The Management of Sex Offenders – Follow-up Inspection

November 2007

i

The Managementof Sex Offenders –Follow-up Inspection

November 2007

Presented to the Houses of Parliament by the Secretaryof State for Northern Ireland under Section 49(2) of theJustice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002.

ii

iii

List of abbreviations iv

Chief Inspector’s Foreword v

Recommendations vii

Inspection Report

Chapter 1 Progress in implementing the December 2006 Recommendations 3

Chapter 2 Progress in implementing the new MASRAM Manual and 7Practice Guidelines

Chapter 3 Progress in addressing other themes identified in previous 13inspection reports

Contents

iv

List of abbreviations

ACC Assistant Chief Constable

ASORMC Area Sex Offender Risk Management Committee

CARE Child Abuse and Rape Enquiry Unit (in police)

CJI Criminal Justice Inspection

CSOGP Community Sex Offender Groupwork Programme

DCU District Command Unit

DRM Designated Risk Manager

NISOSMC Northern Ireland Sex Offender Strategic Management Committee

NIHE Northern Ireland Housing Executive

NIO Northern Ireland Office

NIPS Northern Ireland Prison Service

MARAC Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferencing

MASRAM Multi-Agency Sex Offender Risk Assessment and Management

PBNI Probation Board for Northern Ireland

PDP Potentially Dangerous Person

PPT Public Protection Team

PSNI Police Service of Northern Ireland

SCR Serious Case Review

SIO Senior Investigating Officer

VCS Voluntary and Community Sector

ViSOR Violent Offender and Sex Offender Register

v

CJI has reported twice on the risk management of sex offenders: first on the multi-agencysex offender risk assessment and management (MASRAM) process in March 2005; and thenwith specific reference to the murder of Mrs Attracta Harron in December 2006.

We agreed to undertake further inspection work during spring 2007 to assess progress inrelation to specific aspects of sex offender risk management that were outstanding at thetime of the previous inspections, particularly

• Progress on the December 2006 recommendations;• Implementation of the new MASRAM Manual and Practice Guidelines

which were introduced in October 2006; and• Progress on other themes identified in previous inspection reports.

In addition, the agencies have undertaken their own reviews of specific cases, and a detailedaudit has also been undertaken by the Northern Ireland Strategic Sex OffenderManagement Committee (NISOSMC). It is not our purpose to duplicate work previouslyundertaken, so in this instance we confine our six recommendations to developmental andhousekeeping points.

Our overall conclusion is that there has been tangible progress in managing the risks posedby sex offenders since the first MASRAM inspection was undertaken in 2005, and thatthere have been further improvements since the new manual and practice guidelines wereintroduced in October 2006. The analysis that follows should be read in that context.

The MASRAM process applies to all adult sex offenders who are required to notify underthe terms of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and to certain other offenders about whomthere are concerns. MASRAM represents coordination of the responsibilities of criminaljustice agencies and other relevant bodies to manage the risk posed by these offenders.This will always be an area of public interest and there are a range of significant initiativesin hand that will require time to become properly established.

We therefore propose to next review progress in this area in 2010, unless asked byMinisters to undertake other work before then.

Kit ChiversChief Inspector of Criminal Justicein Northern Ireland

Chief Inspector’s Foreword

vi

vii

Recommendations

• CJI should be consulted on the draft guidance that will accompany new legislation toensure that appropriate levels of external scrutiny are built into the process before it isfinalised. (Chapter 1)

• The PSNI should set targets in local Policing Plans for their work in managing the risksposed by sex offenders for whom they are the Designated Risk Manager. (Chapter 1)

• PSNI dip sampling of case files should be extended to lower level managers, and NIPSmanagers should also begin to apply the practice of dip sampling. (Chapter 3)

• We reiterate the need for ongoing contact between practitioners, and the previousCJI recommendation for planned handover of cases between DRMs within and betweenagencies. (Chapter 3)

• The PSNI and NIPS should begin to promote the concept of a case managementapproach, informed by PBNI practice, pending establishment of a co-located team.(Chapter 3)

• The NISOSMC should offer training for sentencers and prosecutors in the usage ofspecialist sex offender legislation. (Chapter 3)

viii

Inspection Report

Section 1

1

2

3

Progress against December 2006Recommendations

CHAPTER 1:

