 screenings  There were 214 active cases at all  

meetings. levels of JMAPPA at the end of 2022

On the 31st December  The total number of 2022, there were 50 individuals who were

individuals being  subject to any level of managed at Level 2 JMAPPA meetings during 2022 was 65

On the 31st 179 individuals 15 individuals  December 2022 there  were subject to  were made  were 164 individuals  Sexual  subject to Sexual  being managed  Notification Orders  Notification  Although review meetings

at Level 1 single agency at the end of 2022 Orders during  are held on average every

2022 10 weeks, the management of the cases remains

ongoing during that period 12 individuals were

On the 31st December  successful in their Sexual  2022 there were 28 Category 1  Notification Orders  

cases and 22 de-registrations Category 2, 3, and PDP cases  

being managed at Level 2  A total of 132

meetings

were held in 2022

During 2022 there were no  

further serious offences  

committed by individuals   Each Level 2/3 meeting lasts

managed under JMAPPA  between 30 minutes to an hour

JMAPPA's main aims are to protect the public and help  individuals not to offend or reoffend.  

JMAPPA allows agencies to assess and manage individuals on a multi-agency basis by working together,  sharing information and meeting, as necessary, to ensure that effective plans are put in place.  

JMAPPA Annual Report 2022

On behalf of the Strategic Management Board (SMB) for Jersey Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (JMAPPA), it is my pleasure to submit and introduce the Annual Report for 2022.

The key aim of JMAPPA continues to be to ensure protection of the public through robust assessment and management of those individuals in our communities who have committed serious acts of violent or sexual offending. This cannot be delivered by one agency alone, hence the need for the co-operation of agencies across a full range of disciplines.

2022 has seen advances in the use of technology to support engagement across agencies, taking what has  been  learnt  from  remote  working  during  the  pandemic,  recognising  the  benefits  of  having professionals together in person and managed to achieve a positive move forward in having a blended approach to attendance. Advances in technology have been significantly supported by advancement in the use of Microsoft TEAMs within the States of Jersey Police, a key contributor, ensuring that we have been able to maintain our ability to support and challenge offenders as well as protecting victims from further harm.

During 2022, JMAPPA coordinated the multi-agency risk management plans of 72 individuals. This number is similar to 2021 which was 79. The total number of individuals entering the JMAPPA process during 2022 was 23.

The total number of offenders subject to sex offender Notification Orders in Jersey at the end of 2022 was 179 with 15 new registrations during 2022. 29 of these people were in custody, 92 in the community and 57 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 28 were being managed through the partnership arrangements.

At the end of 2022, a total of 214 individuals were being managed at all levels of JMAPPA, 50 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 number of reconvictions during 2022 of those clients managed through this multi-agency process remained consistently low with 8 offenders being reconvicted of further offences. None of these offences were so serious to require a Serious Case Review.

At the end of my first full year as Chair of MAPPA in Jersey, it continues to be a privilege to see the work that goes on at the practitioner level with JMAPPA and to be able to have so much confidence in the commitment to and quality of this process, my thanks go to Mike Swain as Coordinator and to Jean Hart as administrator, which enables to the strategic partners to make very efficient use of time and resources to coordinate outcomes at the strategic level. My grateful thanks go to all partners and staff involved in the JMAPPA processes across Jersey and the UK for the commitment to engage and work together to protect victims, the public, and manage risk through partnerships.

Susan Richardson Prison Governor Chair of JMAPPA SMB March 2023

1. What is JMAPPA?

JMAPPA stands for Jersey Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements. It is the process through which criminal justice, statutory and voluntary agencies can share information, make plans and work together to manage the risks posed by individuals who have committed, or are assessed as likely to commit, acts of violence or sexual offences.

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 Chief Officer of 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.

The  period  an  offender  remains  a  JMAPPA  offender  varies  significantly.  Some  will  be  JMAPPA offenders for life (for example someone subject to Notification Orders who never applies or is not successful in de-registration) and some for less than 6 months. The period will be dependent upon the offence committed and the sentence imposed and any ongoing risks.

Individuals remain subject to JMAPPA for three months after the latest date of each and any of the following:

• Release from custody.

• End of post-custodial licence.

• End of Probation or Community Service Order.

• Reduction to Level 1 management.

• Removal of sex offender notification requirements.

