PI 15/2014 Review procedure for serious further offences€¦ · Web viewIf completing the VSR at the time of the SFO Review, please remember not to use the word ‘alleged’ if

NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR SERIOUS FURTHER OFFENCES

This instruction applies to: Reference

Providers of Probation Services NOMS HQ

PI 15 / 2014 AI 15/ 2014

Issue Date Effective DateImplementation Date

Review Date

1 February 2015(Revised)

1 June 2014 1 August 2015

Issued on the authority of:

NOMS Agency Board

For action by: All staff responsible for the development and publication of policy and instructions

NOMS HQ Heads of Groups National Probation Service (NPS) Directorate Community Rehabilitation Companies NOMS Rehabilitation Contract Services Team All other providers of Probation Services

Instruction type service specification support / service improvementFor information SFO Leads and, where relevant, Single Points of Contact (SPOC), other

NPS/CRC staff, CRC sub-contractors, Head of OMPPG (NOMS), Director of NPS, Director of NOMS in Wales, NOMS Director for Operational Services, Head of Dangerous Offenders Section, OMPPG (NOMS), OMPPG SFO Team (NOMS)

Provide a summary of the policy aim and the reason for its development / revision

A revised PI to replace PI 15/2014 is now needed to account for multiple providers of probation services who will all be required to comply with this new PI in the notification and review procedures for Serious Further Offences.

Contact Deanna Francis, Head of Serious Further Offences Team,Dangerous Offenders SectionOffender Management and Public Protection GroupNational Offender Management [email protected] 0300 047 4550

Associated documents PI 14/2012 The Approval and Implementation of Policy and Instruction, PI 32/2014 Implementation of the Approved Premises SpecificationPI 01/2014 Reviewing & Reporting Deaths of offenders under Probation Supervision in the CommunityPI 48/2014 Victim Contact Scheme Guidance Manual PI 57/2014 Process for CRC’s to refer cases in the community to NPS for Review/Risk Escalation Review PI 07/2014 Case Transfers for Offenders Subject to Statutory Supervision Either Pre-Release From Custody or Whilst Completing an Order Or LicencePractice Framework: National Standards for the Management of

mailto:[email protected]

Offenders 2011, NOMS Risk of Serious Harm Guidance (2009), Offender Assessment System (OASys), MAPPA Guidance, Inspection of Adult offending work case assessment Guide 2013 (HMI Probation), PSI 04/2015 - PI 01/2015 Rehabilitation Services Specification PSI xx/2015 Release on Temporary Licence (yet to be published)Community Supervision, Code of Practice for Victims of Crime (October 2013), Extant Transforming Rehabilitation Programme Target Operating Model (TOM)Account Management ManualMulti-Agency Statutory Guidance for the Conduct of Domestic Homicide Reviews (August 2013),

Replaces the following documents which are hereby cancelled :

Probation Instruction PI 04/2013 -

All hard copies of these Instructions must be destroyed

Audit/monitoring:

The Director of NPS, Director of NOMS in Wales and NOMS Director of Rehabilitation Services for CRCs will monitor compliance with the mandatory requirements in this instruction.

NOMS contract management will hold providers to account for delivery of mandated instructions as required in the contract.Introduces amendments to the following documents: None

NOTES: Update: 1 February 2015 - PI 15/2014 was prepared in readiness for the implementation of the Government’s Transforming Rehabilitation Programme (TRP). This revised PI takes account of the impact of TRP and recognises that the current procedures continue to provide a framework for the review of practice in incidents of Serious Further Offences. The revisions to the PI take the opportunity to provide updates in terms of the impact of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 and highlights the use, by prisons, of these procedures for incidents of SFOs on Release on Temporary Licence, as set out in PSI xx/2015 Release on Temporary Licence (yet to be published). Additional annexes relevant to the prison procedures are now also included in this PI.

All mandatory actions in this Instruction are shown in italics and must be strictly adhered to.

PAGE 1

CONTENTS

Section Title Relevant to1 Executive summary

NPS, CRCs and other providers of probation services involved in Offender Management and Courts

2 Operational Instructions

3 Policy and strategic contex t

Annex A Victim summary report template and guidance.

SFO Review Authors, NPS/CRC SPOCs and nominated SFO Leads, OMPPG SFO Team, Deputy Directors for Custody, Prison Governors

Annex B SFO Operational Guidance

Annex C Serious Further Offences qualifying list NPS, CRCs and other providers of probation services involved in Offender Management and Courts

SFO Document Set Consists of Annexes D to L

SFO Review Authors, NPS/CRC SPOCs and nominated SFO Leads, OMPPG SFO Team, Deputy Directors for Custody, Prison Governors

Annex D SFO Notification

Annex E Standard Review form

Annex F Shortened SFO Review form

Annex G ROTL SFO Review form

Annex H Review Chronology

Annex I Action Plan Update

Annex J Quarterly Summary of Action on Learning Points

Annex K Outcome

Annex L Media communications template

PSI 15/2014 PI 15/2014 UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015

PAGE 2

1. Executive Summary

Background

1.1 There have been procedures in place for the reporting of serious further offending by offenders subject to supervision in the community by Probation Trusts, and now the National probation Service and Community Rehabilitation Companies, for over 10 years and these have developed over time.

1.2 Prior to this Instruction, the SFO Notification and Review Procedures have applied solely to Probation Trusts. This new Instruction recognises the changes that have resulted from the Government’s Transforming Rehabilitation Programme (TRP) which has opened up the delivery of probation services to create a diverse range of rehabilitation providers. Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs), who supervise low and medium risk of serious harm offenders. The National Probation Service (NPS), managed directly through NOMS will supervise all other offenders, including all MAPPA cases and offenders assessed as a high risk of serious harm. This new Instruction requires the NPS, CRCs and all other providers of probation and community services to comply with the SFO Notification and Review Procedures.

1.3 The SFO Notification and Review Procedures are intended to ensure rigorous scrutiny of those cases where offenders under the management of the NPS or a CRC have been charged with a specified violent or sexual offence (please refer to the list of qualifying offences in Annex C), in order that:-

• the public may be reassured that the NPS, CRCs and all other providers of probation and community services are committed to reviewing practice in cases where offenders managed by them are charged with certain serious offences;

• areas of continuous improvement to risk assessment, risk management and offender management practice and policy within the NPS, CRCs and all other providers of probation and community services (together with other parts of the NOMS Agency or beyond as appropriate) are identified and disseminated locally and nationally, as appropriate; and

• Ministers, the NOMS Chief Executive, other senior officials within NOMS and the wider Ministry of Justice (MoJ), where appropriate, can be informed of noteworthy cases of alleged serious further offences committed by offenders whilst under supervision. The responsibility for this currently sits in the NOMS Offender Management and Public Protection Group (OMPPG).

1.4 This Instruction aims to reflect the new structures within which probation services are delivered and provides a reference – at paragraph 2.11 - to PSI xx/2015, Release on Temporary Licence (yet to be published), which introduces the use of these procedures with cases of serious further offending when offenders are subject to Release on Temporary Licence (RoTL). The Instruction acknowledges that multiple providers are contracted to deliver probation services, and Deputy Directors in the NPS and CRC Chief Executives must to ensure compliance with this Instruction, in accordance with the SLA (for the NPS) and contracts (for the CRCs). The governance of the SFO Notification and Review procedures, including the action plans to take forward lessons learnt, will; for the NPS, be through the line management function and accountability against the SLA with the Directors of Probation within NOMS; whilst for CRCs it is recognised that they will have their own governance structures through the Chief Executive within each organisation but will also be held accountable through the contract management function within NOMS. This Instruction confirms the quality assurance function of the SFO Team within OMPPG for ensuring that all SFO reviews have been completed in line with the mandated procedures. This quality assurance function sits within NOMS but outside the Directorate of Probation.


PAGE 3

Desired outcomes

1.5 This Instruction aims to ensure that all instances of serious further violent or sexual offending that fall within the remit of the SFO Notification and Review Procedures are identified, notified and reviewed in line with the Agency’s requirements. This is to ensure that all providers of probation and community services can learn any lessons from the serious further offence and demonstrate a commitment to continuous practice improvement in the management of all offenders. This includes in particular that:-

the criteria for placing the cases of offenders charged with a SFO under these procedures are known and understood;

offenders charged with a SFO are promptly identified at local level and notified to OMPPG within the required timeframe;

SFO Reviews are appropriately rigorous, produce findings that are supported by clear and comprehensive evidence and draw out all relevant learning points; and

the role of the OMPPG in informing Ministers and senior officials about noteworthy SFOs is understood by the NPS, CRCs, all other providers of probation and community services and relevant stakeholders.

Application

1.6 Section 2 of this Instruction sets out actions that must be taken to ensure that all SFOs are identified, notified and reviewed in line with current procedures. Requirements for Victim Summary Reports (VSRs) are also set out here. All staff with responsibility for courts, offender management, case administration and MAPPA must be familiar with this section.

1.7 Section 3 briefly sets out the policy and strategic context that relates to SFO procedures.

1.8 The revised SFO Document set is given in Annexes D to L.

Mandatory actions

1.9 The mandatory actions for this Instruction are set out, in italics, in section 2 Operational Instructions. Additional guidance, including a table of mandatory actions is included in the SFO Operational Guidance, see Annex B.

1.10 The CRC Chief Executive must ensure that all CRC staff, including any sub-contractors e.g. providers of electronic monitoring or drug treatment services, are aware of the contractual obligation to comply with this Instruction. The Directors of the NPS, or their representatives, must ensure that, as part of their SLA and routine oversight of the NPS, arrangements are in place to monitor the compliance with the requirements in this instruction.

1.11 In order to demonstrate a commitment to continuous practice improvement in the management of all offenders, the Director of NPS,, Director of NOMS in Wales, Deputy Directors in the NPS and Chief Executives of CRCs must ensure that staff in their organisation:-

identify and notify OMPPG of all qualifying SFOs in accordance with the operational requirements in this Instruction;

undertake SFO Reviews in accordance with the operational requirements in this Instruction and in such a way that key lessons that arise out of reviews are shared with their staff and used to further improve policy and practice; and

provide additional information relating to a SFO case to assist with any briefing for Ministers and senior officials being prepared by OMPPG, as required.


PAGE 4

1.12 Deputy Directors in the NPS must ensure that they receive regular updates on progress against SFO Review learning points. Within CRCs, the Services Agreement, as part of the contract management function, requires CRCs to report on SFO reviews in service reports.

Resource impact

1.13 The SFO Notification and Review Procedures have always applied across all offenders subject to any form of statutory supervision irrespective of risk levels resulting, on average, in the receipt of 450-500 notifications each year – i.e. less than 0.5% of the probation caseload. However, one of the developments within the TRP, is that the cohort of offenders receiving sentences of less than 12 months will now be subject to statutory supervision, whereas previously this was not the case. This will, inevitably, increase the number of SFOs but it is difficult to estimate how many will be charged with one of the qualifying offences. Many of the additional SFOs will be committed by offenders who will be supervised by CRCs given that those sentenced to under 12 months are likely to be assessed as low or medium risk offenders. Even though it is unlikely that there will be an even spread of these SFOs across England and Wales, CRCs will need to factor this in to the consideration of the resources they will require in order to comply with the mandatory actions in this Instruction and may need to keep this under review with the NOMS contract management function.

Employee care

1.14 We know from experience that, when dealing with cases of serious further offending, it can be stressful for those staff involved. Therefore, good practice would suggest that it is important for both the NPS and the CRCs to exercise good employee care at these times. It should be remembered that the review process is not about apportioning blame but developing practice through continuous improvement, even though in a very small number of cases the review process may result in capability and/or disciplinary proceedings being invoked. Good practice should include ensuring that any staff involved in the management of a case that leads to a SFO notification are made aware when a review is being undertaken, are able to prepare for any interviews that may be required and are given feedback on those outcomes of the SFO review that relate directly to them. During this process, line managers should provide appropriate support for their staff in line with their own agency HR policies, as they would in any other case where staff need support to deal with challenging issues at work. The NPS and CRCs should also ensure that any of their staff who are interviewed as part of a SFO Review are given a copy of ‘Serious Further Offence Review Process – A Guide for Staff’, which can be accessed in the SFO Operational Guidance at Annex B, via The Authority’s website link or from the SFO Team in OMPPG. Although the SFO Review is the key process for reviewing how the case has been managed, the ongoing management of the case will normally require that the offender manager and their line manager discuss the case, review risk and adjust sentence plans and risk management plans accordingly. In those few cases where the reviewing manager decides that they need to interview staff members before this takes place, they will inform the line manager in the case accordingly.

(Approved for Publication)

Sarah PayneDirector, NOMS in Wales

pp. Digby GriffithDirector of National Operational Services, NOMS


PAGE 5

2. Operational Instructions

Where these constitute a mandatory action they are highlighted in italics. Additional guidance on the mandatory actions is included in the SFO Operational Guidance at Annex B.

2.1 Notification of cases that qualify for a SFO Review

2.1.1 The NPS and CRCs must notify the OMPPG using the Notification form in the SFO Document Set and complete the relevant sections when an eligible offender is charged with a qualifying offence, i.e. a violent or sexual offence listed in Annex C, and meets the criteria to qualify for a Review, details of which are given in this section and sections 2.2 and 2.3 below. The core requirements when it comes to completing and submitting a Notification in a qualifying case are that: (i) the NPS, through attendance at court, and the NPS or the CRCs, from knowledge of the offender, have processes in place to identify SFOs by or at first court appearance; and (ii) the Notification with full information is received at OMPPG within 10 working days of the first court appearance. There are three stages to the completion of the Notification documentation:

Stage 1 and 2 will be completed by the NPS at court or shortly afterwards Stage 3 will be completed by the allocated provider of probation services so either the

NPS or CRC, before submission of the Notification to OMPPG.

2.1.2 Reviews will be required in any of the following cases:-

- any eligible offender who has been charged with murder, manslaughter, other specified offences causing death, rape or assault by penetration, or a sexual offence against a child under 13 years of age (including attempted offences) committed during the current period of management in the community of the offender by the NPS or a CRC; or whilst subject to ROTL. In addition, this will also apply during the 28 day period following conclusion of the management of the case; or

- any eligible offender who has been charged with another offence on the SFO qualifying list committed during a period of management by the NPS or a CRC and is or has been assessed as high/very high risk of serious harm during the current sentence (NPS only) or has not received a formal assessment of risk during the current period of management; or - any eligible offender who has been charged with an offence, whether on the SFO list or another offence, committed during a period of community management by the NPS or a CRC, and the provider of probation services or NOMS has identified there are public interest reasons for a review. This may be due to significant media coverage Ministerial interest or where reputational risks to the organisation may arise; or

- if the offender has died and not been charged with an eligible offence but where the police state he/she was the main suspect in relation to the commission of a SFO.

2.1.3 In respect of those SFOs relating to offenders who are assessed as low risk of serious harm at sentence, and remain so up to the point of the SFO, and who are subject to either a community order or a suspended sentence order, there is a requirement to undertake only a shortened review as opposed to a standard review. This does not include those offenders released on post-release supervision or cases fitting this profile where the individual SFO has been flagged as a high profile case likely to attract significant public interest. In such cases, the NPS or the CRCs retain the option of completing a standard review. Any decision to proceed to a standard review would need to be formally agreed between OMPPG and the relevant NPS or CRC, usually by the Head of the SFO Team and the SFO lead or relevant senior manager in the CRC or the NPS, either at the point of the


PAGE 6

Notification being sent to OMPPG or immediately afterwards. It is anticipated that cases of this nature will be very rare.

2.1.4 Other than the category of SFOs referred to in 2.1.3 immediately above, all other SFOs will undergo a standard review.

2.1.5 CRCs and the NPS will need to consider whether the commission of an alleged SFO requires that the case is considered in line with PI 08/2014, Process for CRC’s to refer cases in the community to NPS for Review/Risk Escalation Review.

2.2 Offender Eligibility

2.2.1 The following types of offender are eligible for inclusion in SFO procedures:-

• those under any form of management by the NPS or a CRC, including those subject to the new post sentence supervision arrangements, on the date of the SFO is alleged to have been committed (excluding offenders where a court or recall warrant had been issued three months or more prior to the date of the SFO);

• those who were under any form of statutory management by the NPS or a CRC, including those who have been subject to recall and released at Sentence End Date (SED), which terminated no more than 28 days prior to the date the SFO is alleged to have been committed; and

• those who are subject to the management of the NPS, CRC or any other provider of probation and community services and are charged with an equivalent eligible offence in another jurisdiction.

2.2.2 There may be other instances where it is appropriate to complete an SFO Notification, for example;-

cases of deferred sentences where sentencing is deferred to allow an offender to comply with any requirements set by the court, or cases where a single requirement has been imposed with no supervision requirement.

Consideration of a discretionary SFO Review would need to take into account the specific requirements set by the court and the management of the case by the NPS, CRC or the CRC’s subcontractors during that period

2.2.3 If the NPS or a CRC has a case such as those highlighted in 2.2.2, advice should be sought from the OMPPG SFO Team before submitting the Notification.

2.3 Offence Eligibility

2.3.1 The list of SFO qualifying offences is at Annex C and is based on, but not identical to, Schedule 15A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. This remains unchanged since PI 04/2013. All offences on this list attract either a maximum of 14 years imprisonment or an Indeterminate Sentence.

2.3.2 Any subsequent amendments to the list will be formally notified to Deputy Directors in the NPS, Chief Executives of CRCs and the NOMS contract management function, and a revised list placed on the Authority’s website.

2.4 Subsequent changes in eligibility


PAGE 7

2.4.1. A case will cease to qualify for a Review if it subsequently falls outside the SFO eligibility criteria, as a result of:-

• a finding at court of not guilty, other than for reasons of fitness to plead or not guilty by reason of insanity;

• the discontinuance of proceedings either pre-trial or at court;

• the reduction of the charge to one that falls outside the SFO eligibility criteria;

2.4.2 The NPS or CRC must inform the OMPPG using the SFO “outcome section” of the document set whenever a SFO case that has been previously notified to OMPPG subsequently falls outside of the SFO eligibility criteria - for example, where charges are reduced. The provider can decide to continue with a local review in these cases, particularly if there are clear indications of important lessons to be learned.

2.5 Cases that do not need to be reviewed. 2.5.1 If an offender is charged and appears in court for a SFO committed more than five years

ago, OMPPG, in consultation with the NPS and CRC and, for CRCs the Senior Contract Manager, will make a decision on whether it will be reviewed as a SFO. Consideration will need to be given to the amount of case material available and therefore, the likelihood of any significant lessons to be drawn from the case.

2.6 SFO procedures when the victim is a child

2.6.1. When the SFO eligibility criteria are met, and an associated Serious Case Review (SCR) will be or is likely to be undertaken by the Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB), the senior lead manager and/or the reviewing manager for the NPS or the CRC must liaise with the LSCB to ensure that all necessary information is provided in a timely manner for the LSCB. This may include information from the SFO Review but also other information derived from case and other records. Where the bulk of the SFO Review is of direct relevance to the matters under consideration by the LSCB, it must be forwarded to the Chair of the LSCB as an ‘OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE’ document; in other cases, the NPS or the CRC must share a summary of findings from the SFO Review, not the SFO Review itself, with the LSCB.

2.6.2 In those instances where a SFO Review is to be undertaken alongside a SCR, the NPS or CRC SFO senior lead must discuss and co-ordinate the timescales for both Reviews with the appropriate senior officer on the LSCB, either directly or via the probation representative on the LSCB.

2.7 SFO procedures when the victim is under supervision of a provider of probation services

2.7.1 In SFO cases where the victim has died and was under the management of a probation provider at the time of the offence, the NPS or the CRC, as the case may be, must be aware of the procedures outlined in PI 01/2014, Reviewing & Reporting Deaths of offenders under Probation Supervision in the Community.

2.8 SFO cases involving deaths of residents in Approved Premises

2.8.1 In SFO cases where the victim was under management and residing in Approved Premises at the time of the offence, the NPS or CRC must be aware of the procedures outlined in the Approved Premises Manual, issued under PI 32/2014. There will be instances where a CRC will be responsible for the management of an offender who is residing within an Approved Premises, where it has been deemed suitable for the offender to spend a limited


PAGE 8

period of time at the Approved Premises without the need for the case to be reallocated to the NPS.

2.9 MAPPA Level 2 and 3 offenders charged with a SFO

2.9.1 When an eligible offender is charged with a qualifying offence and is being managed at either MAPPA level 2 or 3, the NPS must ensure that the MAPPA Co-ordinator, or equivalent, receives a copy of the Initial Notification. The local MAPPA Strategic Management Board (SMB) may decide, in selected cases, to complete a Serious Case Review as described in the MAPPA Guidance. The NPS must then provide to the SMB Chair a copy of the SFO Review once completed as an ‘OFFICIAL-SENSTIVE’ document not for further disclosure, in line with MAPPA guidance. In all other SFO cases involving MAPPA level 2/3 management, a brief summary (including the outcome of the case and the action plan) of the Review (not the Review itself) must be shared with the SMB Chair and the SMB itself at their next scheduled meeting.

2.10 SFO cases involving a Domestic Homicide Review (DHR)

2.10.1 Where an eligible offender is charged with a domestic violence and abuse incident which has resulted in the death of the victim, and once it is known that a homicide is being considered for review, the senior lead/SPOC for the NPS or CRC must liaise with the local community safety partnership and designated DHR chair to notify them that the case has triggered an internal review. Each agency contributing to the DHR will be required to carry out an Internal Management Review (IMR) to look openly and critically at individual and organisational practice to see whether the homicide indicates that changes could and should be made.

2.10.2 In terms of sequencing, given the different timescales, the SFO Review would normally have been prepared some time prior to the IMR being commissioned, and as such the IMR could be informed by the SFO document, and could contain all the relevant information identified within the SFO Review. This can also include the relevant learning points which were identified in the SFO Review.

2.10.3 Under no circumstances should the SFO Review serve as the IMR, as once completed as an ‘OFFICAL SENSITIVE’ document, the SFO Review is not to be disclosed.

2.11 Commission of a SFO when subject to Release on Temporary Licence

2.11.1 PSI xx/2015 - Release on Temporary Licence (yet to be published) introduces these procedures for offences committed on ROTL and sets out the mandatory action at 12.2 of the PSI - The NPS and CRCs must contribute as required to the review of a ROTL failure.

2.11.2 While the majority of this Probation Instruction will apply, to the ROTL process, not all elements may be required. The ROTL process is set out in separate operational guidance at Annex B. Where there is uncertainty as to how to proceed the prison Governor should contact the SFO team in OMPPG for advice; [email protected]. The relevant Core questions for a review on a ROTL SFO can be found at Annex G of this Probation Instruction.

2.12 Administration, retention and storage

2.12.1 The NPS and CRCs must identify a single point of contact (SPOC) to co-ordinate SFO cases up to and including the SFO Outcome. The SPOC, on behalf of the NPS or the CRC, would be the main contact with the OMPPG SFO Team on a day-to-day basis concerning SFOs.



PAGE 9

2.12.2 The NPS and CRCs must ensure there is immediate access to details of SFO cases, including staff contacts, and further case record details, if required urgently by the OMPPG. This information may be required for briefings to Ministers and senior officials in respect of cases that attract significant public interest. The NPS and CRCs should keep electronic records of SFO reviews for five years from the date of completion of the review, with any paper records held in line with local records policy. The paper record should include any notes kept by the reviewing manager, including notes of interviews with staff. Once completed, all Review documents are marked ‘OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE’ and must be sent through the GSi network or equivalent via the SPOC or relevant senior manager to [email protected].

2.13 Communications Strategy

2.13.1 The NPS and CRCs must implement a communications strategy in each case, managed by a designated person, which should be a senior manager in high profile cases. In cases that have been designated by OMPPG as high profile for significant public interest reasons, the draft communications strategy must be sent to, and agreed with, the Head of the SFO Team in OMPPG, who will then forward it to the relevant Deputy Director for Probation in NOMS (or their representative), or (as the case may be) the relevant contract manager for the CRC, and to the MoJ press officer responsible for probation media handling, for final agreement. (The MoJ Press Office acts for NOMS in line with the Agency Framework document.) The NPS and CRCs must use the NOMS communication plan template for high profile SFOs (see Annex L). Where the NPS or a CRC subsequently place statements or publications relating to SFOs into the public domain, advance copies must be made available to the SFO Team, the NOMS relevant Deputy Director (or their representative), the Senior Contract Manager, and MoJ Press Office. All providers of probation services are encouraged to make early contact with the SFO team and/or MoJ Press Office who will provide support and advice when requested. The NPS and CRCs should also consider liaison with other agencies who may be responding to media interest, including the police.

2.13.2 The NPS and CRCs must establish a comprehensive communications strategy with respect to victims, normally implemented after conviction. This is particularly the case where a victim summary report is prepared; however, care must also be taken in cases where probation involvement is disclosed to victims by third parties either pre-trial or through evidence of ‘bad character’ during the trial.

2.13.3 SFO Reviews must be protectively marked as OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE and are for the attention of senior management in the NPS and/or a CRC, including Directors and non-executive Directors (where relevant), and the OMPPG (including those conducting research on their behalf) in NOMS, and those directly connected with associated reviews, e.g. MAPPA SMBs. They are not published, to encourage all those providing information for the Review to be completely frank and open and not to be discouraged by the prospect of material which is normally held confidentially (e.g. the detail of the offender’s supervision) being published. However, the NPS and CRCs must be aware that the information contained in any SFO Review is subject to the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Exemptions from disclosure may apply, as assessed on a case-by-case basis. In order to ensure consistent national practice in compliance with legislation, providers must ensure that the OMPPG and the NOMS Directors of Probation (or their representative) are notified immediately whenever information requests for SFO documentation arise, in liaison with the MoJ Data Access and Compliance Unit (DACU). The NPS and CRCs must also be aware that in cases where there has been loss of life, the Coroner may request a copy of the SFO review which may bring the contents of the Review into the public domain.

2.14 Victims



PAGE 10

2.14.1 It is important that the SFO process takes account of the needs and concerns of the victim of the index offence, that led to the offender being placed under statutory supervision in the first place (primarily in those cases of serious sexual or violent offending where there is an ongoing victim contact responsibility), and the victim of the SFO. Information about the circumstances of the SFO may enable the reviewing manager and others to identify if the new offence has involved re-victimisation of a person who was assessed as being at risk from the offender and/or their associates, decide if the case may need to be flagged as high profile and consider if, exceptionally, there should be formal communication prior to sentence with either set of the victim(s) or their family.

2.14.2 Regarding the victims of the new (SFO) offence, the NPS, which is responsible for delivering the statutory Probation Victim Contact Scheme, must actively seek and record victim information from the initial and subsequent court proceedings. In keeping with existing guidance and the Victims’ Code of Practice, direct contact with the victim of the SFO should not usually be made prior to conviction for a serious further offence. However, there may be cases (for example, where the offender is deceased, or where adverse information is already in the public domain) where early contact is appropriate, particularly where there is information from the SFO Review that the NPS or CRC feels the victim (or his/her family, if the victim is deceased) should hear direct from the provider of probation services, rather than the media or others. In these cases, the NPS or CRC must discuss any proposed action with the SFO Team at OMPPG and advice must be sought from the police or Crown Prosecution Service to avoid any jeopardy to the legal process.

2.14.3 Regarding previous victims of the index offence, the SFO Notification must be copied to the local Victim Contact Unit (VCU) which, having checked their records, will consider with the Offender Manager, in consultation with senior management, whether previous victims should be contacted, if they are eligible for statutory victim contact.

2.14.4 Any passing of information to victims or victims’ families, outside of any Victim Summary Report (VSR), about the nature of previous supervision, and handling areas of contention, must be managed by a senior manager appropriate to the level of concern, in conjunction with the local VCU, and in accordance with the SFO Operational Guidance.

2.14.5 Since April 2013, in mandatory SFO cases, Trusts have been required to prepare a summary of findings from the SFO review to be provided to the victim or the victim’s family upon the conviction of the offender. This will continue to apply for all notifications received at OMPPG from 1 April 2014. It will be for the SFO lead, or appropriate senior manager within the NPS or CRC to liaise with the Victim Contact senior manager, within the NPS, to ensure that at the point of the initial contact, the victim or the victim’s family is made aware of the availability of a VSR on the findings of the SFO review.

2.14.6 Guidance on the completion of the VSR and process for delivery of the findings to the victim are at Annex A. However, it should be noted that where other types of case review are also being undertaken, such as a MAPPA Serious Case Review, Domestic Homicide Review, and Child and Adult Safeguarding Reviews, which are already prepared with a view to disclosure, a SFO VSR is not always required.

2.15 Who should complete SFO Notifications and undertake Reviews of SFO cases?

2.15.1 The core requirements when it comes to completing and submitting a Notification in a qualifying case are that: (i) the NPS, through attendance at court, and the CRCs, from knowledge of the offender, have processes in place to identify SFOs by or at first court appearance; and (ii) the Notification with full information is received at OMPPG within 10 working days of the first court appearance. Where both the NPS and the CRC have to complete stages of the Notification, then each should take 5 days to allow time for the other to complete the form and send it to OMPPG within 10 days as required. As set out in 2.1.1, the three stages to the completion of the Notification documentation are:


PAGE 11

Stage 1 and 2 will be completed by the NPS at court or shortly afterwards Stage 3 will be completed by the allocated provider of probation services so either the

NPS or CRC, before submission of the Notification to OMPPG.

2.15.2 There is no set rule about the grade of staff who should prepare SFO Reviews. However, Deputy Directors in the NPS and Chief Executives of CRCs must ensure that those undertaking Reviews have up to date professional knowledge of risk assessment, risk management and offender management and also have an appropriate level of authority to make recommendations for improvements in policy and practice across the provider of probation services, where this is felt to be necessary. It is important they should also have strategic responsibilities for public protection. Reviews must not be undertaken by those where a conflict of interest may arise, such as where the SFO author also has line management responsibility for staff involved in the case. The NPS Deputy Director or a delegated senior manager or the CRC Chief Executive and delegated senior manager (as the case may be) must agree and sign off the Review before it is sent to the OMPPG, and in the case of CRCs, the Senior Contract Manager. Reviews may not be signed off by the reviewing manager.

2.15.3 There will be occasions where multiple providers of probation services, either NPS divisions or CRCs, have been involved in the management of a case during the current sentence. The provider managing the offender at the time of the SFO must take responsibility for co-ordinating and writing the Review and submitting the completed document to OMPPG . It would be expected that the lead provider liaises with the other provider(s) so that all relevant enquiries concerning practice, policy and any operational issues are fully incorporated into the Review. It will be for each provider(s) to conduct all SFO enquiries for the period of their responsibility for, or involvement in, the management of the case, including making all relevant case documentation available to the reviewing manager and ensuring that individual staff are freed up to be interviewed where this is felt to be necessary. Such liaison between different providers must involve the relevant SFO senior leads as a matter of routine at the earliest opportunity. Where a difficulty or difference of opinion between providers emerges in such a way that the review process may be undermined, this must be raised with the Head of the SFO Team in OMPPG by the providers concerned with a view to seeking a resolution.