• Automatic 50% remission is to end;

• The Government will introduceextended and indeterminate publicprotection sentences. Under these newarrangements dangerous sexual andviolent offenders could be detained incustody for the full term of their prisonsentence, and there will be greaterscope for indeterminate sentences;

• The new sentencing measures willrequire the establishment of additionalsupport mechanisms. These include thecreation of a new independent releasebody, similar to the Parole Board inEngland & Wales, and an executive recallunit;

• Released offenders would becomesubject to extended communitysupervision under licence conditionswhich, if breached, could result in theirimmediate recall to custody;

• Other supporting proposals indicated inthe Minister’s statement includedestablishment of a co-located publicprotection team, implementation ofexisting provisions for Drug Testing &Treatment Orders and provision forelectronic monitoring.

CJI made seven recommendations in its December 2006 report.These are outlined in thischapter with commentary on progress to date.

Recommendation 1

Government should bring forwardlegislation that would have the effectof ending automatic 50% remissionfor dangerous offenders, create morescope for indeterminate sentencesand generally place Northern Irelandon a similar footing to England andWales.

and

Recommendation 2

Article 26 of the Criminal Justice(Northern Ireland) Order 1996should be reviewed in order thatbreaches can be dealt with moreexpeditiously and outcomes moreappropriately mark the seriousness offailure to comply with PBNIsupervision.

Both these recommendations were dealtwith in December 2006 when the CriminalJustice Minister made a written statementto Parliament announcing his plans forrevising the sentencing framework forNorthern Ireland. The Minister declaredthat:

4

Some of the provisions will requirelegislation and when implemented theywill go a long way to strengthening publicprotection arrangements in NorthernIreland. The agencies will be preparingdetailed guidance to accompany thelegislation and they will also have todevelop working arrangements to managethe new categories of offender who willenter the MASRAM process, such as a riskassessment model for violent offenders.

Each of the core agencies involved inMASRAM anticipates workload increasesto accompany these changes, and are inthe process of negotiating resourceswith Government to help them deliverappropriately. Recent experience inEngland and Wales suggests that NorthernIreland needs to plan carefully in order todeliver extended and indeterminate publicprotection sentences. Since the scope forindeterminate sentences was increased inEngland and Wales, the total number ofprisoners with these sentences has risenfrom 5,475 to 9,500. Many of the prisonershave not been able to access theprogrammes they need to persuade theParole Board they no longer represent adanger, leading in turn to human rightschallenges in the High Court.

Recommendation 3

Future Serious Case Reviews shouldfollow the more detailed and wide-ranging format that was utilised bythe Probation Inspectorate forEngland andWales in their enquiriesinto the murders of John Moncktonand Naomi Bryant.

and

Recommendation 4

In the most serious cases giving riseto particular public concern, CJIshould be asked to undertake futureSCRs.

Current MASRAM arrangements stipulatethat a Serious Case Review (SCR) shouldbe commissioned when an offender who isin the MASRAM process is charged with aserious offence, or where a significantfailure occurs in the management of anyCategory Three offender. SCRs consist ofindividual agency reviews which arecompleted internally. These reviews arethen considered by an inter-agency panelthat produces an overarching report. Thepurpose of SCRs is to identify issues anddevelop a plan to address those issues.

Three SCRs have been completed – inJanuary 2006,April 2006 and April 2007.They dealt with cases from a similar periodin MASRAMs history. The various reportsidentified progress achieved and highlightedsimilar problems to those identifiedelsewhere in inspection reports, and madea range of recommendations about matterssuch as communication between agencies,attendance at ASORMC meetings,improvements required in MASRAMrecordkeeping and training, and clarityabout who should fulfil the role of DRM.These matters are all being addressedwithin the new Manual and PracticeGuidelines.

Draft guidance to accompany newlegislation will specify the levels andtypes of investigation, including externalinspection that are to be applied whenMASRAM offenders commit serious furtheroffences. This is a sensible approach, andwe recommend that CJI should be

5

consulted on the draft guidance thatwill accompany new legislation toensure that appropriate levels ofexternal scrutiny are built into theprocess before it is finalised.

Recommendation 5

The NISOSMC should initiate workon an accommodation strategy as apriority, considering all options forproviding this important service.

