UNCLASSIFIED
NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR SERIOUS FURTHER OFFENCES
This instruction applies to :-
Reference :-
Probation Trusts
PI 10/2011
Issue Date
Effective Date
Expiry Date
Implementation Date
07 July 2011
1 August 2011
Issued on the authority of
For action by (PI)
06 July 2014
NOMS Agency Board
Probation Trusts Contract Managers.
Chief Executives and Chairs in Trusts, Trust SFO Leads and
Single Points of Contact (SPOC), other Trust staff, Head of
PPMHG (NOMS), NOMS Director of Probation and
Contracted Services, NOMS Deputy Directors for Probation,
Head of Probation Trust Unit, NOMS Director for Operational
Services, Head of Dangerous Offenders Section, PPMHG
(NOMS), PPMHG SFO Team (NOMS)
Matthew Ryder, Head of Serious Further Offences Team,
Contact
Dangerous Offenders Section
Public Protection and Mental Health Group
National Offender Management Service
Matthew.ryder@noms.gsi.gov.uk
Telephone 020 7035 1320
PI 01/2011, PI 04/2011, PC 05/2005, PC 60/2005, National
Associated documents
Standards for the Management of Offenders, NOMS Risk of
Serious Harm Guidance (2009), Offender Assessment
System (OASys), MAPPA Guidance, Offender Management
Inspection 2 Case Assessment Guidance (HMI Probation)
Replaces the following documents which are hereby cancelled :Probation Circular 22/2008
All hard copies of these Instructions must be destroyed
Audit/monitoring :
For information
Compliance with this instruction will be monitored by the Director of Probation and Contracted
Services and/or their representative(s). Probation Trusts and other contracted providers of
Probation services must demonstrate compliance with the mandatory actions in this PI when
required to do so by the Director of Probation and Contracted Services and/or their representative.
Introduces amendments to the following documents : None.
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 1
CONTENTS
Section
Title
Relevant to
1
Executive summary
All
Probation
staff
involved in Offender
Management
and
Courts
2
Operational Instructions
All
Probation
staff
involved in Offender
Management
and
Courts
3
Policy and strategic context
All
Probation
staff
involved in Offender
Management
and
Courts
Annex C
Serious Further Offences qualifying list
All
Probation
staff
involved in Offender
Management
and
Courts
SFO Document Set Consists of Annexes D to J
SFO Review Authors,
Trust SPOCs and Trust
SFO Leads, PPMHG
SFO Team
Annex D
SFO Notification
Annex E
Standard Review form
Annex F
Shortened SFO Review form
Annex G
Review Chronology
Annex H
Action Plan Update
Annex I
Quarterly Summary of Action on Learning Points
Annex j
Outcome
Annex K
Media communications template
Annex L
SFO User Guide
Trust SPOCs, Trust
SFO Senior Leads,
PPMHG SFO Team
Annex B
Equality Impact Assessment
Authors
PI 10/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
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 the Probation Provision for over 10
years and these have developed over time. Revised Notification and Review Procedures
for Serious Further Offences (SFOs) were introduced in December 2008 with the
publication of Probation Circular (PC) 22/2008 and there was always an intention to take
stock of this revised SFO Process within two years of implementation. In addition, the
interrelated challenges of the Spending Review and the Restructuring of NOMS have
provided impetus to the need for further streamlining of these procedures. This Instruction
introduces revisions to the arrangements for the Notification and Review of Serious Further
Offences (SFOs) and re-iterates those elements of the last set of procedures (PC 22/2008)
that remain in force.
1.2
The SFO Notification and Review procedure is intended to ensure rigorous scrutiny of
those cases where specified offenders under the supervision of the Probation Provision
have been charged with a violent or sexual offence (please refer to the list of qualifying
offences in Annex C), in order that:-
1.3
•
the public may be reassured that NOMS is committed to reviewing practice in cases
where offenders under supervision are charged with certain serious offences;
•
areas of continuous improvement to risk assessment, risk management and
offender management practice and policy within the Probation Provision (together
with other parts of the NOMS Agency or beyond as appropriate) may be 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 by the NOMS
Public Protection and Mental Health Group (PPMHG) of noteworthy cases of
alleged serious further offences committed by offenders whilst under the supervision
of the Probation Provision.
