JMAPPA Annual Report 2012
What is JMAPPA?
Jersey’s Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (JMAPPA) were implemented in 2011 when the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 came into force. In pursuance of Article 28 of that law, arrangements to assess and manage sexual, violent and dangerous offenders, together with potentially dangerous persons were made. The purpose of JMAPPA is to protect the public by reducing the offending behaviour of sexual and violent offenders.
These arrangements were made with the agreement of the Ministers of the departments and with the cooperation of ‘Office Holders’, departments who have a ‘Duty to Cooperate’ and ‘Interested Parties’ as detailed in the aforementioned law.
The Office Holders are the Chief of Police, Chief Probation Officer, Prison Governor and the Chief Officer of Customs and Immigration. The Ministers of the departments who are identified as agencies who have a ‘Duty to Cooperate’ are Home Affairs, Housing, Health and Social Services, Education, Sport and Culture, Social Security. ‘Interested Parties’ includes, but is not restricted to, the Connétables, Comité des Chefs de Police, together with organisations that provide rented housing accommodation, accommodation for the homeless, support for children in need or at risk, for victims of domestic and sexual violence.
JMAPPA is not a statutory body, rather it is a mechanism through which agencies can, in a coordinated manner, discharge their statutory responsibilities and wider obligations with reference to protecting the public.
The JMAPPA Guidelines were premised on the MAPPA Guidance 3.0 which is applied in England and Wales. The JMAPPA Guidelines are in the process of being amended in order to ensure that they are relevant to the island’s needs. The JMAPPA process is overseen by the Strategic Management Board (SMB) which consists of Chief Officers from the Police, Prison and Probation Services, Customs and Immigration, Social Security, Housing and Education Departments together with the Community and Social Services Departments.
How JMAPPA works
JMAPPA-eligible offenders are identified and information about them is shared by the agencies in order to inform the risk assessments and risk management plans of those managing or supervising them.
There are four categories of JMAPPA-eligible offenders:
Category 1 Offenders: Registered Sex Offenders
This Category includes offenders convicted of a relevant offence as defined in Article 2 of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 and those required to comply with the notification requirements under Articles 13 and 14 of this Law.
Category 2 Offenders: Violent and Other Sexual Offenders
This Category includes:
- Offenders who are being released from a custodial sentence up to 12 months or more
- A small number of offenders, where the sexual offence itself does not attract registration or where the sentence does not pass the threshold for registration
Category 3 Offenders:
This category is comprised of offenders, not in either Category 1 or 2, but who are considered by the referring agency to pose a risk of serious harm to the public which requires active inter-agency management.
To register a Category 3 offender, the referring agency must satisfy the Co-ordinator that:
- the person has committed an offence which indicates that they are capable of causing serious harm to the public; and
- reasonable consideration has indicated that the offender may cause serious harm to the public, which requires a multi-agency approach at level 2 or 3 to manage the risks
The offence may have been committed in any geographical location, which means that offenders convicted abroad could qualify.
Any agency can identify an offender who may qualify for Category 3.
Category - Potentially Dangerous Persons (PDPs):
Association of Chief Police Officers (2007) - Guidance on Protecting the Public: Managing Sexual and Violent Offenders defines a PDP as:
“ ….a person who has not been convicted of, or cautioned for, any offence placing them in one of the three JMAPPA categories (see above), but whose behaviour gives reasonable grounds for believing that there is a present likelihood of them committing an offence or offences that will cause serious harm”
Serious harm can be defined as an event, which is life threatening and/or traumatic, from which recovery, whether physical or psychological, can be expected to be difficult or impossible. Risk of serious harm is the likelihood of this event happening. It should be recognised that the risk of serious harm is a dynamic concept and should be kept under regular review.
Management Levels
There are three management levels intended to ensure that resources are focused upon the cases where they are most needed. Although there is a correlation between the level of risk and the level of JMAPP management, the level of risks do not equate directly to the levels of JMAPPA management. This means that not all high-risk cases will need to be managed at level 2 or 3. Level 1 involves single agency management (i.e. no JMAPPA meetings or resources); Level 2 is where the active involvement of more than one agency is required to manage the offender but the risk management plans do not require the attendance and commitment of resources at a senior level. Where senior management oversight or an exceptional amount of resource is required, the case would be managed at Level 3.
JMAPPA Data
Management of Level 2 and 3 JMAPPA Subjects
The number of level 2 and 3 JMAPPA subjects dealt with by the JMAPPA process throughout 2012 was 61.
Reoffending by JMAPPA subjects in 2012 who are at level 2 or 3 in the JMAPPA Process:
54 (88.5%) JMAPPA subjects out of 61 dealt with via JMAPPA have not been convicted for further offending. The seven JMAPPA subjects who offended tended to commit public order related, or offences of violence. One Category 1 offender is pending sentence for further offences of indecent images of children. Sentences for further offences range from imprisonment to fines.
There are currently 27 JMAPPA subjects being managed at level 1 by various agencies, Probation, Police and Prison Services, as well as Health and Social Services.
During the process of monitoring offenders under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010, the Police Offender Managers have investigated 14 JMAPPA subjects regarding their adherence to Notification requirements or Restraining Orders. Three JMAPPA subjects have been warned regarding their adherence to the conditions of the Notification requirements. One failed to confirm his address within the required time-frame and two failed to notify the Police of travel plans in the required time-frame.
