13. Risk Management of Known Offenders

Children and the criminal justice system

Children can enter the criminal justice system as:

• A child whose behaviour is deemed so serious at the outset that the police, in consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), make an immediate decision to charge them;
• A child who has previous offences and is therefore not eligible for the final warning and reprimand scheme, and is immediately charged;
• A child who is likely to receive a reprimand or a final warning.

There is a need to distinguish between those children who present a risk of harm to other children and adults, who:

• Have entered the criminal justice system: and those who
• Have not been accused, finally warned / reprimanded about or convicted of sexual or other serious offences.

Assessing risk to a child needing protection from harm

In all cases where a child harms or is alleged to have seriously / sexually harmed another child or an adult, referrals should be made, verbally and in writing, in line with section 6. Referral and assessment, to LA children's social care for both:

• The child who is identified as the victim (if the victim is a child); and
• The child who is known / alleged to have caused the harm.

The LA children's social care response to the referral for either child should include consideration of:

• Any child/ren in the household or community having already been harmed;
• Any child/ren in the household or community at immediate risk of being harmed.

Any decision about proceeding with a Child Protection Enquiry or initial assessment for the child who is known / alleged to have caused the harm, should take into account the fact that evidence suggests that children who display harmful behaviour to others may have:

• Been exposed to violence within the family;
• Witnessed physical or sexual assault;
• Been subject to physical or sexual assault;
• Suffered considerable disruption in their lives;
• Have problems with their educational development.

Such children are likely to be Children in Need and some may be suffering, or be at risk of, Significant Harm and be in need of protection.

Criminal justice assessment of a child

A joint assessment between Yot and LA children's social care should be conducted whenever a child:

• Has committed a sex offence;
• Has committed a serious violent offence against a child (or adult).

Asset - Yot assessment tool

Completion of Asset should be the basis for all assessments of potential risk. In particular, this should include:

• Asset - Core Profile;
• What do you think? form;
• Asset - Risk of Serious Harm.

Asset documents are available for download from the Youth Justice Board website.

The 'indicators of serious harm' section of the Asset - Core Profile is being revised to specify that Asset - Risk of Serious Harm should normally be completed where:

• A child has been convicted of a serious specified offence;
• A child is being sentenced in the crown court for a specified offence;
• A youth court specifically requests that the risk assessment in a pre-sentence report should contribute to its assessment of dangerousness in order to determine whether to remit the case to the Crown Court for sentencing.

Risk factors

Section 2 of Asset - Risk of Serious Harm looks at a child's current circumstances. This enables the practitioner to do one of the following:

• Highlight factors about a current situation that might increase the risk of a child causing serious harm to others discuss factors which suggest that, although a child may previously have committed a violent or sexual offence, their circumstances may have changed such that the likelihood of further such behaviour is reduced.

Protective factors

Future behaviour

Whilst knowledge of past behaviour is critical in making assessments about the likelihood of future behaviour, children can change. This is particularly relevant for children who may be experiencing a complex process of development. This has been highlighted in a recent judgment of the Court of Appeal stating that:

'It is still necessary, when sentencing young offenders, to bear in mind that, within a shorter time than adults, they may change and develop. This and their level of maturity may be highly pertinent when assessing what their future conduct may be and whether it may give rise to significant risk of serious harm'. (R v Lang, 2005)

Notification to the register

Initial notification

The offender must make an initial notification to the police within three days of their:

• Release from custody;
• Release from imprisonment or service detention;
• Release from hospital; or
• Return to the UK.

The details they must give are their:

• Date of birth;
• National insurance number;
• Name and any other names used on the date of conviction etc. and on the date of notification;
• Home address on the date of conviction etc. and on the date of notification (this means the offender's sole or main residence in the UK, or where the offender has no such residence, the location of a place in the UK where they can regularly be found and if there is more than one such place, such one of those places as the person may select);
• The address on any other premises in the UK which, at the time of notification, they regularly reside or stay.

Changes to notified details

Should the notified details change, the offender must notify the police of new details within three days of:

• Using a name that they have not already notified to the police;
• A change to their home address;
• Having stayed at an address in the UK that they have not notified for a 'qualifying period' (this is a period of seven days or two or more periods in any 12 months which taken together amount to seven days);
• Their release from detention in a prison, hospital etc..

Risk of harm from an unconvicted individual

Developing intelligence about organised or persistent offenders

Each local police team has a dedicated 'intelligence officer' responsible for the:

• Collation and dissemination of relevant intelligence to local, area and central police databases regarding persons likely to be committing offences against children;
• Initiation of proactive assessment and action plans regarding identified suspects and controlling or assisting with the implementation of these plans within the police;
• Submission of intelligence reports through the appropriate channels for action in cases where suspects are committing offences outside the Metropolitan Police Service boundary;
• Preparation of information to be shared within MAPPA.