The revisions within this Instruction retain the ability of the SFO Notification and Review
procedure to achieve the above purposes but target the resource demands on Trusts to
fulfil the SFO process more effectively. The key revisions that have been made are:•
introducing a streamlined Review process for all eligible offenders charged with a
SFO who have been assessed as low risk of serious harm and are subject to either
a community order or a suspended sentence order, even where the qualifying
offence attracts a mandatory review. In these cases, the SFO Review will focus
chiefly, but not exclusively, on the area of risk assessment;
•
a new process for Trusts to give account for progress with SFO Review Action
Plans, in particular to cease the requirement for routine reporting back to PPMHG
on each individual case and to adopt an arrangement whereby Trust Chief
Executives report on progress with review action plans to their local board; Trusts
will be required to submit to PPMHG a quarterly summary report only providing
assurance that learning points arising out of reviews from a specified reporting
period have been taken forward to further improve practice and/or policy.
•
reducing the frequency of the SFO Review Validation process from once a quarter
to once every six months.
PI 10/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
1.4
Page 3
This Instruction, in outlining the above changes, aims to reflect the new and emerging
structures within NOMS and will reference areas of relevant policy change, where this is
known. It also acknowledged that, as providers other than Probation Trusts are contracted
to deliver probation services over time, Probation Trust Contract Managers will need to
ensure that compliance with SFO reviews is accounted for within future contracts or advise
if they consider that SFO procedures may need to be further amended to take account of
this change. All other elements of existing SFO Procedures, as laid down in Probation
Circular 22 /2008 and repeated in this Instruction, remain unchanged.
.
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 scheme are identified, notified and reviewed
in line with the requirements of this PI. 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
PPMHG in a timely manner;
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 PPMHG in informing Ministers and senior officials about noteworthy
SFOs is understood by Probation Trusts 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. 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 J and further guidance is given in
Annexes C and K.
Mandatory actions
1.9
Probation Trust Contract Managers must ensure that this Instruction is included in the Trust
contractual requirements and that all Trust staff are aware of and comply with this
instruction. The National Director for Probation and Contracted Services, or their
representative, must ensure that, as part of their routine oversight of Probation Trusts,
arrangements are in place to monitor the compliance with the requirements in this
instruction.
1.10
Chief Executives for Probation Trusts must ensure that all staff are made aware of these
revisions to SFO procedures and that this Instruction is implemented from 1st July 2011.
They should particularly ensure that there are effective local procedures in place in order
that relevant staff in their organisation:

PI 10/2011
identify and notify PPMHG of all qualifying SFOs in accordance with the operational
instructions in this Instruction;
undertake SFO Reviews in accordance with the operational instructions 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;
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
UNCLASSIFIED

1.11
Page 4
provide additional information relating to a SFO case to assist with any briefing for
Ministers and senior officials being prepared by PPMHG, as required.
Trust Chairs must ensure that regular updates on progress with acting on SFO Review
learning points are given to PPMHG in line with operational actions in this Instruction.
Resource impact
1.12
These changes will reduce the burden on Probation Trusts. There will be no direct resource
impact on staff in prison establishments.
Employee care
1.13
In dealing with cases of serious further offending, which can be stressful for those staff
involved, it is important that Trusts exercise good employee care practice. It must be
remembered that the review process is not about apportioning blame, even though in a
very small number of cases the review process may result in capability and/or disciplinary
proceedings being invoked. Good practice will include ensuring that any staff involved in
the management of a case that leads to a SFO 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 will provide appropriate support for their staff in line with HR
policies, as they would in any other case where staff need support to deal with challenging
issues at work. Probation Trusts 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 on EPIC via the ‘Public Protection’
link. 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.