2.15.4 There will be a small number of cases where the SFO is committed by an offender away from their home area and the offender is charged and appears in a court in another geographical area. The NPS staff covering the court where the offender first appears are responsible for identifying the case and starting the Notification form based on details obtained at court. They would then send the draft Notification to the responsible NPS division and then if relevant, to the CRC responsible for the offender management for final completion. That provider is then responsible for notifying OMPPG of the SFO by sending the completed Notification within the required timescale, as set out in 2.1.1 and reinforced in 2.14.1. At this point, the provider will confirm with OMPPG that they are to undertake the Review under the normal arrangements.

2.15.5 In some cases, it will be necessary for the Head of the OMPPG or his/her delegate to arrange for a review to be undertaken by someone other than that part of the NPS or the CRC which was supervising the offender, when it is necessary to further enhance public confidence in the impartiality of the process. In doing so, the Head of OMPPG must consult with the relevant Deputy Director of the NPS or Senior Contract Manager. Criteria that will be taken into account include, where there is:-

• perceived potential conflict of interest (including where more than one provider has been significantly involved in the management of the case); or

• early evidence of exceptionally poor practice; or


PAGE 12

• a clear indication of likely exceptional national public interest in a case.

In exceptional circumstances, an independent reviewer (for example, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMI Probation) or another senior civil servant) may be called in to undertake the Review where there are strong reasons for doing so.

2.16 Notification, Review, Update and Outcome stages.

Notification

2.16.1 The NPS and CRCs must ::

• ensure that all possible eligible SFOs are identified by the first court appearance by the NPS and reported to the relevant provider’s single point of administrative contact (SPOC);

• consider whether the case qualifies as a SFO which attracts a mandatory review (either standard or shortened) and formally record as a SFO where this applies;

in mandatory cases ensure that the proforma to notify witness care units of victim eligibility is completed and sent (more information is contained in the VSR guidance at Annex A)

• notify the OMPPG, copied to relevant Public Protection Manager and the relevant Deputy Director in the NPS, or the relevant CRC chief executive (or their representative) and the relevant Senior Contract Manager of any case that qualifies, within 10 working days of the first court appearance, by sending the “notification stage” of the SFO Document Set, including identifying those cases which may attract significant national public interest and informing the OMPPG and the Director of NPS and Director of NOMS in Wales in advance, if necessary by telephone;

• ensure that where a case is identified as qualifying for a SFO Review, the case record is secured and sent to the lead senior operational manager or stored locally as requested;

• notify the Chair of the LSCB of those cases involving a child victim; in cases of domestic homicide, notify the DHR Chair and Community Safety

Partnership that a SFO review will be completed• notify the relevant MAPPA Co-ordinator of those cases where the offender was

supervised by the local MAPPA at level 2 or 3, NPS only.

2.16.2 OMPPG must:

• confirm within three working days of receipt of notification that the NPS or CRC should proceed to a Review, relevant Public Protection Manager and the relevant Deputy Director in the NPS, or the relevant CRC Chief Executive (or their representative) and the relevant Senior Contract Manager and further consider whether the Review should be conducted outside the responsible provider for reasons of public interest (see 2.12.5 above);

• confirm whether the case will be dealt with as a high profile case;• confirm whether the case qualifies for either a standard or a shorter review; and • discuss any SFO notification, where it appears that the case does not qualify for a

review.

Review

2.16.3 The NPS and CRCs must : :


PAGE 13

• using the SFO Review Document Set, the NPS and the [CRCs] must assess the quality of risk assessment, [the identification of the present risk of serious harm of that allocated person]; risk management, [the proposed management and mitigation of the [present] risk of serious harm if that allocated person presents a medium risk of serious harm]; (including cases where risk escalation is identified) and offender management, [the needs of the allocated person in the context of the delivery of the services and the identification of the likelihood of that applicable person re-offending; and the activity to be undertaken with the allocated person to deliver that part of the sentence of the court to be served in the community and to reduce the likelihood of re-offending, using (as applicable) an authority approved system]; of the case, including the period in custody where appropriate, during the relevant sentence(s) up to the point of the SFO;

The review must include evidence to support the judgments made about the quality of practice;

• if there are deficiencies relating to the management of the case, outline these deficiencies, identify the reasons for them, and set out actions to address them;

• ensure the “review section” of the SFO Document set is fully completed, signed off by the NPS Deputy Director (or representative) or the CRC Chief Executive (or representative) and received by the OMPPG, copied to the Deputy Director (if appropriate) in NPS cases and the relevant Senior Contract Managers in CRC cases, within three months of the date the notification was sent. Where there is Ministerial and/or significant national public interest, an expedited Review may be requested and must be completed within a timescale agreed with the OMPPG;

• ensure a VSR is made available upon request to qualifying victims following conviction for a mandatory serious further offence, and that a copy of the VSR is forwarded to the SFO team at OMPPG.

2.16.4 OMPPG must:

• confirm that the review has been received, within three working days of receipt; • ensure that the review is completed to a sufficient standard by undertaking a quality

assessment, within 20 working days of receipt, bringing the attention of the nominated SPOC, relevant Public Protection Manager and NPS Deputy Director and CRC Chief Executive and Senior Contract Manager, or their representative, to any cases that have been inadequately reviewed. Where OMPPG considers that the review is inadequate – i.e. has not met the requirements of this Instruction, it will return the review to the reviewing manager and require it to be re-submitted, with the deficiencies and omissions rectified.

2.16.5 The starting point of the period covered by the SFO review will normally be the commencement of the current sentence and most usually at the point of the first risk assessment undertaken by the NPS or the CRC. The review will examine any actions taken by the CRC following the initial case allocation decision, including risk escalation, or the NPS when their initial risk assessment does not support the original case allocation decision. If, at the point of the SFO, the period of management has been six months or under, and was immediately preceded by a previous period of management, the review should look at the previous period of management but for no longer than two years. The end point of the review when considering the quality of management of the case will normally be the date on which the SFO was alleged to have been committed (or the last date, where the SFO spans a period of time), although the chronology should identify any significant events after the commission of the SFO, particularly where there are matters of public interest. This would apply where there is a significant time gap between the date of commission of the SFO and the offender’s arrest


PAGE 14

and/or charge for this offence, for example, where an offender has committed a SFO whilst on curfew and/or residing at an approved premises but not been immediately apprehended or where there are indications of a SFO being committed by the offender as a result of police investigation and there is not an immediate charge. This would be partly to ensure that appropriate case management actions had been taken by the offender manager prior to the offender’s arrest and charge in respect of the SFO and whilst there were indications of a possible increase in the risk of harm. Where cases such as this are managed within a CRC, the CRC will need to consider whether risk escalation process should be followed at this time.

2.16.6 Reviews will normally involve a discussion with the responsible Offender Manager (OM), the OM’s line manager and other staff directly involved in the management of the case in order that the Review is as accurate and comprehensive as it can be, drawing not only on written records but on the direct experience of those working with the offender. Where appropriate, the reviewing manager will also speak to the relevant area manager or senior operational manager, especially where the Review raises wider policy and practice issues.

2.16.7 Reviews should consider and assess the quality of implementation of conditions of licences and requirements of orders or post sentence supervision periods, whether these are delivered by directly employed staff in the NPS or CRC, or by other provider agencies. In appropriate cases, inter-agency work may be scrutinised where the SFO senior lead manager and/or reviewing manager determines that this is feasible and that important lessons may be learnt, for example, where the risk escalation process is followed in line with PI 57/2014 Process for CRCs to refer cases for Risk Escalation Review, whereby, there is management of a case by a CRC and the NPS. Alternatively, the senior lead manager can bring any concerns about work undertaken by another agency to the attention of that agency on conclusion of the Review.

2.16.8 As part of the review, the NPS or CRC must identify an Action Plan that will contain recommendations for the dissemination of good practice and action to address areas for improvement. In reviews that indicate deficiencies in practice, the NPS Deputy Director (or representative) or Chief Executive of the CRC, or representative, is required as part of signing off the Review to consider the standard of practice in the case. Where there have been deficiencies, improvements to processes and/or knowledge and skill levels may be required in the action plan. Where a review identifies that there has been exceptionally poor practice, the NPS Deputy Director (or representative) or Chief Executive of the CRC, or representative, must indicate when signing off the review any consideration they have given to instigating capability or disciplinary procedures. A decision not to initiate such procedures would not preclude action in the future if new information comes to light. Any decision to instigate formal procedures should be made with full HR advice, in accordance with relevant policies that should include the duty of care to staff in these specific circumstances.

2.16.9 As 2.14.3 sets out there will be occasions when multiple providers of probation services are involved in the completion of a review. Where the provider, who is responsible for the review, identifies exceptionally poor practice by another provider and it appears that no action has been taken this must, in the spirit of continuous practice improvement, be discussed between the senior managers in each of the providers, at the earliest opportunity. Where it is helpful, OMPPG and, if relevant, the NOMS contract management function should be included in those discussions. Such a level of deficiency in practice will inevitably, be identified through the OMPPG quality assurance of the review; however, early identification and early intervention in cases of exceptionally poor practice may be necessary to avoid further deficient practice in other cases while the review process is concluded.


PAGE 15

2.16.10. When the review has concluded, feedback must be provided to the Offender Manager and the line manager, and others who have been interviewed during the review. In cases where practice has been found to be of a sufficient quality, the reviewing manager (or the line manager, by arrangement) should confirm that the review has been completed and give feedback to the staff member(s) concerned, highlighting good practice where applicable. In cases where there are concerns about the standard of practice, this will be fed back to the staff member by the reviewing manager (in conjunction with the line manager, as appropriate) together with the relevant parts of the action plan. Where substantive feedback has already been given prior to the submission of the Review, and there are no additional points to be added, the reviewing manager may simply need to confirm this. The important point is that, although the full SFO documentation is not for distribution, including to the staff involved, those significantly involved in the SFO review should be aware that it has concluded and whether there are findings that are relevant to their practice.

Update

2.16.11 CRC Chief Executives must ensure that a brief progress report on the implementation of the Action Plan, giving assurance that action has been taken on learning points arising out of SFO Reviews for the specified reporting period is provided to the Senior Contract Manager no later than six calendar months from the date of the completion of the Review. Similarly, NPS Deputy Directors or their representative must ensure that a brief progress report on the implementation of the Action Plan for each SFO Review is provided to the Director of NPS and the Director of NOMS for Wales. With SFO Reviews that have been flagged as significant public interest cases, a copy of the progress report may be requested by OMPPG and used to inform subsequent briefings to ministers and/or senior officials, in which case the NPS and CRC are required to provide OMPPG with a copy.

2.16.12 OMPPG provides HMIP with details of the learning taken forward on recent SFO cases. HMIP request this information 10 weeks prior to the commencement of their inspection. Therefore, OMPPG requires the NPS and CRCs to provide a short summary report, every 3 months, using the template at Annex I. This annex must be signed off by the relevant senior manager before submission to the Director of NPS,, Director of NOMS in Wales and Senior Contract Managers. This summary report should be copied to the OMPPG. The reporting schedule would ensure that only reports on those reviews that were completed between no less than six and no more than nine months prior to the submission of the quarterly report from the NPS or CRC. As a rule of thumb, the schedule would be as follows:-

Period when SFO Reviews are submitted to OMPPG on completion

Period for NPS/CRC to send summary report on progress with SFO Review action plans

SFOs reviewed in the quarter Jan - Mar 01st Oct – 31st Oct of the same calendar yearSFOs reviewed in the quarter Apr - Jun 01st Jan – 31st January of the next calendar yearSFOs reviewed in the quarter Jul - Sep 01st Apr – 30th April of the next calendar yearSFOs reviewed in the quarter Oct - Dec 01st Jul – 31st Jull of the next calendar year

SFO Outcome

2.16.13 The NPS must ensure that the OMPPG and the relevant CRC or NPS SPOC or senior lead are informed within three working days of an SFO case being concluded in court, whatever the outcome, and as soon as possible if a case is discontinued or charges are reduced.

2.17 Other cases that do not qualify for a SFO Review


PAGE 16

2.17.1 The NPS and the CRCs should establish a mechanism to review locally other cases where they feel there could be lessons to learn about public protection. These cases could include well managed cases and those where offenders are charged with SFO list offences which do not qualify for a mandatory review. Providers will also be expected to locally review the small number of “near miss” cases that are considered by the National Joint Review Panel,1

for example, where an offender was recalled due to deteriorating behaviour and/or escalation in risk, but not charged with a new offence. There may also be instances of offenders charged with a SFO who are being supervised by another agency, for example Youth Offending Teams (YOTs), where a provider of probation services is providing an intervention such as Unpaid Work/Community Payback. In these cases the relevant probation provider will review its involvement and provide a contribution to assist the YOT with any Review they undertake in line with Youth Justice Procedures.

2.18 Quality Assurance and Research

2.18.1 OMPPG will undertake quality assurance of SFO reviews completed by the NPS and CRCs. They will assess the quality and timeliness of all reviews and give them a quality rating. Reviews can be rated as good, satisfactory or incomplete. In cases where OMPPG do not feel there is sufficient evidence to support and justify the judgments which the NPS or CRC has made about the quality of its practice, OMPPG will return those reviews to the NPS or CRC rated as “incomplete”. The NPS or CRC must then revise and re-submit the review to OMPPG, within the stated timescale. Once complete, the quality rating for each review will be fed back to the NPS Deputy Director and the CRC Chief Executive by means of a letter, also copied to the Director of NPS and the Director of NOMS in Wales (NPS cases only) and the Senior Contract managers (CRC cases), which will also record the main findings of the Review.

2.18.2 A further quality assurance process, SFO review validation, operates whereby a panel (comprising OMPPG, representatives of the Director of NPS and Director of NOMS in Wales, HMI Probation, NPS and CRC representatives and invited others) will scrutinise a sample of completed reviews to determine whether they accurately reflect the information held on the case file. For the purposes of this process, copies of the case files will be requested from the NPS and CRC. The NPS and CRCs must provide these case files on request from OMPPG. SFO Review validation will be undertaken on a geographical basis bringing together a NPS division and local CRCs. The SFO team will lead the exercise in the given location drawing cases from both the NPS and CRCs. It is planned to hold 5 events every two years on a rotational basis. NPS Deputy Directors and CRC Chief Executives will receive written feedback on any of their SFO Reviews that have gone through the national validation process and key learning points from these events will be disseminated nationally.

2.18.3. OMPPG will undertake and commission research into SFOs to further disseminate key lessons from the management of offenders who are high risk of serious harm and/or commit serious further sexual and violent offences. Some of this work will be done with partner agencies represented on the National Joint Review Panel. From time to time, the NPS, CRCs and other providers of probation and community services will be asked to supply case material to assist with this research.

2.19 Roles and responsibilities of those involved with the SFO procedures

1 The Joint Review Panel (JRP) comprises of: The National Offender Management Service (NOMS), Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), Parole Board, Department of Health (where relevant) bought together under a MOU to identify learning from the management of offenders who have been recalled to custody following serious further offending during release on parole or life licence or ‘near miss’ cases where an offender has been recalled following significant concerns about risk of harm and re-offending and to co-ordinate and take appropriate action in response to this learning to improve the assessment and management of offenders subject to the parole process.


PAGE 17

2.19.1 NPS Deputy Directors and CRC Chief Executives have a responsibility to retain strategic oversight of SFOs at a local level this should include:-

• regular reports from the nominated SPOC or senior lead on the number and type of reviews undertaken and highlighting key lessons from these cases;

• receive a sample copy of reviews, • monitor the implementation of all Action Plans (for CRCs, this will also be a

responsibility of the Senior Contract Manager); • consider an annual review that analyses all SFOs that have been committed in their

area; and• submit a summary report to OMPPG (and for CRCs the NOMS contract

management function) every three months confirming progress in acting on learning points arising out of SFO Reviews.

2.19.2 The Director of NPS, the Director of NOMS in Wales and CRC Chief Executives have responsibility for the implementation of this Instruction within their division/contract package area and as part of this must ensure:-

• all reviews are locally quality assured prior to submission to OMPPG and undertaken with impartiality and integrity;

• reviewing managers are competent to undertake SFO Reviews and fully aware of national and local policies and practice which may be pertinent to the case;

• reviewing managers are released to undertake reviews to be completed on behalf of other probation providers within their division or wider, as required, where an additional level of objectivity is required, for example in high profile cases. In such instances, reasonable notice will be given and regard had to the other responsibilities held by the reviewing manager;

• Chairs of the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board (LSCB), the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) Strategic Management Board and Chairs of CSPs are informed of the revisions to the procedures outlined in this Instruction;

• an Update on each Action Plan is forwarded to the OMPPG, relevant Senior Contract Manager and NOMS Deputy Directors of Probation within the required timescale;

• an update on any SFO Review Action Plan is sent to OMPPG when so requested within the required timescale when the SFO relates to a case deemed to be of significant public interest;

• arrangements are made to assist the OMPPG to undertake the Quality Assurance SFO Review Validation process, where required;

• appropriate attention is given to the duty of care in respect of any staff who are interviewed as part of a SFO Review; and

the VSR must be delivered within the context of the Victim Contact Scheme. Where a victim requests such a report this will be facilitated by the VLO but delivered by an operational senior manager from the NPS or the CRC (see detailed guidance in Annex A)

2.19.3 The Director of NPS, the Director of NOMS in Wales and Senior Contract Managers, will,

by way of their SLA and contract reviews (service reports) need to be assured that NPS divisions and CRCs work in accordance with this Instruction and:-

• consider this Instruction and establish, in liaison with NPS Deputy Directors,

relevant Public Protection lead managers and CRC Chief Executives, what local and/or regional activity is appropriate to maximize quality, learning and improvement from SFO Reviews;

• monitor implementation of actions to address deficiencies that have been identified in SFO reviews;

• ensure that learning from SFOs is discussed as appropriate in Contract/SLA Review (or other designated) meetings with particular attention to high profile cases, cases


PAGE 18

identifying public protection issues and risks, and those cases which raise regional or national issues or concerns; and

• arrange for, or help facilitate, probation managers to carry ‘out of area’ Reviews as commissioned by the OMPPG on a fair and equitable basis proportional to the size of the area.

Discuss as necessary with the relevant Directors and non-executive Directors.

2.19.4 OMPPG has responsibility for the co-ordination and management of SFO procedures at national level and must ensure:

• the SFO procedures are fully implemented and co-ordinated at national level and all relevant documentation is maintained and updated;

• that the NPS and CRCs are provided with advice and assistance on SFO matters, as appropriate, including the delivery of training to reviewing managers, by the SFO team in OMPPG, in line with nationally agreed practice standards;

• Quality Assurance panels are arranged to inspect a national sample of SFO Reviews as part of the SFO Review QA validation;

• quarterly statistical information is provided to the NPS, CRCs, the Director of NOMS in Wales and the Director of NPS, or their representative, for analysis and benchmarking;

• statistical information relating to SFOs is published through the annual MAPPA Annual Reports and may be made available to MoJ Analytical Services as part of a contribution to individual publications;

• key learning points are disseminated nationally (within NOMS, CRCs and with other agencies involved in public protection) to inform practice improvement and future policy development; this will include learning where policy, as distinct from practice, has been shown to be deficient;

• that agencies involved in the management of offenders are aware of the SFO process at a national level; and

• the Minister, the Chief Executive of NOMS and senior officials are informed of any SFO cases which may cause significant concern.

3. Policy and strategic context

3.1 Protecting the public is a key role for the NPS, the CRCs and all other providers of probation and community services and they work in partnership with other agencies to manage and, where feasible, reduce the risk of serious harm posed by offenders. Compliance with SFO procedures remains an integral part of fulfilling this statutory responsibility, through a commitment to continuous improvement and should form part of the provider’s public protection strategy.

3.2 This Instruction updates national SFO procedures and requires the NPS and CRCs to set up and maintain processes to operate these procedures at local level and to comply with all mandatory actions. These procedures provide for public accountability in that providers are required to give account to NOMS (for the Secretary of State) for their management of offenders charged with a SFO. It is, therefore, critical that appropriate and commensurate resources are allocated within the NPS and CRCs to ensure effective delivery of these mandatory actions.

3.3 Learning key lessons about the management of offenders who are assessed as high risk of serious harm and/or capable of causing serious harm is a central part of the SFO scheme. By ensuring that SFO Reviews are rigorous and provide an appropriate level of scrutiny, it is expected that important learning will be drawn out and used to further improve policy and practice at local, regional and national level. It is therefore critical that the NPS and CRCs continue to learn from the SFO review process, maintain a focus on the key lessons in relation to risk assessment (the identification of the present risk of serious harm of that allocated person – CRCs), risk management (the proposed management and mitigation of


PAGE 19

the [present] risk of serious harm if that allocated person presents a medium risk of serious harm – CRCs), and offender management (the needs of the allocated person in the context of the delivery of the services and the identification of the likelihood of that applicable person re-offending; and the activity to be undertaken with the allocated person to deliver that part of the sentence of the court to be served in the community and to reduce the likelihood of re-offending, using (as applicable) an Authority approved system and apply this learning to further enhance public protection.


PAGE 1

Annex A

PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014 UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015

PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014 - Notification and Review Procedures for

Serious Further Offences

Practice Guidance - Victim Summary Report

This guide is a supplement to PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014. It is designed to provide further detail of the mandatory

requirement to provide a summary of the SFO Review.

March 2015

PAGE 2

Disclosure of overview reports to victims and/or families of victims

INTRODUCTION

The SFO Review procedure was extended in April 2013 to incorporate a new requirement whereby an overview report of the SFO Review is shared with the victims of serious further offending and/or their families. This guidance has been written and revised following a series of consultations where OMPPG has met with Probation Trusts and other stakeholders - for example, senior community services managers from the Probation and Contracted Services Directorate, and representatives of the Victims and MAPPA Teams within OMPPG. MoJ Legal Advisers were also consulted in the production of this guidance. This revised guidance also takes into account the new entitlements placed on criminal justice agencies under the new Victim’s Code. The revised Victims’ Code was published in October 2013 with an implementation date of 10 December 2013.

The NPS and the CRCs will need to take great care in providing a bespoke response, based on the needs of the victim(s) concerned. Relevant staff must ensure that the process is administered with empathy and responsivity. The NPS and the CRCs will need to engage with victims to facilitate a process of moving towards resolution of this specific area of work, which will vary in duration for each victim. It is important that active involvement between the NPS or CRC and the relevant Victim Liaison Officer/Manager is initiated at the earliest opportunity to manage this process with the utmost integrity.

The victim summary report (VSR) will be a summary of ‘findings’ from the SFO Review and will cover, in broad terms, whether there were any deficiencies in the management of the offender convicted of an SFO and, if there were, what the NPS or CRC concerned is doing to rectify matters for the management of future cases. This will allow victims and/or their families to see tangible evidence of the NPS and the CRC’s commitment to identifying learning and improve practice (where needed).

A number of other factors for producing the summary report were that it would:

i) help further to involve victims and the families of serious further offending , as part of HM Government’s aim to put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system;

ii) provide greater accountability to those most affected by the serious further offending;

iii) move towards aligning the SFO review process with MAPPA SCRs and Safeguarding SCRs in terms of at least partial disclosure to victims/their families; and

iv) give an opportunity for NOMS (and providers of probation services) to offer some reassurance to victims/their families that SFO review findings are taken seriously and there is a commitment to acting on critical learning from SFO cases to further improve practice.

THE VICTIM’S CODE

The Victims’ Code places a statutory obligation on criminal justice agencies to provide a standard of service to victims of crime. It is designed to be an accessible tool for victims as well as for agencies. The Code of Practice for Victims’ of Crime was introduced in 2006. The duty to make a Victims’ Code arises in s.32 DVCVA 2004, which gives the government a statutory obligation to guarantee minimum standards of service to victims of crime.


PAGE 3

As stated above the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime was revised in 2013. It addresses victims directly and was designed to be easier for victims to understand in terms of wording and format, as it follows the criminal justice process chronologically.

In relation to Serious Further Offence Review (SFO Review) Victim Summary Reports (VSR), there are a number of duties that have been placed on criminal justice agencies, but more specifically on the single points of contact for victims (Witness Care Units and/or Family Liaison Officer) and on providers of probation services (in both the NPS and CRCs) to:

- Contact the Witness Care Unit when notification is received that an offender has been charged with a SFO, and inform the Witness Care Unit that the victim should be told, after conviction, of their entitlement to a VSR;

- Following sentencing and having received contact details from the Witness Care Unit, contact the victim of a SFO to offer them information about a VSR unless the victim has expressly stated that they do not want contact from the probation provider;

Offer the victim a face to face meeting with a senior manager to explain the VSR and to try to answer any questions they may have about the report.

GUIDANCE AND KEY ACTIONS

On which SFO reviews should the NPS or the CRCs prepare a victim summary report (VSR)?

SFO VSRs should be prepared on mandatory SFO cases as defined in the Probation Instruction, and contact made with qualifying victims following the offender being convicted of the mandatory SFO. It is clear that the SFO Review Procedures cover a defined set of the most serious of offences. The VSR parameters reflect this. All notifications received after 01/04/2013 which go on to be convicted of a mandatory SFO will qualify.

The NPS and CRCs also have the discretion to prepare a VSR for significant cases where notification predates 1 April 2013, or where a discretionary SFO Review is carried out, if there is a strong argument for doing so.

Even in cases where no deficiencies are identified, the VSR provides a mechanism for providing assurance to a victim/their families that the case has been thoroughly reviewed and that the probation provider have acknowledged the victim’s position and that they are deserving of feedback.

How will the NPS or a CRC identify who is a qualifying victim?

The VSR is to be made available to qualifying victims, which is defined as those victims/families where there is a conviction for a Mandatory SFO.

The right of the victim or victim’s family to have sight of the VSR is not dependent on their participation in the victim contact scheme (VCS). The victim may receive a VSR without wishing to receive any other information through the VCS, or may wish to receive information through the VCS without receiving a VSR. When the WCU or other police single points of contact offers the services provided under VCS, they will explain the availability of a VSR and, if the victim wishes to receive either or both services, this will be communicated to the probation provider. Please see Appendix 1 for further information regarding this process.

The statutory VCS is usually offered following conviction. If the NPS or the CRCs have any contact with victims prior to conviction, they will need to be very careful about offering a VSR, in order to PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014 UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015

PAGE 4

manage victims’ expectations and have regard to the rules on matters under consideration by the court.

What is the referral process of eligible victims?

The WCU or other police contact has a duty under the Victims’ Code to explain to the victim their entitlement to the VSR, and to pass on the details of victims who would like to receive a VSR to the probation provider. This will be done at the same time that they inform the victim about the VCS. Referrals will be made using the WCU referral form included at Annex I of the PI 11/2013 (Appendix 2 of this guide for reference).

WCUs and other police contacts will often not know whether the offender was under probation supervision at the time or shortly before the offence was committed. In order to enable WCUs and other police contacts to fulfil their duty, the NPS or the CRC therefore has a duty to inform the WCU or other police contact, upon confirmation of notification of a SFO:

- that the offender was under probation supervision when the offence was committed, or that probation supervision had ended within 28 days of the offence being committed;

- that the offence was a serious further offence which would require a mandatory SFO Review to be undertaken, or that the NPS or the CRC has decided to conduct an SFO Review and prepare a VSR on a discretionary basis; and

- that the victim will be entitled to request a VSR, if the offender is convicted of that offence.

This will be fulfilled by the completion of the template to inform WCUs of victim eligibility. Please see Appendix 3 for a copy of the template.

It must be made clear to WCUs and other police contacts that they must not discuss the victim’s entitlement to a VSR until the offender is convicted, and then only if the offence remains a mandatory SFO.

WCU and other police contacts will not be expected to understand in detail the Probation SFO Review Procedures or the VSR. The NPS or the CRCs, including VLOs, must be prepared to explain these processes to WCU staff and provide them with further information if requested. Victims will be referred to the NPS or the CRCs for more information about these processes, and VLOs must also be prepared to explain these processes to them.

When the referral of a victim eligible for a VSR is received by the Victim Liaison Unit (VLU), the SFO lead for the relevant NPS or CRC will liaise with the VLU manager to ensure that the victim is made aware of the availability of a VSR and that they are given the choice of whether to receive a VSR. It is suggested that the victim’s eligibility to request a VSR is flagged in the initial contact letter from the VLO, indicating that a senior manager representing the NPS or the CRC will contact the victim separately to provide more information, if the victim wishes. An example SFO initial contact letter can be found at Appendix M of PI 11/2013 (Appendix 4 of this guide for reference).

What must the VSR include?

The VSR must include details from the analysis section of the SFO review document and the learning points and an analysis of any identified deficiencies and, most importantly, the remedial action that has been taken to address this. Corporate issues and systemic issues may be the main points; alternatively, the main points may cover core practice. Taking into account all the issues and sensitivity involved in the case, the writer of the VSR should consider very carefully whether it would be appropriate for the VSR to include feedback on good practice. The content must be general and avoid identification of individuals or any information from which individuals may be identified. Since April 2013 the SFO Team has received a number of VSRs PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014 UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015

PAGE 5

from Probation Trusts, which have had to be sent back to be amended as they contained far too much information about the offender, which could be challenged under the Data Protection Act.

The Authority’s website contains further guidance on the NPS and CRC’s responsibilities in relation to data protection.. Should staff performance be discussed?

There may be instances where members of staff have undergone capability or disciplinary procedures as the result of an SFO review. Individual staff names should never be disclosed, but the VSR places importance on giving an open and honest account of what happened and this might include details of remedial action that has been taken to address staff capability.

Should reference to other agencies be included in the VSR?

Where other agencies have been involved in the statutory supervision of an offender, their involvement must be mentioned in the VSR, along the lines that it has been mentioned in the SFO review document, but only in so far as it relates to the general supervision of the case.

The NPS or CRCs should avoid expressing or implying criticism of named agencies in the VSR, as criticism would have the potential to create problems as those agencies do not have any right to reply. Where there is evidence of problems regarding multi-agency working relationships in the SFO review document, which has given rise to a learning point, that learning point should be covered in the VSR. The general overarching principle would be that the VSR can comment on collaboration with other agencies, but not the manner in which other agencies conduct their business. The NPS or the CRC’s communications officer should consider making contact with MOJ Press Office to consider a joint media strategy with external agencies in the event of any media attention.

What about where other reports are being completed?

The timing of the sharing of the VSR with victims will need to take account of other victim summaries which are being completed (MAPPA Serious Case Review, Domestic Homicide Review, Safeguarding Review). In cases where a MAPPA Serious Case Review or Safeguarding Review is being produced, it may not be necessary to share a separate VSR with qualifying victims.

What is the likelihood of the NPS or the CRCs facing legal action?

The NPS or the CRC could potentially be held liable for poor practice on the part of their employees in cases of serious further offending. However, this is no different to what could happen now, as the VSR will flow from the SFO review document – and that SFO review document might, in certain cases, be disclosed – such as at a coroner’s inquest. It is hoped that the VSR will show victims - and indeed the general public - that in the cases of the most serious offending steps are being taken to implement remedial actions to address identified concerns.

What happens when there is disagreement about how a case is managed?

The VSR is based on the SFO review document. When completing the SFO review, the NPS or CRC have to form judgments as to whether actions taken at the time were reasonable and defensible, having regard to the fact the training of offender managers/responsible officers and the pressures under which they were operating. Sometimes SFO reviews will cover differences of view between supervising probation providers and NOMS HQ – for example, as to whether an offender should be subject to a standard or a fixed-term recall. In such cases, the NPS or the CRC should consult the SFO Team in OMPPG on the relevant part of the VSR.