Assessment of an adult: Offender Assessment System (OASys)

OASys is designed to:

• Assess how likely an offender is to be re-convicted;
• Identify and classify offending related needs, including basic personality characteristics and cognitive behavioural problems;
• Assess risk of serious harm, risks to the individual and other risks;
• Assist with the management of the risk of harm;
• Link the assessment to the sentence plan;
• Indicate the need for further specialist assessments;
• Measure change during the period of supervision / sentence.

The offender's self-assessment, which is also a part of OASys, is a useful for two reasons:

• It reflects the accuracy of the offender's self perception;
• It indicates the offender's likelihood of re-offending because re-offending is linked to the offender's ability to recognise their own problems.

Levels of risk of harm

The levels of risk of harm used by OASys are as follows;

• Very high: there is an imminent risk of serious harm. The potential event is more likely than not to happen imminently and the impact would be serious;
• High: there are identifiable indicators of risk of serious harm. The potential event could happen at any time and the impact would be serious;
• Medium: there are identifiable indicators of risk of serious harm. The offender has the potential to cause harm but is unlikely to do so unless there is a change in circumstances (e.g. failure to take medication, loss of accommodation, relationship breakdown, drug or alcohol misuse);
• Low: no significant, current indicators of risk of serious harm.

The categorisation includes risks to:

• The public: either generally or a specific group such as the elderly, women or a minority ethnic group;
• Prisoners: within a custodial setting;
• A known adult: such as a previous victim or partner;
• Children: who may be vulnerable to harm of various kinds, including violent or sexual behaviour, emotional harm or neglect;
• Staff: anyone working with the offender whether from probation, prison, police or other agency. This relates to all forms of abuse, threats and assaults that arise out of their employment;
• Self: the possibility that the offender will commit suicide or self-harm.

Risk Matrix 2000

Other sources of risk assessment

Multi-agency risk assessment conferencing (MARAC)

The risk assessment has three main objectives:

• To gather detailed and relevant information from victims, which can be shared with other agencies;
• To identify those who will need more intensive support;
• To make agencies aware of the most dangerous offenders.

To hold a MARAC requires, at a minimum, that:

• Police identify the very high-risk victims;
• Police circulate the details of these victims and their children to participating agencies (the MARAC 'list');
• Police pull the files for these victims and bring them to the meeting;
• Minutes of the MARAC meeting are taken (currently by police, formerly probation);
• Minutes of the MARAC meeting are circulated to participating agencies.

Additionally, it is expected that:

• All participating agencies check the MARAC list against their own agency's records, in order to collate all the evidence available for the mother, abuser and child/ren;
• Some agencies, such as the Women's Safety Unit, should also bring relevant files to the meeting;
• Representatives should take notes at the MARAC, in order to delegate actions to workers;
• Actions agreed at the MARAC should be progressed;
• Individual records held at agencies should be updated.

Responsible authority

Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 the police, probation and prison services constitute the 'responsible authority' which is required to:

• Establish local arrangements to assess and manage risks posed by child and adult sexual and violent offenders;
• Review and monitor arrangements;
• Prepare and publish an annual report on their operation.

Duty to co-operate

The duty to co-operate under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires the responsible authority to co-operate with each of the following agencies and requires them to co-operate with the responsible authority:

• Councils with social services responsibilities;
• Primary Care Trusts, other NHS Trusts and Strategic Health Authorities;
• Jobcentres Plus;
• Youth Offending Teams;
• Social landlords which accommodate MAPPA offenders;
• Local housing authorities;
• Local education authorities;
• Electronic monitoring providers.

In practical terms the type of co-operation envisaged would involve representatives of the agencies:

• Attending risk management meetings where they are already involved in the case or where they have a responsibility;
• Providing advice (perhaps but not necessarily by attending risk management meetings) about cases in which they are not involved and have no direct responsibility so as to enable the responsible authority and the other agencies involved in the case to assess and manage risk more effectively. For example, this might involve explaining how specific housing, health or social services which are not currently required in the case may be accessed or involved later;
• Advising on broader, non case-specific, issues which may affect the operation of the MAPPA more generally;
• Sharing information about particular offenders and about broader issues so as to enable the responsible authority and the other agencies to work together effectively.

