Case Studies

Below are a selection of case studies that explain how MAPPA works in practice. Explore the scenarios to find out more about how MAPPA helps manage risk and protect the public in different situations.

 

Category 1

Example 1

Mr A is a MAPPA Category 1 offender (Registered Sexual Offender) referred to and managed at MAPPA Level 2.  Mr A was convicted of sexual assault on a child, the female daughter of Mr A's partner at the time (he also had a similar previous conviction against a former partner's daughter).  Mr A also had previous convictions for violent offences and at the point of being referred to MAPPA was assessed as posing a High risk of serious harm to children.

Mr A was referred to and accepted at MAPPA Level 2 as there were risks identified to children in Mr A's extended family which required close inter-agency working between police, probation and Children's Services.  There were also concerns around Mr A's need for an assessment with Mental Health services and risk to himself. 

Managing Mr A at MAPPA Level 2 acted as an effective mechanism for agencies to share information around the identified risk to children in his extended family with an action set for Children's Services to thoroughly research the family history so any risk to children within the family setting (as well as a number of ex partners) could be managed with safeguarding measures put into place.  Without oversight of the MAPPA Level 2 panel, the complexities and risk issues would not have been easily identified.  As a result of agencies completing checks on their agency systems and sharing information at MAPPA meetings a number of cases of children identified as being at risk were re-opened.  A robust risk management plan and number of licence conditions have been put into place to manage Mr A on release and to minimise the risk he poses.  Mr A was released to an approved premises and has been assessed by Mental Health Services so treatment can be sought based on his needs.  Address checks are being done for a move on plan for Mr A to reside in the community at this time.

 Example 2

Mr C, alongside a co-defendant, was convicted of an extensive number of serious sexual offences against multiple child victims over a period of ten years in order to seek sexual gratification. Offences were of a contact and non-contact nature and also identified Mr C as part of a large online paedophile ring. As an established and well-known local businessman Mr C's case attracted extensive national and local media attention. Due to the severity of Mr C's offending and the media attention received this case was accepted as a Category 1, MAPPA Level 3 case.

As a MAPPA Level 3 case Mr C was referred into the MAPPA process six months prior to his release so that extensive discussions and planning could take place to plan his return to the community involving a variety of agencies. This provided an opportunity for all agencies involved with Mr C's case to contribute to a robust risk-management plan incorporating inter-agency working at the very highest level. These professionals include Surrey & Sussex Probation Trust, Sussex Police, local Forensic Mental Health Team, Children's Social Care, Housing Representatives and Victim Liaison Unit to name but a few.

Mr C wished to return to his local area and to his business following his release. Prior to this and through regular MAPPA meetings professionals felt this was not a safe first option and that Mr C did not fully comprehend the seriousness of his offending and that  potentially he was not safe from the public in his local area. Collectively a decision was made by agencies at MAPPA to house Mr C in an Approved Premises post-release and additional curfews were agreed to closely monitor Mr C back in the community.

After a period of time at an Approved Premises Mr C wished to return to his family home. In advance, joint visits were undertaken with his Offender Manager and the Police to Mr C's home where his long-term partner was spoken to. Safety advice was offered to his partner and adaptations to the home were recommended (such as the installation of fire alarms and burglar alarms) to offer further additional safety to Mr C and his partner should there be reprisals from the community. Alongside this work the Police specifically undertook a Community Impact Assessment whereby they targeted Mr C's local community through the circulation of crime related questionnaires to gauge the local community's response to crime. This piece of work identified nothing in relation to Mr C and his offending behaviour and was positive is helping to firm up his move-on plan from Approved Premises back to his home.

As an internet downloader of indecent images of children MAPPA agreed that Mr C could only return home subject to a broken internet connection at his home being repaired and the installation of SECURAS software by the Police on a computer terminal in his home which would flag up any indecent material accessed by Mr C. This acted as a deterrence to future offending and would immediately flag up to the Police any further offending.

Within Mr C's immediate family there are child family members. Children's Social Care undertook an action to visit these children and their families to offer safeguarding advice. His Probation Officer and the Police also undertook a further visit to Mr C's partner to establish the children within her family, however, it was established that there was no concern on this side of the family.  This ensured that adequate safeguarding concerns had been properly addressed.

The above highlights just a mere fraction of the inter-agency work undertaken in order to prepare a MAPPA Level 3 case or release into the community and to ensure the robustness of the risk management plan. In this instance whilst the majority of work was done prior to release the inter-agency working continued when Mr C was released into the community and the risk management plan amended to reflect the collective decisions made by these agencies.