2. Who is managed through JMAPPA?

There are five 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.

• Category  4  Offenders  (Terrorist  Offenders):  Individuals  who  are  suspected  to  have committed, been charged or convicted of a terrorism related offence (Jersey or abroad) or may be at risk of involvement in a terrorism related activity. Any case eligible for Category 4 must enter JMAPPA at level 3.

• 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.

Category 4 offenders were introduced towards the end of 2021 and if an offender is eligible for JMAPPA under more than one category, the JMAPPA Coordinator will decide the most appropriate category of management.

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.

3. Management Levels

All JMAPPA clients are assessed to establish the level of risk of harm they pose to the public. Risk management plans are then agreed for each client to manage those risks.

JMAPPA  allows  agencies to  assess  and  manage  individuals  on  a  multi-agency  basis  by  working together, sharing information and meeting, as necessary, to ensure that effective plans are put in place.

There are three levels of JMAPPA management. They are mainly based upon the level of multi-agency cooperation required but higher risk cases tend to be managed at levels 2 and 3. Clients will move up and down the levels as appropriate.

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.

All category 4 offenders will enter the JMAPPA process at level 3 due to the specialist nature of this type of offence.

4. Governance

The Strategic Management Board (SMB) is responsible for overseeing JMAPPA activity. This includes reviewing its operations for quality and effectiveness and planning how to accommodate change as a result of legislative progress, international best practice examples or local developments.

The SMB consists of senior management representatives from all agencies specified under Article 28 of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010.

The SMB meets on a quarterly basis. Standing SMB agenda items include empirical review of JMAPPA business,  resolution  of  issues  arising  from  operational  JMAPPA  meetings  and  consideration  of reoffence incidents.

The SMB Chairperson is a senior management representative from the States of Jersey Police, Jersey Probation and Aftercare Service or States of Jersey Prison Service. The designation of Chairperson is reviewed at SMB level on an annual basis.

5. Global Impact

JMAPPA relies on professionals' intervention and commitment rather than physical resources that can impact the environment. Meetings are held as a "hybrid format" of in person and teams thus allowing representatives to attend via teams if they do not wish to travel. Meetings are held at the probation offices in St. Helier which is within walking distance of most of the key agencies.

6. Budget

1 post of JMAPPA coordinator is funding through the probation service and is offered on a secondment basis. The JMAPPA administrator is funded as part of the business support provision and the chair of the SMB is offered as additional duties to either the head of the Police, Prison or Probation service.

Any additional expenditure for travel, personal development, training etc is requested out of existing budgets.

7. Annual Audit

All agencies represented at JMAPPA meetings were invited to complete the audit form. Nine agencies completed forms and returned, the same number as in 2021.

The audit was completed as an online survey sent out in a link. This allowed the survey to be anonymous if the person decides not to provide any personally identifying information.

Results with a selection of comments.

All agencies reported either being satisfied or very satisfied with the JMAPPA partnership. Professionals observed to be working together and sharing information."

"Appropriate and respectful conversations, appropriate discussion around RMP and correct agencies in attendance"

"Clear partnership working between key agencies". "Good communication."

"Good communication and all working together for a common purpose". "Any information sharing is valuable".

When asked to think about the JMAPPA partnership, how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

1. It is valuable to improve outcomes – All parties either agreed or strongly agreed.
2. The meetings are a good use of my time - – All parties either agreed or strongly agreed.

"They are extremely valuable from a welfare of the subject and the safeguarding of the public point of view".

"Because the meetings are a good use of my time, and I find it valuable to improve outcomes".

"Attendance when relevant to my agency is important and has offered valuable insights risk management".

"Meetings are always timely and appropriate, the function to not attend is welcome as not all agencies need to be present in all cases, this is used appropriately".

Overall, how useful do you find the JMAPA meetings? 9 found the meetings extremely useful or useful and 1 found the meetings neutral.

When asked how satisfied you with the organisation are ahead of the JMAPPA Meetings – all parties reported to be either very satisfied or satisfied.

"Organised, appropriate and useful to provide collaborative support".

"Notice given in advance of meetings and changes to meetings. Easy access to information pre meeting."

"There is usually a lot of information available within the shared documents, which is helpful for planning for meetings."