Contact
For further information about this PI please contact:
Matthew Ryder, Head of Serious Further Offences Team,
Dangerous Offenders Section
Public Protection and Mental Health Group
National Offender Management Service
Matthew.ryder@noms.gsi.gov.uk
Telephone 020 7035 1320
(signed)
Colin Allars
Director of Probation and Contracted Services
PI 10/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 5
2. Operational Instructions
All staff must familiarise themselves with this section to ensure that they understand the
nature of these instructions and when they are mandatory.
2.1
Cases that qualify for a SFO Review
2.1.1
Trusts must notify the PPMHG using the Notification form in the SFO Document Set 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.
2.1.2
Reviews will be required in any of the following cases:- any eligible offender who has been charged with murder, manslaughter, another
offence causing death, rape or a sexual offence against a child under 13 years of age
(including attempted offences) committed during the current period of supervision by the
Probation Provision; or
- any eligible offender who has been charged with another offence on the SFO qualifying
list committed during a period of supervision by the Probation Provision and is or has been
assessed as high/very high risk of serious harm during the current sentence or has not
received a formal risk assessment during the current period of supervision; or
- any eligible offender who has been charged with an offence, whether on the SFO list or
another offence, committed during a period of supervision by the Probation Provision, and
the Trust or NOMS has identified there are public interest reasons for a review; 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. The only possible exception
would be any 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, Probation Trusts retain
the option of completing a standard review. Any decision to proceed to a standard review
would need to be formally agreed between PPMHG and the relevant Trust, usually by the
Head of the SFO Team and the SFO senior lead officer in the Trust, either at the point of
the Notification being sent to PPMHG 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.
2.2
Offender Eligibility
2.2.1
The following types of offender are eligible for inclusion in SFO procedures:•
PI 10/2011
those under any form of supervision by the Probation Provision on the date of the
SFO (excluding offenders where a court or recall warrant had been issued three
months or more prior to the date of the SFO);
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 6
•
those who were under any form of supervision by the Probation Provision which
terminated no more than 28 days prior to the SFO; and
•
those who are under supervision and charged with an equivalent eligible offence in
another jurisdiction.
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 as under PC
22/2008. All offences on this list attract either a maximum of 14 years imprisonment or a
Indeterminate Sentence.
2.3.2
Any subsequent amendments to the list will be formally notified to Chief Executives, and a
revised list placed on EPIC.
2.4
Subsequent changes in eligibility
2.4.1. A case will cease to qualify for 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
Trusts must inform the PPMHG using the SFO Outcome section of the document set
whenever a SFO case that has been notified to PPMHG subsequently falls outside of the
SFO eligibility criteria, for example, where charges are reduced. Trusts 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, PPMHG will make a decision on whether it will be reviewed as a SFO, in consultation
with the Trust, bearing in mind that the amount of case material available may be limited
and there is less 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 Trust 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 a
restricted document, whereas in other cases the Trust 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 Trust
SFO senior lead must discuss and co-ordinate the timescales for both Reviews with the
PI 10/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 7
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 probation supervision
2.7.1
In SFO cases where the victim has died and was under probation supervision at the time of
the offence, Trusts must be aware of the procedures outlined in paragraph 11 of Probation
Circular 60/2005.
2.8
SFO cases involving deaths of residents in Approved Premises
2.8.1
In SFO cases where the victim was under probation supervision and residing in Approved
Premises at the time of the offence, Trusts must be aware of the procedures outlined in the
Approved Premises Manual, issued under PI 04/2011.
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, Probation Trusts 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 Trust must then provide to the SMB
Chair a copy of the SFO Review once completed as a restricted 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
Administration, retention and storage
2.10.1 Trusts are required to identify a single administrative point of contact (SPOC) to co-ordinate
SFO cases up to and including the SFO Outcome. The SPOC, on behalf of the Trust, would
be the main contact with the PPMHG SFO Team on a day-to-day basis concerning SFOs.
2.10.2 Trusts are required to ensure there is immediate access to details of SFO cases, including
staff contacts, and to further case record details, if required urgently by the PPMHG. This
information may be required for briefings to ministers and senior officials in respect of cases
that attract significant public interest. Trusts 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. All Review documents are
marked ‘RESTRICTED’ and must be sent through the GSi network via the single of point of
contact to SFO@noms.gsi.gov.uk.