 

Category 2

Example 1
Mr B is a MAPPA Category 2 (violent) offender who was managed at MAPPA Level 2 for a period of time.  Mr B's index offence was for murder, committed when Mr B was under the influence of alcohol and drugs.  Mr B was released into the community having served a number of years in prison.  Mr B was released from open conditions into the community when his risk of serious harm had been substantially reduced. 

Although Mr B had been managing well in the community and was engaging fully with his Probation Officer, an ongoing neighbourly dispute and potential for this to escalate to violence meant that Mr B had been referred from MAPPA Level 1 to MAPPA Level 2.  This was so that the MAPP panel could put a multi-agency risk management plan in place to manage the potential increase in risk and come up with an action plan to de-escalate the situation.  Mr B had continued to engage with his Probation Officer who ensured she maintained regular daily contact with Mr B given the identified risk and potential for the situation to become out of control between Mr B and his neighbours.

At the multi-agency MAPPA meeting, representatives from the Local Authority Housing Association attended to discuss the case and, following discussion around the risk presented, were able to ensure that Mr B and his family were moved to another housing association property.  This highlighted effective multi-agency working under MAPPA and the risk of harm was reduced as a result.  Following discussion at a number of MAPPA meetings, Mr B was reduced in management to MAPPA Level 1, is complying well with his licence conditions and maintaining contact with his Probation Officer.

Example 2

Mr B was referred to MAPPA as a MAPPA Category 2 offender for a violent and sustained malicious wounding and assault committed against a female in her own home. He received a 36 month prison sentence for the offence.

Mr B presented with a range of complex issues.  He had a long history of violent offending against members of the public, including medical staff.  He has a long history of confrontation with agency staff in authority possibly and a history of being a looked after child in social care.   Following assessments he was diagnosed with an anti-social personality disorder with paranoid traits and possible mental health issues concerning depression.  Throughout sentence Mr B presented with hostility towards prison staff with numerous occasions of being detained in segregation due to violent or verbally aggressive outbursts.  Mr B was street homeless with no family support networks. 

Mr B was referred to MAPPA Level 2 and was accepted and discussed for a number of months   A main area of concern was that Mr B had a very difficult working relationship with prison, police and probation staff. He believed there was a conspiracy amongst these agencies against him.  He also believed that NHS staff were involved in a  conspiracy against him.  During his last release he had attacked staff in the Approved Premises where he had been released to so that he could be tested in the community.  Contacts with all these agencies often became verbally confrontational.

Agencies worked together in preparing for his release at the end of his sentence, where he would have no formal supervision or monitoring (having been previously recalled for violence whilst residing at the Approved Premises).

Actions included: a fresh assessment from Forensic Mental Health services whilst Mr B was in custody which confirmed personality disorder and paranoia.  Consultation with a Forensic Psychologist on how best to prepare Mr B for release.  All local agencies were formally disclosed to with regard to potential risks and actions to be taken to prevent problems arising.  Appointments were arranged for Mr B to attend community appointments with staff from Mental Health Services due to his complex needs.  As a result, Mr B offered to take up medication offered.  Agencies contacted Rough Sleepers with detailed plans made with what services may be offered to Mr B on release, and dedicated staff were identified to work with him.  Accommodation referrals were made to supported housing hostels around the country but Mr B declined a placement offered.  On release he travelled to another area. Communication and risk planning was conducted with this area and through joined up working with the police in that area information was shared on risk concerns, potential triggers, and actions to take.

As Mr B was released at end of sentence it meant he could no longer be managed under MAPPA as a MAPPA Category 2 (violent) offender.  Due to concerns, the MAPPA Level 2 panel agreed to keep Mr B in MAPPA as a MAPPA Category 3 (other dangerous) offender for a period of time and until risk management plans and trigger plans could be tested in the community. There was at this stage no identified lead agency with any statutory responsibility for managing Mr B).  Since release Mr B has not come to the attention of authorities. Risk has been managed through a combination of multi agency planning and actions and he has now been deregistered from MAPPA


Category 3

Example 1

Mr C was a MAPPA Category 3 (other dangerous) offender sentenced to a Referral Order in October 2012 for Criminal Damage.  The nature of the damage had clear sexual elements which caused concern, and prompted the Youth Support Service to exercise professional curiosity and seek background information from Social Services and the Police.  It was discovered that although Mr C had never previously been charged with any offences, there were numerous incidents recorded involving Mr C displaying sexually harmful behaviour to his siblings and other young children.  Following the identification of children at risk in a familial setting a request was made for social services to conduct an assessment.