When asked how satisfied are you with the organisation in the JMAPPA meetings – All parties with reported being either satisfied or very satisfied.

"Information and profiles sent / uploaded in a timely manner. Structure of meetings is always consistent and appropriate, with enough emphasis on diversity / SMB considerations to ensure time is given to explore this"

"Introductions completed, discussion around the appropriateness of sharing information / how and why things need to be shared. Diversity statement always read, chairing of the meetings always goes well and on time."

"On point, excellent time management and clarity of surmising information and action plans."

When asked to think about the risk management process divided into 6 subsections, 58 out of 60 scored the process either strongly agree or agree.

"Clear and concise, opportunity for all partners to comment and challenge if appropriate."

All the above is covered and discussed, at times depending on the case not all items can be addressed fully as full picture not known or out of control of agencies present."

"JMAPPA meetings have been refined over the years and run well."  

When asked to think about the engagement with the risk management process divided into 3 sub sections participant agencies scored 29 out 0f 30 strongly agree or agree, 1 was neutral.

"I feel much more supported and listened to with my contributions, enabling me to be more curious and challenging (in a healthy way!) in discussions.

"I believe the co-ordinator facilitates the meetings well, making sure that people feel at ease during the meeting. I believe if people feel strongly about an issue they will challenge, but in an appropriate way (offering a different point of view rather than a direct challenge)."

When asked to think about the management of cases divided into 3 subsections participant agencies scored 9 either strongly agree or agree and 6 were neutral.

"The most valuable thing I have found is that the information received in between meetings is often the most valuable as it can raise an issue which can be nipped in the bud by my agency rather than becoming aware when there is offending or a crisis".

Information sharing is often prompted as opposed to forthcoming but is always given when requested".

Quite often not updated with relevant information from other agencies

When asked how satisfied agencies were with the way the coordinator facilitates the JMAPPA meetings all agencies scored either very satisfied or satisfied.

"I believe the co-ordinator has an extensive knowledge of subjects which gives confidence. They also conduct the meeting in a logical way, and know the correct order to bring people in. They are also willing to make a decision when other participants seem hesitant to give an opinion."

"The coordinator is organised and shows he has anticipated the relevant issues for the individual ahead of the meeting, and appropriately structures the meeting to ensure the relevant issues are addressed." "All aspects are covered and each individual given space and time to bring what they need to the meetings."

When asked how useful do you find Workspace (Egress) 8 participant agencies scored either extremely useful or useful, 2 scored neutral.

"Easily accessible platform with relevant documents. Don't currently and not entirely sure how the system works but could meeting contributions be shared via this rather than email? "

"Easy to use, safe to store information and appropriate rights attributed (no print function etc)" "Easy to log in, find documents and it is secure".

Other comments

"Accommodation options or lack of them, more creative thinking required".

"The nominals expectations, particularly upon release in relation to accommodation, benefit entitlement, employment etc. Lack of short term accommodation and large waiting list for long term accommodation. Accessing mental health support in the community - you have to be experiencing a mental health crisis before you can access support."

Most professionals do not know the client, so cannot share e.g. if they are not engaging with a service. On occasions, professionals can feel defeated if everything has been offered to a client. At times, I consider we should consider other strategies and approaches to deal with difficult to engage clients."

"All the above is covered and discussed, at times depending on the case not all items can be addressed fully as full picture not known or out of control of agencies present".

"Overall I believe they are well organised and well run. The only things I find frustrating are when the meeting becomes more about a third party than the subject and the risks they pose. An example of this would be extensive discussions about a subject's children who they are not in contact with and are prohibited by the courts having contact with. I would also like it if the subjects that require a lot of discussion are not on the same day, and the meetings were in the morning."

"There could be a greater focus from all on diversity issues and how these influence risk management strategies. Could the actions agreed during the meeting be summarised at the end?"

2. Key Findings 2021

• On 31 December 2022, there were 214 offenders under JMAPPA management in Jersey.

• Of these, 179 were Category 1 offenders, 22 were Category 2 offenders (mainly violent offenders) and 13 were Category 3/PDP offenders.

• There were 164 offenders under Level 1, single agency management, and 50 under Level 2 multi-agency management.

• The population of JMAPPA offenders on 31 December 2022 has remained relatively stable with a slight decrease from 219 in 2021 to 214 in 2022.

