A is a Category 2, Level 2, MAPPA Offender. He has a long history of violence, domestic violence, and sexual offending. Employing varying modus operandi, he poses a high risk of harm to male and female adults and children, including known individuals and members of the general public. He has engaged on a superficial level throughout his numerous community and custodial sentences.
A is currently serving an Extended Sentence for revenge attacks of Aggravated Burglary and causing GBH with Intent, committed against people he knew well and in the presence of children. At the time of the offences he was on Licence for GBH with Intent, having attacked his wife with an axe. At the time of that offence, he was on Licence for sexual offences against a 15 year old girl. He is no longer a Registered Sex Offender.
A has previously lost custody of several children due to risks he posed. Throughout his most recent sentence A alluded to having another child, with whom he planned to have contact post-release, but refused to disclose any details.
A's case is very closely connected with two other local MAPPA Level 2 individuals, B and C: B was a co-defendant in the index offences and C one of the victims. MAPPA reviews for all 3 individuals were conducted at the same meetings, allowing the Offender Managers, Police Officers and Social Workers involved with each case to build comprehensive knowledge of the inter-connected risk issues. ‘Spider’ diagrams were developed by MAPPA professionals in order to identify numerous relevant associates who could either be at risk or who may contribute to undermining A, B or C's compliance. Staff in the three prisons involved also contributed to the process by supplying details of their phone logs and visitor records, which listed various people as 'friend', 'partner' etc. This thorough information-sharing suggested the potential identity of the child A had refused to name: when asked directly by his OM, he confirmed that this was indeed his child. Assessments were therefore conducted by Social Services and a contract developed with the mother in order to ensure that any contact arrangements prioritised the child’s best interests and would be conducted in an appropriate and supervised environment.
Information-sharing in this case also enabled A's now-ex-wife (the victim of the GBH involving an axe) to be traced and offered support. Contingency plans were created in the event of non-compliance, including a list of likely addresses the police might find him at if he left his approved accommodation without authorisation. Arrangements were also made to ensure that A, B and C would be housed in Approved Premises in different cities in order to keep them well away from each other.
A was released into Approved Premises in June 2012. His Licence conditions include curfews, non-contact conditions, restrictions on working or having contact with children (including his own), and a requirement to disclose any developing relationships, in addition to conditions requiring him to address his offending behaviour, substance misuse etc. After 2½ months he is still complying with all Licence conditions and is due shortly to be assessed for move-on accommodation into a housing project where his activities will continue to be monitored and restricted.