Strategic management board (SMB)

SMB role

While areas have some discretion in defining the role of the SMB, all SMBs must:

• Establish connections which support effective operational work with other public protection arrangements (e.g. Local Safeguarding Children Boards, local crime and disorder partnerships and local criminal justice boards);
• Identify and plan how to meet common training and developmental needs of those working in the MAPPA;
• Monitor (on at least a quarterly basis) and evaluate the operation of the MAPPA;
• Prepare and publish the annual report and promote the work of the MAPPA in the relevant probation area;
• Plan the longer-term development of the MAPPA in the light of regular (at least annual) reviews of the arrangements, and with respect to legislative and wider criminal justice changes.

SMB membership

The responsible authority should make appropriate arrangements to involve others in the work of the SMB as needed. This may involve co-opting or even full membership where there is a significant and sustained engagement with MAPPA, although in most instances it will be sufficient for the responsible authority to ensure there is effective dialogue and the agency is aware of MAPPA and pertinent public protection issues. Those with a relevant interest may include:

• Victim liaison;
• Treatment providers;
• Local authority education department;
• Employment services;
• Crown Prosecution Service;
• Housing associations;
• Electronic monitoring providers;
• The court service;
• Other relevant voluntary organisations (e.g. NSPCC).

The four core functions of MAPPA are to:

• Identify relevant adult and child offenders;
• Assess the risk of serious harm to the public posed by individual adults and children;
• Manage that risk of harm;
• Share appropriate information with those agencies involved in assessment of risk of harm from an offender.

Identifying relevant offenders

A relevant offender is one who falls within one of the three MAPPA categories:

• Category 1: registered offender;
• Category 2: violent and other sexual offender who receives a sentence of 12 months imprisonment or more;
• Category 3: potentially dangerous offender presenting a risk of serious harm which requires active, inter-agency management.

Offenders who can be referred to MAPPA and are likely to be categorised in one of the above categories include:

• Those cautioned / warned / reprimanded for, or found guilty of, one of the major offences against children;
• Individual's against whom there is a previous finding in civil proceedings (e.g. sexual offences prevention order or care proceedings);
• Those who had a relevant conviction or civil order and about whom there have been previous s47 enquiries that came to the conclusion that abuse had occurred;
• Offenders already subject to MAPPA elsewhere who transfer into the area;
• Relevant offenders arriving in England and Wales from overseas;
• In future, persons referred into the arrangements under the proposed mental health legislation where a danger to the public is perceived;
• Persons who may be referred into the arrangements at any time by one of the local agencies.

Assessing the risk of serious harm

Dangerous offenders

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 defines a 'dangerous offender' as a child or adult who is:

• Convicted of an offence specified in schedule 15 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (see appendix 1. Statutory framework), all of which are sexual or violent offences carrying a penalty of two years or more;
• Assessed by the court as posing a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm by the commission of further specified offences.

Managing the risk

To enable strategies based upon these features to be drawn up, the MAPPA framework identifies three separate but connected levels at which risk is assessed and managed:

• Level 1: ordinary risk management;
• Level 2: local inter-agency risk management;
• Level 3: MAPPP - Multi-Agency Public Protection Panels.

This structure of risk management is designed to enable resources to be deployed to manage identified risk of harm to the public in the most efficient and effective manner.

Level 1: ordinary risk management

Level 2: local inter-agency risk management

Depending upon the needs of the case, the following agencies can routinely play an active role in level 2 management:

• LA children's social care services departments;
• Housing authorities / housing providers;
• Youth Offending Teams;
• The relevant health authority, including the Mental Health Trusts; and
• Probation victim contact teams or other appropriate victim agencies.

Level 3: Multi-agency public protection panel - MAPPP

The MAPPP is responsible for the management of the 'critical few'. The criteria for referring a case to the MAPPP are defined as those in which the offender:

• Is assessed under OASys and Asset as being a high or very high risk of causing serious harm;
• Presents risks that can only be managed by a plan which requires close co-operation at a senior level due to the complexity of the case and/or because of the unusual resource commitments it requires;
• Although not assessed as a high or very high risk, the case is exceptional because the likelihood of media scrutiny and/or public interest in the management of the case is very high and there is a need to ensure that public confidence in the criminal justice system is sustained.

Thus although the 'critical few' are not exclusively those assessed as high or very high risks, in almost all cases they will be. Also, while most will be adult or child offenders being released from prison, they may also include:

• An offender on discharge from detention under a hospital order;
• An offender returning from overseas (whether immediately following their release from custody or not); and, conceivably;
• An offender who has to date been managed as a medium or even a low risk in the community, but who comes to present a high or very high risk as the result of a significant change of circumstances, and accordingly, is referred to level 3.