DisseminationPI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014 UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015

PAGE 6

Who will deliver the VSR?

The VSR should be delivered by a senior manager of the NPS or the CRC that was responsible for writing the SFO Review in order to reflect the seriousness with which the matter has been treated by the provider. This also ensures that someone with the necessary grasp of operational requirements and the authority to implement remedial action is on hand to answer a victims’ questions.

A face to face meeting should be offered to the victim to discuss the VSR. During the meeting, the VSR may be read to the victim, and/or a copy provided to them, in order that they may read it though as many times as they wish during the meeting. The victim should be given an opportunity to ask any questions about the VSR. We advise that the victim and/or their family should not be provided with a copy of the VSR to take away from this meeting. However, we recognise that this may be difficult and so local discretion and management can make the decision to provide a copy. The senior manager should ensure that they contact the relevant VLO to gather information about the victim/victim’s family so that the VSR can be delivered sensitively and appropriately.

The VLO should attend the VSR meeting with the senior manager, to provide support and ensure that the VLO is aware of any concerns that the victim may raise about the VSR. However, it should be noted that the role of the VLO is to facilitate the victim contact scheme and to support the victim by providing information about the offender at appropriate stages. This role is entirely separate from the role of the senior manager delivering the VSR and the two roles should not be conflated.

Victims have a right to a high quality contact process and VLOs must confine their remit to the victim contact scheme. It may be appropriate for an initial meeting to take place, prior to the meeting with the senior manager, so that the VLO can ‘set the scene’ and manage some of the expectations of the meeting. However, at no point should the VLO discuss the findings of a SFO Review with the victim or victim’s family ahead of the formal “disclosure” meeting with the senior manager.

What if the victim and/or their family lives in a different area to the probation provider that has completed the SFO Review?

The onus will be on the responsible NPS or CRC to write the VSR in line with the SFO findings, and to make a decision as to whether it is appropriate for the senior manager to deliver the VSR (alongside the victim liaison officer from the NPS Division where the victim is residing). The senior manager may, however, consider requesting that the delivery of the VSR is undertaken by the NPS Division responsible for the victim liaison contact. In such cases, an agreement will need to be sought with the relevant senior managers.

When should the VSR be written and disclosed?

It is left to the discretion of the NPS or the CRC to decide when they write the VSR; some providers may prefer to wait until a conviction for a mandatory SFO before writing the VSR. However, good practice suggests that the VSR should be written alongside the SFO review and revisited once the SFO review has been quality assured by OMPPG and the feedback letter has been provided. Finalising the VSR until after conviction for an SFO would allow providers to reconsider and comment within the VSR on progress with regard to implementing the action points. . Where should the VSR be disseminated?

The victim liaison officer will be best placed to advise as to where the meeting with victims to share the findings of the VSR should take place. This discussion should take place with both the relevant senior manager who will be delivering the VSR and the VLO Manager, so that appropriate arrangements can take place.


PAGE 7

What happens if the victims or family want others present?

The findings of the SFO review are to be disclosed via the VSR at a meeting to which the victim(s) are invited. Victims may bring along a friend – or even a solicitor but not in the solicitor’s legal capacity. Media representatives should not be admitted to the meeting.

What format should the VSR take?

It is not mandatory to provide victims with the VSR to take away from the meeting. MAPPA SCR overview reports are not left with victims. In contrast, DHRs are left with the families of victims following quality assurance. OMPPG best practice guidance would suggest that the VSR is delivered verbally, with victims and/or their families being given the option of a follow up letter containing details of the content of the VSR.

Please see Appendix 5 for reference to a possible structure and format for a VSR and Appendix 6 for a good practice example of a VSR that has been prepared by Wales Probation Trust, which is based upon the findings from an SFO Review.

Further information on the learning that has been provided from a number of probation trusts since the implementation of the new requirement to prepare VSRs can be found at Appendix 7.


PAGE 8

Appendix 1

Process for identifying and informing Witness Care Units of victims that are eligible for a Victim Summary Report (VSR).

For all cases where the relevant NPS or CRC has received confirmation from the SFO Team (following submission of Stage 3 of the SFO Notification Document) that the case does qualify for a mandatory SFO Review the following actions are required:

- The NPS or the CRC will contact the local WCU, using the SPOC list and the SFO WCU Template (Appendix 3). The template will inform the WCU that the offender has committed an offence which would make the victim eligible for a VSR, and that on conviction for that or another VSR eligible offence, the WCU must inform the victim about the VSR at the same time as they inform them about the Victim Contact Scheme (VCS);

- Once the offender has been convicted and sentenced for a VSR eligible offence, the WCU inform the victim about the VSR and the VCS, and ask the victim if they would like their details to be passed to the probation provider. The WCU will also direct the victim to ask the probation provider if they would like more detail;

- Once the 10 day period has expired in which the victim may opt out of having their details referred, the WCU will pass the victim's details to the probation provider using the WCU Referral Form (Appendix 2), completing the new Part III as well as Part I and Part II, and indicating whether the victim was informed about the VSR and whether or not they have stated whether they wish to receive one;

- The NPS or CRC will then contact the relevant Victim Liaison Officer/Manager (as per local arrangement) to discuss next steps in contacting the victim to offer them the VCS and the VSR.

If there is an Family Liaison Officer (FLO) rather than a WCU involved, the WCU should pass the details to their police colleagues accordingly.


PAGE 9

Appendix 2

Example template for referral of Cases from Witness Care to the providers of probation services

In cases where the victim has requested that they do not want further contact from probation, the Witness Care Unit should only complete Part I of this template, plus Part III of the victim is a victim of a mandatory serious further offence.

In all other cases where the victim is eligible for contact from the Victim Liaison Scheme (see attached list of eligible offences), the Witness Care Unit should complete Parts I and II, and, if applicable, Part III of this referral form and pass it to the relevant Victim Liaison Unit.

All data will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998

Part I:

1) COURT CASE NUMBER:

2) Details to be passed to VCS: YES NO

3) Victim’s Gender: Male Female

4) Victim’s ethnicity:

i. Asian or Asian British iv. MixedIndian White and Black CaribbeanPakistani White and Black AfricanBangladeshi White and AsianAny other Asian background Any other mixed background

ii. Black or Black British v. WhiteCaribbean BritishAfrican IrishAny other Black background Any other White background

iii. Chinese or Other ethnic groupChineseAny Other


PAGE 10

Part II:

5) Victim’s name:

6) Victim’s contact details:

i) address:

ii) telephone number:

iii) email address:

7) Victim’s date of birth:

8) Name of the victim’s of carers, guardian or parents (where appropriate):

9) Preferred method of contact (if specified):

10) Preferred contact time (e.g. day of week / time of day) (if specified):

11) Inappropriate times for contact (if specified):

12) Victim’s special requirements (e.g. disability, special educational needs, children,language needs etc).

13) Other relevant information (e.g. if the victim has been identified as vulnerable / health and safety issues, or if the victim is an offender, poses a risk to staff etc)

14) Details of offender, offence, sentence and relationship to victim

15) Specify lead Police Officer, Police Family Liaison Officer or Sex Offence Liaison Officer, and contact details (where appropriate or available)


PAGE 11

Part III:

This section should be completed if the victim is a victim of a serious further offence which mandatorily requires a Serious Further Offence Review to be completed. This includes cases involving:

- Murder;- Manslaughter;- Death by dangerous driving;- rape;- assault by penetration;- a sexual offence against a child who is under 13 years of age; and or- an attempt at any of the above.

16) Is the victim a victim of a mandatory serious further offence, as listed above?

YES NO

17) Has the victim been informed about their right to ask the probation provider for a Serious Victim Summary Report outlining the findings of the Serious Further Offence Review?

YES NO

18) Has the victim indicated that they would like to receive a Victim Summary Report, or to receive more information about the Victim Summary Report?

YES, VSR/more information requested

NO, VSR/more information is not wanted

UNSURE OR NO RESPONSE regarding VSR/more information

If the answer to 18 is no, and the victim explicitly does not want contact from probation under the Victim Contact Scheme, Part II of this document should not be filled in.


PAGE 12

Appendix 3

Serious Further Offence Review: Pro forma to notify WCU of victim eligibility (on conviction) for a Victim Summary Report

To be filled in by Probation SFO Lead or SFO SPOC, and sent to the Witness Care Unit handling the victim(s) of the new offence and NOMS SFO Team.

Name of offender: D.O.B:

Offence offender is charged with:

To be filled in by WCU for WCU reference

Name of victim: D.O.B:

The offender was under Probation supervision when the offence was committed / within 28 days of the offence being committed (delete as appropriate).

(NPS/name of CRC) will carry out a Serious Further Offence Review of the offender’s management at the time the offence was committed.

On conviction of the offender for this offence or another offence listed below, please inform the victim(s) of their entitlement to receive a Victim Summary Report of this Serious Further Offence Review. The victim(s) should be informed about this entitlement at the same time they are informed about the Victim Contact Scheme.

For more information, the victim should be directed to (NPS/name of CRC).

If the offender is acquitted of this offence, or is convicted of a different offence which is not listed below, the victim must not be informed about the Victim Summary Report. The offender must be convicted of one of the following:

Murder Manslaughter Rape Assault by penetration A sexual offence against a child under 13 An attempt at any of the above Death by dangerous driving

For more information, and to confirm upon conviction that the victim is eligible, please contact:

Contact name: NPS/CRC:

Telephone number: Email address:


PAGE 13

Appendix 4 As referenced in APPENDIX M of PI 11/2013

Example initial contact letter where the victim is eligible for a Serious Further Offence Review Victim Summary Report

This letter should only be sent out if the victim is eligible for an SFO Review Victim Summary Report due to the offence triggering a mandatory SFO Review or the Chief Executive deciding that it would be appropriate to offer a Victim Summary Report.

[name and contact details of Probation Victim Liaison Unit]

[date][name(s) and address of victim(s)]

Dear [victim’s name/victims’ names]

My name is [VLO’s name] and I am a Victim Liaison Officer with the National Probation Service. As a victim of a serious crime, in a case sentenced at [Crown Court location] Crown Court in [month and year of sentencing], you have a legal right to receive contact from Probation under the statutory Probation Victim Contact Scheme, and I have been assigned to provide this contact to you if you wish to receive it.

The purpose of the Victim Contact Scheme is to provide you with information about the criminal justice system and about the offender’s sentence, including about the likely month and year of the offenders’ eventual release. Through the Victim Contact Scheme, you also have the right to make representations about the conditions to which the offender may be subject upon release [delete the following if offender’s case will not be considered by the Parole Board], and to make a Victim Personal Statement when the offender is considered for release or transfer to open conditions by the Parole Board.

The job of your Victim Liaison Officer is to provide you with this information and help you to make these representations. The information that you pass on to me will not be passed on to the offender, unless I let you know otherwise, as Victim Liaison Officers are not directly involved in the supervision of offenders.

As you may be aware, the offender who committed an offence against you was being supervised by NPS/CRC [delete as appropriate] at the time of this offence / until very recently prior to the offence. Because of this, [NPS/name of CRC] have undertaken a Serious Further Offence Review, to investigate how the case was managed, whether there were any deficiencies in management, and whether or not there are any lessons to be learned to improve future practice. You will have been informed about this by the Police or Witness Care Officer with whom you were in contact during the trial and sentence of the offence.

You are entitled to ask to receive a summary of this Serious Further Offence Review, called a Victim Summary Report. A senior manager in [NPS/name of CRC] will contact you separately in due course to explain more about the Victim Summary Report, and will offer you a meeting to discuss it and to try to answer any questions you may have.


PAGE 14

I would emphasise that the offer of contact is entirely optional and it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate in the Victim Contact Scheme or receive a Victim Summary Report. You may also choose to receive certain aspects of contact: for example, even if you do not wish to be kept informed throughout the offender’s sentence, you may wish to receive a Victim Summary Report. It is also worth noting that even if you do not wish to take up contact at this time, you may contact me at any point during the offender’s sentence to do so.

You may find it helpful to discuss the Victim Contact Scheme or the Victim Summary Report in person. I am available to visit you on [provide at least two dates/times when visit would be possible], and can come to your house or to somewhere convenient for you such as your workplace [edit as appropriate if visiting the victim’s house raises potential concerns]. However, I will only visit with your confirmation. I would be grateful if you would fill in the attached form to indicate whether you would like to meet with me, and return it in the stamped addressed envelope enclosed. You can also indicate if you would like a friend, relative or other supporter to be present, and whether it would be helpful for me to arrange an interpreter or signer to attend.

If you would prefer, or if you would prefer a different meeting time, please do not hesitate to call or email me to discuss this: my direct line is [insert telephone number] and my email is [insert email]. I would be grateful if you could let me know whether you would like to meet by [date], whatever your decision, so that I know that you have received this letter. The Victim Contact Scheme is a flexible service and if at all possible, I will try to fit around your other commitments.

You will see that I have also enclosed an Equality of Opportunity Form, which I would be grateful if you would complete and return with the reply slip. This information is used purely to ensure that all people who come into contact with providers of probation services are treated in a fair and unbiased manner.

Finally, I apologise if my contacting you has caused any distress and assure you that any contact we may have will be dealt with sensitively and discreetly. I would like to assure you again that I work specifically with victims, and have no direct contact at all with the offender in this case.

Yours sincerely

Victim Liaison Officer


PAGE 15

Appendix 5

NATIONAL OFFENDER MANAGEMENT SERVICE

X PROBATION PROVIDER

SERIOUS FURTHER OFFENCE REVIEW SUMMARY REPORT

SUBJECT OF REVIEW:

XXXXX

This report is the property of x Probation Provider. It has a HM Govt. Protective Marking Scheme classification of ‘Official- Sensitive’. Its contents may only be shared with the

permission of X Deputy Director of the NPS or Chief Executive for the CRC

Date: xx/xx/xxxx

Author – Name/title/organisation address


PAGE 16

Structure of Report

Brief explanation of SFO Review Procedure and purpose of SFO Reviews and Summary Reports

This section will include words along the lines of –

The commission of a serious further offence (SFO) to a victim is an occurrence over which we extend our sympathies and compassion to those affected. Each SFO represents a tragedy to the victim and their family and we are mindful of their need for answers and assurances which might help them or be of help to others in the future. In carrying out SFO reviews, reviewing managers are asked to determine whether everything was done which might reasonably have been expected to manage the offender’s risk of harm effectively – and to provide evidence to support their judgments.

As the former Chief Inspector of Probation commented, when an offender is being supervised in the community, it is simply not possible to eliminate risk altogether, but the public is entitled to expect that the authorities will do their job properly, that is to say, to take all reasonable action to keep to a minimum each offender’s risk of harm to others.

The Probation SFO review process requires providers of probation services to undertake rigorous and open reviews of their own practice, in order to identify learning for the future. Reviews may sometimes uncover deficiencies, across core practice areas Deficiencies do not mean that probation providers are somehow responsible for the offences committed by offenders under their supervision. The responsibility for those offences always lies with the offender. The fact that there have been deficiencies should not be taken to read that, but for those deficiencies, the offender would not have committed a serious further offence.

Case History (factual information, e.g. Y sentenced on xx/xx/xxxx for offences of xxxxxx; sentence details. All information provided within this section needs to ensure that it complies with DPA requirements. Only factual information that would have already be available within the public domain, should be contained to prevent the offender’s confidentiality being breached.

Practice Issues and Findings – linked to critical learning points and good practice findings within the SFO Review

Conclusions/Recommendations – relating to either local or national policy and practice, as appropriate


PAGE 17

Appendix 6

OFFICIAL SENSITIVE

WALES PROBATION TRUST

SERIOUS FURTHER OFFENCE REVIEW

VICTIM SUMMARY REPORT

Mr XX

JANUARY 2014

Author: XXX, Reviewing Manager

Wales Probation Trust


PAGE 18

Case History

On the 09/10/09, at Swansea Crown Court, Mr. XX received a sentence of 7 years (part of which was to be served in custody and part in the community) for the offence of conspiracy to supply Class ‘A’ drugs. Mr. XX was released from prison on the 21/09/12 and was subject to a period of licence supervision which due to expire on 23/03/16. Mr. XX’s licence consisted of six standard licence conditions and the following four additional conditions:

To participate in the Prolific Priority Offender Scheme; To comply with any requirements of your Supervising Officer in order to address

your drug and prolific offending behaviour; To permanently reside at your specified home address; Not to seek to communicate with named co-defendants.

On the 21/11/13 at Swansea Crown Court, Mr. XX was sentenced to a further sentence of 7 years (part of which was to be served in custody and part in the community) for the offence of rape.

Practice Issues and Findings

An internal review was conducted into the overall management of Mr. XX’s licence in order to identify any practice or policy areas which could be improved. The review highlighted three key areas for development:

Sentence Planning – Every offender has a sentence plan which is designed to address issues that pose a risk of harm to others, so that the risk might be minimised. A sentence plan identifies the specific areas of work which each individual offender must address whilst supervised by the probation service and can also identify work which must take place with partner agencies (for example, drug testing or counselling services). Whilst Mr. XX did have a sentence plan, the review concluded that a more robust plan should have been in place at a much earlier stage (i.e. at the beginning of Mr XX’s prison sentence). Whilst this review did not conclude that this would have prevented the offence being committed, this would have enabled more consistent contributions from all involved agencies. Such a plan would have also included more formal and structured work designed to address Mr. XX’s offending behaviour.

Risk Management – It is expected that Offender Managers will respond to changes in circumstances and risk, using up to date risk assessments throughout the course of an offender’s sentence. The review identified that Mr. XX’s Offender Manager did respond appropriately on occasion, however, the focus was judged to be too simplistic and reactive. This could have been improved by a more pro-active response where the Offender Manager’s efforts to engage Mr. XX could have been more structured and sequenced in addressing his offending behaviour.

Multi - Agency Working – In working with offenders, it is expected that Probation staff will work closely with other key partners in sharing information to manage risk and reduce re-offending. The review highlighted areas where multi-agency working was effective (for example, conducting joint visits with the Police); however, over


PAGE 19

the course of the sentence this was highlighted as inconsistent. Better joint working would have seen probation and other agencies working together on a regular and routine basis throughout the duration of Mr XX’s sentence.

There were clearly times when we could have managed Mr XX’s period of supervision more consistently and the sentence planning and risk management in this case could have been more thorough. Notwithstanding these areas for improvement, it is clear from the review that there was no occasions when Mr XX’s behaviour would have required a recall back to prison and that no one could have foreseen that Mr XX would have gone on to commit such a devastating offence.

Recommendations

As part of the review process, the following action plan was designed and focussed on improving key practice and policy areas both for staff who worked directly with Mr. XX and the organisation as a whole. The action plan identified three areas for improvement:

The Offender Manager’s Line Manager will review several practice areas with a view to strengthening sentence planning, risk assessment, risk management plans and multi-agency working.

The Offender Manager will attend a specific training event aimed at improving risk management practice.

Wales Probation will deliver refresher training to all staff across the organisation, highlighting the critical areas of sentence planning, risk management and multi-agency working.

The action plan is being robustly implemented and managers are providing critical oversight to ensure its completion. Wales Probation has cascaded the learning points from the review across the whole organisation.

We understand that you have agreed to receive support offered by the Victim Liaison Officer and we hope that this will continue to support you in receiving information, advice and clarification as the Mr XX progresses through his sentence.

Once again, we would like to say that we are so sorry for what you have been through.


PAGE 20

Appendix 7

Learning so far - Victim Summary Process

We have received some very positive feedback from a number of senior managers across the country, who been and delivered the findings of some of the victim summary reports. Senior managers from a number of Trusts have commented that the meetings with the victim and/or their family members had been constructive and whilst it was never going to be a positive experience for the victims’ they had commented that they appreciated that the Trusts had a difficult job and that despite any failings in the management of the case, they understood that they could not have foreseen and prevent the offences being committed.

In another case where the delivery of the VSR was being undertaken on a retrospective basis, two separate meetings took place with members of the victim’s family. The victim in the case had been murdered by his nephew, which left the Trust delivering a report to one family member whose brother had been killed by the family member’s son. This meeting was held by the CEO of the Trust, the Director of Probation and the Director of Legal Services. The family member stated that whilst he had heard a lot of the information before (as there had been extensive contact with the family) he was interested in the ‘practice issues’ of the VSR and what learning the Trust had taken away from this case.

A senior manager from another Trust provided feedback on how the process went with a case which was also a retrospective (high profile) case. The meeting took place with the director and the VLO at the probation office, as this was the preferred choice of the victim. During the meeting the victim had asked for some points of clarification, which the Trust agreed to check and subsequently responded to the victim on the points raised. The Trust made the decision to leave the VSR with the victim

Kent Probation Trust (KPT) made the decision to take out all of the corporate wording from the VSR and send a separate letter to the victim from the CEO, so that the VSR just focused on the detail and makes things more personal to that case. KPT have very kindly agreed to this being shared as an example of good practice. Please see Appendix 8

KPT have also devised a flow chart of the Victim Summary Report Process and have again, agreed that this can be shared. Please see Appendix 9.

A number of Trusts have made the decision not to incorporate any detail in the VSR that would not be relevant to the victim or their family. For example, there has been a case where there were deficiencies in relation to child protection, but the victim of the SFO was a stranger rape, so it was not felt relevant to add this information into the VSR.

A number of Trusts have decided different processes and procedures with regard to the role of victim liaison officers. Some Trusts have decided that they are going to keep


PAGE 21

the process completely separate and others are using the VLO to facilitate the initial meeting with the victim and/or family.

A number of Trusts have made the decision to leave the VSR with the victim.

With regard to the content of the VSRs, the SFO Team have received a number of VSRs with the SFO Reviews which have had been sent back for amendment as they contained too much information about the offender, which was resulting in Data Protection Act concerns. For example, specific information about programmes the offender undertook, progress on such programmes, information regarding an offender’s personal circumstances (examples such as a bereavement, relationship breakdown), and additional non-victim focused licence conditions.

Think about the information that a victim would ordinarily be provided, and what additional information may not necessarily be helpful from a victim’s point of view.

Remember not to use jargon, and whilst not always needed in the VSR, be prepared to answer questions regarding processes and practice issues. For example, a victim may want more information about the sentence planning process – what does this involve, what would an offender be expected to do. These questions can be answered on a generic basis without providing too much specific detail about the offender.

If completing the VSR at the time of the SFO Review, please remember not to use the word ‘alleged’ if making reference to the SFO. The delivery of the SFO will only take place once the offender has been convicted, with any offence being proven rather than alleged. The word ‘alleged’ will be very insulting to a victim post-conviction.

Appendix 8 Kent Probation


PAGE 22

Mrs XX Date:

Dear Mrs XX

I understand you have taken up contact with XXX, Victim Liaison Officer and would like the opportunity to see the Victim Summary Report that was produced following the Serious Further Offence review completed in relation to XXX period of Licence with Kent Probation.

Serious Further Offence Reviews are undertaken by all Probation Trusts in England whenever an eligible offence is committed by an offender subject to supervision by the Probation Service. This was the case for Mr XX. The purpose of such reviews is to assess both the quality of probation work in assessing and managing offenders risk and also how well staff engaged the offender to complete their Order or Licence. Essentially the review determines whether everything was done which might reasonably have been expected to manage the offender’s risk of harm effectively and to identify any learning to be taken forward by the Trust. As the former Chief Inspector of Probation commented, when an offender is being supervised in the community, it is simply not possible to eliminate risk altogether, but the public is entitled to expect that the authorities will do their job properly, that is to say, to take all reasonable action to keep to a minimum each offender’s risk of further harm to others.

Reviews may sometimes uncover deficiencies across core practice areas. If there are deficiencies it should not be assumed that had there not been, the offender would not have committed a serious further offence. However, clearly the identification of learning is crucial for future practice. In the attached Victim Summary Report you will find an outline of the case history, practice issues and findings and recommendations relevant to the context of the offence. Kent Probation places a significant emphasis on learning and I would like to assure you that the learning identified as part of this review has been addressed robustly.

May I take this opportunity to convey our sincerest condolences for your loss and I hope you will continue your contact with XXX under the Victim Contact Scheme. She will be able to offer you information, advice and support as Mr XX progresses through his sentence.

Yours sincerely,Cchief Executive

Enc.


PAGE 23

PROCESS : SFO Victim Summary Report Process Flowchart

Related Process : SFO PROCESS

Purpose : To identify the process in relation to sharing a victim summary report to victims following conviction for a mandatory SFO.

Process Responsibility NotesHead of BI&PD/ Investigations co-ordinator

Investigations Officer

Investigations co-ordinator

Investigations Co-ordinator/VLO Team

Investigations Co-ordinator

Within 3 months of the Notification

Within 3 working days of Sentencing

VLO team to establish if there is VLO involvement, i.e contact to be made with Police Witness Care Unit/ Family Liaison Officer to gather victim name/contact details). Victims are sent a 56 day letter offering appointment. If no response, a second 28 day letter is then sent, again if no response final letter from HoBI&PD stating VSR available. If still no contact, case closed after 21 days.


Mandatory SFO Review allocated to IO

On completion of Review & draft victim summary report (VSR) - email CEO the

Review sufficiencies

NoYes

END *

Outcome:Was offender convicted of a mandatory SFO?

IO Team to notify VLO Team & relevant Director (cc’d for info) by email of sentence outcome

VLO Team write to qualifying victim, offering statutory contact service

and highlight that they can elect to see findings of

SFO via the VSR

IO Team record appropriately. Case closed

Yes

No

PAGE 24

Process Responsibility Notes

VLO/Head of BI&PD

Head of BI&PD

Chief Executive

Head of BI&PD

Head of BI&PD/VLO

Head of BI&PD/Investigations Co-ordinator

Allocation made to LDU Director and the Report sent to them by HoBI&PD. Cc: Comms Manager. LDU Director to contact HoBI&PD if there are any queries with the report prior to the home visit.

VLO to liaise with HoBI&PD to coordinate and arrange date of home visit and update HoBI&PD following visit. HoBI&PD to update Investigations Co-ordinators to log.

End – case closed


VLO Team to update HoBI&PD

following visit

Ensure IO Team send VSR to relevant SPO before home visit to share with staff in supervision

HoBI&PD to email LDU Director and

VLO with CEO cover letter and VSR

Report (cc: Comms Manager)

VLO Team/LDU Director arrange

home visit to share report with victim

and notify HoBIPD when scheduled

VLO undertakes initial contact visit and then feeds back to HoBIPD in prep for CEO letter and VSR finalising.

Chief Exec signs off hard copy letter & VSR

HoB&IPD to complete CEO cover letter and update

VSR

Following update from HoBI&PD, IO

Team to record when feedback given and case

logged as closed

PAGE 25

Annex B


PI 14/2014 – AI 14/2014 - Notification and Review Procedures for

Serious Further Offences

Operational Guidance

This Operational Guidance is a supplement to PI 14/2014 – AI 14/2014. It is designed to provide further detail where

needed. You should always refer to the PI in the first instance.

PAGE 26

Contents Page

Section 1 – Background 1

Section 2 – The SFO document 2

Section 3 – How does a case qualify? 6

Section 4 – Notification 9

Section 5 – Review, Update, and Outcome 13

Section 6 – Communications 16

Section 7 – Victims 19

Section 8 – Quality Assurance 20

Section 9 – Reviews completed outside the Supervising Probation provider 22

Section 10 – Statistics 23 Section 11 – Local Reviews 23

App 1 – SFO process flowchart 24

App 2 – SFO eligibility flowchart 26

App 3 - HMiP Case Assessment guidance 27 App 4 – Ways of explaining errors 30

App 5 – SFO Guide for Staff 31


PAGE 27

Section 1 – Background

1. The SFO Notification and Review Procedures are intended to ensure a rigorous scrutiny of probation practice where specified offenders under the management of the NPS, CRC or other providers of probation and community services have been charged with a serious further violent or sexual offence, so that:

Areas of continuous improvement to risk assessment, risk management and offender management practice and policy within the NPS or a CRC (together with other parts of the NOMS Agency or beyond as appropriate) are identified and disseminated locally, and nationally, as appropriate;

the public may be reassured that the NPS, CRCs and other providers of probation services are committed to reviewing practice in cases where offenders under supervision are charged with certain serious offences; and

Ministers, the NOMS Chief Executive, other senior officials within NOMS and the wider Ministry of Justice (MoJ), where appropriate, can be informed of noteworthy cases of alleged serious further offences committed by offenders whilst under supervision. This responsibility for this currently sits in the NOMS Offender Management and Public Protection Group (OMPPG)

The SFO Notification and Review Procedures have been revised to recognise the changes to the delivery of probation services, whereby Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) will supervise low and medium risk of serious harm offenders and a new National Probation Service (NPS), managed directly through NOMS will supervise all other offenders, including all MAPPA cases and offenders assessed as a high risk of serious harm.

2. .Summary Table of Mandatory actions for the NPS and CRCs and their management of the SFO Notification and Review Procedures.

Mandatory actions are set out in the following sections of the PINOTIFICATIONS

1.10, 1.11, 1.122.1 2.9.12.15.12.15.2,

REVIEWS2.1.22.1.32.14.2, 2.14.32.15.3, 2.15.42.17.1, 2.17.2

UPDATES2.15.82.15.11

OUTCOMES2.4.22.15.102.15.13

OTHER ASPECTS2.6.1, 2.6.22.8.12.11.12.12.1, 2.12.2, 2.12.32.13.2, 2.13.3, 2.13.4 2.13.52.18.2, 2.18.4


PAGE 28

This operational guidance (OG) provides additional information to support the processes and complete the mandatory actions outlined in the revised Probation Instruction (PI). The OG will assist the NPS, CRCs and other providers of probation and community services to implement the revised procedures when a serious further offence is committed.

Section 2 – The SFO Document Set

3. The SFO Document Set is contained in Annex D to L of PI 15/2014 and the up to date version is stored on the Authority’s website. It is designed to enable the NPS and CRCs to carry out an internal structured review and analysis of SFOs, in a standard format. It is not intended to be a published document and, once completed, should be stored as an ‘OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE’ document at all times.

4. The SFO Document Set will be updated on the Authority’s website when necessary and senior lead managers and single points of administrative contact (SPOC) will be informed when this happens.

5. NPS, CRCs and prison establishments should have quality assurance systems in place to ensure that SFO documentation is complete when it is submitted. The nominated SFO lead and the SPOC should ensure that all information required for each stage of the process is completed in full before the document is submitted to the OMPPG SFO team.

6. Appendix 1 to the OG contains a flow chart explaining what the NPS, CRCs and the OMPPG SFO Team need to do at each stage of the process.

7. Appendix 2 contains the ROTL SFO flow chart.

8. Appendix 3 contains a flow chart explaining how offenders qualify for a SFO Review.

Who should complete the SFO Documents?

Notification

9. The NPS, CRCs or the prison senior lead must notify the OMPPG using the Notification Form in the SFO Document Set and complete the relevant sections when an eligible offender is charged with a qualifying offence (listed at Annex C). The Notification Form is in three stages which represent:

Stage 1 - The factual details of the offender (name, DOB, address etc) and details of the alleged SFO

Stage 2 - The review of the case allocation process. (This stage need not be completed for SFOs committed whilst the offender is on ROTL.