An accommodation strategy is beingprepared by a sub-group of the NISOSMC.It will ultimately be incorporated withinthe guidance that will accompany newlegislation. As part of its preparation theNISOSMC organised a two-day seminar inMay 2007 for a wide range of interestedparties.

Recommendation 6

The PSNI should provide widerinternal access to theViolentOffender and Sex Offender Register(ViSOR) information system.

PSNI confirm that ViSOR access hasimproved, and those who have hadViSOR training have found it very useful.Inspectors heard of good practice in someDistrict Command Units (DCUs) such asFoyle, where most new officers nowreceive ViSOR training, visit the localProbation Office and have an accompaniedhome visit to a registered sex offender.

Inspectors again heard of some officershaving difficulty in accessing ViSOR andfeeling disempowered in challenging sexoffenders appropriately. Senior policeofficials pointed out that their other IT

system, the Integrated Criminal IntelligenceSystem (ICIS) should still provide therequisite information, and that ViSORaccess has to be confined to a “need toknow” basis.

Police also recognise the risk that co-existence of two IT systems may causedifficulties, so they have commissioned anexternal review of how the ViSOR and ICISsystems interact with each other. Thefindings of this review will inform futurepractice, including access to ViSOR.

In the medium to long term there wouldbe major benefits in the PSNI, the NIPSand the PBNI having access to each othersinformation systems. This should includeViSOR information through participation ina co-located team.

Recommendation 7

MASRAM work should feature in theNorthern Ireland Policing Plan.

The 2007-2010 Northern Ireland PolicingPlan sets two specific targets in relation to• investigation of sex offences; and• PSNIs contribution to MASRAM by

regularly reviewing high risk cases.

This is positive progress in relation to therecommendation.

The Plan states that “The effectivemanagement of sex offenders and improvedinvestigation of violent crimes, including sexoffences, are priority areas…” (Page 6).It spells out in greater detail the PSNI’sfuture plans for contributing to sexoffender management, particularly bysuggesting the formation of publicprotection teams in each DCU.

6

The amalgamation of 29 DCUs into eightDCUs, which took place in April 2007,should assist the PSNI in this area of work.The population of registered sex offendersis increasing steadily, and most (52%) ofthem are managed solely by PSNI. Thereare now high public expectations inrelation to how sex offenders are riskassessed and managed, and if PSNI isputting significant resources into the work,then the local policing plan should reflectthis. The next stage is for risk managementof sex offenders to be included in localDCUs Policing Plans. We thereforerecommend that the PSNI should settargets in local Policing Plans for theirwork in managing the risks posed bysex offenders for whom they are theDesignated Risk Manager.

The new MASRAM Manual and PracticeGuidelines were designed to:• Ensure robust risk management through

rigorous assessment and defensibledecision-making;

• Ensure uniformity of practice throughoutNorthern Ireland;

• Provide practitioners with best practiceguidance; and

• Provide a working document that couldbe continuously updated.

In order to assess progress inimplementation of the guidelines, CJIInspectors conducted several interviews,viewed PSNI MASRAM files and observedfive ASORMC meetings in May 2007. Weheard some very difficult cases underdiscussion, and noted major investment ofresources by all the agencies. Inspectorsalso took account of the findings of theNISOSMC internal audit which wasundertaken between October 2006 –January 2007.

Key positive findings included:• ASORMC meetings were not as

repetitive or as long as previousmeetings;

• The correct people were attendingmore frequently;

• Chairs were more authoritative inholding designated risk managers(DRMs) accountable for theirperformance;

• Documentation had improved;• Reductions in risk levels were working

well;• Minutes were better;• Participation by Category Three

offenders was considered beneficial; and• Inclusion of potentially dangerous

persons (PDPs) was also found useful,especially by Social Services.

There were also concerns:• It was considered unrealistic to submit

reports 14 days in advance as theywould be out of date by the time of theASORMC;

• Some ASORMCs still had too manycases;

• There were delays in circulating minutesand action points;

• There was detailed debate about issuesthat were often hypothetical or couldnot be resolved by those present, andabout the wording of minutes, whichmeant that some meetings did notadhere to time; and

• Case handovers needed to beformalised.

More detailed commentary is providedbelow in relation to themes that werehighlighted in previous inspections andwere expected to improve under the newguidelines.