Multi-agency involvement

Multi-agency representation and involvement is key to the effectiveness of level 2 and level 3 arrangements. In determining the level of the representation and the nature of that involvement three factors must be considered:

• The representatives must have the authority to make decisions committing their agency's involvement. If decisions are deferred then the effectiveness of the multi-agency operation is weakened.
• They require relevant experience of risk/needs assessment and management and the analytical and team-playing skills to inform deliberations. This experience and these skills can usefully contribute both to specific case management and more broadly in providing advice on case management.
• The effectiveness of level 2 and level 3 arrangements depend in large part upon establishing continuity. Multi-agency work is often complex and benefits greatly from the continuity of personnel and their professional engagement

The management of the 'critical few' at level 3 requires the commitment of senior representatives from the agencies involved. Agencies must be represented by senior personnel who:

• Understand the strategies for minimising or reducing the risk of serious harm;
• Have the authority to implement appropriate strategies agreed at level 3, on behalf of their agency;
• Be able to make decisions about committing the specialist or high level resources which may be required to manage the risk of harm from offenders at this level.

Given the imminence of serious harm associated with many offenders in MAPPP the resource implications of these strategies may be significant and occur at short-notice.

MAPPP meetings

In order for MAPPA to be effective in safeguarding children from harm, MAPPP meetings must ensure that:

• Decisions are defensible;
• Risk of harm assessments are rigorous;
• Risk of harm management plans match the identified need for public protection;
• Performance is evaluated and delivery improved.

Sharing relevant information

Introduction

Information sharing principles

Information sharing must:

• Have lawful authority;
• Be necessary;
• Be proportionate;
• Ensure the safety and security of the information shared;
• Be accountable.

The meaning of each of these principles is explained below.

Lawful authority requirement (vires)

Necessity

Information should only be exchanged where necessary for the purpose of properly assessing and managing the risks posed by those offenders who are subject to the MAPPP provisions. The specific purposes of sharing information within the MAPPP are to:

• Identify those offenders who present a serious risk of harm to the public;
• Ensure that the assessment of the risks they present are accurate;
• Enable the most appropriate risk management plans to be drawn up and implemented;
• Implement those plans and thereby protect the public.

Proportionality in information sharing

Sharing information safely and securely

Accountable information sharing

Disclosures by responsible authority to third parties

The critical ground, determining whether such a disclosure will be lawful, is therefore likely to be the proportionality requirement. In this respect, the following criteria should be met before disclosing information about an offender to a third party:

• The offender presents a risk of serious harm to the person, or to those for whom the recipient of the information has responsibility (children, for example);
• There is no other practicable, less intrusive means of protecting the individual(s), and failure to disclose would put them in danger. Also, only that information which is necessary to prevent the harm may be disclosed, which will rarely be all the information available;
• The risk to the offender should be considered, although it should not outweigh the potential risk to others were disclosure not to be made. The offender retains their rights (most importantly their article 2 - right to life) and consideration must be given to whether those rights are endangered as a consequence of the disclosure. It is partly in respect of such consideration that widespread disclosure of the identify and whereabouts of an offender is very, very rarely justified;
• The disclosure is to the right person and that they understand the confidential and sensitive nature of the information they have received. The right person will be the person who needs to know in order to avoid or prevent the risks;
• Consider consulting the offender about the proposed disclosure. This should be done in all cases unless to do so would not be safe or appropriate. Where consultation can be done, it can help strengthen the risk management plan. If it is possible and appropriate to obtain the offender's consent then a number of potential objections to the disclosure are overcome. Equally, the offender may wish to leave for example their placement rather than have any disclosure made, and if this is appropriate, this would also avoid the need for any disclosure;
• Ensure that whoever has been given the information knows what to do with it. Again, where this is a specific person, this may be less problematic but in the case of an employer, for example, you may need to provide advice and support; and
• Before actually disclosing the information, particularly to an employer or someone in a similar position, first ask them whether they have any information about the offender. If they have the information then no disclosure is necessary. If they have some but possibly incorrect information your disclosure can helpfully correct it.

Subject to the conditions set out in section 3. Sharing information, the general presumption is that information should not normally be disclosed, except if one of the following applies:

• Consent has been obtained from the offender / suspected offender / alleged offender;
• Statutory requirements or other duty, including a genuine instance of a duty to make enquiries to safeguard a child or children at s47 of the Children Act 1989;
• Duty to the public.

Generally the risk assessment for disclosure of information on convicted abusers will be led by the police and probation service, but LA children's social care may need to consider the risk of those alleged abusers who:

• Have been charged with an offence and outcome pending;
• Were not prosecuted because the required standard of proof did not allow for a criminal case to be pursued;
• Were not prosecuted but the case 'left on file';
• Were acquitted.