Stage 3 - Further details of the offender’s status, supervision details and confirmation from a senior manager that the case qualifies as an SFO.

Stages 1 and 2 will be completed by the NPS at Court or shortly after the first court appearance

Stage 3 will be completed by the responsible provider (NPS or CRC) who was managing the offender at the point the SFO was committed.


PAGE 29

For ROTL SFOs stages 1 and 3 will be completed by the NPS or the prison senior lead.

The NPS, through attendance at court should make arrangements to determine who initiates and contributes to the SFO Notification Stage 1, according to how local court and offender management operations are structured. The NPS should ensure that Stage 2 of the Notification is completed and countersigned by an appropriate member of staff that has the knowledge and experience to fully review and comment on the relevant aspects of the case allocation process.

For ROTL SFOs the NPS through attendance at court should make arrangements in discussion with the prison senior lead to establish who initiates and contributes to the SFO Notification.

In cases where the offender has appeared at a court within another jurisdiction for an SFO, the NPS covering the area in which the offender appeared at court for the SFO identifies the offender and notifies the NPS or CRC responsible for the management of the case. The initial notifying NPS court member of staff should start and send the partly completed SFO Notification Form to the NPS or CRC responsible for the management of the case and the relevant NPS SPOC to ensure that all three stages are appropriately completed and ensuring, in particular, that full information about the SFO charge has been captured and the review of the case allocation process has been completed by the appropriate NPS division.

10. Chief Executives of CRCs and the Deputy Director of the NPS (or their representatives) should ensure that the SFO Notification Form at Stage 3 must be signed off by the senior lead manager or their delegate who will consider each of the SFO criteria in Q 1.13, to determine if the case qualifies for a SFO Review. For ROTL SFOs the Notification must be signed off by the prison senior lead.

Review

11. Chief Executives of CRCs, the Deputy Director of the NPS (or their representatives) and prison senior leads should ensure that those completing the SFO Review (Annex E and F) have the necessary knowledge of offender management, risk assessment and risk management, good investigative and report writing skills and knowledge of strategy/resourcing issues within their organisation. It is recommended they should also have an appropriate level of authority within the NPS, CRC or prison establishment, partly as some learning points requiring action may apply to policy and practice relating to the relevant provider as a whole.

12. The completed SFO Reviews must be signed off by the CRC Chief Executive, the NPS Deputy Director, or the Deputy Director for Custody as appropriate, or their nominated senior representative.

Language & Terminology

13. When completing the SFO Document Set, managers will need to refer to procedures and tools used to assess and supervise offenders. Nationally used terminology, such as MAPPA, OASys etc., is acceptable but care should be taken to avoid ambiguity in the use of local acronyms, including abbreviations of offences (e.g. TDA and TWOC; use of the term AP (some probation providers use the term to describe an aggrieved person instead of ‘victim’, easily confused with Approved Premises). Where there may be ambiguities about offences, the NPS, CRCs and/or prison establishment should directly quote the Act and the Section of the Act as found on the charge sheet, or as announced in Court.


PAGE 30

Confidentiality, Data Protection Act (DPA) and Freedom of Information (FOI)

14. Care must be taken to maintain strict confidentiality and this must be made clear to all staff who are being interviewed for SFO Reviews. Disclosure of SFO related information to third parties may create a risk of information appearing in the public domain. In instances where unauthorised information concerning SFO Reviews comes into the public domain, this must be reported immediately to the Head of the SFO Team in OMPPG.

15. Particular care should be taken to avoid disclosing the identity or personal details of any individual which is not legitimately already in the public domain, including members of staff. SFO Review authors should use abbreviations (with a suitable key) for staff or others (e.g. OM1 for the principle Offender Manager, APM for an Approved Premises manager, PW for Partnership Worker). Names of victims of the SFO should be included in the offence details unless they hold entitlement to anonymity in Court (e.g. in cases of designated sexual offences and where the victim is a child) or where it is felt victim details should not be included for other reasons. The rationale for including the name of the SFO victim is that press coverage may (particularly in cases where it had taken some time to apprehend the offender) focus as much on the victim as the offender and in potentially high profile cases it may be easier to gauge press interest by searching for references to the victim than to the offender. Please note we do not record the name of the victim on any SFO databases.

16. Any request for disclosure of SFO Reviews under the Freedom of Information or Data Protection Acts must immediately be referred to the MoJ Data Access and Compliance Unit (DACU), copied to SFO mailbox for the attention of the Head of the OMPPG SFO Team.

Cases where more than one provider of probation services has been involved

17. There may be some cases where more than one provider of probation services has been involved in the management of the offender, for example, the NPS and CRC if their has been an escalation in risk or a number of CRCs if the offender has moved to a different contract package area. The issue of who does what may be especially complicated where the SFO happened some time ago. The following will be the normal way of managing the process when either an offender appears at a court in another geographical area and/or was being supervised by another provider of probation services at the time the alleged SFO occurred.

The NPS covering the area in which the offender appeared at court for the SFO identifies the offender and notifies the NPS or CRC responsible for the management of the case. The initial notifying NPS court member of staff should start and send the partly completed SFO Notification Form to the NPS or CRC responsible for the management of the case and the relevant NPS SPOC to ensure that all three stages are appropriately completed and ensuring; in particular, that full information about the SFO charge has been captured.

The current supervising NPS division will then send stages 1 and 2 and the relevant probation provider (NPS or CRC) will then submit stage 3, (and later the Outcome) to the SFO Team, ensuring that full and accurate information is provided about supervision details and risk of serious harm.

The NPS or CRC which was managing the offender at the time of the SFO undertakes the Review (and coordinates review enquiries with other Probation providers where necessary), and submits the Review to the OMPPG.

Section 3 – How does a case qualify for a SFO Review?

Offender Eligibility

18. A case is eligible for consideration for a SFO Review only when an offender is/was being supervised by the NPS or CRC. This will normally be an Order or Licence or Notice of


PAGE 31

Supervision but could also be any kind of conditional release from Court; or any kind of formal caution which is managed in the community by the NPS or CRC. For example:

cases of deferred sentences where sentencing is deferred to allow an offender to comply with any requirements set by the court. Consideration of a discretionary SFO Review would need to take into account the specific requirements set by the court and the management of the case by the probation provider during that period

A case is eligible for consideration for an SFO Review when an offender released from prison on temporary licence (ROTL) has committed an offence as outlined in Schedule 15A

If the NPS or CRC has a case such as this, they should seek advice from the OMPPG SFO Team before submitting the Notification.

19. A case will also become an SFO when an offender was subject to offender management (including release on ROTL) but where the offender has died before being charged with an offence on the SFO list. Whilst there is sometimes doubt, the NPS, CRC or prison senior lead must satisfy themselves that the police consider the individual to have been a prime suspect. In such cases, the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) and Data Protection Act (DPA) need to be borne in mind in as much as the DPA generally only covers data held on living persons. Further advice should always be sought in such cases from the OMPPG. Full details of offender eligibility are given in the current Probation Instruction.

Offence Eligibility

20. Once it has been established that the offender appearing in court is an “eligible” offender, the next step is to consider offence eligibility.

21. The list of SFO offences is detailed in Annex C of PI xx/2014 and is based on Schedule 15A of the Criminal Justice Act, 2003. It was originally based on those offences in the Schedule which carried maxima of 14 years custody or Life, but excludes Section 18 wounding with intent.

22. If an offender is charged with one of the most serious SFOs the case will always qualify for a SFO Review. These are murder, manslaughter, other specified offences causing death, rape, or a sexual offence against an under 13 year old (including attempted offences). These are referred to as MANDATORY SFOs.

23. Other offences on the SFO list may qualify the case for Review but only once the offender’s risk of harm level(s) has/have been established (see below). These are referred to as DISCRETIONARY SFOs.

24. There are practical limitations on how far back in time an alleged offence was committed for it to be treated as an SFO. Any alleged offence committed by an offender within the last five years whilst he/she was subject to offender management, will be treated as an SFO. When an offender is charged with an offence on the SFO list dating back more than five years, the OMPPG will make a decision in consultation with the NPS or CRC, NOMS Account Management function and/or prison establishment, about whether it is practicable to review the case, based on whether details of the management of the case are still available. The relevant Deputy Director, the CRC Chief Executives, or Deputy Director for Custody, or their representative, may also be consulted where appropriate. Any decision on whether to exclude a SFO should take into account:

the relative seriousness of the offence, its nature, and its impact; the likely level of public interest; the practical possibility of being able to gain any organisational learning;


PAGE 32

Qualifying for a SFO Review

25. Once offence and offender eligibility has been established, there are two “types” of case that will qualify. The first are all cases involving the most serious type of SFO, e.g. murder (see above). The second are those offenders who have been charged with any other offence on the SFO list and had been assessed as high or very high risk of harm at some stage during their current sentence, or who had not received a risk assessment during their current period of supervision. For those offenders assessed as low risk of serious harm at the start of their sentence, and remain as such during the supervision period, and who are subject to a community or suspended sentence order, it will only normally be necessary to complete a review using the shorter review template that focuses chiefly, but not exclusively, on risk assessment. All other qualifying SFOs will be subject to a standard review.

26. A case is eligible for consideration for a SFO Review when an offender released from prison on temporary licence (ROTL) has committed any offence as outlined in Schedule 15A regardless of the assessed level of risk of serious harm.

Significant national public interest

27. In exceptional cases, however, when the offence criterion is not met, but where there is substantial national public interest (for example, when an offence is widely reported in a national newspaper or on national television news), the case may still become an SFO that needs to proceed to Review.

28. As broad guidance, a case is of significant national interest (whether it meets the other SFO criteria or not) when it is likely to receive national attention and criticism which is likely to impact upon national policy or national reputation of NOMS or the Authority.

29. Examples of cases which would need to be considered:

a case where an offender with sexual pre-convictions had been released by the Parole Board and is accused of rape

any other cases which involved recall and an offence has been committed whilst an offender is unlawfully at large

a case with bizarre offence details which will bring the offender’s management, however satisfactory, into the public eye

a Section18 wounding case, involving re-victimisation, where the victim or their family are reported in the national press as alleging that the case was very poorly managed

cases involving gangs, guns and stabbings murders committed on bail or during a period of indeterminate sentence licence

supervision where the index offence is murder/manslaughter terrorism and political extremism offences any case involving multiple agencies where there is a potential for the NPS, CRC or

other providers of probation and community services to come under particular scrutiny.

SFOs committed by Young Offenders

30. When a SFO is committed by an offender managed in the community by a local Youth Offending Team, there is a requirement for the responsible Youth Offending Team (YOT) to follow the equivalent Youth Justice Board (YJB) procedure. This is set out in “Serious Incidents - Guidance on serious incident reporting procedures” on the YJB website.

31. In some instances, the offender may be subject to management by the YOT, but with an intervention delivered by a provider of probation services. An example of this is where a young person is being supervised by a YOT on a Youth Rehabilitation Order (YRO), with an


PAGE 33

Unpaid Work element being provided by a CRC. In cases where both YOT and a provider of probation services are involved:-

The agency which has current offender management responsibility takes responsibility for reporting and completing the review;

The agency which has responsibility for the delivery of interventions for the offender will discuss the case with the other agency, complete an internal review and submit the information that is required to the primary agency, to assist them with their Review.

32. The definition of a serious further offence for NOMS covers more offences than the YJB serious incident procedures. The YJB process confines itself to offenders charged with murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape, torture, kidnapping, false imprisonment and firearms offences. YOTs are required to complete a review in line with YJB guidance in cases where young offenders have been charged with one of these offences. In cases where the YOT has offender management responsibility and is not completing a SFO Review, this does not make it a Probation SFO, although the NPS or CRC may undertake a local review if it feels it is appropriate to do so.

Section 4 – Notification.

A flowchart on SFO notification process is attached at Appendix 1, whilst Appendix 2 details eligibility.

33. The SFO notification process consists of three stages, stage 1 details initial SFO identification. Stage 2 encompasses consideration of the initial allocation process, and stage 3 details final notification sign off and submission to the SFO team in OMPPG.

Stage 1 of the initial notification involves the NPS court staff identifying an SFO case. NPS senior leads will need to ensure provision is in place to identify and gather information on the SFO(s) at the offender’s first Court appearance to complete stage 1 of the initial notification, and then make provision to alert the relevant prison senior lead, CRC or NPS OM unit to complete the final sign off of the notification. The NPS senior lead should decide who should complete the initial part of the form, according to local arrangements. Often the Court duty officer is best placed to identify and provide the initial information.

The following two stages must be completed at the same time in order to ensure that the notification is received at the SFO team within 10 days of the first Court Appearance.

Stage 2 of the notification should be completed by NPS staff, and will encompass an examination of the initial allocation decision. This step should be completed in tandem with the step below in order that the complete notification is received within 10 days of the first court appearance. Stage 2 may not be completed for ROTL SFOs.

Stage 3 of the notification, final sign off may be completed by NPS, CRC or prison senior lead as appropriate, dependant on who is supervising the offender. The relevant senior lead manager for SFOs must ensure that processes are in place to collect information in order to send the fully completed SFO Notification (Annex D) document to OMPPG within 10 working days of the first Court appearance, along with the SFO with the risk escalation referral form; if they consider that the risk has escalated due to the charge. At this stage, in the case of MANDATORY SFO charges, the relevant Probation Provider must ensure the VSR pro-forma is completed and sent to relevant Witness Care Unit (WCU). See Victim Summary Report Guidance at Annex A for more details.


PAGE 34

Information from the Court

34. Accurate and timely reporting of Court details are of the utmost importance. NPS senior lead should ensure that Court duty staff record the exact details of the charge. In cases which are likely to attract significant national public interest, staff should inform their Head Office so that the OMPPG is able to accurately inform Ministers and senior officials, rather than learning details from other sources, such as reports in the media.

35. The NPS senior lead should ensure that arrangements are in place to provide a brief summary of the offence. For example, if the charge is murder, the SFO document should describe how the victim died (e.g. stabbed, shot etc); where the offence happened (e.g. in the home, the street, a public house, etc); when it happened (the time and date) and other relevant circumstances (after ‘closing time’, following an argument, etc); the relationship between the offender, victim and other witnesses (were they known to each other); how it happened; and the alleged motivation or reasons, where known.

36. In cases where charges have been brought for an SFO, and there are indications that the defendant is/was recently being managed by another provider of probation services, it is the responsibility of the NPS or CRC where the offender has been charged, to notify the possible supervising probation provider of the offender’s details and, if appropriate, send these on the SFO notification form to the other Probation provider. This information will be required at the supervising court for the NPS SPOC and also for the SPOC responsible for the management of the offender (NPS or CRC)

37. It is the responsibility of the supervising probation provider (NPS or CRC) or prison establishment at the time of the first court appearance to submit the correct SFO documentation to the OMPPG.

38. The NPS, CRCs and prison establishments, in conjunction with the local communications officer, must have a process for identifying those cases that are likely to attract national media attention. If a case is likely to attract public interest or concern, the responsible NPS, CRC or prison establishment should send early notice of the expected Notification to the OMPPG as soon as possible and advise the CRC Chief Executive, the Deputy Director for Probation or the Deputy Director for Custody (as appropriate) or their nominated representative, in advance. Arrangements should be made to track the subsequent Court dates for these cases, and keep the OMPPG routinely updated. It may also be necessary to expedite the SFO Review in line with Court dates.

39. Where the SFO was not identified at the first Court appearance, and therefore not notified to the OMPPG within the timescale, The NPS senior lead must identify the reasons and improve local practice, if applicable. Any follow up actions should be included as a learning point in the subsequent Review.

40. If the offender was supervised with the involvement of another agency, such as a local community mental health trust, or a partnership; or if there are implications for another agency, such as the police or a prison; or if the offender was subject to electronic monitoring, the offender manager will inform other practitioners of the SFO charge as part of normal case management practice. However, there will be cases where the senior lead manager for the NPS or CRC should inform that agency, giving brief details of the SFO, where it is expected that access to the other agencies’ records or staff may be required to complete the SFO Review. It is essential to bear in mind issues of disclosure of information under the Data Protection Act (DPA). It is inappropriate to send a copy of the SFO documentation to other agencies, including sub-contractors, but summaries of the relevant aspects can be shared accordingly.

41. Some elements of the Notification Form may require careful checking to ensure all relevant information given is accurate. These include:


PAGE 35

3.2 Has another probation provider been involved in the management of the offender during the current sentence?

This relates to transferred cases and cross border arrangements. It does not relate to the NPS seconded staff in prisons.

3.2 Table for Community Order/Suspended Sentence Order

This table has space for one Order (Row 1), with up to 4 requirements (Final column - Rows 1-4). Further information should be entered in the space below.

3.2 Table for post release licence

This table has space for 2 types of licence, so that where HDC is running alongside a licence supervised by the Probation provider it can be included by including the specific HDC period and the substantive licence period separately.

3.2 Additional Information

Please provide details of any recalls or parole board involvement in the case, specifically dates and outcomes.

3.2 Was the offender? (specific questions about offender’s circumstances.)

Please provide details of key components of inter agency involvement. Early factual briefing to NOMS senior management, MOJ press office and Ministers can often provide an essential role in ensuring that SFO cases, and the role of responsible officers and providers of probation services are presented in a fair an accurate light.

3.3 Pre-convictions

Please provide details of all previous convictions up to the point of the index offence(s).

3.4 MAPPA and other reviews.

The question asks, “was the offender a relevant sexual and/or violent offender for MAPPA eligibility purposes?” The aim is to identify cases which were MAPPA eligible during their current sentence and whether they were identified as such, or not. You will know this for Category 1 and Category 2 by looking at the details of their current sentence, and previous convictions. The form also specifically asks if a MAPPA Serious Case Review (SCR) is to be undertaken by the SMB. The form also asks if a Local Authority Child Safeguarding Board (LSCB) or Community Safety Partnership Domestic Homicide Review (DHR) is due to be undertaken. Past experience has shown that the findings of these reviews can often comment on probation practice, and it is essential that OMPPG are aware of the potential for such information to be placed in the public domain in order that an agreed media response can be established.

3.7 Confirmation

The senior lead manager in the relevant NPS, CRC or prison establishment should complete this section to determine whether it qualifies as a SFO Review or not. When doing so, they must ensure they indicate whether a shortened review as per Appendix F of PI 15/2014 (for eligible cases where the offender is subject to a community order or SSO and was assessed as low risk of serious harm throughout the supervision period) or a standard review as per Appendix E (for all other eligible cases) will be undertaken.


PAGE 36

One of the criteria (Q4) may pose difficulties. This refers to whether the offender has received a risk assessment during the current period of management – order or licence.

In judging this issue you need to bear in mind:

A risk screening or a full risk of harm analysis constitutes a risk assessment for these purposes, regardless of whether it shows as a start or a review assessment.

The test of whether either of these has been completed (one of the criteria) is if they are in a locked OASys or equivalent Authority approved document, which means you should find a risk level either in the summary sheet or in the risk section. The assessment or review must have been completed after the Order or Licence was started.

The exception to this is if the case is a standalone Unpaid Work order. Our current guidance is that you should look for a paper screening document if an electronic one is not available and identify the risk level from that document and record it by adding extra text into 1.6 ‘Date of this assessment.’

Regarding all assessments, you are checking first of all to see whether there is one. Not (for these purposes) whether the screening or full analysis has been accurately completed or not, or if the screening should have resulted in a full analysis or not. Therefore in practice what you will be looking for is a completed screening.

Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCB) Serious Case Reviews (SCR)

42. There will be cases where the SFO offender and offence eligibility is not met, but a child has suffered significant injury and the case proceeds to an SCR for example, for reasons of neglect which do not result in an SFO offence. In these cases the NPS, CRC or prison establishment will be required by the LSCB to undertake an Internal Management Review (IMR). After consultation with the LSCB, the NPS or CRC may complete the SFO documentation as a local structured review of probation practice. In cases where the LSCB have not specified a standard template for the IMR, might form part of the IMR, or it might inform the contents of a separately produced IMR. If there are indications that probation practice might be publicly criticised then consideration should be given to whether the case qualifies as a SFO under the public interest criterion.

43. Where the SFO offender and offence eligibility is met, and a child has suffered significant injury and the case proceeds to an SCR, the NPS, CRC or prison establishment senior lead manager (direct, or via the probation representative on the LSCB) should discuss and coordinate timescales for the SFO review and the LSCB Review. In cases where the LSCB have not specified a standard template for the IMRs, the SFO document might form part of the IMR, or it might inform the contents of a separately produced IMR.

44. In all these cases, the NPS, CRCs and prison establishments are advised to check arrangements with the SFO Team and/or the OMPPG lead on Safeguarding Children.

SFO cases involving a Domestic Homicide Review (DHR)

45. Where an eligible offender is charged with a domestic violence and abuse incident which has resulted in the death of the victim, and once it is known that a homicide is being considered for review, the senior lead/SPOC for the NPS, CRC or prison establishment must liaise with the local community safety partnership and designated DHR chair to notify them that the case has triggered an internal review. Each agency contributing to the DHR will be required to carry out an Internal Management Review (IMR) to look openly and critically at individual and organisational practice to see whether the homicide indicates that changes could and should be made.


PAGE 37

46. In terms of sequencing, given the different timescales, the SFO Review would normally have been prepared some time prior to the IMR being commissioned, and as such the IMR could be informed by the SFO document, and could contain all the relevant information identified within the SFO Review. This can also include the relevant learning points which were identified in the SFO Review.

47. Under no circumstances should the SFO Review serve as the IMR, as once completed as an ‘OFFICAL SENSITIVE’ document, the SFO Review is not to be disclosed

Section 5 – Review, Update and Outcome.

48. The Review consists of four main sections:

Background information and chronology Risk Assessment Risk Management Offender Management ROTL Reviews contain a fifth section on ROTL processes

When completing these sections the following materials will provide you with information about the standards expected to answer each of the questions. It is important to note that there is a shortened review form for all eligible cases concerning offenders who were subject to community order or SSO supervision and who were assessed as low risk of serious harm throughout the supervision period. The standard review form should be completed in all other cases that qualify for a Review.

a. HMiP Case Assessment Guidance which is at:www.justice.gov.uk/about/hmi-probation/inspection-programmes-adult

Appendix 3 to this OG has a table which indicates where you can find information in the HMiP Case Assessment Guidance relating to each of the core SFO questions.

b. ‘Risk of Harm’ Key Concepts & Definitions, which can be found in the Probation Risk of Harm Guidance and training materials on the Authority’s website or available on disc (version 4, May 2011).

c. NOMS Risk of Serious Harm Guidance (2009)

d. OASys Manual– Chapter 8 Risk of Serious Harm (2006).

e. PI xx/2014 Process for CRCs to refer cases for Review/Risk Escalation Review

f.PI xx/2014 Case Transfers for offenders subject to statutory supervision

49. When a SFO Review is undertaken, the chronology should be comprehensive. All sources of information should be reviewed where necessary for a full understanding of the case, including old files, record of ‘programmes’ interventions; parole reports and documentation; and records of work undertaken in partnership agencies where they have been delivering one or more of the interventions specified in an order or licence.

50. In the Review some of the questions contain a number of different aspects. This is to avoid the situation where, if there were a larger number of questions about single aspects of practice, it would be


http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/hmi-probation/inspection-programmes-adult

PAGE 38

difficult to get a sense of the case as a whole. So, answer the question in relation to all the parts and “qualify” your answer when you provide the evidence in the text box.

51. When coming to your judgment about the sufficiency of risk assessment, risk management and offender management, you must explicitly state the factors that are positive and those that are negative. It is not a matter of counting the number of “yes’s” and “no’s”. Where an offender has been incorrectly assessed, or the risk management plan is flawed, you will need to provide high quality evidence of compensating work to support a judgment that a case has been managed to a sufficient standard.

52. When trying to find out what the reasons were for any deficiencies, it is important to go beyond an account of what happened and when. Often in probation work one event (say, not checking a record which showed violent offending was in fact sexually motivated) can then have a knock on effect for other aspects of practice, e.g. the content of RMP, the interventions that are selected etc. However, to get to grips with the case, the reviewing manager should establish why the precipitating event (in this case, not checking the record) happened. In doing so, you may find the following framework useful:

a.why does the staff member say the error happenedb. what, if any defences were in place and why did they not workc.what context was there which made the task difficult, even if it did not cause the problemd. was the error made more or less likely by any resourcing or management decisions

53. An illustration of how this framework could be used is in Appendix 4.

54. Care should be taken to distinguish between what was known at the time, what should, or might possibly have been known; and what is now known in hindsight.

55. It is important that interviews with staff are conducted well. The purpose is to understand what happened and why in the management of the case and should therefore be conducted in a properly investigative way. The reviewing manager should also bear in mind that staff who have been managing an offender who has been charged with a serious offence may be upset or anxious about the tragic event that has led to the charge. Some staff may be very critical of themselves, convinced that they should have done something else to avoid the event, even when all the evidence is that what could have been done was done. Other people, who may be worried or anxious, might have a tendency to defensiveness, whether the case was well managed or not. Reviewing managers should bear this in mind when preparing for and conducting the interview.

56. Reviewing managers should contact staff who are to be interviewed in good time and confirm that the purpose of the interview is to gain an understanding of how the case was managed, and the background to any key decisions or actions that were taken. Where a particular period or event is of specific interest then the staff member should be asked to refresh their memory on these points, but it is not usually appropriate to inform the staff member in advance of the findings so far. This is so that both reviewing manager and staff member can talk through the key issues one at a time with objectivity. Extensive research shows that talking through events as they happened, with open questioning, promotes accurate recall and reflection. Appendix 5 provides the SFO Review Process - A Guide for Staff.

57. Although the Review document sets out a series of questions based on whether key actions were taken and standards met, there are certain “meta” questions which will help to put the case in context and provide material for many parts of the Review. They may also promote discussion and insight. They include:

i. first impressions of the offenderPI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014 UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015

PAGE 39

ii. the main things to be achieved with the offenderiii. difficulties in supervising the offenderiv. the main achievements v. whether the SFO came as a surprisevi. with hindsight, would anything be done differently

Good Practice and Learning Points

58. The intention of the SFO Review is to identify the standard of practice, including cases that have been managed well, sometimes in difficult circumstances. It is important for good practice to be included in the Review and disseminated appropriately.

59. Where there have been deficiencies in practice, actions to address Learning Points must be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bounded (SMART). Learning Point objectives should address both the specific issues arising within the case, and where appropriate, organisational issues for the Probation provider, or prison establishment. Simple errors should be dealt with simply. More complex matters (e.g. where systems or processes have not worked) may require team or organisational solutions.

60. Where the source of an error has already been dealt with, or there is useful background information (e.g. if the RoHAA has shown the NPS or CRCs overall very good at RMPs but this SFO involved a poor RMP) this can be entered in the text section under the action plan table.

61. When it has been found that the actions of the Prison Service or another agency, (such as a YOT, social care or mental health agency etc), or another prison establishment in the case of ROTL SFOs (have impacted on the management of the offender, consideration should be given by the Chief Executive, Deputy Director or their delegate writing to that agency raising the relevant matter. The NPS or CRCs should not make recommendations that are beyond their scope to carry out.

Action Plan Updates

62. The Action Plan Update (Annex H) can be used by the NPS, CRCs or prison provider when providing a progress report on individual SFO Review Action Plans but this is optional and it is left to Chief Executives of CRCs, Deputy Directors for the NPS and Deputy Directors for Custody. Either way, progress with action plans should clearly outline the following:

The progress made on the learning points identified in the Action Plan. The impact of this action on local practice and/or policy.

The NPS, CRCs and prison establishments should bear in mind that in high profile cases, OMPPG may require an update on the SFO Review Action Plan on the supplied template (Annex H).

Each quarter, the NPS, CRCs and prison establishments are required to provide OMPPG, NOMS Account Managers, or Deputy Director of Probation (or their representatives) as appropriate, with a summary report (using Annex I) providing assurance that all appropriate action has been taken at local level on learning points that have arisen out of individual SFO Reviews for the specified reporting period as laid out in the PI at page 20. Individual learning points from SFO cases should be categorised into themes, with the individual SFO identification, specific learning points and remedial action recorded on the template as identified in the individual SFO reviews. Progress on the implementation of remedial action must receive a RAGG rating, with evidence of progress recorded in the appropriate column. It is envisaged that this document will form the basis of ongoing discussions with NOMS Account Managers and NPS Deputy Directors to ensure that learning identified in individual


PAGE 40

SFO reviews is successfully embedded in future practice within individual providers of probation services.

This report must also give confirmation that the CRC Chief Executive, NPS Deputy Director and Deputy Director for Custody (or their representative) is satisfied that that progress has been made in using action on the learning points to further improve policy and practice. This report must be signed off by the relevant Senior Manager for the NPS, CRC or prison establishment before submission to OMPPG and a copy must be sent to NOMS Account Manager for the CRCs, the NOMS Director of Probation, England, the Director of NOMS for Wales and the Deputy Director for Custody.

Outcome

63. The Outcome (Annex J) should be sent to OMPPG by the NPS, copied to the relevant provider (NPS or CRC) and/or prison establishment, within 3 days of the court sentencing date, or other event which has led to the case being discontinued. The case will then cease to be an SFO, which will have the result of removing the case form the SFO review procedures.

Offenders dealt with under Mental Health legislation.

64. If the offender is charged but then not convicted, or found not guilty by reason of insanity, of an SFO offence, but the Court is satisfied that the person did what they are accused of doing, and a hospital order is made under the Mental Health Act 1983*, then the case will be treated as equivalent to a SFO conviction. This will also apply if a Court makes an order to allow the transfer of a convicted prisoner or a prisoner on remand to hospital.

(*MHA section 36 (remand for treatment), 37 (hospital order). 38 (interim order), 41 (restriction order).

The Victim Summary Report

65. Following conviction for a MANDATORY SFO, the NPS or CRC provider must undertake to produce and present a summary of the SFO findings to the victim, or family of the victim. Further details of this mandatory requirement are outlined in Annex A.

Section 6 – Communications

Communications should be Clear Coordinated, and Recorded

Communication between NPS, CRCs, prison establishments and the OMPPG

66. PI 15/2014 requires the NPS or CRC to appoint a single point of administrative contact (SPOC) for SFOs. The single point of contact (SPOC) should be able to access details of cases either directly, or by making enquiries within the relevant NPS or CRC. In order to ensure that all communications between probation providers, prison establishments and OMPPG are clear and there is a clear audit trail of any communication relating to SFOs kept on file; both the SPOC and the SFO email in box should be included in all such communications. The supervising probation provider or prison establishment will remain responsible for keeping the relevant NPS Deputy Director, Deputy Director for Custody, or CRC Chief Executive or their delegates, updated on individual SFOs as required in line with PI 15/2014.


PAGE 41

67. Notifications and updates of existing SFO cases should be submitted by e-mail to [email protected] using the GSI network or other Authority approved system, and ensuring that the email is marked as ‘OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE’.

68. Consideration should be given by each NPS and CRC to setting up a dedicated SFO email address, which would be accessible to all members of staff involved in SFO administration, as an alternative to using the personal email inboxes of individual SPOCs. The NPS and CRCs should ensure that the Service name features prominently in the address as it needs to be made clear who the email is from, (e.g. [email protected]).