7

Progress in implementing the newMASRAM Manual and Practice Guidelines

CHAPTER 2:

Backup arrangements are required toensure attendance by core agencies atASORMC meetings

PSNI representation at ASORMC meetingshas improved since specific personnel havebeen identified for MASRAM roles. Thereis more consistent attendance, and thePSNI representatives are generally betterinformed about cases under discussion.Inspectors observed some very good workby PSNI DRMs who were conversant withthe main issues in their cases, and producedhelpful written reports for the ASORMC.Others clearly struggled with the role andare having to learn quickly.

There were difficulties with Social Servicesrepresentation in some of the ASORMCmeetings that Inspectors observed.Although a Social Services representativewas always present, they were sometimesnot conversant with all the cases beingdiscussed. Inspectors recognise thatit is impossible for Social Servicesrepresentatives to speak on behalf ofevery trust, or to agree action steps onbehalf of others for whom they hold noaccountability: whereas most MASRAMoffenders who are known to socialworkers are in touch with mental healthand learning disability teams, it hastraditionally been childcare social workerswho attend most ASORMCs, which is ofteninappropriate as they do not know theoffenders.

The Review of Public Administration (RPA)changes have led to current uncertaintyabout who should represent SocialServices at ASORMC meetings. Howeveronce new arrangements are clarified,then it should be easier for MASRAM toengage with five trusts than with 11. Thisopportunity should also be used to clarify

the level of authority required from SocialServices representatives, and the specialismfrom which their representatives shouldattend. As is the case for all MASRAMparticipants, it is quite appropriate forsocial services deputies to attend meetingsas long as they are appropriately briefed.

The NIPS has taken a positive step insetting up an internal multidisciplinaryreview process, chaired by the chiefpsychologist, to monitor progress ofCategory Three offenders in custody.It has also been recently agreed that theNIPS will fulfil the DRM role for remandprisoners, and that the PBNI will fulfilthe DRM role for sentenced prisoners.This is a sensible model, though Inspectors’observations suggest there has been someconfusion during the early stages of thisarrangement, and it will require time tobecome properly established.

The prison ASORMC which inspectorsobserved showed areas that clearlyrequire improvement: the NIPS wasrepresented by an acting governor who hadno MASRAM training and was uncertainabout the DRM role; there was a lack ofclarity about the role of the prisonpsychologist in relation to completing riskassessments for prisoners; and a probationofficer had a wasted journey because theprisoner whose case she attended todiscuss had been transferred to anotherprison without prior notification.

The NIPS recognises that it needs toprepare staff for the DRM role and toresource its MASRAM work properly.They outlined concerns about operationalissues such as timely notification of casesand accuracy of risk assessments. TheNISOSMC and its subcommittees are theproper forum for dealing with such

8

matters. If they do not provide progressthen the agencies concerned need to meetand agree a way forward.

Chairs are expected to exercisegreater authority, holding othersaccountable no matter which agencyor rank

There was evidence of the newrequirements for ASORMC chairpersons –all PBNI personnel – being fulfilled in eachmeeting that we observed. The chairs wereseen to hold all participants accountable,regardless of their agency or rank. Theyhad clearly engaged with the spirit of thenew guidelines, and sometimes had to workhard in coaching other participants whowere not sufficiently up to speed with therequirements of their roles.

The overall agenda time is not toexceed five hours, with built in breaks

Nearly all the meetings that were observedand audited had evidence of a time framebeing applied. Inspectors observedimproved adherence to time scheduling,though there was still a lot of time spenton clarifying issues. Built-in breaks werealso provided and helped maintain levels ofconcentration.

There are allocated time slots foreach case: 60 minutes for CategoryThree cases and 30 minutes forCategoryTwo cases. A maximum of10 CategoryTwo cases are to bediscussed at any meeting

Prolonged discussion about difficult cases -often involving hypothetical situations overwhich the ASORMC would be unable toexercise control - sometimes led to thetime limits being exceeded. However,nearly all cases adhered to their time slot

and the maximum number of cases was notexceeded in any meeting.

There is still significant pressure on theMASRAM system, with over 60 prisonersawaiting initial categorisation at the time ofwriting. So, while our overall impressionwas that levels of participation andeffectiveness are improving, the agencieswill need to apply a businesslike focus,especially as numbers increase with theaddition of violent offenders in 2008.