2.11
Communications Strategy
2.11.1 Trusts will 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 PPMHG 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
PPMHG, who will then forward it to National Director for Probation and Contracted Services
(or their representative) and the MoJ press officer responsible for Probation media
handling, for final agreement (The MoJ Press Office act for NOMS in line with the Agency
Framework document). Trusts would be expected to use the NOMS communication plan
template for high profile SFOs (see Annex K). Where Trusts subsequently place statements
or publications relating to SFOs into the public domain, advance copies must be made
PI 10/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 8
available to the SFO Team, the National Director for Probation and Contracted Services (or
their representative) and MoJ Press Office. Trusts are encouraged to make early contact
with the SFO team and/or MoJ Press Office who will provide support and advice when
requested. Trusts should also consider liaison with other agencies who may be responding
to media interest, including the police.
2.11.2 Trusts must establish a comprehensive communications strategy with respect to victims,
normally implemented after conviction. Care must be taken in particular cases where
probation involvement is disclosed to victims by third parties either pre-trial or through
evidence of ‘bad character’ during the trial.
2.11.3 SFO Reviews are to be protectively marked as Restricted and are for the attention of senior
management and Board members in the Trust, the National Director for Probation and
Contracted Services (or their representative) and the PPMHG (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, Trusts 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-bycase basis. In order to ensure consistent national practice in compliance with legislation,
Trusts must ensure that the PPMHG and the National Director for Probation and
Contracted Services (or their representative) are notified immediately whenever information
requests for SFO documentation arise, in liaison with the MoJ Open Government Unit.
Trusts 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.
2.12
Victims
2.12.1 It is important that the SFO process takes account of the needs and concerns of victims,
both of the index offence that led to the offender being placed under the statutory
supervision of the Probation Provision (primarily in those cases of serious sexual or violent
offending where there is an ongoing victim contact responsibility) and 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.
2.12.2 Regarding the victims of the new (SFO) offence, Trusts should 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 Trust feels the victim (or his/her
family, if the victim is deceased) should hear direct from the Trust, rather than the media or
others. In these cases, Trusts must discuss any proposed action with the SFO Team at
PPMHG and advice must be sought from the police or Crown Prosecution Service to avoid
any jeopardy to the legal process.
2.12.3 Regarding previous victims of the index offence, the SFO Notification must be copied to the
local Victim Contact Unit (VCU) who, having checked their records, will consider with the
PI 10/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 9
Offender Manager, in consultation with senior management, whether previous victims
should be contacted, if they are eligible for statutory victim contact.
2.12.4 Any passing of information to victims or victims’ families 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 Review User Guide.
2.12.5 Trusts must be aware of the Memorandum of Understanding between police and probation
relating to victim contact. In cases of very serious crime, a Gold Group may be formed and,
where this involves a SFO, the Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) will invite a senior
representative of the Trust to join the Gold Group which advises and guides the SIO in the
offence investigation (PC 05/2005).
2.13
Who should complete SFO Notifications and undertake Reviews of SFO cases
2.13.1 The core requirement in respect of Notification completions is that processes are in place to
identify SFOs by or at first court appearance and the Notification with full information is
received at PPMHG within 10 working days of the first court appearance. It will be up to
Trusts to determine who should gather the appropriate information and complete the
Notification. The Trust’s SFO Senior lead and/or SPOC must check all details are correct
before they send the form to PPMHG.
2.13.2 There is no set rule about who should prepare SFO Reviews. However, Chief Executives
must ensure that those undertaking Reviews have up to date 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 Trust, where this is felt to be necessary. An understanding of strategic public protection
issues would also be a key requirement. 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 Chief Executive or a delegated senior
manager must agree and sign off the Review before it is sent to the PPMHG, copied to the
National Director for Probation and Contracted Services (of their representative). Reviews
may not be signed off by the reviewing manager.