Categories of offenders

• The number of Category 1 offenders under JMAPPA has been growing yearly. The total on 31 December 2022 was higher than in the last year at 179 as opposed to 176 in 2021.

• The number of Category 2 offenders under JMAPPA on 31 December was 22 a decrease of 1 from 23 in 2021.

• The number of Category 3/PDP offenders decreased in 2022 by 3 to 13 from 16 in 2021.

• Category 4 was introduced towards the end of 2021 there are no cases to record in 2022.

Management level

• On 31 December 2022, there were 50 individuals being managed at level 2, being managed by multi-agency.

Registered Sex offenders  

• There were 179 Registered Sexual Offenders on 31 December 2022. This is an increase from 176 on 31 December 2021 and continues a trend of successive annual increases.

• There were 15 new registered Sex Offenders in 2022. This is representing a minor increase from the previous year as there were 14 new registered Sex Offenders in 2021.

• The number of de-registrations has increased from 6 persons de-registered in 2021 to 12 during 2022.

Serious further offences

• There were no serious further offences committed by individuals being managed at JMAPPA level's 2 or 3. There were no Serious Case Reviews commission by JMAPPA.

3. JMAPPA 2021 Management

Some individuals can be referred to JMAPPA more than once due to changing circumstances. As an example, because cases are being referred sooner into JMAPPA, this could mean a case could be archived before a Court sentencing. If the sentence falls within JMAPPA Category 1, 2 or 4 then the individual  will  be referred  to  JMAPPA  again  so  that  up  to  date  information  is  received  by  the Coordinator.

On 31 December 2022, 232 offenders were being managed under JMAPPA. Most of the offenders were Category 1 offenders managed at Level 1.

The total number between Registered Sex Offenders and JMAPPA Category 1 offenders can be different as individuals' remains under JMAPPA for 3 month's post deregistration. See "What is JMAPPA" for further information.

Management of Offenders

200 180 160 140

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3 Cat 4 PDP

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Sentencing guidelines contribute to changes in the number of Registered Sexual Offenders, and the number of people convicted of sexual offences increased steadily. Additionally, many sex offenders have to register for long periods of time, with offenders being registered for life (although they do have a right of apply for de-registration after completing a minimum period of time subject to the notification requirements). This has a cumulative effect on the total number of offenders required to register at any one time.

1. Category 1 - Registered Sex Offenders

In the course of 2022, 15 people were convicted of offences under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 and were made subject to notification requirements. Over the same period, 12 applications were successful in their de-registration.

Registered Sex Offenders 2018 - 2022

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

The age range of all these offenders' spans from 18 to 82 years and the vast majority are male with only one female. 57 Registered Sex Offenders reside outside of Jersey on a temporary or permanent basis as some of these offenders were deported or have relocated. 29 registered sex offenders are currently serving sentences within HMP La Moye.

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.

2. Category 2 / 3 – Violent or Potentially Dangerous Persons

On the 31 December there were 14 Category 2 cases being managed at level 2 and 8 being managed at level 1.

At the same time, there were 8 Category 3 cases being managed at level 2 and 4 at level 1. There were 1 Potentially Dangerous Persons (PDP) cases being managed at level 1.

Overall, there were 22 cases being managed at level 2 and 13 at level 1.

4. The JMAPPA Process

Under  JMAPPA, offenders  are managed  at  3  levels,  which  reflect  the  level of multi-agency  co- operation required to effectively implement the individual offender's risk management plan. Levels are dynamic and offenders can be moved between levels if that is what the risk assessment and risk management plan require.

Regular formal inter-agency meetings are held at Levels 2 and 3. The number of offenders managed at Level 2 and 3 over the year is recorded. This indicates the number of cases that require the increased oversight that Level 2 and 3 management provides.

When a case is referred to JMAPPA, it is the responsibility of the JMAPPA Coordinator to decide if and how that case should be accepted into the process.

1. JMAPPA Referrals

Some individuals can be referred to JMAPPA more than once due to changing circumstances. As an example, because cases are being referred sooner into JMAPPA, this could mean a case could be archived before a Court sentencing. If the sentence falls within JMAPPA Category 1 or 2 then the individual will be referred to JMAPPA again.