69. The OMPPG keeps a list of email addresses for each probation provider’s single point of administrative contact(s), senior lead manager(s) and communications officer(s), and it is essential to let the OMPPG know of changes.

70. Each SFO is allocated a national reference number. The following electronic protocol should be used by the NPS, CRCs, prison establishment and OMPPG:

SFO/surname in lower case/initial in upper case/Stage (the SFO notification initially sent by e-mail is therefore: SFObloggsJ(Notification))

When received by the OMPPG, the case is assigned a number and becomes: SFO60001bloggsJ(Notification)

71. The SFO document set has been designed as one ongoing document, but separated into annexes. When each Stage is completed, the relevant annex should follow on from the previous completed stage.

72. The case files of offenders dealt with under SFO procedures should be retained in accordance with local policies, or for 2 years after the SFO conviction, whichever is the greater.

73. The NPS, CRCs and prison establishments should open an SFO Review file for each SFO separate from the case file. This should include a record of the evidence considered for the Review, with copies of any relevant documents. Notes from the interviews should be retained together with a key to the abbreviations used and kept in accordance with the NPS, CRC and prison data policy and procedures.

Communications Strategy

74. PI 15/2014 states that the NPS, CRC and prison establishment should put in place a Communication Strategy in each SFO case, proportional to the level of local and national media interest. In high profile cases this should be agreed and managed by a senior manager in conjunction with the OMPPG, including media lines to be taken, the NPS, CRC or prison provider should have local procedures in place to ensure that the local Communications Officer is included in any strategy. The table below outlines the 3 levels at which SFOs will be managed. It would be an expectation that the NPS and CRCs use the standard media communications template for all High Profile SFO cases (Refer to Annex K in PI 15/2014).

Type of SFO Communications Strategy

‘’Extremely high profile’’ SFO, where the circumstances of the SFO and/or the poor management of the case, including those which proceed to an

Communications strategy overseen by or on behalf of the CE of NOMS in conjunction with the MoJ Press Office.




PAGE 42

Independent Review, are highly likely to attract heavy and sustained public criticism of NOMS and MoJ policies.

OMPPG prepares ministerial briefing/submission, press lines for MoJ Press Office. MoJ Press Office lead on all media matters, liaising with the local probation provider to agree handling.

‘‘High profile’’ SFO which could attract public criticism of both the local probation provider and NOMS because the details of the SFO in

themselves are likely to attract significant national media coverage or

the case was so poorly managed the case raises significant national

policy issues, beyond how the case was managed in practice.

Communications strategy (for local use) prepared by the probation provider or prison establishment using template at Annex K of PI xx/2014, cleared with Head of the SFO Team, (on behalf of the Head of OMPPG) and the MoJ Press Office.

OMPPG prepare ministerial briefing/submission as required and press lines for MoJ.

MoJ Press Office deal with all national media interest and local probation provider deals with local media interest, and keep each other appraised.

All other SFOs. Any SFO may attract public criticism of the probation provider locally because of a SFO having occurred. This criticism could be prompted by, or exacerbated by knowledge that the case was not sufficiently well managed.

Communications strategy prepared by local Communications Officer in conjunction with assigned senior lead manager; specific lines prepared for local media and interested parties.

Advice provided by MoJ Press Office and / or OMPPG on request.

75. Based on the information provided by the NPS, CRC or prison establishment, the OMPPG prepares Ministerial submissions on potentially high profile cases in a standardised format, as required.

76. The OMPPG undertakes to provide a weekly briefing note to MOJ press office, copied to Ministerial and the MOJ Permanent Secretary’s private office detailing factual details of High Profile SFO cases scheduled to appear in Court the following week.

77. The OMPPG responds to Parliamentary Questions (PQs) tabled by Members of Parliament (MPs), and other ministerial requests for information. The OMPPG may require quick and urgent contributions from the NPS or CRC within short timescales, sometimes in a matter of hours, in order to prepare a draft reply.

78. MPs may be prompted by their constituents to write to ministers. Ministerial Correspondence has to be responded to within 14 days. Additionally, the OMPPG will receive letters direct from members of the public (known as ‘treat officials’) that need to be answered promptly. The OMPPG may also require the relevant NPS, CRC or prison establishment to provide a contribution to the draft reply, and may contact Chief Executives or senior leads, NOMS CRC Account Managers, Deputy Directors for Custody or NPS Deputy Directors when further information is required.


PAGE 43

Other Agencies

79. Where an offender has been supervised with the involvement of another agency, e.g.

police; a mental health Probation provider; a drugs or alcohol agency; a partnership agency commissioned by Probation Provision; electronic monitoring agency; an education and employment agency; any other statutory agency,

then the SFO reviewing manager should consider whether and how information should be gained from that agency to inform the SFO Review. He/she should also carefully consider what information should be given to that agency, together with the implications of passing on the information. Care should be taken on disclosing personal details protected under the DPA, unless there is an exception (e.g. for prevention or detection of a crime); or a statutory duty under MAPPA.

80. In some SFO cases, other agencies will be closely involved, particularly the police, and establishing joint local strategies with relevant agencies has considerable advantages. The NPS or CRC should have good liaison arrangements with Communications Officers in other agencies. Consideration should be given to the content of PI 21/2010 – Information Sharing Agreement between Police and Probation.

Section 7 – Victims

This section of the OG should be read in conjunction with the most recent Victims PI: PI: 11/2013 on the Authority’s website.

http://npsintranet.probation.gsi.gov.uk/document_library/Documents/pi_11_2013.doc

83. The following is an extract from the Victims PI which covers how contact may be used in SFO cases and what information might , and might not, be given.

‘’Information that would not be appropriate for release to the victim includes anything that could have any influence over any subsequent judicial process, including information that is covered by freedom of information or data protection legislation, information that is related to the sentence planning process or supervision of the offender, or any documentation derived from the SFO review process.The purpose of providing the victim of the index offence with information about the SFO fulfils a number of purposes. It may alleviate their distress, especially if there has been or there is likely to be any reporting of the offence in the media, and may contribute to the management of any risk posed by the offender while they remain in custody or if they are subsequently released. Victims provided with any information must be made aware of any issues around the confidentiality of the information they are being provided with, and the consequences that revealing any such information might have on securing a conviction if any proceedings against the offender are declared sub judice.

While contact would not usually be initiated with the victim of an offence before the offender’s conviction the NPS or CRC should establish a communications strategy to consider arrangements for handling matters related to the case. This should include planning for liaison with the victim of the SFO (whether directly or via other agencies) should details become more widely known or emerge in the local or national media. The SFO Operational


http://npsintranet.probation.gsi.gov.uk/document_library/Documents/pi_11_2013.doc

PAGE 44

Guidance sets out that ownership of the strategy should be managed by a senior manager appropriate to the level of concern’’.

84. It will not always be possible to provide the correct facts of a SFO early in the process. However, the victim should be alerted, where possible when inaccurate information has been reported. The NPS, CRC or prison establishment should consider the possibility of victim’s wishing to brief the media following conviction, and any impact this might have.

Section 8 – Quality Assurance

Quality Assurance and Timeliness – Assessing the Review

85. Under PI 15/2014, the OMPPG will quality assures all Reviews according to the following criteria and gives feedback to the Probation provider or prison establishment:

Level of evidence and analysis shown in the SFO Review; The extent to which the Action Plan addresses all areas of concern raised in the

SFO Review; Timely completion of the Notification and Review

The scoring framework to guide quality rating of all Reviews is as follows:

Timeliness Chronology and evidence

Judgment Analysis Action Plan

3 Both stages on time.

Comprehensive in all or most respects. There is an overall sense of how the case was managed.

Judgments about whether the case was sufficiently well managed are consistent with the evidence in the Review.

Comprehensive, giving reasons for all or most deficiencies.

Addresses all deficiencies that appear to have arisen in the case, whether they were analysed or not and is SMART.

2 One stage on time

Covers main areas of how the case was managed but with some omissions or contradictions. There is still an overall sense of how the case was managed.

Judgments are mostly consistent with evidence in the Review.

Gives reasons for most deficiencies to a reasonablestandard

Addresses all or most of the areas that were analysed in the Review and/or is mostly SMART.

1 Significant elements are missing or there are significant contradictions. The overall sense of how the case was managed is limited.

Significant judgments are not supported by the evidence

Some significant deficiencies are not properly analysed

Some significant deficiencies are not properly addressed using SMART action points

0 No stage on time.

Omits most of the items required. There is no overall sense of how the case was managed.

Judgments are inconsistent with evidence in the Review.

Analysis fails to address significant deficiencies

Significant deficiencies lack actions to address them


PAGE 45

86. All Reviews are given a quality rating by OMPPG after they have been submitted and these are as follows:-

> Good> Satisfactory> Incomplete

Where a Review has been rated as ‘incomplete’, the NPS, CRC or prison establishment will be given a further period (usually no more than one calendar month) to undertake additional work and re-submit the Review. When doing this extra work, the reviewing manager should ensure they use the written feedback received from OMPPG as a guiding reference. Re-submitted Reviews are not given a further quality rating but OMPPG will comment specifically on how far the Review has addressed the points of concern raised when first given an incomplete rating and may use one of the following responses depending on the content of the resubmitted review:-

Cases where the resubmitted review is not felt to have addressed all concerns identified by OMPPG: “We still have serious concerns about the level of evidence provided in the resubmitted review to support the judgments made…”

Cases where some further evidence is presented in the resubmitted review to address the concerns identified by OMPPG: “The resubmitted review provided some further evidence which, on balance, supported the judgments made.”

Cases where most/all issues have been addressed: “The resubmitted review fully addressed the issues raised by OMPPG and the evidence provided supported the judgments made.”

Resubmitted reviews where OMPPG do not agree with the judgments made: “The resubmitted review presented some well argued points which were accompanied by evidence, however we are unable to concur with the judgments made for the following reasons… “

Where OMPPG conclude that the resubmitted review is not of a sufficient quality (those cases that fall into bullet point 1 above), the NPS or CRC will be offered the opportunity to discuss this further with the head of the SFO team to identify any ways in which OMPPG may be able to assist the NPS or CRC in improving staff understanding of the SFO review process and the expectations of what is required for a SFO Review.

The senior lead managers for the prison establishment, NPS or CRC are of course welcome to contact the SFO team to discuss any issues raised in feedback letters received from OMPPG following a SFO review or resubmitted review.

SFO Review Quality Validation

87. A further quality assurance process, SFO Review validation, operates whereby a panel (comprising OMPPG, representatives of the NOMS Director of Probation and Director of NOMS for Wales, HMI Probation, NPS and CRC representatives and invited others) will scrutinise a sample of completed reviews to determine whether they accurately reflect the information held on the case file. For the purposes of this process, copies of the case files will be requested from the prison establishments, NPS and CRC. The prison establishments, NPS and CRCs must provide these case files on request. SFO Review validation will be undertaken on a geographical basis bringing together a NPS division and local CRCs. The SFO team will lead the exercise in the given location drawing cases from both the NPS and CRCs. It is planned to hold 5 events every two years on a rotational basis. Deputy Directors for Custody, NPS Deputy Directors and CRC Chief Executives will receive written feedback on any of their SFO Reviews that have gone through the national validation process and key learning points from these events will be disseminated nationally.


PAGE 46

88. In conjunction with Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMI Probation), the OMPPG will:

Assess how far the original SFO Review accurately reflects the information found in the case file;

Reach a conclusion about concordance; Identify any practice or policy issues relating to the completion of SFO Reviews.

89. The result of the quality assurance meeting will be disseminated to CRC Chief Executives, NOMS CRC Account Managers, NPS Deputy Directors and Deputy Directors for Custody; and feedback will be provided on individual cases to the NPS, CRCs or prison establishments.

Section 9 – Reviews undertaken outside the supervising Probation provider

Working within local and National structures

90. NOMS Deputy Directors or CRC Account Managers will arrange, from time to time, for senior operational managers from outside the managing probation provider to carry out Reviews as commissioned by the OMPPG, which would advise the relevant senior managers on their preparation as required. Most typically, a senior manager from another probation provider not involved in the management of the case in question would be brought in to prepare a SFO Review where there might be a conflict of interest if the supervising probation provider were to carry out the Review. This contingency might also apply with certain SFOs that are deemed to be exceptionally high profile for reasons of public interest. The commissioning of such reviews would normally be brokered by OMPPG under the auspices of the Deputy Director for Probation, the Chief Executive for the CRC or NOMS CRC Account Manager, or their representative. This would be done on a fair and equitable basis taking into account the size and circumstances of the outside Probation provider that is brought into this process.

Section 10 – Statistics

Quarterly SFO summary and statistics

91. The OMPPG will produce quarterly information for Probation providers, NOMS CRC Account Managers, the Director for Probation, England and NOMS Director of Wales (or their representative). All statistics will include details of performance across key SFO metrics, detailing quality and timeliness. The statistics will include data on individual contract package areas, contrasted with divisional and national baseline figures for comparative purposes. The statistics will include data relating to notification numbers and timeliness, including MAPPA level at the time of the SFO and highest ROSH level recorded on the current order. Each SFO Review that is submitted by the NPS or CRC is quality assured by the SFO Team at NOMS and rated, providing evidence of the quality of reviews of their own practice completed by differing providers. The NPS and CRCs rate the overall sufficiency of risk assessment, risk management and offender management for each individual case, based on the standard of practice in managing the offender displayed between the start of sentence and the date of the SFO. This data is issued to provide evidence of standards of practice within the individual areas, and inform Ministers and Senior Official’s of the sufficiency of practice within key areas of probation delivery. It is extremely important that all questions are completed in relation to SFO notification and review pro-formas, even where the question being considered does not seem immediately relevant to the matter in hand.


PAGE 47

Section 11 – Local Reviews

92. PI xx/2014 refers to NPS and CRCs establishing a mechanism for local review which could apply to cases that do not meet the SFO criteria or to cases where managers have identified some potential problems (e.g. a delayed recall, or a voluntary hostel complaining about the standard of offender management). It could also apply to cases that have been identified as well managed, and allow the NPS or CRC to establish the critical success factors that underpin the effective management of cases. The SFO Team will advise any NPS or CRC that needs advice about how such Reviews might be undertaken.


PAGE 48


Notification and Allocation assessment (to be completed within 10 working days of first court appearance)

SFO Process flowchart

Review (completed within 3 months of the date of notification submission) whether standard or shortened version.

Action Plan Update (to be completed on reviews completed within a relevant quarter

Outcome (completed within 3 working days of case completion)

VSR Dissemination following conviction for mandatory SFO

NPS Court staff identify that a case is a SFO using the offence and offender eligibility in PI 15/2014; and SPOC complete Stage 1 Notification

NPS senior lead manager notifies the relevant

manager of the supervising OM unit (NPS or CRC) so the case file can be secured and sent to senior lead manager of

the relevant unit.

NPS to complete Stage 2 notification reviewing initial case allocation

and and send details to SFO team and NPS lead.

NPS or CRC (as appropriate) considers Stage 3 final sign off of sfo notification and whether HP, and send to SFO team. With risk escalation doc (if appropriate)

OMPPG SFO team confirm that sfo review

should go ahead within 3 working days and inform

NPS / CRC SPOC

VSR proforma to be completed by NPS or CRC (depending on OM unit) and sent to relevant WCU.

CRC or NPS commence review of community supervision, If NPS Managed this will incorporate initial risk assessment

CRC / NPS to submit SFO review to NOMS OMPPG for quality assurance, copied to contracted services contract manager and NPS lead. OMPPG Quality assure

SFO review within 20 working days of receipt. Feedback to be sent to SFO lead in NPS lead (for initial allocation) and CRC lead

If rated as ‘incomplete’ the Review will require further work by the NPS / CRC and resubmission within up to 1 calendar month to address the points made

NPS senior lead and CRC contract manager to satisfy themselves that learning has been successfully implemented and ‘sign off’ on completed actions.

NPS Senior lead and CRC leads to submit Action Plan Updates detailing learning points highlighted in SFOs within the specified reporting period as set out in the PI.

A summary report on progress with acting on SFO Review learning points should be sent by the NPS/CRC to the OMPPG SFO mailbox [email protected] in line with the reporting schedule.

A summary report on progress with acting on SFO Review learning points should be sent by Trust to the OMPPG SFO mailbox [email protected] in line with the reporting

schedule.

NPS/ CRC to complete victim summary report if not already completed and present to qualifying victims where offenders convicted of a mandatory SFO. If previously completed Trust to consider revising to incorporate implementation of identified learning points.

NPS/CRC to forward a copy of the victim summary report to OMPPG for retention on file.

Appendix 1



PAGE 49


Notification and Allocation assessment (to be completed within 10 working days of first court appearance)

Prison Governor in liaison with court staff identify that a case is a SFO using the offence and offender eligibility in PI 15/2014; and SPOC complete

Deputy Director for Custody (DDC) senior lead manager

notifies the relevant manager(s) and OS of the supervising OM unit so the

case file can be secured and sent to senior lead manager.

Senior lead manager (SLM) ensures case files

are examined and confirms the details and

ensures the Notification is completed.

SLM sends the Notification to the OMPPG inbox and cc’s to the DCC and Governor along with brief details.

OMPPG SFO team to send

acknowledgement of Notification within 3

working days, confirm whether Review should go ahead

VSR proforma to be completed by NPS and sent to relevant SLM and SFO Team

Review (completed within 3 months of the date of notification submission) whether standard or shortened version.

The SLM should ensure the Review is allocated for completion. SLM ensures the Review is fully completed including good practice and action points.

The DDC (or delegate) quality assures the Review and signs off at divisional level.

SLM sends the Review to the OMPPG SFO mailbox [email protected] within 3 months of the Notification. Copies should be sent to the Director of Contracted Prisons, Phil Copple; Director of Public Prisons.

OMPPG SFO Team sends feedback on the quality and timeliness of the Review within 20 working days to DCC, copied into the DPP, SLM, Governor, DCP (where required and the DD –community. If rated as ‘incomplete’ the Review will require further work.

Action Plan Update (to be completed on reviews completed within a relevant quarter

SLM to submit Action Plan Update for each SFO Review to the DDC no later than 6 months after completing the Review.

Outcome (completed within 3 working days of case completion)

NPS/prison establishment completes and sends Outcome to the SFO mailbox [email protected] (cc’d to Deputy Director Custody, Governor and DD- community) within 3 working days of a case being concluded in court or confirmation that the charges have been discontinued/ reduced to non SFO charges

VSR Dissemination following conviction for mandatory SFO

Prison establishment to complete victim summary report if not already completed and present to qualifying victims where offenders convicted of a mandatory SFO. If previously completed prison establishment to consider revising to incorporate implementation of identified learning points.

Prison establishment to forward a copy of the victim summary report to OMPPG for retention on file.

SFO ROTL Process flowchart

summary report detailing learning points with evidence of progress should be sent by the SLM to the OMPPG SFO mailbox [email protected] in line with the reporting schedule

Appendix 2




PAGE 50

Intentionally left blank.


PAGE 51

Appendix 3 - SFO eligibility flowchart*

Yes Yes Yes

No No No

No No

Yes Yes

No

* Please note that this flow chart is not applicable to ROTL SFOs as all offences of Schedule 15a qualify under the scheme


Does the offender meet the SFO offender eligibility criteria?

Does the offence meet the SFO offence

eligibility criteria?

Does the offence meet the mandatory offence criteria

for initiating a Review?

This case is not an SFO

Was the offender assessed as high/very

high risk of serious harm during the current

sentence or has not received a risk

assessment during the current period of

supervision?

Is there public interest in the

case?OMPPG’s SFO Team/the Trust

make joint decision where there is public interest, but

which fall outside of the

offence eligibility criteria

An SFO notification is not required if the offender does not meet the SFO offender eligibility criteria; or where the offence eligibility criteria is not met and there is no national public interest

This case is an SFO. Please submit a SFO

Notification.

The SFO Review should be completed using

either the STANDARD or LOW RISK SFO Form as appropriate (see para 47 for

further guidance)

This case is an SFO. Please submit a SFO

Notification.

The SFO Review should be completed using

either the STANDARD or LOW RISK SFO Form as appropriate (see para 47 for

further guidance)

PAGE 52

HMiP Case Assessment Guidance (CAG) Appendix 4

SFO Question(Low Risk Reviews)

SFO Question(Standard Reviews)

Theme CAG Question Number

RA 2.10.1 RA 2.10.1 Post Sentence assessment. All of B 3.1, B 4.1,

RA 2.10.2 RA 2.10.2 Risk assessment timeliness B 4.1.5, c2.1.8 RA 2.10.3 RA 2.10.3 Incorporate previous

assessmentsB 3.1.1, B4.1.5, B4.1.6, B 4.1.7, B

4.1.13,RA 2.10.4 RA 2.10.4

Incorporate previous assessments

B 3.1.1, B4.1.5, B4.1.6, B 4.1.7, B 4.1.13,

RA 2.10.5 RA 2.10.5Anything missing from

additional assessmentsB 3.1.1, B4.1.5, B4.1.6, B 4.1.7, B

4.1.13,

RA 2.10.6 RA 2.10.6

Assessment communicated to all

B 3.1.1, B4.1.5, B4.1.6, B 4.1.7, B 4.1.13,

RA 2.10.7 RA 2.10.7 Reviewed in line with local policy?

D 2.2.21, D 2.2.22, D 3.2.23, D 2.2.24,

RA 2.10.8 RA 2.10.8Risk assessment reviewed promptly

D 2.2.21, D 2.2.22, D 3.2.23, D 2.2.24, D4.2.13

RA 2.10.9 RA 2.10.9 Change in risk level justifiedD 2.2.21, D 2.2.22, D 3.2.23, D 2.2.24,

RA 2.10.10 RA 2.10.10 Case referred to NPS D.2.2.27, D 2.2.28RA 2.10.11 RA 2.10.11 Risk escalation process

followed

D.2.2.27

RA 2.10.12 RA 2.10.12 Nature of risk escalation D 2.2.22, D 3.2.23, D 2.2.24RA 2.10.13 RA 2.10.13

Did NPS confim risk level?D.2.2.28

RA 2.10.14 RA 2.10.14 If NPS didn’t assess case as high risk D.2.2.28 D2.2.30

RA 2.10.15 RA 2.10.15

Quality of risk assessment reviews. D 2.2.21, D 4.2.14, D 4.2.15


PAGE 53

RA 2.10.16 RA 2.10.16Reviews focus on imminence of risk D 2.2.21, D 3.2.15, D 4.2.1

RM 2.11.1Sufficient initial RMP

B 3.1.1, B4.1.5, B4.1.6, B 4.1.7, B 4.1.13, E 4.3.1, E 4.3.2., E 4.3.3, E

e.3.3.U, E 4.3.6

RM 2.11.2 Was the RMP implemented effectively? B 4.1.5, c2.1.8

RM 2.11.3RMP attention to victims

11, 14d, 16, 17, B 4.1.8, D 2.2.3, D 4.2.4,

D 4.2.5, D 4.2.11, E 4.3.6RM 2.11.4 RMP attention children B 4.1.8, D 4.2.4, D 4.2.5RM 2.11.5 RMP attention to vulnerable

adults

11, 14d, 16, 17, B 4.1.8, D 2.2.3, D 4.2.4,

D 4.2.5, D 4.2.11RM 2.11.6 Was the sentence or licence

sufficient to manage riskB 3.1.1, B4.1.5, B4.1.6, B 4.1.7, B

4.1.13,RM 2.11.2 RM 2.11.7

Was key risk information communicated

B 3.1.1, B4.1.5, B4.1.6, B 4.1.7, B 4.1.13,

RM 2.11.8MAPPA Criteria D 4.2.8

RM 2.11.9MAPPA level 1 No ref

RM 2.11.10MAPPA carried out effectively D 4.2.8

OM 2.12.1Custody Pre release contact and planning C 2.1.3, C 2.1.6 C 2.1.4

OM 2.12.2Adequate handover from custody C 2.1.3, C 2.1.6 C 2.1.4

OM 2.12.3

Resettlement plan quality C 2.1.3, C 2.1.6 C 2.1.4

OM 2.12.4Resettle plan quality C 2.1.1, C2.1.2, C2.1.3, C 2.1.6 C

2.1.7, C 2.1.8,

OM 2.12.5

Release at SED.

No specific references, but key elements of sentence planning and

delivery are relevant in preparation for release at SED: C 2.1.8, C 2.1.9 C

2.1.10, D 2.2.3OM 2.12.1 OM 2.12.6

Allocated promptly to promote engagement

C 2.1.3, C 2.1.6 C 2.1.7, C 2.1.8, C 2.1.14,

C 2.1.15, C2.1.16, C 2.1.17ab, c 2.1.18, C 2.1.19, C 2.1.20


PAGE 54

Om 2.12.2, OM 2.12.3,

OM 2.12.7Sufficient needs assessment and sentence plan?

B 3.1.1, B4.1.5, B4.1.6, B 4.1.7, B 4.1.13, E 4.3.1, E 4.3.2., E 4.3.3, E

e.3.3.U, E 4.3.6

OM 2.12.8Sentence plan delivered appropriately

C 2.1.3, C 2.1.6 C 2.1.7, C 2.1.8, C 2.1.14,

C 2.1.15, C2.1.16, C 2.1.17ab, c 2.1.18, C 2.1.19, C 2.1.20, D 2.2.1, D 2.2.3,

OM 2.12.4 OM 2.12.9Licence and conditions explained

C 2.1.3, C 2.1.6 C 2.1.7, C 2.1.8, C 2.1.9, C2.1.10, C 2.1.11, C 2.1.12,

OM 2.12.5 OM 2.12.10Sentence plan delivered?

D 2.2.1, D 2.2.3, , D2.2.8, D 2.2.9, D 2.2.13, D2.2.16, D2.2.19,

D 2.2.21, D 2.4.6

OM 2.12.6 OM 2.12.11Investigative monitoring of compliance

D2.2.8, D 2.2.9, D 2.2.13, D2.2.16, D2.2.19,

D 2.2.21, D 2.4.6. E 2.3.5

Rm 2.11.1, OM 2.12.7,

OM 2.12.12Timeliness of response

D2.2.8, D 2.2.9, D 2.2.13, D2.2.16, D2.2.19,

D 2.2.21, D 2.4.6, E 2.3.5

OM 2.12.13Line management oversight D 4.2.16,

Om2.12.9 Om 2.12.14Information exchange in even of transfer D 2.2.7, D 2.2.28, D 2.2.30

Om 2.12.8


PAGE 55

Appendix 4Ways of explaining errors - an illustration.

The issue: The OM, an experienced PO, had been preparing a SDR on an offender with 5 previous convictions for domestic burglary but on this occasion he was appearing for an assault on a female stranger in the street. In preparing the SDR the OM had pulled through a risk assessment from 2 years previously, but had not noticed that the previous OASys had identified sexual motivation behind a significant amount of his domestic burglary offending. The offender had admitted this during a previous 3 month prison sentence. The OM had recommended unpaid work. Using the 4 stage framework to understand the error:

why does the staff member say the error happened?they were busy, and found it hard to navigate through OASys and identify the salient points on screen. They had not read the pulled through OASys, instead concentrating on the known detail of the index offence only, as the Judge had made it clear that she wanted an unpaid work order and they prioritised that aspect of the SDR preparation.

what if any defences were in place and why did they not work?pulled through OASys had been identified as a problem for the team and a briefing had taken place but the OM had been on leave at the time.

what context was there which made the task difficult , even if it did not cause the problem?contextual issues might have been one or more of – workload- access to IT – working conditions- access to training- individual factors e.g. poor eyesight – team factors – lack of support

was the error made more or less likely by any resourcing or management decisions?

the OM had been working in Interventions and had only just completed a locally organised introduction to OASys day. The normal training had been temporarily suspended as there was no resource to fund a replacement for the OASys trainer who was off work for 3 months.

See http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7237/768 for further details.


http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7237/768

OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 56

APPENDIX 5

THE SERIOUS FURTHER OFFENCE (SFO) REVIEW PROCESSA GUIDE FOR STAFF

The GuideThis guide provides information about the SFO Review process for staff in the NPS, CRCs or prison establishment. The SFO Review process, and the list of serious further offences, is set out in more detail in PI xx/2014 on the authority’s system.

When is a SFO Review carried out?Whenever an offender under probation supervision is charged with a serious sexual or violent offence the need for a SFO Review (hereafter a Review) is considered. A Review is always undertaken if the SFO charge is murder, manslaughter, or other specified offence involving loss of life, rape, or a sexual offence against a child under 13 years of age. A Review is also undertaken in cases of other offenders charged with a qualifying serious further violent or sexual offence if they had been assessed as high or very high risk of serious harm during their current sentence, or had not received an assessment as part of their sentence. The full list of offences that can qualify as a SFO is based on schedule 15A of the 2003 Criminal Justice Act and can be found in Annex C of PI xx/2014.

Reviews may be undertaken in other cases involving re-offending where there are public interest reasons for doing so. Overall, the procedures focus on the most serious offences and the most serious offenders.

A Review is always undertaken if an offender released on ROTL commits an offence which is contained within schedule 15A.

Why do we Review SFO cases?The purpose of a Review is to provide an objective assessment of the quality of practice in the management of an individual case up to the point of the SFO and to identify any actions that are needed to improve practice in the management of future cases and/or update relevant policy or guidance to assist with wider improvements. We need to establish whether everything was done that might reasonably have been expected to manage the offender’s risk of harm effectively during the supervision period. Many cases that result in SFO charges will have been managed satisfactorily, or indeed very well. But in those cases where our policy or practice is shown to be unsatisfactory, it is important to learn and improve, mindful of our statutory duty to protect the public.

SFOs in context.Serious reoffending occurs in a small proportion of the probation and prison caseload and in all risk categories. This means that some staff may be involved in a number of SFO Reviews in their career; others rarely or not at all.

Who reviews the SFO case?

PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015


A Review is undertaken by a manager working for the NPS, CRC or prison establishment that supervised the case, who is independent of the line management of the case. In certain cases, a manager from another division of the NPS or the CRC may undertake the Review and exceptionally Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation may undertake a Review. What does a Review involve?The reviewing manager assesses the standard of risk assessment, risk management and offender management. He or she will highlight any particular strengths in how the case was managed, and any deficiencies (or concerns), together with the reasons for them (whether they are at organisational, team or individual level; or a combination). He or she will then devise an action plan to address any shortcomings. The Review can take up to three months to be completed.

In cases where the offender has been assessed as low risk of serious harm and was subject to a community or suspended sentence order, the NPS, CRC or prison establishment would normally complete a shortened review which focuses mainly, but not exclusively, on risk assessment. All other qualifying cases would be subject to a standard review looking equally at risk assessment, risk management and offender management.

What information is used in a Review?The main sources of information are the case records, the staff who managed the case and other staff who worked with the offender, together with line managers. Interviews with staff - both practitioners and managers - are part of the fact-finding process. They explore whether the case was managed to the standard expected, taking into account factors such as the challenges posed by the case and the overall workload of the staff member. The interview is also an important opportunity for those involved in a case to talk it through and place it in perspective for themselves.

Feedback and employee care.Managers (the reviewing manager or the line manager if appropriate) will feed back to staff who have been interviewed any findings or action points relevant to them. The experience of having responsibility for a case which gives rise to a SFO can be a protracted and, at times, a stressful one. Staff involved in these cases may understandably be upset and anxious and should be offered support and counselling, where necessary, including the employers support service. Overall, senior management and employers will exercise their duty of employee care.