DRM reports are to be completedand circulated prior to ASORMCs;Reports for the High Risk Committeeare to be submitted seven days inadvance

A total of 27 audited meetings hadevidence of pre-prepared written DRMreports, though they were more likely tobe circulated at the meeting than 14 daysin advance as required by the guidelines.The trend was that practice has beenimproving as the new guidelines becomemore established.

However, Inspectors observed cases wherethe NIPS and the PSNI DRMs did notrealise they should have a written reportprepared, and were not conversant withaspects of the cases for which they wereresponsible. In these situations, the DRMslooked to the ASORMC chairs to provideguidance about case managementexpectations. It is to be expected that eachagency will ensure that it’s appointedDRMs will achieve higher levels of practicebefore the next inspection in 2010.

The written reports which Inspectors sawwere more succinct than previous reports,and provided a better focus for ASORMCmeetings.

9

CategoryThree offenders are to beinvited to attend ASORMCs

Category Three sex offenders are nowbeing invited to participate in ASORMCmeetings in the community on a pilotbasis for 12 months until August 2007.Depending on evaluation of this pilot, thenext likely step is to extend the offer ofparticipation to Category Three violentoffenders in the community.

Inspectors were told that most inviteeshave refused the offer to participate intheir meeting, though there has been goodlearning when they have participated.Agencies report that they need to controlthe environment, and hence the venue formeetings, when Category Three offendersare participating.

“Potentially Dangerous Persons”(PDPs) are now also included inMASRAM arrangements

Potentially Dangerous Persons (PDPs)have now been brought into MASRAMarrangements – there were 16 PDPsinvolved at March 31st 2007:• 1 x High Risk;• 4 x Medium Risk;• 11 x Low Risk (the risk was reduced

because they were in custody).

Tightly defined criteria are being applied toinvolvement of PDPs, and human rightschallenges are being posed by some ofthese cases – as they are unconvicted ofcurrent charges at the point of beingbrought into MASRAM arrangements.

The process requires that PDPs should bereferred to MASRAM by police SeniorInvestigating Officers (SIOs) once chargedwith an offence. As yet there is limitedawareness of this process on the part ofSIOs, and not all PDPs are being referredinto MASRAM, so it is expected that theirnumbers will increase.

New documentation to be introduced

Of the 56 separate ASORMC meetings thatwere audited, 21 had used the new forms.There was a trend towards increased usageas the sample period progressed.

The documentation viewed by Inspectorsreflected an improvement on past practice– the new forms demonstrated thesequence of case management, allocationof responsibilities and feedback on previousdecisions more clearly. However, thedocuments are still voluminous and difficultto follow.

There is scope to further improve theMASRAM documentation; and there isalso a good case for increasing the use ofelectronic communication, which is alreadypartially in place e.g. High Risk Committeepapers are circulated on compact disc.

Minute taking is to be streamlined

The minutes viewed by Inspectors werean improvement on previous practice asthey reflected more clearly the casemanagement process and outcomes.However the logistics of taking minutes andcirculating them remain complicated andslow due to limited administrative supportfor the police MASRAM Unit who fulfil thisresponsibility.

10

The roles of Social Services,Northern Ireland Housing Executive(NIHE) and the voluntary andcommunity sector (VCS) are clearlyspelled out

The NIHE has now agreed a protocol forits engagement with ASORMCs thathelpfully clarifies roles and responsibilities.

The NISOSMC has expanded toincorporate another VCS representative – aWomens’ Aid representative who alsochairs a new victims sub-group; and aforensic sub-group has also beenestablished. There is still no representationof VCS groups that deal with offenders.

11

12

There some are other themes that havebeen raised in previous inspections, andwhich are not directly addressed by thePractice Guidelines but still meritcomment in this follow-up.

PSNI failings in communication andcommitment; specialist staff in eachDCU

This issue has been addressed by PSNICircular 37/05 which sets out detailedrequirements for police officers who fulfilMASRAM roles. Each DCU now hasidentified officers responsible for sexoffender management, which has led toimprovements. However, as noted inChapter 2 there are still areas of concernwhere some PSNI DRMs are not fullyconversant with the specialist role of a DRM.