Serious Incident Reviews
During 2012 two Serious Incident Reviews were commissioned by the Strategic Management Board. The reviews were conducted by Chief / Senior Officers from Customs and Immigration and the Probation Service. JMAPPA’s Strategic Management Board are grateful to the authors for their diligent and thorough reviews.
Whilst the reasons behind a Serious Incident Review (SIR) generally relates to a specific incident of concern, a key purpose of the review is to monitor the quality of the JMAPPA process and to review whether public protection arrangements can be improved in the future. . There were some key learning points from both the reviews which include communication issues, together with agencies clarity of role, purpose and function. However, overall both reviews commented positively on the work undertaken by the agencies involved.
Serious Incident Review 1:
This was commissioned due to a non-registered sex offender living in a flat in a family estate. Actions undertaken with reference to the recommendations include:
- The Supported Housing Group has undertaken changes to policies and procedures including information provided at the point of referral.
- A proposal has been made in relation to the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 being reviewed and consider whether the existing judicial discretion regarding notification for offences of gross indecency should be removed where the victim is a child or non-consenting adult.
- Consideration should be given for cases to be referred to JMAPPA prior to sentence (as PDP cases) if public protection may otherwise be compromised.
Serious Incident Review 2:
This was commissioned due a level 2, Category 2 JMAPPA subject being arrested for a violent offence. The conclusion of this review identified:
- All evidence revealed that risks to X and the public were correctly identified at an early stage and communicated to all agencies.
- Communication between the agencies was generally excellent.
- X showed no signs of wishing to modify his behaviour or attitudes.
- Agencies did what they could, without any statutory supervision, to attempt to rehabilitate X and protect the public from risk.
JMAPPA Quality Assurance Review
JMAPPA’s Annual Report 2011 identified that to ensure a quality service provision, the JMAPPA SMB arranged an independent review of its first year in operation which was achieved by the end of 2011.
The review author spent a full week in Jersey and engaged with all JMAPPA agencies, and attended a number of JMAPPA meetings with the full co-operation of the SMB and its officers.
The review highlighted some key issues, notably the support and commitment of the agencies involved, who value and acknowledge the importance of this work. It commented on the active multi-agency and partnership working, and the endeavours that are made to work with the JMAPPA subjects. It also highlighted that JMAPPA does not have the legislative underpinnings that the MAPPA processes in other jurisdictions’ have, which supports and enhances the range of risk management strategies that are devised in order to enhance Public Protection.
The Report made various recommendations all of which were accepted for action by the Strategic Management Board. The majority have been completed either in full or part, the three outstanding actions relate to the recommendations that:
- Active consideration should be given to creating a legislative framework to support JMAPPA work with violent offenders and to provide Probation with post sentence statutory involvement with offenders.
- This proposal remains under active consideration.
- The Key Performance Indicators outlined within the JMAPPA Guidance should be supplemented with some additional measures which will allow a measure of the outcomes of the JMAPPA processes.
- The JMAPPA Coordinator is researching qualitative methods that may be beneficial to monitor the success, or otherwise, of the JMAPPA process.
- The Jersey Child Protection Committee (JCPC) should consider undertaking a multi-agency audit of a range of JMAPPA cases to ensure that child protection and safeguarding is being dealt with appropriately.
- JCPC are in the process of making arrangements for an appropriate person to undertake this task.
These issues are continuously monitored by the SMB to ensure that JMAPPA is an effective and efficient process.
Training
During 2012 a two-tiered training programme was devised and delivered by the Coordinator. The first tier focused on the basic concepts of JMAPPA, whilst the second tier focused on best practice with regards to risk assessment and risk management. This training was well attended not only by Responsible Authorities and Duty to Cooperate Agencies, but also a range of Interested Parties.
The Coordinator also delivered Basic Awareness training to particular teams.
Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme
In July 2012, the Home Affairs Minister tabled a proposal at the States’ Children’s Policy Group (CPG) to introduce a Child Sex Offenders Disclosure Scheme (Sarah’s Law). The CPG supported this proposal and the scheme went live in January 2013. Effectively, this scheme allows any parent, guardian or carer who has concerns about a third party who has access to children, to approach the Police to ask for background checks. Any disclosure will be managed through JMAPPA.
Conclusion
Assessing and managing risk is not an infallible science and it is therefore imperative that risk assessments are rigorously undertaken. Jersey has a range of staff trained and qualified to use various specialised assessment tools that have been developed including those for domestic violence, violence and sexual offenders. Once the risks have been assessed, then a Risk Management Plan is devised that needs to be implemented and monitored, with adjustments being made as required. Risk assessment and management is a continual process, and assessment and management plans may require changing at any time. Criminal Justice agencies in Jersey have staff qualified to use accredited risk assessment tools for particular offences. These tools were used as a basis of the multi-agency assessments in 83.6% of cases. Of the ten JMAPPA subjects not subject to complete, formal assessment as a part of the Criminal Justice Process, this relates to limited cooperation or the unavailability of a recognised / accredited risk assessment tool for that particular offender profile, i.e. female sex offenders and offenders with mental health problems. However, the lack of cooperation or an accredited risk assessment tool, did not prevent JMAPPA partners from actively managing these individuals.
It is important to remember that risk cannot be eliminated in its entirety, and a key function of JMAPPA is therefore to endeavour to manage the risks that a JMAPPA subject poses. However, this does not remove an agencies or an individual’s responsibility with regards to their own risk management practices. Overall the JMAPPA process is characterised by excellent coordination supported by a commitment of member agencies to make a positive contribution to Jersey’s public safety.
July 2013
gov.je