A Review is not a capability or disciplinary investigation.The Review is not a disciplinary or a capability process. Interviews therefore ordinarily involve only the staff members concerned and the reviewing manager. If there are matters which require separate consideration under capability procedures (or, very occasionally, under discipline procedures, where there are indications of potential misconduct), the reviewing manager will liaise with the employers Human Resources team. If the formal stages of these other procedures were reached, the staff member would, subject to agreed agency procedures, then have the right to be accompanied in any capability or disciplinary procedure by a trade union representative or colleague.

The Review proforma and confidentiality.The completed Review pro-forma does not contain the names of anyone involved in the case. It is an internal official document written for the CRC Chief Executive Officer, NPS Deputy Director, the NOMS CRC Account Manager, Deputy Director for Custody and designated others in NOMS. Others (e.g. Coroners) may have an entitlement in special cases, and the Review may inform MAPPA, DHRs and LSCB Reviews also which are concerned with the



SFO. The NPS or the CRC may, from time to time, be asked to release information under the Freedom of Information Act, and by law this has to be considered on a case by case basis. However, SFO Reviews are not published in accordance with NOMS policy.

Media and other interest.SFO cases will often be the subject of understandable media and other community interest. Staff should ensure they are familiar with their employer’s Code of Conduct and other policies relating to confidentiality, and know where to refer enquiries from the media.

Further advice.Each NPS, CRC and prison establishment has a senior lead manager for SFO Reviews and a Single Point of Administrative Contact, who will advise locally on any aspect of this guidance.

SERIOUS FURTHER OFFENCES TEAM, OFFENDER MANAGEMENT AND PUBLIC PROTECTION GROUP, NOMS

January 2015



S ERIOUS FURTHER OFFENCE LIST ANNEX C

IN ADDITION TO THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENCES BELOW, AIDING, ABETTING, COUNSELLING, PROCURING OR INCITING THE COMMISSION, OR CONSPIRING TO COMMIT, OR ATTEMPTING TO COMMIT ANY OF THE LISTED OFFENCES CONSTITUTES A SERIOUS FURTHER OFFENCE.

Violent Serious Further Offences

Murder

Attempt to commit murder or a conspiracy to commit murder

Manslaughter

Kidnapping

False imprisonment

Soliciting murder (section 4 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861)

Attempting to choke, suffocate or strangle in order to commit or assist in committing an indictable offence (section 21 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861)

Using chloroform etc. to commit or assist in the committing of any indictable offence (section 22 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861)

Causing bodily injury by explosives (section 28 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861)

Using explosives etc. with intent to do grievous bodily harm (section 29 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861)

Placing explosives etc. with intent to do bodily injury (section 30 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861)

Endangering the safety of railway passengers (section 32 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861)

Causing explosion likely to endanger life or property (section 2 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883)

Attempt to cause explosion, or making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property (section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883)

Child destruction (section 1 of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929)

Infanticide (section 1 of the Infanticide Act 1938)

Causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult, also called 'familial homicide' (Section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004)

Possession of firearm with intent to endanger life (section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968)

Use of firearm to resist arrest (section 17(1) of the Firearms Act 1968)

Possession of firearm at time of committing or being arrested for offence specified in Schedule 1 to that Act (section 17(2) of the Firearms Act 1968}



Carrying a firearm with criminal intent (section 18 of the Firearms Act 1968)

Robbery or assault with intent to rob (section 8(1) of the theft Act 1968). [NB. Only where a firearm/imitation firearm is used]

Burglary with intent to- Inflict grievous bodily harm on a person, (section 9 of the Theft Act 1968) –

Aggravated burglary (section 10 of the Theft Act 1968)

Aggravated vehicle-taking involving an accident which caused the death of any person (Section 12A of the Theft Act 1968)

Arson with intent to endanger life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered. (section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971)

Aggravated criminal damage - destroying or damaging property other than an offence of arson (section 1(2a) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971)[NB - - there must be intention or recklessness as to the endangerment of life by the criminal damage].

Hostage-taking (section 1 of the Taking of Hostages Act 1982)

Hijacking (section 1 of the Aviation Security Act 1982)

Destroying, damaging or endangering safety of aircraft (section 2 of the Aviation Security Act 1982)

Other acts endangering or likely to endanger safety of aircraft (section 3 of the Aviation Security Act 1982)

Torture (section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988)

Causing death by dangerous driving (section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988)

Causing death by careless driving when under influence of drink or drugs (section 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988)

Endangering safety at aerodromes (under section 1 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990)

Hijacking of ships (section 9 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990)

Seizing or exercising control of fixed platforms (section 10 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990)

Destroying fixed platforms or endangering their safety (section 11 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990)

Other acts endangering or likely to endanger safe navigation (section 12 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990)

Offences involving threats (section 13 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990)

Offences relating to Channel Tunnel trains and the tunnel system (Part II of the Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994 (S.I. 1994/570))

Genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and related offences), other than one involving



murder (section 51 or 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001)

Female genital mutilation (section 1 of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003)

Assisting a girl to mutilate her own genitalia (section 2 of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003)

Assisting a non-UK person to mutilate overseas a girl's genitalia (section 3 of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003)

Sexual Serious Further Offences

Rape or assault by penetration (section 1 or 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)

Intercourse with girl under thirteen (section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956)

Incest by a man with a woman whom he knows to be his grand-daughter, daughter, sister or mother (section 10(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956)

Abduction of woman by force or for the sake of her property (section 17 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956)

Permitting girl under thirteen to use premises for intercourse (section 25 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956)

Burglary with intent to commit rape (section 9 of the Theft Act 1968)

Rape (section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)

Assault by penetration (section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)

Rape of a child under 13 (section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)

Assault of a child under 13 by penetration (section 6 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)

Sexual assault of a child under 13 (section 7 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)

Causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity (section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)

Sexual activity with a child (section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)

Causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity (section 10 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)

Arranging or facilitating commission of a child sex offence (section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)

Sexual activity with a child family member (section 25 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)

Inciting a child family member to engage in sexual activity (section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)

Sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder impeding choice (section 30 of the Sexual



Offences Act 2003)

Causing or inciting a person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity (section 31 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)

Inducement, threat or deception to procure sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder (section 34 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)

Causing a person with a mental disorder to engage in or agree to engage in sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception (section 35 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)

Paying for sexual services of a child (section 47 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)

Causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography (section 48 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)

Controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography (section 49 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)

Arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography (section 50 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)

Trafficking into the UK for sexual exploitation (section 57 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)

Trafficking within the UK for sexual exploitation (section 58 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)

Trafficking out of the UK for sexual exploitation (section 59 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)

Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent (Section 4 Sexual Offences Act 2003)

Note: only where penetration is involved

Care workers: Sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder (Section 38 Sexual Offences Act

2003) note: only where penetration is involved

Care workers: causing or inciting sexual activity (Section 39 Sexual Offences Act 2003) note: only

where penetration is involved



Annex D

NOMS Offender Management and Public Protection Group, Grenadier House, Horseferry Road, SW1P 2DD

Email [email protected]

SERIOUS FURTHER OFFENCE (SFO) REVIEW DOCUMENT

Stage1 Initial Notification

Offender Name:

Probation Provider (CRC or NPS Division) :

NOMS Ref Number

Notification initiated by:

Telephone number:

Email address:

SFO single point of administrative contact (NPS Courts) :

Telephone number:

Email address:

SFO single point of administrative contact (NPS or CRC:

Telephone number:

Email address:

Please refer to the latest SFO Operational Guidance at Annex B (as published on the Authority’s website) when completing all sections of this document.


http://npsintranet.probation.gsi.gov.uk/pc22-2008



Timeliness

This page must be updated by the Trust’s single point of administrative contact at each stage of the SFO process, before the updated document is forwarded to the OMPPG SFO Team.

1st Court appearance date Notification submitted date Stage submitted on time?

Yes No

Details of subsequent amendments:

If any of the stages were submitted late, please provide brief details of the reasons for this:

If appropriate, address in the analysis and as a learning point.



Notification

The following criteria must be met:

Offender Eligibility

Offenders who are under any form of supervision by the NPS or a CRC (licence or post sentence supervision) on the date of the SFO (excluding however offenders where a court or recall warrant had been issued 3 months or more prior to the date of the SFO);

Offenders who were under any form of supervision by the NPS or CRC including those who have been subject to recall and released at SED, which terminated within 28 days prior to the SFO; where an offender is released from prison on temporary licence (ROTL)

In cases of deferred sentences where sentencing is deferred to allow an offender to comply with any requirements set by the court. Consideration of a discretionary SFO Review would need to take into account the specific requirements set by the court and the management of the case by the probation provider during that period

Offenders under supervision as above, who are charged with an equivalent eligible offence in another jurisdiction;

Offence Eligibility

The list of eligible offences comprises serious violent and serious sexual offences (as described in Annex C of PI xx/2015), or an equivalent eligible offence in another jurisdiction.

Cases that will qualify for a SFO ReviewOnce a case has been checked to see that both the offender and the offence eligibility criteria are met, it will automatically qualify for a SFO Review if:

The SFO charge is murder, manslaughter, other specified offences causing death (including death by dangerous driving), rape, assault by penetration (s.2 2003 SOA), or a sexual offence against under 13 (including attempted offences) or

The offender was high or very high risk of serious harm at any point during their current sentence or had not been subject to a formal risk assessment using an Authority approved system (For NPS this will be OASys in most instances or an OASys RoH screening and appropriate level of assessment post case allocation and for CRCs identification of the present risk of serious harm posed by an offender, dated during the current supervision period).

Exceptionally, the offence, whether a SFO or not, may qualify a case for a SFO Review if it is likely to attract national public interest - please see Operational Guidance at Annex B for further details

For ROTL cases, all Schedule 15A offences will automatically qualify for an SFO Review irrespective of the risk of serious harm that the offender posed.

The Senior Lead manager for SFO(s) must ensure that:

The OMPPG SFO Team receives the fully completed SFO Notification document, for cases that are to proceed to a SFO Review, within 10 working days of the first court appearance; and that the Review is then commenced. This will incorporate stage 1 and stage 2 from the NPS and stage 3 from NPS or CRC.

Stage 2- case allocation process is reviewed by the NPS and signed by the relevant manager. Notification forms on cases that are not to receive a SFO Review are stored locally for audit

purposes. They should include the information that is needed to enable the Senior Lead manager to establish that the case does not qualify for a SFO Review.

The OMPPG SFO Team is informed of any case which is likely to attract national public



interest immediately by telephone and email; The Communications Officer for the NPS or CRC is informed / consulted in cases which may

attract public interest; The NPS deputy director (or their representative) and the NOMS CRC Account Manager (or

their representative) where relevant, receive a copy of the Notification; The case record is secured The Victim Contact Unit is notified if appropriate. The Witness Care Unit is provided with the template as detailed in Annex A once OMPPG has

confirmed SFO eligibility.

The Senior Lead manager for SFO(s) must ensure that the following actions are taken for all cases which are considered for Review whether a Review is undertaken or not:

The LSCB is informed of any case where the victim is a child and there is a SFO Review. The local MAPPA SMB co-ordinator, or equivalent, is notified of any case where the offender

was under MAPPA level 2 or 3 supervision; The CSP is notified and liaison with CSP Chair take place where a DHR is also being

completed. In cases resulting in death where the victim of the was under probation supervision, PI

01/2014 is referred to; In cases where the victim was a resident of Approved Premises, PI 04/2011 is referred to.

1.1. OFFENDERS DETAILSOffender name: PNC/CRO number:

Alias(es):

Address at time of the SFO(s)

Is this? Select F4 for options (if other or Approved Premises, give details):

Prison Number: Date of Birth:

Ethnic Origin: Select F4 for options

Gender: Male Female

1.2. COURT DETAILSAt which court did the offender first appear?

Date of first court appearance:

Outcome (including remand in custody or bail)Details:



Details/date of next court appearance:

1.3. SERIOUS FURTHER OFFENCE DETAILSDate(s) of SFO(s):

Serious violent offence triggering this notification:

Select F4 for optionsDetails (including known victim information):

Serious sexual offence triggering this notification:

Select F4 for optionsDetails (including known victim information):

Has the offender been charged with any additional offences? Yes No If Yes, please specify all additional charges, including any charges for offences which fall outside of the SFO criteria:

Please provide a brief summary of the SFO:



1.4. CO-DEFENDANTSAre there any co-defendants? Yes No Were any of the co-defendants at the time of the alleged SFO (or within 28 days) being supervised by any probation provider? Yes No

Please enter details of co-defendants in the table below:

Name Date of Birth

Eligible for notification Details Submission

dateSFO IDYes No

* A separate SFO Notification must be completed and forwarded to both SFO single point administrative of contact for all relevant co-defendants.



1.5. SFO VICTIM INFORMATIONHow many victims were there? Where possible, please use the table below to provide background information on each victim:

Gender Age Offender/ Victim relationship

Was there any evidence of

revictimisation?Is there evidence that the victim(s) was/were targeted due to their:

1 Ethnicity

Gender Disability

Religious beliefs Other

Sexuality

Age Class Specific vulnerability

2 Ethnicity

Gender Disability


Sexuality


3 Ethnicity

Gender Disability


Sexuality


4 Ethnicity

Gender Disability


Sexuality


If there are more than four victims or if there is any additional information, please provide a brief summary here:

1.6 EVIDENCE OF PRESS OR PUBLIC INTEREST Has the offence attracted or is it likely to attract public interest, by virtue of the circumstances or type of offence, or the national public profile or well-known identity of the offender or the victim, which would normally fall outside of the eligibility

Yes No



criteria? If Yes, this case may still need to become an SFO – Discuss the case with OMPPG SFO team.

Please provide further details below

Name of senior lead manager: Name:

Grade:

Date:

Telephone Number:

Email address:

This part of the notification (Stage 1) should now be sent to the relevant designated senior manager in the NPS to complete Stage 2 – Review of the Case Allocation Process. This should be completed and countersigned before submission to the SFO Team

Stage 1 should ALSO be sent to the relevant NPS or CRC, who was responsible for the management of this case in order that Stage 3 is completed and sent to OMPPG. Please note, Stages 2 and 3 must be submitted within 10 working days to the SFO Team.

It is important that Stage 1 is dispatched to the relevant NPS or CRC in good time (no more than 5 working days) to ensure the completed Stage 3 is received by OMPPG within ten days. Completion of Stage 2 is not a pre requisite to Stage 3 being completed.



STAGE 2 REVIEW OF THE CASE ALLOCATION PROCESS - TO BE COMPLETED BY THE NPS IN

ALL CASES

To be completed and signed by the designated manager within the NPS.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS SECTION DOES NOT NEED TO BE COMPLETED FOR ROTL SFO CASES

The allocation of offenders to service providers is reserved to the National Probation Service. The Case Allocation system sets out general criteria on which offender allocation decisions must be based, these are set out below:

1. The appropriate application of the case allocation process completed by the NPS either pre sentence or immediately post sentence, where it was clear that the offender was in scope for probation services.

2. In cases where the offender had either left court or was sentenced to immediate custody without an NPS interview, the case allocation tool completed using all the information available to the court.

3. The case allocation tool is always completed, in accordance with the criteria set out in sections 1 – 3 on which offender allocation decisions must be based:

Section 1 – Summary of Risk/Harm ScoresUsing the range of predictor tools, including the RSR tool

Section 2 – Risk of Serious Harm (RoSH) Screening, and if applicable

A full RoSH Analysis, if the RoSH Screening identifies one is required in accordance with the operational guidance

Section 3 – The Case Allocation Decision to determine cohort allocation to either the CRC or the NPS.

4. Following sentence, the case allocated to the appropriate provider in accordance with the timescales set within the operational guidance

PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014 OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015


5. The appropriate provider is informed of the sentence within the required time frame

6. All the necessary paperwork and associated information is communicated to the appropriate provider, within the required timeframe.

2.1. CASE ALLOCATION PROCESSWas the case allocated in accordance with all the criteria set out above? Yes No

Please provide evidence to support your answer, specifically if there were criterion that was not met, with any known reasons for this. Please provide comment where relevant to support your answers, including any information that should have been taken into consideration and the reasons for the absence of such (for example, was it not available at the time of sentence, was it an oversight)

Please indicate if there is any associated learning that requires further investigation or remedial action.

2.15. ACTION PLAN

Please use the table below to summarise the actions that will be taken to address any deficiencies that have been identified. The actions should be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-bound). They may include referral of concerns to other bodies where appropriate.

Learning Point

Related to Case Allocation

Action to address the Learning Point

By Whom

By When (give date)

How the impact of the action taken will be reported and evaluated

1

2

3

4



Stage 3 to be completed by relevant (at point of SFO)

probation provider (NPS or CRC)

3.2 SUPERVISION AT TIME OF SFO

NPS Division: NPS Division please select

NPS LDU A-E [select] Please select

NPS LDU F - R [select] Please Select

NPS LDU S – Z [select] Please Select

CRC Please SelectHas another NPS division or CRC been involved in the management of the offender at any point during the current sentence? Yes No

If Yes, please provide details:

What was the main type of supervision that the offender was subject to at the time of the SFO?

Community Order or SSO

Determinate sentence post-release supervision

Life / Indeterminate


Name of senior lead manager authorising this notification:

Date:

3.1. OASYS RISK OF SERIOUS HARMWhat was the highest OASys (or equivalent) risk of serious harm level, prior to the SFO, during the current sentence, whether in custody or community?

Select F4 for options

Date of this assessment:


Release on temporary licence (please list prison establishment below).

Details of index offence, including significant victim issues:

Details:



Please summarise the supervision at the time of the SFO in the tables below, specifying where the offender was subject to more than one type of supervision:

Community Order or Suspended Sentence Order (if more than one, enter into the table the orders in force at the time of the SFO, starting with the oldest, if necessary enter details of any other, for example restraining, injunctions, ASBO orders the offender was subject to at the time of the SFO in the additional information section.

Start date of order

Length of order

Type of order Index offence(s)

Requirements

Select F4 for options Select F4 for options




Please specify details of requirements:

Details:

Additional information (including where applicable, duration of requirements, any other orders, and other relevant information):

Post Release (including Life/Indeterminate licence)/ ROTL



Please specify details of additional licence conditions:

Details:


Start date of prison sentence

Length of sentence

Start of licence

End of licence

Index Offence(s)

Type of Licence




Discharging Prison:

Additional information (including, for example, where applicable):

Details of any recalls Details of any Parole board involvement in the release or re-release of the offender Any other relevant information Previous ROTLS



Was the Offender:A Foreign Nation Prisoner (FNP):If yes please provide Home Office CID Reference

Yes No

Subject to Home Detention Curfew at the time of the SFO: Yes No

Subject to Electronic Monitoring at the time of the SFO: Yes No

On licence following a Parole Board decision to release: Yes No

On court bail at the time of the SFO: Yes No At the time of the SFO, resident in AP, BASS or any other supported

accommodation? Yes No

If Yes to any please provide brief details:

* Please provide a brief summary of the date(s), type(s) of conviction, significant cautions and sentence(s) in the table below only for those categories marked with an asterix, in chronological order starting with the most recent conviction:


3.3. PREVIOUS-CONVICTIONSHow many previous convictions (prior to the index offence) does the offender have?

For how many offences?

For how many different types of offence?

Has the offender previously been convicted or cautioned for any of the following offences?

Murder/manslaughter/ attempted murder*

GBH/wounding/robbery/abduction/ kidnapping/unlawful imprisonment*

Other violence or harassment, or possession of offensive weapons*

Sexual offences* Arson* Criminal damage

Drug offences Burglary* Theft

Fraud and forgery Other dishonesty Driving offences


Date(s) Offence(s) Sentence(s)





Additional Information:

3.4. MAPPA AND OTHER REVIEWSAt the time of the SFO, was the offender a ‘relevant sexual and/or violent offender’ for MAPPA eligibility purposes? Yes No

If Yes, which category? Select F4 for options

If Yes, at what MAPPA level was the offender being managed at the time of the SFO?


Are there any indications that a MAPPA SCR is to be undertaken by the SMB? Yes No

If Yes, please specify details:

Are there any indications that a LCSB Safeguarding SCR is to be undertaken by the SMB? Yes No


Are there any indications that the local Community Safety Partnership are undertaking a Domestic Homicide Review (DHR)? Yes No


Is the offender, or has the offender previously been registered as a Critical Public Protection Case? Yes No

If Yes, please provide specific details including date of registration:



3.5 OFFENDERS SUBJCT TO INTEGRATED OFFENDER MANAGEMENTWas the offender identified as an IOM case during the period of supervision when the SFO occurred? Yes No

If Yes, please specify:

3.6. PUBLIC INTERESTHas there been/is there likely to be any national public interest in the case, e.g. evidence of strong national media interest/coverage? Yes No

If Yes, please specify:

3.7. CONFIRMATIONThe Senior manager must indicate whether the case qualifies for SFO review based upon the following questions (please see the Operational Guidance, in particular the flowchart at Appendix B of Annex B for additional guidance) Answer each of the questions in turn up to the point at which a Review is indicated:

Eligibility Criteria1. Does the offender meet the SFO offender eligibility criteria?If No, this case is not an SFO and the Notification should not be submitted.

Yes No

2. Does the offence meet the SFO offence eligibility criteria?If No, this case is not an SFO and Notification should not be submitted. However, in exceptional cases where there is a national public interest and case is to be treated as a SFO, then go to Question 5.

Yes No

3. Does the offence qualify for a mandatory SFO Review i.e. murder, manslaughter, other offence causing death, rape,

Yes No


Notification completed by (Name and grade):Name:

Grade:

Telephone Number:

Email address:


assault by penetration, sexual offence vs. child under 13 (including attempts)? If Yes, the case requires a Review and the Notification should be submitted. If No, proceed to Question 4.4. Does the offender qualify for a SFO Review on the basis that either he/she was assessed as high/very high risk of serious harm during the current sentence (including custody element where applicable) or has not received a risk assessment during the current period of supervision (order or licence)? If Yes, the case requires a Review and the Notification should be submitted. If No go to Question 5.

Yes No

OR

Significant national public interest5. Has the offence attracted or is it likely to attract public interest, by virtue of the circumstances or type of offence, or the national public profile or well-known identity of the offender or the victim, which would normally fall outside of the eligibility criteria? If Yes, this case may still need to become an SFO – Discuss the case with OMPPG SFO team.

Yes No

High Profile6. Taking account of the notifying officers comments in answer to question 1.6 and 3.6 Can you confirm if you feel that the case should be categorised as a high profile case? Please refer to the Annex B Operational Guidance Section 4.

Yes No

Based on the answers above, does this case qualify for a Review? Yes No



If the case does not qualify for a Review you should not submit this form to the SFO Team in OMPPG, but you should retain the paperwork locally for audit purposes and consider whether the case warrants a local review. If the case does qualify for a review, please indicate one of the following options.

Based on the answers above, does this case qualify for a shortened Review? Yes No

Based on the answers above, does this case qualify for standard Review? Yes No

Based on the answers above, does this case qualify for ROTL Review? Yes No

Name of senior lead manager: Name:

Grade:

Date:

Telephone Number:

Email address:



ANNEX E

Annex E

Offender Name:

OMPPG SFO reference number:

The NPS and CRCs must:

Ensure the Review is fully completed, by a manager not involved in the line management of the case, and sent to the OMPPG SFO Team within 3 months of the initial notification;

Assess the quality of the risk assessment, risk management, and offender management of the case, and where necessary the reasons for any deficiencies and what will be done to address them, as well as identifying good practice;

Where applicable, provide updated details of the SFO if they were not available during the Notification submission, or if further revised information is available.

Ensure that if the case has been supervised by more than one provider, that the SFO review covers all work undertaken.

Ensure that the Review is signed off by The NPS Deputy Director or a delegated senior manager or the CRC Chief Executive and delegated senior manager (as the case may be) (not the manager who completed the review) before it is sent to the OMPPG SFO Team.

Review completed by (Name and Grade):

Name:

Grade: Telephone Number:


STANDARD REVIEW


Email Address:

Review Submitted Date

Stage submitted on time Yes No


SFO TIMELINESS


InterviewsAll interviews must be noted and the notes retained. Please enter under “Subjects and issues discussed”, only the main topics that were discussed (e.g. sickness absence, training).Please state role and grade of staff involved in the management of case, who were not interviewed, with reasons for their absence (such as staff on long term sick leave.)** Individual staff names should not be included **Grade and role of the interviewee

Identified role type (e.g. OM1, SPO, etc)

Date(s) of interview

Subjects and issues discussed



Please complete section 2.1. using Annex H as a separate attachment and insert here. Please continue to complete the review at section 2.2.


2.1. CASE CHRONOLOGY Please provide a concise summary of key significant events, in custody and/or the community, between the start of the sentence and the commission of the SFO, together with your observations, including where applicable;

Please refer to the SFO Operational Guidance for advice if the period of supervision has been brief (less than 6 months)

Court reports and proposals, including details of the PSR Commencement of the sentence/ community based supervision, including details

of date of sentence, type of sentence, requirements/additional licence conditions; Information for or attendance at Sentence planning boards or Parole hearings in

relevant custody cases; First contact in custody as appropriate and pre-release contact; First contact in community as appropriate; Assessments/reviews of OASys (or equivalent), inc ISP/SPR and RMP; Risk of serious harm level and any changes; escalation of risk, including whether there was appropriate liaison between CRC

and NPS; Referrals onto and commencement of programmes or other interventions; Warnings, breaches and recalls; plus unauthorised absences; MAPPA, MARAC, CP or prison based risk meetings; References to future SFO victim during the course of the supervision, including

any prior association or knowledge of victim(s) by offender; Perceived, alleged or known deterioration in behaviour – including for example any

known adjudications in custody, arrests in community by police, drug/alcohol relapse, DV incidents - and how they were dealt with.

Overall levels of contact/compliance and whether in line with National Standards / local policy and procedures.

Please do not use local acronyms without also adding their full title.

Observations/comments could highlight elements of good or poor practice, that are then referred to and developed in answering the core question. These might include:

Timeliness and quality of work undertaken Response of RO and other staff to significant information or events Appropriateness of decisions and actions taken or that might have been taken How far were agreed actions/decisions followed through Appropriate levels of inter-agency work/information sharing


Please provide a breakdown in the table below:

Children Public Known adult Staff Prisoners

Risk in community

Risk in custody

Risk in community

Risk in custody

Risk in community

Risk in custody

Risk in community

Risk in custody

Risk in custody

V High

High

Med

Low

Please give details of people at risk e.g. known adult, children and nature of risk:

2.4. CRIMINOGENIC FACTORSa) Were any of the following identified in OASys or an Authority Approved System at the start of sentence as related to risk of reoffending?

Accommodation Details:

ETE Details:

Financial Management and Income

Details:


2.2. SFO BACKGROUND INFORMATION

You must ensure that the following information is provided in full before answering the core questions in sections 2.10 – 2.12.

Was there consistent and accurate recording of risk and MAPPA levels between OASys and other case management records? (for example, N- Delius)

Yes No

If No, please provide details:

Is the offender subject to a Violent Offender Order (VOO) or considered for one? Yes No If Yes, please provide details: 2.3. RISK ASSESSMENT OGRS risk of reconviction at start of sentence: 12 months

%24 months %

OGP score at start of sentence: 12 months %

24 months %

OVP score at start of sentence: 12 months %

24 months %

OASys or equivalent risk of serious harm level at start of sentence (start of prison sentence for relevant cases, start of order or licence for other cases) Please see question guidance for details:

select F4 for options


Relationships Details:

Lifestyle and Associates

Details:

Drugs misuse Details:

Alcohol misuse Details:

Emotional wellbeing Details:

Thinking behaviour Details:

Attitudes Details:

Health and other considerations

Details:



b) Were any of the following identified in OASys or an Authority Approved System at the start of sentence as related to risk of serious harm?


ETE Details:


Details:


Lifestyle and associates

Details:

Drugs misuse

Details:




Attitudes Details:

Health and other considerations

Details:



2.5. CHILD SAFEGUARDINGAre there any child protection/safeguarding concerns in relation to the SFO charge(s)? Yes No If Yes, please give detail:

Is a LSCB Serious Case Review being undertaken or expected to be undertaken? Have you been in contact with the LCSB lead? Yes No If Yes, please give detail:

Are there any child protection/safeguarding concerns in relation to any previous offences, or to the offender’s circumstances? Yes No If Yes, please give detail:

2.6. DOMESTIC ABUSEAre there any domestic abuse concerns in relation to the SFO charge(s)? Yes No If Yes, please give detail:

Are there any domestic abuse concerns that were known by the OM or other agencies in relation to any previous offences, or to the offender’s circumstances?

Yes No

If Yes, please give detail:

If there were domestic abuse concerns, was the offender assessed using SARA? (paper or e-SARA)(NB, an incomplete, this question should be answered as: NO.)

Yes No

If Yes, please specify the outcome of the assessment(s): If No, please explain why a SARA assessment was not undertaken:

If there were domestic abuse concerns, was there liaison with Yes No



appropriate Police domestic abuse unit? Comments:

Is a Domestic Homicide Review being undertaken or expected to be undertaken? Have you been in contact with the DHR lead? Yes No If Yes, please give detail:

2.7. SEXUAL OFFENCESAre there any sexual offence concerns in relation to the SFO charge(s)? Yes No If Yes, please give detail:

Are there any sexual offending concerns in relation to the offence(s) for which the offender was under supervision; or to any previous offences?

Yes No

If No, please move on to Offender Management (section 2.8). If Yes, please give detail, and ensure that this issue is fully addressed in your answers to the Review core questions:

Was the offender subject to statutory sex offender registration? Yes No N/A If Yes, please give detail:

Was the offender subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO), a Risk of Sexual Harm Order or a Foreign Travel Order?

Yes No N/A


If the offence for which the offender was subject to supervision was a sexual offence, or if any previous convictions were sexual offences, was the offender assessed using:Risk Matrix 2000? Yes No N/A If Yes, please specify the outcome of the assessment(s):



If No, please explain why a Risk Matrix 2000 assessment was not undertaken:

Other sex offender specific structured risk assessment tools? Yes No N/A Please specify the type(s) of risk assessment tool(s), and the outcome:

2.8. OFFENDER MANAGEMENTWas the case sentenced to over 12 months in custody? Yes No National Offender Management Model tier at start of sentence:

select F4 for optionsDetails (in particular, please specify any changes to the offender’s tier level during the supervision):

What grade was the Responsible Officer? Details:

2.9. DIVERSITYWere any of the following identified as factors relevant to the offender, their offending, or their supervision at any stage leading up to the SFO?

Ethnicity Details:

Sexuality Details:

Gender Details:

Disability Details:

Religious beliefs

Details:



Age Details:

Class Details:

Review Core QuestionsThe Review Core Questions must be answered in full for the period between the start of sentence and the commission of the SFO with supporting factual evidence (not only giving judgment or comment) to support both positive and negative answers.