Even with specialist MASRAM officers,Inspectors again heard of police lackingconfidence when undertaking home visitsbecause they were unsure of their powers.Changes which are currently beingconsidered to the 2003 Sex Offenders Actmay strengthen police powers. However,this specialist work can only be properlyundertaken by motivated and well-trainedofficers.

If PSNI is able to deliver on its aspirationto establish Public Protection Teams in eachDCU this will represent a significantadvance, not least by retaining a local inputinto risk management of sex offenders.

Care must be taken however to ensure therole of these teams is not diluted byrequiring them to address a wide range ofadditional responsibilities. It will also beimportant for the PSNI to retain thespecialist knowledge and experience thathave already been developed, particularlyby officers who work in the centralMASRAM Unit. In the initial MASRAMinspection report of 2005, CJIrecommended that

“PSNI should re-examine its internalstructuring of MASRAM operations, andplace them within a single branch – ideallyCriminal Justice Department. (Para 3.10).”

We recognise the extent of changecurrently ongoing within PSNI, but reiteratethe need for this recommendation to beimplemented in the interests of best riskmanagement of sex offenders.

Inspectors saw evidence of the relevantAssistant Chief Constable (ACC) routinelydip sampling Category Three cases toensure adherence to Circular 37/05requirements. This is good practice, whichis also a standard feature of the PBNIsoffender management, but is not routinelyapplied in the NIPS. Given the increasingprominence of sex offender management inall agencies, we recommend that thePSNI dip sampling of case files shouldbe extended to lower level managers,and also that NIPS managers shouldbegin to apply the practice of dipsampling.

13

Progress in addressing other themesidentified in previous inspection reports

CHAPTER 3:

PSNI training continues to improve –MASRAM training is now being deliveredto all new recruits at the police college,and training has also been given to CAREUnit staff and detectives.

CJI had previously highlighted the fact thatall DRMs need to be in regularcommunication between meetings in orderto handle their cases effectively. HoweverInspectors again observed that for someDRMs the MASRAM process is confined toattending meetings. This was confirmed byfeedback by DRMs and managers from allagencies. We therefore reiterate theneed for ongoing contact betweenpractitioners, and the previous CJIrecommendation for planned handoverof cases between DRMs within andbetween agencies.

Application of a case managementapproach

Case management remains an important,but still misunderstood, issue. This islargely because it is not a routine policingor prison role, and possibly also becausethe majority of police and prison managershave never themselves had to manage sexoffenders.

Case management means the DRM shouldmaintain an active written file whichreports in a coherent sequence how theoffender is managed, with reviews andupdates, and with actions and consequencesspelled out.

Since police are now the DRMs for 52% ofNorthern Irelands registered sex offenders(PBNI = 40%; NIPS = 7%), it is imperativethat they manage in a proper andaccountable manner. Case management iscentral to the role of PBNI and SocialServices staff, and the other core agencies

could learn from their experience.

Good case management also requiresmanagerial oversight to ensureaccountability and provide support.The PSNI has already begun to provideoversight and dip sampling of CategoryThree cases, but some officers expressedconcern that, as caseloads increase,Category Two cases may be inappropriatelydeprioritised, and that Category One casesmay be even further reduced in significance.It is positive that PSNI have nowintroduced risk management plans forCategory One offenders in a bid tostandardise practice and provide guidance.Extension of dip-sampling to include lowerlevel offenders would provide another wayto enhance case management.

Accreditation of staff who fulfil casemanagement roles is another componentof good practice. In the longer term, theNISOSMC might wish to consider whetherDRMs should become accredited, anduniformed services may also wish toconsider civilianising the DRM role. If thisis done it will obviously be imperative thatcivilian DRMs have the full authority oftheir agency in undertaking the role.

CJI’s review of files indicates continuedimprovement in police file management,though there is still scope for furtherprogress. As was the case when we lastinspected, the PSNI in South Belfast leadsthe way. Their case management systemsare impressive, both in terms of recordingwork with individual offenders and themanagerial oversight that is exercisedof their sex offender cases at all levels. Wetherefore recommend that PSNI and NIPSshould begin to promote the concept ofa case management approach, informedby PBNI practice, pending establishmentof a co-located team.