During the year of 2022, there were 25 referrals. This was a decrease compared to 2021 (36). 1 were related to domestic violence, 11 related to violence and 13 related to sexual offences/concerns.

From those 25 referrals, 10 cases went directly to Level 2, 15 went for screening. Referrals were received from Probation (12), Police (12) and Adult Safeguarding (1)

Referrals

Domestic Violence Violence

Sexual Offences / Concerns

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Referrals by Agency

Adult Safeguarding Probation

Police

0 5 10 15

2. JMAPPA Meetings

JMAPPA Meetings 2022

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Screening Level 2 Level 3

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.

There was an increase of 5% of JMAPPA meetings at all levels in 2022 (132) in comparison to 2021 (126).

3. Individuals Subject to JMAPPA

The total number of individuals who were subject to any level of JMAPPA meetings was 65. This includes screenings, level 2 and 3 meetings. 37 individuals were subject to more than one meeting.

5. Reoffending

1. General Reconvictions

JMAPPA endeavors 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 Case Review would be required by the Strategic Management Board.

Reconvictions 2012 - 2022

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Not reconvicted Reconvicted

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

The 2022 reconviction figure is slightly reduced from 2021 however remains consistently low with 8 offenders (11%) committing further offences, whilst being managed or within three months of being managed under JMAPPA level 2. The nature of these offences range from, larceny, malicious damage, disorderly behavior, failure to surrender, harassment and breach of orders to common and grave and criminal and, assault.

2. Breaches of Notification Requirements for Registered Sexual Offenders

The States of Jersey Police including the Offender Management Unit actively investigate any breaches of Notification or Restraining Orders.

3. Serious Further Offences

JMAPPA endeavors to manage and reduce serious risk presented by certain individuals. The risks posed through serious violent and sexually harmful behavior 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 Case Review would be required by the Strategic Management Board.

It is positive that during the course of 2022, there were no such serious offences committed by clients managed under JMAPPA.

6. JMAPPA Risk Register

7. JMAPPA Coordinator's Summary

1. Integrated Offender Management (IOM)

There are no cases being managed under IOM and the scheme is currently on pause. Effective communication  and  information  sharing  between  the  principal  Criminal  Justice  agencies  which underpins the IOM theory remains routine as best practice in Jersey. In the absence of mandatory Post Custodial Supervision, IOM would rely solely on voluntary engagement and therefore becomes redundant as a separate entity to the regular voluntary post custodial support and intervention that is offered through the Criminal Justice agencies and associated partners.

Post Custodial Supervision remains a strategic priority for the JMAPPA Strategic Management Board.

2. JMAPPA Guidance

Work has been undertaken to update the JMAPPA Guidance in line with recommendations following consultation from MAPPA UK, to include the new Category 4 - clients convicted or suspected of terrorism related offences and a stronger emphasis on managing perpetrators of domestic violence to include coercive and controlling behaviour.

Additional guidance for the single agency management of level 1 clients has also been expanded upon.

The information sharing agreement which is in place to ensure the safe sharing of lawful information between JMAPPA agencies for the purposes of public protection was re-signed in 2022.

3. MARAC/MATAC

There are currently no cases under MATAC and this has been made redundant by other forums including the daily domestic abuse meeting. A new daily meeting for any cases that include children was also introduced during 2021 by Police, IDVA, Children Services and partner agencies in order to act quicker in cases where children are involved.

A risk matrix similar to MATAC is proposed to select specific domestic violence offender intervention for high impact management under the JMAPPA structure, in conjunction with the domestic Abuse (Jersey) law 2022.

MARAC has significantly improved in function and effectiveness due to the new meetings introduced and work continues to bench mark our practice against relevant similar authorities sharing best practice.

Further developments e.g., the introduction / implementation of the new Domestic Violence Law and the additional resources of increased offender managers within the offender management unit will further enhance the MARAC and public protection arrangements.

8. 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.

Total MARAC Cases 2022 - 109

10%

50%

40%

Police 58 JDAS 46 Voluntary secotor 11

A total of 115 referrals were reviewed at MARAC with 6 cases being referred by more than one agency. Out the 109 victims, 105 were female and 4 were male.

41 (38%) of victims were represented within the BAME communities.

9. 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.

The JMAPPA process is continually evaluated and evolves in line with best practice and research, new laws and guidelines.

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.