The Review Core Questions below address the assessment and management applied within the NPS and the activities within the identification of the risk of serious harm for the allocated person that informs the plan for each offender within the CRC. The plan is defined as (i) the identification of the present risk of Serious Harm of that Allocated Person;(ii) the proposed management and mitigation of the [present] risk of Serious Harm if that Allocated Person presents a medium risk of Serious Harm; (iii) the needs of the Allocated Person in the context of the delivery of the Services and the identification of the likelihood of that Applicable Person reoffending; and (iv) the activity to be undertaken with the Allocated Person to deliver that part of the sentence of the court to be served in the community and to reduce the likelihood of reoffending,using (as applicable) an Authority Approved System.

2.10. NPS - RISK ASSESSMENTCRCs - THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE PRESENT RISK OF SERIOUS HARM OF THAT ALLOCATED PERSON2.10.1. Post sentence, was a sufficient assessment of the offender’s risk of re-offending and risk of serious harm completed by the probation provider? Please consider whether the quality of the initial assessment prepared post-sentence included and analysed all available information such as: pre-cons; previous behaviour; safeguarding issues; domestic abuse considerations; ViSOR information; witness or victims’ statements. Did the assessment draw on the OASys risk of serious harm screening completed at the pre-

Yes No N/A



sentence stage and clearly outline what it is the offender may do and what may increase the likelihood of this happening? Does the assessment clearly identify and describe what the assessor thinks might happen, what the possible dangers are, what the harm might be, to whom and in what circumstances?Please provide evidence here:

2.10.2. Was this risk assessment completed on time?Taking account of the timings specified in the Service Level Measure in accordance with the relevant sentence type for both providers of probation services

Yes No N/A

Please provide evidence here:

2.10.3.Completed so as to draw on previous assessments?

Were all relevant assessments that could have been used actually used? If the risk of serious harm screening was accurate and prompted a full risk analysis, how was this taken forward to inform assessment?

Yes No N/A


2.10.4. Did it incorporate, as necessary, information from additional assessments?

For example; Mental Health, CAADA DASH, Domestic Abuse, Child Protection, SARA, RM2000, Risk to Self.

Yes No N/A


2.10.5. Was there any information within the additional assessments that was missing or incomplete? Yes No N/A Please provide evidence here:

2.10.6. Was the assessment communicated to all relevant parties? Yes No N/A Please provide evidence here:



2.10.7 Was the risk assessment reviewed in line with local policy and procedures, in response to changes in circumstances, significant events, and/or where any changes indicated an increased in risk of serious harm and/or re-offending?

Yes No N/A


2.10.8. Was the risk of serious harm and/or re-offending reviewed promptly? Yes No N/A Please provide evidence here:

2.10.9. Did the review provide sufficient analysis for the change in the risk and was the new information given appropriate weighting in the revised risk management plan and risk assessment?

Yes No N/A


CRC cases only – Questions 2.10.10 – 2.10.14

2.10.10. Did the review conclude that the case needed to be referred to NPS? Yes No N/A Please provide evidence here: 2.10.11. If so, was the risk escalation process followed? In accordance with PI 08/2014 Risk Escalation Process for CRC to refer to the NPS.

Yes No N/A

Please provide evidence here: 2.10.12 If so, what was the nature of the concerns which prompted the risk escalation and how were these concerns subsequently addressed?

Yes No N/A

Please provide evidence here: 2.10.13 Did the NPS confirm the high risk of serious harm assessment and assume the management of the case? Yes No N/A




2.10.14. If the NPS did not assess the case to be high, what measures were put in place and practical steps taken to manage the escalated risk of serious harm?

Yes No N/A


2.10.15. What was the quality of these risk assessment reviews? Were the assessments based on evidence, using validated tools, discussion and reflection?Please provide positive and negative information as evidence, in accordance with organisational policy and procedures, HMiP CAG and ROHAA and supported by Good Practice Principles contained within the NOMS Risk of Serious Harm Guidance (2009)

Yes No N/A


2.10.16. Did the assessment reviews evaluate the likelihood of the risk of re-offending occurring and the imminence of the risk of serious harm occurring? Yes No N/A


JudgmentBased on your answers to question above, was risk assessment carried out to a sufficient standard? (Documents that should be used to assist in this judgment include service specifications, service levels and service credits within contracts, HMIP expectations, mandatory instructions, non-mandatory guidance, National Standards, and organisational polices and procedures. Please also provide any good practice identified, to inform the overall judgment on the sufficiency of risk assessment.

Yes No

You must provide evidence to substantiate your answer here:



Analysis of deficiencies/Concerns/Areas of good practicePlease discuss each of the areas identified, exploring the possible reasons. This might include reference to workload, resourcing issues, experience of staff, knowledge and capability of staff, line management oversight, training systems and organisational context. Please also consider the use of areas for improvement, and development, both at an individual and organisational level, if required.

Additional Comments:



2.11. NPS - RISK MANAGEMENT CRCs - THE PROPOSED MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION OF THE [PRESENT] RISK OF SERIOUS HARM IF THAT ALLOCATED PERSON PRESENTS A MEDIUM RISK OF SERIOUS HARM. 2.11.1. Was a sufficient initial risk management plan completed?Please consider whether it clearly evidenced how the assessed risks would be managed. Was the RMP completed in a timely manner and did it identify the range of risks to be managed? Did the plan directly and accurately address the identified risks and outline what will be done by whom and by when? Were the victim safety measures articulated within the plan? Was the contingency plan specific to the risks posed by this offender? Were the actions and controls contained in the plan appropriately intended to protect others from the risks posed by the offender, and did it evidence the offender’s role in managing their own risk.

Yes No


2.11.2. Was the risk management plan implemented effectively and in a timely fashion?Please consider whether there was adequate evidence to demonstrate that the responsible officer (RO) has delivered what contained in the RMP in a holistic and considerate way taking into account the needs of others and the diverse needs of the offender, whilst prioritising the protection of others. Is there evidence that the elements of the RMP that required immediate or prompt action have been acted on accordingly.

Yes No N/A


2.11.3. Did the risk management plan and subsequent risk management practice give sufficient priority to the safety of current and potential victims by the RO and others involved in the management of the case?Please consider whether restrictive measures were adequately enforced; was there a victim safety plan in place? were MARAC/MAPP arrangements used appropriately; is there evidence of the effective use of ViSOR?; was enforcement utilised as a measure to manage the risk of serious harm? is there evidence of effective victim awareness work; did effective and appropriate

Yes No N/A



liaison take place with the VLO/WSW?)Please provide evidence here:

2.11.4. Did the risk management plan and subsequent risk management practice give sufficient priority to the safeguarding of children?Please consider whether there is evidence of effective liaison with children’s social care; attendance at and contribution to any multi-agency meetings; completion and use of CAF; enforcement of SOPO’s and any other restrictions; use of MAPPA processes; the effective use of ViSOR; that the RO has taken an investigative approach.

Yes No N/A


2.11.5. Did the risk management plan and subsequent risk management practice give sufficient priority safeguarding vulnerable adults?Please consider whether there is evidence of effective liaison with adult social care; attendance at and contribution to any multi-agency meetings; completion and use of relevant safeguarding documents; that restrictive measures were in place; use appropriate use of MAPPA processes; the effective use of ViSOR; that the RO has taken an investigative approach; whether enforcement was utilised as a measure to manage the risk of serious harm.

Yes No N/A


2.11.6. Was the sentence imposed by the court and/or the conditions in the post release licence sufficient to enable the probation provider to manage the risks posed by the offender?Please consider whether they took into account the offender’s risks of serious harm and of re-offending, as well as their diverse needs, protecting known or potential victims and a focus on rehabilitation and reducing offending?

Yes No N/A


2.11.7. Was key risk information communicated between Yes No N/A PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014 OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015


all relevant staff and agencies? From the risk analysis and RMP consider who needs what information in order to keep risks others to a minimum in this case; is there evidence that this information has been communicated in a way that is received, understood and appropriately acted upon? Include how the offender was involved in this.Please provide evidence here:

2.11.8. Did this case meet the criteria for MAPPA at any time during this sentence. Yes No N/A Please provide evidence here:

2.11.9. If yes, - for Level 1 cases - did the MAPPA status of the offender enhance the focus of the single agency management and the management of risk of serious harm?

Yes No N/A


2.11.10. Were MAPPA processes (for all levels of management) carried out efficiently and effectively, including the timeliness of referrals and meetings, the overall MAPPA process, decision making, and consideration of disclosure?

Yes No N/A


Judgment Based on your answers to question above, was risk Yes No



management carried out to a sufficient standard? (Documents that should be used to assist in this judgment include service specifications, service levels and service credits within contracts, HMIP expectations, mandatory instructions, non-mandatory guidance, National Standards, and organisational polices and procedures. Please also provide evidence of good practice identified, to inform the overall judgment on the sufficiency of risk management.

You must provide evidence to substantiate your answer here, including taking account of specific comments made in relation to questions:

Analysis of deficiencies\Concerns\Areas of good practicePlease discuss each of the areas identified, exploring the possible reasons. This might include reference to workload, resourcing issues, experience of staff, knowledge and capability of staff, line management oversight, training systems and organisational context. Please also consider the use of areas for improvement, and development, both at an individual and organisational level, if required.




2.12. NPS - OFFENDER MANAGEMENT CRCS - THE NEEDS OF THE ALLOCATED PERSON IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DELIVERY OF THE SERVICES AND THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE LIKELIHOOD OF THAT APPLICABLE PERSON RE-OFFENDING; AND THE ACTIVITY TO BE UNDERTAKEN WITH THE ALLOCATED PERSON TO DELIVER THAT PART OF THE SENTENCE OF THE COURT TO BE SERVED IN THE COMMUNITY AND TO REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD OF RE-OFFENDING, USING (AS APPLICABLE) AN AUTHORITY APPROVED SYSTEM.2.12.1 In custody cases, is there evidence of appropriate pre-release contact and planning with the offender to ensure a positive and effective release?Please consider what contact had taken place and with whom; protocols and policies; MAPPA and other public protection actions taken; accommodation provision and checks; licence conditions; use of curfew/HDC/RoTL/Approved Premises. To consider the NPS/CRC management of relevant cases in accordance with the roles and responsibilities for each provider.

Yes No N/A


2.12.2 Is there evidence of an adequate handover meeting?Please consider whether the minimum set of information was provided as part of the handover, was there evidence of the some level of engagement between the recipient and the current owner of the case'.

Yes No N/A


FOR CASES WHERE THE OFFENDER HAS COMMITTED THE ALLEGED SFO WITHIN 28 DAYS AFTER RELEASE, AND WERE EITHER SUBJECT TO LICENCE SUPERVISION OR WERE RELEASED AT THEIR SED FOLLOWING RECALL – PLEASE ALSO ANSWER QUESTIONS 2.12.3 to 2.12.5

2.12.3 Was the resettlement plan completed within the appropriate timescales? Yes No N/A Please provide evidence here:

2.12.4 Was the resettlement plan of adequate quality that reflected the identified needs? Yes No N/A




2.12.5For those offenders released at their SED, is there evidence that the risk management plan was reviewed prior to release, and the range of risks communicated to those agencies concerned?

Yes No N/A


2.12.6 Was there clear evidence that the offender in this case was allocated an appropriate responsible officer promptly to promote offender engagement? For example, consider allocation immediately post-sentence and refer to any transfers that have taken place; consider the skill base and experience of the allocated OM and the needs of the offender.

Yes No N/A


2.12.7 Was a sufficient needs assessment and sentence plan completed, that was timely and informed? Please consider if there was adequate evidence to demonstrate that the offender was being managed according to an appropriate sentence plan (evidence should also cover in custody where required); did the sentence plan reflect the risk management plan; how were the criminogenic needs identified, assessed and incorporated into the sentence plan; was it clear what work would be undertaken to address the identified needs?.

Yes No N/A


2.12.8 Did the sentence plan contain appropriate outcome-focused objectives and is there evidence that the offender was an active participant in the sentence planning process and that the objectives reflect the goals they have set? Please consider whether the offender was involved in the sentence planning process, consider the SAQ; what interventions were planned and what was hoped to be achieved; were they SMART and did they take into account other considerations relating to diversity. Is there evidence of links to the risk

Yes No N/A



management plan; and, was there evidence that the sentence plan identified protective and restrictive measures.Please provide evidence here:

2.12.9 Were licence conditions and supervision requirements explained to the offender in a way they could understand?

Yes No N/A


2.12.10. Has the sentence plan been appropriately and effectively delivered by the supervising agency, in accordance with risk of serious harm and/or risk of re-offending concerns?Please consider how far the sentence plan objectives were prioritised and appropriately sequenced in accordance with risk of serious harm; referrals to other agencies; commencement/completion of requirements; progress made on each objective; contact levels and engagement and compliance of the offender; evidence that the RO has taken a pro-active role in leading and effectively co-ordinating the management of the offender.

Yes No N/A


2.12.11 Did the responsible officer for the case take a timely and investigative approach in monitoring the offender’s attendance and compliance across all aspects of the sentence and ensure that statutory enforcement action was taken when required?Please consider any steps taken to encourage the offender’s compliance, include monitoring of licence conditions and any other restrictive requirements including SOPO restrictions; were decisions about acceptability of absences acceptable and appropriate?; were sanctions regarding absences taken appropriately, including recall action where there was a deterioration in behaviour but no charge by the police.

Yes No N/A


2.12.12 Was timely and effective action taken in response Yes No N/A PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014 OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015


to absences or other failure to comply?Please consider the effectiveness of the interfaces and information sharing between the CRC and NPS when dealing with the enforcement, both via the courts and in cases of recall. Were all practical, necessary steps taken by each relevant probation, at the correct time, with the most up-to-date information, and the quality of the advice provided.Please provide evidence here:

2.12.13 Were contact and events up-to-date and clearly recorded against the offender’s record according to all protocols and policies? Please consider if all contact activity was reflected in the electronic file and, if in the absence of the RO, another person could easily take over management of this offender based on the information contained within the case records on NDelius or an Authority approved system.

Yes No N/A


2.12.14 Was there evidence of sufficient line management oversight and support in this case?Please consider supervision; appraisals; other meetings; protocols/policies as well as any direct input such as countersigning/risk assessments, informal discussions.

Yes No N/A


2.12.15 Where an offender has been transferred: Is there clear evidence of a sufficient exchange of information on the case for the purpose of transfer? Please consider the full range of circumstances when answering this question, for example, an internal transfer within the team, to the NPS following the risk escalation process; from prison to prison; or geographically when the offender has moved address. Please consider what evidence there is in the planning of the transfer; meetings and liaison between RO’s and the offender; protocols/policies followed; meetings held in response to offenders’ diverse needs; meetings of the right people at the right time etc., consider protocol/policies/local expectations/PI’s; can the contents of the plans be delivered by the new

Yes No N/A



agency/area?; have all risk checks been completed prior to any moves? Consideration should also be given to the interface between the NPS and CRCs in line with the allocation guidance document. Is there a clear and evidenced review of the risk and sentence plans in response to the changes prompting transfer, including progress/achievement of objectives, recall/breach and taking into account all the current circumstances and the offenders needs – did this take place pre and post transfer?Please provide evidence here:

JudgmentBased on your answers to question above, was offender management a sufficient standard? (Documents that should be used to assist in this judgment include service specifications, service levels and service credits within contracts, HMIP expectations, mandatory instructions, non-mandatory guidance, National Standards, and organisational polices and procedures. Please also provide evidence of good practice identified, to inform the overall judgment on the sufficiency of offender management.

Yes No


Analysis of deficiencies\Concerns\Areas of good practicePlease discuss each of the areas identified, exploring the possible reasons. This might include reference to workload, resourcing issues, experience of staff, knowledge and capability of staff, line management oversight, training systems and organisational context. Please also consider the use of areas for improvement, and development, both at an individual and organisational level, if required.






2.13. SFO REVIEW – FINAL QUESTIONS

The Review demonstrates that there was a sufficient standard of risk assessment or sufficient identification of the present risk of serious harm of that allocated person:

Yes No

The Review demonstrates that there was a sufficient standard of risk management or that the proposed management and mitigation of the [present] risk of serious harm if that allocated person presents a medium risk of serious harm was sufficient:

Yes No

The Review demonstrates that there was a sufficient standard of offender management or that the needs of the allocated person in the context of the delivery of the services and the identification of the likelihood of that applicable person re-offending; and the activity to be undertaken with the allocated person to deliver that part of the sentence of the court to be served in the community and to reduce the likelihood of re-offending, using (as applicable) an authority approved system, was sufficient:

Yes No





2.14. SFO REVIEW – GOOD PRACTICEUse the table below to summarise any areas of good practice which were identified during the Review.

Good practiceReview Question number

How will the good practice be highlighted and taken forward?

By whom (grade and role)

Timescale (include dates)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15



2.15. ACTION PLANPlease use the table below to summarise the actions that will be taken to address any deficiencies that have been identified. The actions should be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-bound). They may include referral of concerns to other bodies where appropriate.

Learning PointReview Question number

Action to address the Learning Point By Whom

By When (give date)

How the impact of the action taken will be reported and evaluated

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15



Has this SFO Review raised any other policy or practice issues about the effective management of offenders under supervision or is there any information about initiatives/achievements within the NPS or CRC that is needed to put the action plan in context?

Yes No

Please add any comments here:

This section must be signed off by the Chief Executive of the CRC or NPS Deputy Director, Public Protection lead or their delegate, before the completed Review is forwarded to the OMPPG SFO Team. If the Review has identified exceptionally poor practice please indicate the consideration that has been given to initiating capability or disciplinary procedures, unless already stated above.

Name:

Grade: Probation Provider: Date:



OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 115

Annex F

Annex F

Offender Name:


The NPS and the CRC must:

Ensure the Review is fully completed, by a manager not involved in the line management of the case, and sent to the OMPPG SFO Team within 3 months of the initial notification;

Assess the quality of the risk assessment, risk management, and offender management of the case, and where necessary the reasons for any deficiencies and what will be done to address them, as well as identifying good practice;

Where applicable, provide updated details of the SFO if they were not available during the Notification submission, or if further revised information is available.

Ensure that if the case has been supervised by more than one provider, that the SFO review covers all work undertaken.

Ensure that the Review is signed off by The NPS Deputy Director or a delegated senior manager or the CRC Chief Executive and delegated senior manager (as the case may be) (not the manager who completed the review) before it is sent to the OMPPG SFO Team, with the Deputy Director NPS (if relevant) OR NOMS CRC account manager.

Review completed by (Name and Grade):

Name:

Grade:

Telephone Number:

Email Address:


REVIEW FOR LOW RISK OF SERIOUS HARM OFFENDERS SUBJECT TO COMMUNITY OR SUSPENDED SENTENCE ORDER

SUPERVISION (NOT LICENCE CASES)

SFO TIMELINESS


Review Submitted Date




InterviewsAll interviews must be noted and the notes retained. Please enter under “Subjects and issues discussed”, only the main topics that were discussed (e.g. sickness absence, training).Please state role and grade of staff involved in the management of case, who were not interviewed, with reasons for their absence (such as staff on long term sick leave.)** Individual staff names should not be included **Grade and role of the interviewee

Identified role type (e.g. OM1, SPO, etc)

Date(s) of interview

Subjects and issues discussed

Please complete section 2.1. Case Chronology as a separate attachment and insert here. Please continue to complete the review at section 2.2.



2.2. SFO BACKGROUND INFORMATIONYou must ensure that the following information is provided in full before answering the core questions in sections 2.10 – 2.12.

2.3 Risk Assessment

OGRS risk of reconviction at start of sentence: 12 months %

24 months %

NA

OGP score at start of sentence: 12 months %

24 months %

NA

OVP score at start of sentence: 12 months %

24 months %

NA

Oasys risk of serious harm at start of sentence: select F4 for options

2.4. CRIMINOGENIC FACTORSa) Were any of the following identified at the start of sentence as related to risk of reoffending?


ETE Details:


Details:


Lifestyle and Associates

Details:

Drugs misuse Details:




Attitudes Details:



Health and other considerations Details:

2.5. CHILD SAFEGUARDINGAre there any child protection/safeguarding concerns in relation to the SFO charge(s)? Yes No


Is a LSCB Serious Case Review being undertaken or expected to be undertaken? Yes No


Are there any child protection/safeguarding concerns that were known by the OM or other agencies in relation to any previous offences, or to the offender’s circumstances?

Yes No


2.6. DOMESTIC ABUSEAre there any domestic abuse concerns in relation to the SFO charge(s)? Yes No If Yes, please give detail:

Are there any domestic abuse concerns that were known by the OM or other agencies in relation to any previous offences, or to the offender’s circumstances?

Yes No


If there were domestic abuse concerns, was the offender assessedusing SARA? (paper or e-SARA) (NB, an incomplete, this question should be answered as: NO.)

Yes No N/A

If Yes, please specify the outcome of the assessment(s):

If No, please explain why a SARA assessment was not undertaken:

If there were domestic abuse concerns, was there liaison with the appropriate Police DV unit, initially and at regular intervals? Yes No N/A

Comments:

Is a CSP Domestic Homicide Review being undertaken or expected to be undertaken? Have you been in contact with the DHR lead?

Yes No N/A



Comments:

2.7. SEXUAL OFFENCESAre there any sexual offence concerns in relation to the SFO charge(s)? Yes No If Yes, please give detail:

Are there any sexual offending concerns in relation to the offence(s) for which the offender was under supervision; or to any previous offences? Yes No

If No, please move on to Offender Management (section 2.8). If Yes, please give detail, and ensure that this issue is fully addressed in your answers to the Review core questions:

Was the offender subject to statutory sex offender registration? Yes No N/A If Yes, please give detail:

Was the offender subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO), a Risk of Sexual Harm Order or a Foreign Travel Order?

Yes No N/A


If the offence for which the offender was subject to supervision was a sexual offence, or if any previous convictions were sexual offences, was the offender assessed using:Risk Matrix 2000? Yes No N/A If Yes, please specify the outcome of the assessment(s):

If No, please explain why a Risk Matrix 2000 assessment was not undertaken:

Other sex offender specific structured risk assessment tools? Yes No N/A Please specify the type(s) of risk assessment tool(s), and the outcome:



2.8. OFFENDER MANAGEMENTNational Offender Management Model tier at start of sentence:

select F4 for optionsDetails (in particular, please specify any changes to the offender’s tier level during the supervision):

What grade was the Responsible Officer? Details:

2.9. DIVERSITYWere any of the following identified as factors relevant to the offender, their offending, or their supervision at any stage leading up to the SFO?

Ethnicity Details:

Sexuality Details:

Gender Details:

Disability Details:

Religious beliefs

Details:

Age Details:

Class Details:



Review Core Questions

The Review Core Questions must be answered in full for the period between the start of sentence and the commission of the SFO with supporting factual evidence (not only giving judgment or comment) to support both positive and negative answers.

The Review Core Questions below address the assessment and management applied within the NPS and the activities within the identification of the risk of serious harm for the allocated person that informs the plan for each offender within the CRC

The Review Core Questions below address the assessment and management applied within the NPS and the activities within the identification of the risk of serious harm for the allocated person that informs the plan for each offender within the CRC. The plan is defined as (i) the identification of the present risk of Serious Harm of that Allocated Person;(ii) the proposed management and mitigation of the [present] risk of Serious Harm if that Allocated Person presents a medium risk of Serious Harm; (iii) the needs of the Allocated Person in the context of the delivery of the Services and the identification of the likelihood of that Applicable Person reoffending; and (iv) the activity to be undertaken with the Allocated Person to deliver that part of the sentence of the court to be served in the community and to reduce the likelihood of reoffending,using (as applicable) an Authority Approved System.

2.10. NPS - RISK ASSESSMENT CRCs - THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE PRESENT RISK OF SERIOUS HARM OF THAT ALLOCATED PERSON2.10.1. Post sentence, was a sufficient assessment of the offender’s risk of re-offending and risk of serious harm completed by the probation provider? Please consider whether the quality of the initial assessment prepared post-sentence included and analysed all available information such as: pre-cons; previous behaviour; safeguarding issues; domestic abuse considerations; ViSOR information; witness or victims’ statements. Did the assessment draw on the OASys risk of serious harm screening completed at the pre-sentence stage and clearly outline what it is the offender may do and what may increase the likelihood of this happening? Does the assessment clearly identify and describe what the assessor thinks might happen, what the possible dangers are, what the harm might be, to whom and in what circumstances?

Yes No N/A


2.10.2. Was this risk assessment completed on time?Taking account of the timings specified in the Service Level Measure in accordance with the relevant sentence type for both providers of probation services

Yes No N/A




2.10.3.Completed so as to draw on previous assessments?Were all relevant assessments that could have been used actually used? If the risk of serious harm screening was accurate and prompted a full risk analysis, how was this taken forward to inform assessment?

Yes No N/A

Please provide evidence here: 2.10.4. Did it incorporate, as necessary, information from additional assessments?For example; Mental Health, CAADA DASH, Domestic Abuse, Child Protection, SARA, RM2000, Risk to Self.

Yes No N/A

Please provide evidence here: 2.10.5. Was there any information within the additional assessments that was missing or incomplete? Yes No N/A

Please provide evidence here: 2.10.6. Was the assessment communicated to all relevant

parties? Yes No N/A

Please provide evidence here: 2.10.7 Was the risk assessment reviewed in line with local policy and procedures, in response to changes in circumstances, significant events, and/or where any changes indicated an increased in risk of serious harm and/or re-offending?

Yes No N/A

Please provide evidence here: 2.10.8. Was the risk of serious harm and/or re-offending reviewed promptly? Yes No N/A

Please provide evidence here: 2.10.9. Did the review provide sufficient analysis for the change in the risk and was the new information given appropriate weighting in the revised risk management plan and risk assessment?

Yes No N/A


CRC cases only – Questions 2.10.10 – 2.10.14

2.10.10. Did the review conclude that the case needed to be referred to NPS? Yes No N/A




2.10.11. If so, was the risk escalation process followed? In accordance with PI 08/2014 Risk Escalation Process for CRC to refer to the NPS.

Yes No N/A

Please provide evidence here: 2.10.12 If so, what was the nature of the concerns which prompted thee risk escalation and how were these concerns subsequently addressed?

Yes No N/A

Please provide evidence here: 2.10.13 Did the NPS confirm the high risk of serious harm assessment and assume the management of the case? Yes No N/A


2.10.14. If the NPS did not assess the case to be high, what measures were put in place and practical steps taken to manage the escalated risk of serious harm?

Yes No N/A


2.10.15. What was the quality of theses risk assessment reviews? Were the assessments based on evidence, using validated tools, discussion and reflection?Please provide positive and negative information as evidence, in accordance with organisational policy and procedures, HMiP CAG and ROHAA and supported by Good Practice Principles contained within the NOMS Risk of Serious Harm Guidance (2009)

Yes No N/A


2.10.16. Did the assessment reviews evaluate the likelihood of the risk of re-offending occurring and the imminence of the risk of serious harm occurring? Yes No N/A


JudgmentBased on your answers to question above, was risk assessment carried out to a sufficient standard? (Documents that should be used to assist in this judgment include service specifications, service levels and service credits within contracts, HMIP expectations, mandatory instructions, non-mandatory guidance, National Standards, and organisational polices and procedures. Please also provide any good practice identified, to inform the overall judgment on the sufficiency of risk assessment.

Yes No




Analysis of deficienciesPlease discuss each of the areas identified, exploring the possible reasons. This might include reference to workload, resourcing issues, experience of staff, knowledge and capability of staff, line management oversight, training systems and organisational context. Please also consider the use of areas for improvement, and development, both at an individual and organisational level, if required.




2.11. NPS - RISK MANAGEMENT CRCs - THE PROPOSED MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION OF THE [PRESENT] RISK OF SERIOUS HARM.2.11.1. If there were any known significant incidents of concern or deterioration in behaviour, were they managed appropriately throughout the sentence?Was there a review of risk where appropriate, liaison with UPW, use of relevant enforcement/sanctions, and line manager, decision made to re-tier and/or increase frequency of contact?

Yes No N/A

Please provide evidence of action taken in response to any key events or changes:

2.11.2. Was the key information communicated between all relevant staff and agencies?Is there evidence that this information has been communicated in a way that is received, understood and appropriately acted upon? Include how the offender was involved in this.

Yes No N/A


JudgmentBased on your answers to questions 1 and 2 was the risk management carried out to a sufficient standard? (Documents that should be used to assist in this judgment include the OMI Toolkit, National Standards, Probation Instructions, Policy and practice guidelines)

Yes No


Analysis of deficiencies \Concerns\Areas of good practiceWhat were the reasons and/or contributory factors for any deficiencies in risk management?Please discuss each of the deficiencies identified, exploring the possible reasons. (This might include workload and resourcing issues, experience, knowledge and capability of staff, line management oversight, training, systems and organisational context):




2.12. NPS - OFFENDER MANAGEMENT CRCs - THE NEEDS OF THE ALLOCATED PERSON IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DELIVERY OF THE SERVICES AND THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE LIKELIHOOD OF THAT APPLICABLE PERSON RE-OFFENDING; AND THE ACTIVITY TO BE UNDERTAKEN WITH THE ALLOCATED PERSON TO DELIVER THAT PART OF THE SENTENCE OF THE COURT TO BE SERVED IN THE COMMUNITY AND TO REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD OF RE-OFFENDING, USING (AS APPLICABLE) AN AUTHORITY APPROVED SYSTEM.

2.12.1 Is there clear evidence that the offender in this case was allocated an appropriate responsible officer promptly to promote offender engagement? (please consider allocation immediately post-sentence and refer to any transfers that have taken place; consider the skill base and experience of the allocated OM and the needs of the offender)

Yes No N/A


2.12.2 Was a sufficient needs assessment and sentence plan completed, that was timely and informed?

Please consider if there was evidence adequately to demonstrate the offender was being managed according to an appropriate plan (evidence should also cover phase 2 where required); was it informed by the assessed risks of harm and likelihood of reoffending? Was there an assessment of the offender’s community integration and social skills such as skills for life, ETE needs, family/community support, accommodation, health needs? Was the offender adequately engaged with the development of the plan.

Yes No N/A


2.12.3 Did the sentence plan contain appropriate outcome-focused objectives and is there evidence that the offender was an active participant in the sentence planning process and that the objectives reflect the goals they have set? Please consider whether the offender was involved in the sentence planning process, consider the SAQ; what interventions were planned and what was hoped to be achieved; were they SMART and did they take into account other considerations relating to diversity. Is there evidence of links to the risk management plan; and, was there evidence that the sentence plan identified protective and restrictive measures.

Yes No N/A


2.12.4. Were supervision requirements explained to the offender in a way they could understand? Yes No N/A




2.12.5. Was the sentence plan appropriately and effectively delivered?Is there clear evidence of a review of the sentence plan in response to changes, including progress/achievement of objectives, recall/breach and taking into account all the current circumstances and the offenders needs? Consider if the SP focuses on further work to be done with the offender; encourages the use of community resources and community integration etc.

Yes No N/A


2.12.6. Did the responsible officer for the case take a timely and investigative approach in monitoring the offender’s attendance and compliance across all aspects of the sentence and ensure that statutory enforcement action was taken when required?Please consider any steps taken to encourage the offender’s compliance, include monitoring of licence conditions and any other restrictive requirements including SOPO restrictions; were decisions about acceptability of absences acceptable and appropriate?; were sanctions regarding absences taken appropriately, including recall action where there was a deterioration in behaviour but no charge by the police.