In December 2012 reports were made by neighbours that Mr C was making inappropriate advances. Mr C had been seen to be hanging around the school and displaying grooming type behaviour.  Mr C was not in any education, training or employment and was seeking work at establishments children would often frequent e.g. toy shops, sweet shops. It was assessed that Mr C had little barriers to his behaviour, and he posed a high risk of serious harm to children, and medium risk of serious harm to female adults.

Due to concerns about Mr C's risk, and difficulties in ensuring other agencies were responding appropriately, the Seconded Probation Officer contacted the MAPPA Level 2 Chair.  The MAPPA Chair (a Senior Probation Officer) conducted a home visit with the officer, and it was decided that a MAPPA Category 3, Level 2 referral was necessary to manage the risks.  As a result of the MAPPA referral, the officer was able to encourage professionals from Children's Service, Adult Services, Local Authority Housing and Mental Health to attend a professional's meeting.  This enabled a coordinated approach to ensure that Mr C was supported to address his behaviour, and his risk was appropriately managed.

Mr C engaged with Mindful (Young Adult Mental Health Team) before being referred the Community Mental Health Team. He was supported to engage with the job centre to seek appropriate employment. The MAPPA Housing Coordinator was instrumental in finding him an appropriate placement in a supported housing project as arranged by the local Borough Council.  The police were tasked to disclose the risk to the mothers of the children at risk so they could  take measures to protect their children, and relevant schools were also aware of the risk through a formal MAPPA disclosure .  The Seconded Probation Officer continued to case manage Mr C, maintain contact with his parents and engage with him on a one to one basis to encourage him to find ways to self-manage his behaviour.

As a result of MAPPA oversight at MAPPA Level 2, services shared information and developed a plan to manage his risk;  he was moved into a stable environment where his behaviour could be partially monitored; and most importantly his siblings and other children  were protected from experiencing sexual harm.

Example 2

Mr A was originally referred to MAPPA for the index offence of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm in 2008.  He had been a MAPPA Category 2, Level 3 managed offender until his release from custody in January 2012 at sentence expiry date.  He went on to commit further violent offences which did not bring him into MAPPA based on the offences and sentence received.  A re-referral to MAPPA was made in 2013 where Mr A was referred to MAPPA Level 2 as a MAPPA Category 3 offender.

Mr A had a number of previous convictions for violent offences some involving the use of weapons.  Mr A had offended in order to fund his alcohol use and the other offences had been committed when he was under the influence of alcohol.  Mr A has a mixed history of complying with court orders and had exhibited poor behaviour whilst in custody.  Mr A had also been recalled from an approved premises where he was residing on release in 2009 for behaving in an aggressive manner.

The reason for the re-referral in April 2013 was a result of his partner having a daughter and the child being subject to a child protection plan.   A professionals meeting was called between Probation, Mental Health Forensic Services, Children's Services and the police.  It was at this point that the re-referral to MAPPA was done, and, owing to complex issues and a perceived increase in risk Mr A was re-referred to and accepted at MAPPA Level 2.

MAPPA meetings assisted in formulating a multi-agency and robust risk management plan, and information sharing for a forthcoming family court case.  There were also concerns of risk to staff and a police trigger plan was put in place for the safety of staff identified as being at risk.  . All of these actions were coordinated through discussions at MAPPA Level 2.

Probation was the lead agency and Mr A attended supervision every week. Sessions focused on de-escalation of his feelings surrounding the child protection plan and family court case and around continued threats to staff involved in the case

After some months the case was then taken out of MAPPA as through probation supervision and coordinated actions for agencies involved the risk was deemed to have reduced.

Mr A was again re-referred to MAPPA as his mental health was deteriorating and there were again concerns about risk to staff within one agency.  At the MAPPA Level 2 meeting, agencies discussed the identified risk to staff.  Following mental health assessments and a multi-agency discussion at MAPPA meetings, the risk was again de-escalated with Mr A complying with treatment and ceasing making threats to staff.

Although Mr A was managed under MAPPA on three occasions (the latter being where no agency had any statutory involvement), this highlights the close liaison between agencies to both reduce the imminent risk he was assessed as posing, to seek appropriate treatment and safeguard both the child involved as well as staff who were at risk of threats of violence.  Those involved identified risk and acted swiftly to ensure that the risks identified were minimised through close working between agencies.

 

Last modified by Alexandra Smith 9 months ago