14

Availability of programmes incustody, including for deniers

Many imprisoned sex offenders do notundertake programmes while in custody,either because they do not wish to, orbecause they are not eligible for a range ofreasons including insufficient time to serve,illiteracy, denying their offences or deemedto be too low a risk level. This issue,which is not unique to Northern Ireland, isoutlined in greater detail in other CJIreports e.g. the MASRAM report ofMarch 2005, and the Northern IrelandResettlement Strategy report of June 2007.

Ultimately, no sex offenders whom courtsrequire to complete a programme aremissing out, as PBNI has not failed tooffer anyone a Community Sex OffenderGroupwork programme (CSOGP) inthe community. However, it would bebeneficial if more were able to undertakeprogrammes while in prison, not leastbecause it would reduce pressure onprogrammes in the community where thelogistics of programme delivery are verydemanding.

The PBNI and the NIPS have nowdeveloped a programme for sex offenderswho are held in Hydebank Wood YoungOffenders Centre. However, the challengeto devise a programme for sex offenderswho are in denial is a more significantmatter which remains outstanding.

Usage of specialist legislation

As confidence has grown amongpractitioners, especially PSNI officers, thenumbers of Sexual Offences PreventionOrders (SOPOs) has increased. Latestfigures show that in April 2007 therewere some 30 offenders in NorthernIreland subject to SOPOs and nine subject

15

to Risk of Sexual Harm Orders (ROSHOs).

The PSNI have begun to routinely considerapplying for SOPOs at point of conviction,because at this stage the evidence tosupport a successful application is morereadily available. This is a proactiveapproach which is to be commended.However police report that sentencersand prosecutors are not familiar with thelegislative basis or evidential requirementsor provisions of SOPOs and ROSHOs.We therefore recommend that theNISOSMC offer training for sentencersand prosecutors in the usage ofspecialist sex offender legislation.

New developments

There are a number of developmentscurrently underway which will assist therisk management of sex offenders, thoughit is as yet too early to evaluate progress.As new initiatives emerge, it will beimportant for the NISOSMC to keeprelevant partners abreast of developmentse.g. the Life Sentence ReviewCommissioners (LSRC) in relation to newlifer standards.

The NISOSMC core agencies – the PSNI,PBNI and the NIPS – have undertaken topilot the Harris Dynamic Risk Assessmentfor sex offenders in the community forone year from June 2007. A similar pilot isunderway in Scotland and both pilots willbe jointly evaluated.

While over 60 people have been trained,the PSNI and NIPS anticipate difficulty infulfilling their responsibility in this pilotexercise because of staff changes. Yet theNISOSMC is rightly resolute that theindividual agencies must fulfil theircommitments, which are not an interagencyresponsibility.

16

The National Organisation for theTreatment of Abusers (NOTA) NI branchhas produced a number of helpful briefingpapers for members of the public onvarious topics:

• How do the statutory agencies protectthe public from sex offenders inNorthern Ireland?

• What kind of treatment programmes arethere for sex offenders in NorthernIreland?

• Does treatment of sex offenders work?

• Who commits sexual offences andwhat’s the risk in Northern Ireland?

PSNI have piloted the Multi-Agency RiskAssessment Conferencing (MARAC) modelfor dealing with domestic violence in EastAntrim during 2006-07. The evidenceshows that arrests are up and recidivism isdown, so there are plans to extend thepractice – which is compatible withMASRAMs work with violentoffenders/PDPs.

There are ongoing cross-borderdevelopments – Garda Síochána Inspectorsare invited to ASORMCs although as yetthere are no designated local Gardacontacts with specific responsibility forsex offenders. Some Gardaí and ProbationOfficers from the Republic of Irelandjoined in the Harris risk assessmenttraining; and there is improvingcommunication about specific cases, oneof which recently resulted in a three-yearprison sentence for breach of a SOPO,with helpful prosecution evidence suppliedby An Garda Síochána.

Copyright© Criminal Justice Inspection Northern IrelandAll rights reserved

First published in Northern Ireland in November 2007 byCRIMINAL JUSTICE INSPECTION NORTHERN IRELAND

14 Great Victoria StreetBelfast BT2 7BA

www.cjini.org

ISBN 978-1-905283-26-2Typeset in Gill Sans

Printed in Northern Ireland by Commercial Graphics LimitedDesigned by Page Setup