2.13.3 The SFO Review is signed off by one Trust regardless of how many Trusts have been
involved in the case during the current sentence. The Trust 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 PPMHG. It would be expected that the lead Trust
liaises with the other trust(s) so that all relevant enquiries concerning practice, policy and
any operational issues are fully incorporated into the Review. There would also be an onus
on the other trust(s) to fully co-operate with SFO enquiries, 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
Trusts should involve the relevant SFO senior leads as a matter of routine at the earliest
opportunity. Where a difficulty or difference of opinion between Trusts emerges in such a
way that the review process may be undermined, this should be raised with PPMHG by the
Trusts concerned with a view to seeking a resolution. Further advice is given in the SFO
User Guide (Annex L to this instruction).
2.13.4 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 a geographical
area covered by another Trust. The Trust covering the area where the SFO was committed
and the offender appears in court is 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 supervising Trust for final completion. The supervising Trust would be
PI 10/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 10
responsible for notifying PPMHG of the SFO by sending the completed Notification within
the required timescale. At this point, the supervising Trust will confirm with PPMHG that
they are to undertake the Review under the normal arrangements.
2.13.5 The Head of the PPMHG or his/her delegate will arrange for a Review to be undertaken by
someone outside the Trust, when it is necessary to further enhance public confidence in the
impartiality of the process. In doing so, the Head of PPMHG must consult the Directorate of
Probation and Contracted Services. Criteria that will be taken into account include where
there is:•
•
•
perceived potential conflict of interest (including where more than one Trust has
been significantly involved in the management of the case); or
early evidence of exceptionally poor practice; or
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.
2.14
Notification, Review, Update and Outcome stages.
Notification
2.14.1 Trusts must:
•
•
•
•
•
•
ensure that all possible eligible SFOs are identified by the first court appearance
and reported to the Trust’s single point of administrative contact (SPOC);
consider whether the case qualifies as a SFO requiring review (either standard or
shortened) and formally record as a SFO where this applies;
notify the PPMHG, copied to Chair of the local Probation Trust and the National
Director for Probation and Contracted Services (or their representative), 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 PPMHG and
the National Director 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; and
notify the relevant MAPPA Co-ordinator of those cases where the offender was
supervised by the local MAPPA at level 2 or 3.
2.14.2 The PPMHG must:
•
•
•
•
PI 10/2011
confirm within three working days of receipt of notification that the Trust should
proceed to a Review, copied to the Trust Chair and National Director for Probation
and Contracted Services or their representative, or exceptionally with the National
Director (or their representative) consider whether the Review should be conducted
outside the Trust 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 with the Trust, where it appears that the case does not
qualify for a review.
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 11
Review
2.14.3 Trusts must:
•
•
•
assess the quality of risk assessment, risk management and offender management
of the case, including the period in custody where appropriate, during the relevant
sentence(s) up to the point of the SFO;
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 Chief Executive (or delegate) and received by the PPMHG, copied to the
National Director for Probation and Contracted Services or their representative,
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 PPMHG.
2.14.4 The PPMHG 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;
ensure that the Review is assessed and quality rated within 15 working days of
receipt, bringing the attention of the Chief Executive and National Director for
Probation and Contracted Services, or their representative, to any cases that have
been inadequately reviewed and require re-submission.
2.14.5 The starting point of the period covered by the Review will normally be the commencement
of the current sentence, but if the period of supervision has been six months or under, and
was immediately preceded by a previous period of supervision, the review should look at
supervision over a period of 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 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
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.
2.14.6 Reviews will normally involve a discussion with the supervising 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 LDU Manager/senior
manager, especially where the Review raises wider policy and practice issues within the
Trust(s).
2.14.7 Reviews should consider and assess the quality of implementation of conditions of licences
and requirements of orders whether these are delivered within the Trust 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. Alternatively, the senior lead manager can bring any
PI 10/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 12
concerns about work undertaken by another agency to the attention of that agency on
conclusion of the Review.