Yes No N/A


2.12.7. Was timely, effective and appropriate action taken in response to absences or other failure to comply? Yes No N/A


2.12.8 Were contact and events up-to-date and clearly recorded against the offender’s record according to all protocols and policies?(consider if, in the absence of the OM, another person could easily take over management of this offender based on the records etc)

Yes No N/A


2.12.9Where an offender has been transferred:Is there clear evidence of a sufficient exchange of information on the case for the purpose of transfer? Please consider the full range of circumstances when answering this question, for example, an internal transfer within the team, to the NPS following the risk escalation process; from prison to prison; or geographically when the offender has moved address. Please consider what evidence there is in the planning of the transfer; meetings and liaison between RO’s and the offender; protocols/policies followed; meetings held in response to offenders’ diverse needs; meetings of the right people at the right time etc.,

Yes No N/A



consider protocol/policies/local expectations/PI’s; can the contents of the plans be delivered by the new agency/area?; have all risk checks been completed prior to any moves? Consideration should also be given to the interface between the NPS and CRCs in line with the allocation guidance document. Is there a clear and evidenced review of the risk and sentence plans in response to the changes prompting transfer, including progress/achievement of objectives, recall/breach and taking into account all the current circumstances and the offenders needs – did this take place pre and post transfer?Please provide evidence here:

JudgmentBased on your answers to questions above, was the offender management carried out to a sufficient standard? (Documents that should be used to assist in this judgment include the OMI case assessment guidance, National Standards, Probation Instructions, policy and practice guidelines)

Yes No


Analysis of deficiencies\Concerns\Areas of good practiceWhat were the reasons and/or contributory factors for any deficiencies in Offender Management?Please discuss each of the deficiencies identified, exploring the possible reasons. (This might include workload and resourcing issues, experience, knowledge and capability of staff, line management oversight, training, systems and organisational context)


2.13.1 SFO REVIEW – FINAL QUESTIONSAre there any outstanding issues or concerns not covered in the core questions which relate to the management of the case and link to important learning?

Yes No

Please provide details here:



2.13.2 FINAL JUDGMENTS

The Review demonstrates that there was a sufficient standard of risk assessment or

sufficient identification of the present risk of serious harm of that allocated person:

Yes No

The Review demonstrates that there was a sufficient standard of risk management or

that the proposed management and mitigation of the [present] risk of serious harm was sufficient:

Yes No

The Review demonstrates that there was a sufficient standard of offender management or that

the needs of the allocated person in the context of the delivery of the services and the identification of the likelihood of that applicable person re-offending; and the activity to be undertaken with the allocated person to deliver that part of the sentence of the court to be served in the community and to reduce the likelihood of re-offending, using (as applicable) an authority approved system, was sufficient:

Yes No



2.14. SFO REVIEW – GOOD PRACTICEUse the table below to summarise any areas of good practice which were identified during the Review.

Good practiceReview Question number


By whom (grade and role)


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12



2.15. ACTION PLANPlease use the table below to summarise the actions that will be taken to address any deficiencies that have been identified. The actions should be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-bound). They may include referral of concerns to other bodies where appropriate.

Learning PointReview Question number

Action to address the Learning Point By Whom By When

(give date)How the impact of the action taken will be reported and evaluated

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12



13

Has this SFO Review raised any other policy or practice issues about the effective management of offenders under supervision or is there any information about initiatives/achievements within the NPS or CRC that is needed to put the action plan in context?

Yes No


This section must be signed off by the Chief Executive of the CRC or NPS Deputy Director, Public Protection lead or their delegate, before the completed Review is forwarded to the OMPPG SFO Team. If the Review has identified exceptionally poor practice please indicate the consideration that has been given to initiating capability or disciplinary procedures, unless already stated above.

Name:

Grade: Probation Provider: Date:




SFO TEAM - OMPPGGrenadier House, 99-105 Horseferry Road

London, SW1P 2DD

Email [email protected]

Serious Further Offence (SFO ) Review Document PRISONS

Offender Name:

Prison Service Area: OMPPG SFO reference number:

SFO single point of administrative contact: Telephone number: Email address:

Please refer to the latest SFO Operational Guidance (as published on EPIC) when completing all sections of this document.




The following criteria must be met:

Offender eligibility

The following types of offender are eligible:

Offenders who were subject to Release On Temporary Licence (ROTL) on the date of the SFO;

Offenders under supervision as above, who are charged with an equivalent eligible offence in another jurisdiction;

Offenders meeting the above criteria, who have allegedly committed an SFO but have died prior to being charged.

Offence Eligibility

The list of eligible offences comprises serious violent and serious sexual offences (as described in Annex C of PI xx/2015), or an equivalent eligible offence in another jurisdiction.

Once a case has been checked to see that both the offender and the offence eligibility criteria are met, it will qualify for SFO Review.

For every qualifying SFO, the following must take place:

The prison Governor notifies the DCC of the alleged SFO; The prison Governor ensures the SFO Team receives the SFO Notification form within 10

working days of the first court appearance and the Review is then commenced; The SFO Team is informed of any case which is likely to attract national public interest

immediately by telephone and email; Reviewing manager (as nominated by the DDC) will complete the SFO Review,

interviewing relevant establishment and community staff in line with required timescales (submission date to be provided by the SFO team);

SFO team will complete the quality assurance process and a feedback letter will be provided to the DDC, copied to DD or CEO or PP lead for the probation provider.


NOTIFICATION


OFFENDERS DETAILS

Offender name: SFO reference number:

Alias(es): SFO - Offence Details Prison Number: Date of Birth:

Ethnic Origin: Gender: Male Female

REVIEW DETAILSPrison Service Region

HMP/ YOI REVIEW COMPLETED BY Full Name: Grade:

Department: Email address

Telephone Number:

InterviewsAll interviews must be noted and the notes retained. Please enter under topics, only the main topics that were discussed (e.g. sickness absence, training).

INTERVIEW LOG

Grade and role of the interviewee

Identifier (e.g. OS, CA, Gov, etc.)

Date of interview

Topics


REVIEW


2.1 – CASE CHRONOLOGY Please provide a concise summary of key significant events in custody, between the start of sentence and release on post release licence, together with your observations, including where applicable;

Transfers- paying particular attention to moves to open conditions or returns to closed conditions

Perceived, alleged or known deterioration in behaviour Adjudications, IEPs, SIRs Assessments/ reviews of OASys, including Sentence Plans (from initial onwards) and

Risk Management Plans, and changes to risk levels Escalation of risk and whether appropriate liaison took place between CRC and NPS

(where relevant). Information for or attendance at sentence planning boards or parole hearings Commencement, quality and completion of interventions (accredited and non-

accredited) ROTL, HDC assessments ROTL events including breaches or failures MAPPA or other risk management meetings- IRMT Reference to future SFO victim Contact with outside agencies if relevant Information sharing including SIRs and LISP 4s Contact with OM whilst in custody

CASE CHRONOLOGYDate Event Reviewing Manager Comments



COURT INFORMATION

Index Offence Court Sentencing

Date of Conviction

Date of Sentence

Length of Sentence Remand Date

Any other information please specify:

MAPPA and CPPC INFORMATION At the start of sentence, was the offender a ‘relevant sexual and/or violent offender’ for MAPPA eligibility purposes? Yes No If yes, which category?

If yes, was this correctly identified in prison?Is the offender, or has the offender previously been registered as a Critical Public Protection Case? If yes, please specify Yes No

If yes was this correctly identified in prison?

PROLIFIC AND OTHER PRIORITY OFFENDERS Was the offender identified as a PPO by the establishment?If yes, please specify: Yes No

Was the prison establishment informed that the offender was a PPO Case? If yes how was this done, please specify

Yes No

2.2 SFO BACKGROUND INFORMATION

You must ensure that the following information is provided in full before answering the core questions in sections 2.10 – 2.12.

2.3 RISK ASSESSMENT OGRS risk of reconviction at start of sentence:

12 months % 24 months %



OASys likelihood of reconviction score at start of sentence: OASys risk of serious harm level at start of sentence

Details:

Please tick the relevant box provided in the breakdown in the table below:

Children Public Known adult Staff Prisoners

Risk in community

Risk in custody

Risk in community

Risk in custody

Risk in community

Risk in custody

Risk in community

Risk in custody

Risk in custody

V High

High

Med

Low

2.4 CRIMINOGENIC FACTORS

Were any of the following identified in OASys at the start of sentence as related to risk of re-offending? i.e. to the right of the line on OASysAccommodation Emotional wellbeing Drugs misuse Relationships Health and other considerations Alcohol misuse Attitudes Lifestyle and associates Thinking / behaviour Education Training and Employment Finance management and income DETAILS

Were any of the following identified in OASys at the start of sentence as related to risk of serious harm? Accommodation Emotional wellbeing Drugs misuse Relationships Health and other considerations Alcohol misuse Attitudes Lifestyle and associates Thinking / behaviour Education Training and Employment Finance management and income DETAILS

2.5 CHILD PROTECTIONAre there any child protection concerns noted in relation to the index or previous offences, or to the offender’s previous circumstances? If yes, specify:

- was the offender identified as presenting a risk to children?

Yes No



- were appropriate measures put into place in response to the risks?

Were there any child protection concerns raised by the offender’s behaviour while in custody? If Yes specify: Yes No

Were Social Care/Children’s Services, the Probation Service and the Police informed of the offender’s ROTL proposal prior to the date of temporary release? Please specify:

Yes No

2.6 DOMESTIC ABUSEAre there any domestic abuse concerns in relation to the previous and index offences, or to the offender’s circumstances and behaviour in custody? If yes specify:

Yes No

If there were domestic abuse concerns, was the offender assessed using SARA in custody?N/A

Yes Please specify the outcome of the assessment(s):

No Please explain why a SARA assessment was not undertaken:

If there were any domestic abuse concerns, was there liaison with the appropriate

Offender Manager and Police domestic abuse unit, either ahead of, or as part of the ROTL consideration process.

Were there any applicable court orders in relation to protection of public/victims from harassment?

Was appropriate action taken to restrict contact?

Yes No N/A

Comments:

2.7 SEXUAL OFFENCESAre there any sexual offending concerns in relation to the previous or index offence(s), or behaviour in prison? Yes No

If no, please move on to Offender Management (section 2.8). If yes, please specify, and ensure that this issue is fully addressed in your answers to the Review core questions: Was the offender subject to the statutory sex offences registration requirements?If yes, please provide details including dates

Yes No

Was the offender informed when temporarily released from custody for ROTL? If yes specify: Yes No



Was the offender subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO), a Risk of Sexual Harm Order or a Foreign Travel Order? If yes specify, including dates:

Yes No

Was the offender on any sexual offender programmes or other accredited programmes while in custody? If yes specify: Yes No

While in custody did the offender refuse to attend any programmes? If yes specify: Yes No

Were there any concerns raised by any members of staff relating to the offenders sexual behaviour while in custody? If yes specify: Yes No

If the index or if any previous convictions were sexual offences, was the offender assessed using: Risk Matrix 2000? Yes No N/A Please specify dates and the outcome of the assessment(s): Please explain why a Risk Matrix 2000 assessment was not undertaken: Other sex offender specific structured risk assessment tools? If yes. provide outcome Yes No

2.8 OFFENDER MANAGEMENT Was the case in scope for what is now called Offender Management Phases 2 or 3? Yes No

Was a prison based offender supervisor allocated whilst the offender was in custody? Was information on custodial progress shared with the OM please provide details below:

Yes No

Was the Offender Manager in regular contact with the Offender Supervisor while the offender was in custody? Was information relating to risk shared at appropriate points? Was there good communication on MAPPA arrangements, including notification of levels when set and meetings planned? Specify Details:

Yes No

2.9 DIVERSITY Were any of the following identified as factors relevant to the offender, their offending, or their time in custody?



Ethnicity Sexuality Gender Disability Religious beliefs Age Class

Please specify if you have ticked any of the above boxes:

REVIEW CORE QUESTIONS The Review Core Questions (2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) must be answered in full for the period whilst the offender was in custody, with supporting comments, whether the answers are positive or negative.

2.10 RISK ASSESSMENT

This whole section leads a reviewer to focus on OASys. A prison review should reflect the fact that in scope (Phases 2 and 3) offenders OASys is the responsibility of the OM. It should also allow for comment on local risk screening, and/or Enhanced Case Monitoring arrangements which are in place to identify risks, communicated them and ensure that appropriate restrictions/limitations are in place from reception.Also – OASys is not the only risk assessment used in custody. For ‘Restricted’ ROTL cases, please also consider the Psychology case file review completed on arrival at the open prison.

1. Was a satisfactory risk of harm screening undertaken at the start of sentence, using all of the information available at the time?

Yes No N/A Please add comments here:

2. If the risk of harm screening identified the need for a full OASys risk of harm assessment, was that full assessment clear, accurate and undertaken in the appropriate timescale?


3. Where required, was a comprehensive risk management plan completed using the appropriate format and within the required timescale?


4. Were the reviews up-to-date, taking into account all available information, and completed satisfactorily and on time?




5. Did prison staff (including security, wing officers, and others) contribute effectively to risk assessment and reviews?


6. Were recommendations for allocation (within the prison estate, or within the prison) appropriate, given the level and nature of the risk posed by the offender?


7. – CRC only questionIf risk escalation to the NPS was required, what was the outcome, and what was the impact on the management of the case

Please add comments here:

Based on your answers to the questions 1-7 above, were risk assessments and reviews carried out to a sufficient standard? (Documents that should be used to assist in this judgment include service specifications, service levels and service credits within contracts, HMIP expectations, mandatory instructions, non-mandatory guidance, National Standards, and organisational polices and procedures. Please also provide any good practice identified, to inform the overall judgment on the sufficiency of risk assessment).Yes No You must provide evidence to substantiate your answer:

What were the reasons and/or contributory factors for any deficiencies in risk assessment?

Additional comments:

2.11 RISK MANAGEMENT

1. Was the OASys Risk Management Plan implemented effectively and in a timely fashion?


2. Were there any significant incidents of concern or deterioration in behaviour during the period in custody (include in what period the incidents occurred)?


3. Was risk of harm managed appropriately throughout the custodial period, particularly following any significant incident or deterioration in behaviour, using relevant sanctions where appropriate?




4. Was there effective communication about risk, between departments in Prison, and or between departments in Prison and others involved in the case? This should be linked to interdepartmental risk management meetings.


5. Did the prison remind and/or update the OM of the release dates of those managed at MAPPA Level 2 or 3? Note here that the prison can only remind of release dates for MAPPA 2 or 3 if they are aware that a MAPPA level has been set.


6. If the offender was subject to MAPPA levels 2 or 3 management, did the Offender Supervisor and all other relevant staff contribute effectively from the prison establishment to MAPPA, including attendance at external risk management meetings and/or provision of written reports as appropriate?


7. Was effective action taken to promote victim safety where there was a direct victim/known person at risk and/or if there were restrictive/prohibitive conditions?


Based on your answers to questions 1- 7 above, was the risk management carried out to a sufficient standard? (Documents that should be used to assist in this judgment include service specifications, service levels and service credits within contracts, HMIP expectations, mandatory instructions, non-mandatory guidance, National Standards, and organisational polices and procedures. Please also provide any good practice identified, to inform the overall judgment on the sufficiency of risk management).Yes No You must provide evidence to substantiate your answer:

What were the reasons and/or contributory factors for any deficiencies in risk management?


2.12 ROTL PROCESSES AND PRACTICE

1. Was the offender a “Restricted ROTL” case?

Yes No Please add comments here:

2. If the offender was in open conditions, how long had he/she been there before the ROTL event that led to the SFO?


3. When was the offender’s first ROTL release?




4. How many occasions of the following ROTL types has the offender successfully completed?

Supervised ROTL:

RDR:

ROR:

5. Were all approved ROTL events clearly linked to objectives within the sentence plan?


6. In Processing ROTL applications, were the requirements of PSIxxxx clearly followed in full? If there were any local assumptions or variations applied, please identify.


7. Was the first ROTL Board decision (not necessarily for the ROTL when the SFO allegedly occurred) based on full agreement by all report writers and contributors?


8. Were subsequent ROTL board decisions based on full agreement by all report writers and contributors?


9. If a “Restricted ROTL” case, was there evidence that the relevant notes and information arising from the Enhanced Case Monitoring approach were utilised in considering ROTL?


10.Have there been any incidents of ROTL failure, including any minor infringement, during any period of ROTL? Please provided details (include a review of Mercury and NOMIS case notes, in case a minor infringement was not formally recorded as a Temporary Release Failure).


11.What was the agreed management response to any known ROTL failure (including any minor infringement)?


Based on your answers to questions 1- 11 above, were the ROTL processes and practice carried out to a sufficient standard? (Documents that should be used to assist in this judgment include mandatory instructions, non-mandatory guidance, and organisational polices and procedures. Please also provide any good practice identified, to inform the overall judgment on the sufficiency of ROTL processes and practice).Yes No You must provide evidence to substantiate your answer:

What were the reasons and/or contributory factors for any deficiencies in risk management?




2.13 OFFENDER MANAGEMENT 1. Did the OASys assessment at the start of sentence accurately identify the criminogenic

factors exhibited by the offender?


2. Did the sentence plan contain appropriate outcome-focused objectives and is there evidence that the offender was an active participant in the sentence planning process and that the objectives reflect the goals set?


3. Is there evidence of appropriate pre-release contact and planning with the offender to ensure a positive and effective release? (Please include comments of both prison and probation contact).


4. Was an Offender Supervisor allocated within the prison establishment in a timely manner?


5. What was the frequency and quality of the offender supervisor engagement with the offender during the custodial period?


6. Has the sentence plan been appropriately and effectively delivered by the prison, working with the supervising agency, in accordance with risk of serious harm and/or risk of re-offending concerns? (Please include details of responses to any non-compliance with sentence plan interventions).


7. If the case had been transferred in from another Prison, was it a progressive transfer, and was the transfer timely and appropriately handled?


8. Prior to release on ROTL how were the objectives and conditions explained to the offender in a way that they could understand?


9. Were contact and events up-to-date and clearly recorded against the offender’s record according to all protocols and policies?


Based on your answers to the questions 1-9 above, was offender management practice delivered to a sufficient standard? (Documents that should be used to assist in this judgment include service specifications, service levels and service credits within



contracts, HMIP expectations, mandatory instructions, non-mandatory guidance, National Standards, and organisational polices and procedures. Please also provide any good practice identified, to inform the overall judgment on the sufficiency of offender management).Yes No You must provide evidence to substantiate your answer:

What were the reasons and/or contributory factors for any deficiencies in Offender Management?


2.14 REVIEW – FINAL QUESTIONS1. The Review demonstrates that there was a sufficient standard of risk assessment: Yes No

2. The Review demonstrates that there was a sufficient standard of risk management: Yes No

3. The Review demonstrates that there was a sufficient standard of ROTL practice Yes No

4. The Review demonstrates that there was a sufficient standard of offender management: Yes No



2.14 SFO REVIEW – GOOD PRACTICE

Use the table to summarise any areas of good practice which were identified during the Review.

Good practiceReview

question number


By whom (grade &

role)




2.15 ACTION PLAN

Please use the table below to summarise the actions that will be taken to address any deficiencies that have been identified. The actions should be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-bound). They may include referral of concerns to other bodies where appropriate.

Learning pointReview

question number

Action to address the Learning Point

By whom Date How the impact of the action

taken will be checked

Has this SFO Review raised any other issues about the effective management of offenders under supervision or is there any information about Initiatives/achievements in your prison/Area that is needed to put the action plan in context? Yes No

Please add any comments here: This section must be signed off by the countersigning officer, before the completed Review is forwarded to the PPU SFO Team. If the Review has identified exceptionally poor practice please indicate the consideration that has been given to initiating capability or disciplinary procedures, unless already stated above.Full Grad Date:



Name: e:

ACTION PLAN UPDATE

Offender Name: SFO Reference

Number:

Areas must:o Provide the OMPPG SFO Team with a brief report on the implementation of the Action Plan within 6 months.o Ensure that the Update is signed off by the countersigning officer, before it is sent to the OMPPG SFO Team.

What action has taken place? By whom

Date What impact has it had?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12



13 14 This section must be signed off by the countersigning officer, before the completed Action Plan Update is forwarded to the OMPPG SFO Team. Name: Prison Region Dat

e:

Comments:



Annex H

2.1. CASE CHRONOLOGY Please provide a concise summary of key significant events, in custody and/or the community, between the start of the sentence and the commission of the SFO, together with your observations, including where applicable;

Please refer to the SFO Operational Guidance for advice if the period of supervision has been brief (less than 6 months)

Court reports and proposals, including details of the PSR Commencement of the sentence/ community based supervision, including

details of date of sentence, type of sentence, requirements/additional licence conditions;

Information for or attendance at Sentence planning boards or Parole hearings in relevant custody cases;

First contact in custody as appropriate and pre-release contact; First contact in community as appropriate; Assessments/reviews of OASys (or equivalent), inc ISP/SPR and RMP; Risk of serious harm level and any changes; escalation of risk, including whether there was appropriate liaison between

CRC and NPS; Referrals onto and commencement of programmes or other interventions; Warnings, breaches and recalls; plus unauthorised absences; MAPPA, MARAC, CP or prison based risk meetings; References to future SFO victim during the course of the supervision,

including any prior association or knowledge of victim(s) by offender; Perceived, alleged or known deterioration in behaviour – including for example

any known adjudications in custody, arrests in community by police, drug/alcohol relapse, DV incidents - and how they were dealt with.

Overall levels of contact/compliance and whether in line with National Standards / local policy and procedures.

Please do not use local acronyms without also adding their full title.

Observations/comments could highlight elements of good or poor practice, that are then referred to and developed in answering the core question. These might include:

Timeliness and quality of work undertaken Response of RO and other staff to significant information or events Appropriateness of decisions and actions taken or that might have been taken How far were agreed actions/decisions followed through Appropriate levels of inter-agency work/information sharing

PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015


Date Event Reviewing Manager Comments











ANNEX I

Offender Name: OMPPG SFO reference number: Probation providers must:

Ensure that an update on progress with each SFO Review Action Plan is signed off by the Deputy Director for the NPS, Chief Executive for the CRC, or their delegate. In doing so, the NPS and CRCs have discretion to use this template, although any decisions about how progress with action plans is reported to the relevant account management function. The NPS and CRCs should bear in mind, however, that OMPPG may request an update on progress with action plans on this template, usually after six months, in SFO cases that have been flagged as High Profile and likely to( attract significant public interest. For cases that attract a significant level of public interest, OMPPG may require an update on progress at other times.

Action Plan Submitted Date


What action has taken place?

By whom Date What impact has it had?

1


3. ACTION PLAN UPDATE (DISCRETIONARY)

SFO TIMELINESS


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

This section must be signed off by the Deputy Director, Chief Executive or their delegate, before the completed Action Plan Update is forwarded.

Name:

Grade: NPS or CRC: Date:






Annex J

Annex J SFO REVIEW ACTION PLAN LEARNING POINTS UPDATE – Summary of progress

The NPS or CRC must: • Provide the OMPPG SFO Team with a brief summary report to highlight key themes that have featured in SFO Review Action Plans in the given three month period, indicating any significant lessons that may have relevance for wider learning and including confirmation from the Relevant Senior Manager hat the key SFO Learning points have been implemented by the Provider• Ensure that the this quarterly summary of progress is signed off by the relevant Senior manager before it is sent to the OMPPG SFO Team, and copied to the local Board

Please Indicate progress on each of the learning points and code them with the following RAGG Rating

Red Date or activity not reached

AmberProgressing for achievement by due date

Green Achieved but not tested

GreyAchieved and evidence that activity embedded into practice



This is to provide assurance that key learning points arising from SFO Reviews and included in Action Plans have been implemented and, where appropriate, give confirmation that the relevant senior manager of the CRC or NPS (as appropriate) is satisfied that progress in further improving local practice and/or policy has been made. This report must be submitted to the Director of Probation for England, Director of NOMS for Wales, and NOMS CRC Account Managers copied to OMPPG on a quarterly basis. This will cover a specified reporting period (e.g. the July 2015 summary of progress report will relate to progress with Action Plan learning points for SFO reviews submitted during the quarter October to December 2014; the October 2015 summary of progress report will relate to progress with Action Plan learning points for SFO reviews submitted to OMPPG during the quarter period January to March 2015; and so on, each quarter thereafter.

SFOs covered by this reporting period, please insert individual SFO identification numbers.:

Reporting period – please indicate which quarter you are reporting on for the update on Action Plan learning points :

Year:

KEY LEARNING POINTS FEATURING IN SFO REVIEW ACTION PLANS IN THIS REPORTING PERIOD

Please indicate if any of the learning point themes listed below have featured in SFO Review Action Plans in the reporting period


SFO REVIEW ACTION PLAN LEARNING POINTS UPDATE – Summary of progress

Jan-MarchApr-Jun Jul-Sept Oct-Dec


Themes SFO ID(s)

Learning Points Identified Action Required Timescale Responsible Senior

Member of Staff

Revised Timescale

Progress and Evidence

RAG Rating

Failure to complete unscheduled review of OASys following a significant event

Incomplete OASys Risk Assessment/RoH Analysis – ‘pull through’ without change when review due; key background factors missing from current OASys

Risk Management Plans - lacking in quality and/or detail (e.g. no clarity on controls and actions, no timescales for key actions, lack



of detail on input from other agencies)Lack of timeliness with OASys – initial assessment not completed in line with national standard timescales and/or reviews not undertaken at appropriate intervals during the supervision period

Pre Sentence reports – inappropriate use of FDR/Oral Report, lack of quality of PSR (key information missing, inappropriate proposal), no PSR requested/provided to assist sentencing

Insufficient Sentence planning- poor quality SP,



lack of clarity with SP objectives, objectives not prioritised in accordance with risk, absence of key risk areas amongst objectives, failure to take account of requirements/conditions in SP objectives, lack of sequencing of key work/objectivesProblems/delays in case transfers from one trust to another or within same trust, failure to follow PI 17/2010

Lack of awareness of Child Safeguarding issues and/or failure to respond appropriately to safeguarding concerns (eg lack of active



liaison with Children’s Services re. worrying incidents, failure to contribute effectively to inter-agency working)OM absence issues – absence of effective systems for covering staff leave, sickness, retirement/failure to activate cover systems for absence

Recording of information failures – absence of recording of case transfer dates, significant events, MAPPA actions/decisions, Safeguarding actions/decisions, discussions about recall

Lack of evidence of investigative



approach when faced with deteriorating and/or risky behaviour; failure to check offender’s version of events with other agencies, eg with police when offender charged with new offence/arrested following incidentOther areas of practice – please specify

Good Practice examples


As the CRC Chief Executive or NPS deputy Director (or their delegate) I have been briefed on SFO reviews in this last reporting period and I am satisfied that all appropriate action has been taken within my command to implement key learning points that have arisen in these reviews and that there is evidence to demonstrate that practice has improved or is improving.

Name

Please indicate any outstanding action to implement learning points, reasons for any delay in action and proposed timescale

for completions

Please add any additional comments here:




Annex K

Offender Name:


The NPS or CRC must: Ensure that the OMPPG SFO Team receives the SFO Outcome document

within three working days of an SFO case being concluded, either in court or prior to court, whatever the outcome; and that the NPS Deputy Director (or their representative) and the CRC Chief Executive and NOMS CRC Account Manager (or their representative) where relevant, receive a copy

Name of the person completing the SFO Outcome notification:

Telephone Number:

Email address:

Sentencing Court:

Date of Result:

Court Result: Select F4 for options

Any other details:

If the offender has died before charge please give the details here:

Outcome Submitted Date



4. SFO OUTCOME

SFO TIMELINESS


4.1. SENTENCED (SFO)Was the primary conviction a serious violent SFO offence? Yes No If Yes, what was the primary serious violent offence that the offender was convicted of? Select F4 for options

Please list any additional offences that the offender was convicted of:

Was the primary conviction a serious sexual SFO offence? Yes No If Yes, what was the primary serious sexual offence that the offender was convicted of? Select F4 for options

Please list any additional offences that the offender was convicted of:

4.2. SENTENCED (NON SFO)If the offender was convicted of an offence or offences which fall outside of the SFO criteria, including additional convictions to those specified in 4.1 above, which offence(s) was the offender convicted of (including the relevant Acts and sections):Details:

4.3. SENTENCE DETAILSIf the offender has been sentenced, please specify the length/type of sentence: Select F4 for options

4.4. ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONPlease detail additional relevant information (e.g. a summary of the judge’s sentencing comments; length of tariff; type of sentence; reasons for withdrawal of charges etc).



Annex LAim/Objectives:

To maintain public confidence in the NPS, CRCs and the Criminal Justice System by reviewing offender management processes and, where appropriate, describing how steps have been taken to identify and apply lessons learned from each Serious Further Offence in the task of improving offender supervision and the protection of the public.

Offender Details:

NPS or CRC:(Please note names of other providers that were involved in supervision of this case).

Offender’s full name:(including any relevant aliases)

Offender’s date of birth:

Details of order/licence:(for licence cases please include relevant release dates, any previous recalls on current sentence, start of licence supervision and licence expiry date)

Previous convictions:

SFO charge(s) and related charge(s):

Summary of events that led to the new offence:

Names of co-defendants for SFO (where relevant). Please state whether co-defendant was


COMMUNICATIONS TEMPLATE: CASES CONFIRMED AS HIGH PROFILE ONLY.

OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 2subject to probation management and how the two are linked:

Current status in court:(including any indications of plea)

Next/key court appearance date:

Any unusual and/or noteworthy factors relating to the SFO, victim, offender and/or community reaction to the SFO that might further increase the profile of this case

SFO Review:

Has the SFO review been completed?If not, what is deadline for completion?

Did the review demonstrate that there was a sufficient standard of risk assessment? (Give early indications if review not complete)

Did the review demonstrate that there was a sufficient standard of risk management? (Give early indications if review not complete)

Did the review demonstrate that there was a sufficient standard of offender management? (Give


OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED PAGE 3early indications if review not complete)

Has the review identified any other possible areas of vulnerability in the management of the case that may attract media attention?If so give main headlines.

Has/will any disciplinary action or other action (e.g. capability, performance improvement plan? been/be taken against staff?

Have any learning points been identified in relation to policy, procedures or practice in the light of this SFO? If so, how far have these learning points been implemented?

Are there any positive comments on the supervision that have come out of the review? If so give main headlines.

Media Lines:

Statement:

Additional lines:

Q & A:

Nominated spokesperson (If necessary):



Media enquiries:

Media coverage so far:

Contact Numbers:

NPS or CRC communications lead telephone/e-mail:

NPS or CRC SFO lead telephone/e-mail:

NPS or CRC SFO Single Point of Contact (SPOC):Only normally to be contacted if neither of the above can be contacted and the help of the SPOC is required to be put in touch with another responsible officer within the organisation

If a Serious Further Offence is likely to attract national media attention please get in touch with Ministry of Justice Press Office at the earliest opportunity. Any lines on these cases need to be agreed with the NPS or CRC and Ministry of Justice.

MoJ Press Office:

Suzanne O’Brien: 020 3334 35.Kurt Moroz: 020 3334 3514.Out of hours: 07659 173 270 (Between 8pm-7am Monday to Friday and weekends)