2.14.8 As part of the Review, Trusts will 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 Chief Executive, or his/her delegate, 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 Chief Executive, or their delegate, 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 local policy that should
include the duty of care to staff in these specific circumstances.
2.14.9 Recommendations relating to areas for improvement must be specific, measurable,
achievable, realistic, and have time-bounded targets. The completed Action Plan, as part of
the SFO Review, must be forwarded to the Chair of the local Probation Trust, copied to
National Director for Probation and Contracted Services (or their representative) and the
PPMHG.
2.14.10 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
2.14.11 Trust Chief Executives must ensure that a brief progress report on the implementation of
the Action Plan for each SFO Review is provided to the local Trust board (or appropriate
sub-committee) no later than six calendar months from the date of the completion of the
Review. With SFO Reviews that have been flagged as significant public interest cases, a
copy of the progress report may be requested by PPMHG and used to inform subsequent
briefings to ministers and/or senior officials, in which case Trusts are required to provide
PPMHG with a copy. The method used for, and nature of, reporting this information to the
local Trust board is at the discretion of the Chief Executive and Trust Chair.
2.14.12 Every three months, Trusts must provide PPMHG with a short summary report using the
provided template giving assurance that action has been taken on learning points arising
out of SFO Reviews for the specified reporting period and giving confirmation that the
Board is satisfied that progress in improving practice has been made. This report must
signed off by the Trust Chair before submission to PPMHG. This summary report should be
copied to the National Director for Probation and Contracted Services or their
representative. The reporting schedule would ensure that the Trust only reports on those
reviews that were completed between no less than six and no more than nine months prior
PI 10/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 13
to the submission of the quarterly report from the Trust. As a rule of thumb, the schedule
would be as follows:Period when SFO Reviews are submitted to
PPMHG on completion
SFOs reviewed in the quarter Jan - Mar
SFOs reviewed in the quarter Apr - Jun
SFOs reviewed in the quarter Jul - Sep
SFOs reviewed in the quarter Oct - Dec
Period for Trusts to send summary report on
progress with SFO Review action plans
01st Oct – 31st Oct of the same calendar year
01st Jan – 31st January of the next calendar year
01st Apr – 30th April of the next calendar year
01st Jul – 31st Jull of the next calendar year
2.14.13 The revised processes for reporting to Trust boards on progress with SFO Review Action
Plans and for sending the quarterly summary report to PPMHG on progress with using
learning points to improve local policy and practice applies to all SFOs notified to PPMHG
on and after 1st August 2011. Any SFO Review Action Plans relating to SFOs notified
before 1st August 2011 will need to be reported as under PC 22/2008.
SFO Outcome
2.14.14 Probation Trusts must ensure that the PPMHG and the National Director for Probation and
Contracted Services, or their representative, 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.
2.15
Other cases that do not qualify for a SFO Review
2.15.1 Trusts 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. Trusts will also be expected to locally review the small number of
“near miss” cases that are considered by the National Joint Review Panel, 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 an individual Trust or consortia of Trusts is providing an intervention such as
Unpaid Work/Community Payback. In these cases the local Trust will review its involvement
to assist the YOT with any Review they undertake in line with Youth Justice Procedures.
2.16
Quality Assurance and Research
2.16.1 The PPMHG will undertake routine quality assurance of SFO reviews completed by Trusts.
They will assess the quality and timeliness of all Reviews and give them a quality rating.
The quality assurance criteria are set out in the SFO Review User Guide. The quality rating
for each Review will be fed back to the Chief Executive by means of a letter, also copied to
the Trust Chair, the National Director for Probation and Contracted Services, or their
representative, which will also record the main findings of the Review.
2.16.2 A further quality assurance process, SFO Review validation, operates whereby a panel
(comprising PPMHG, a representative of the National Director for Probation and Contracted
Services, HMI Probation, Trust 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 Trust. SFO Review validation will be undertaken at a national level no less than
twice a year, supplemented by local or regional exercises undertaken jointly, when
required, between the PPMHG and Trusts. Chief Executives will receive written feedback
on any of their Trust’s SFO Reviews that have gone through the national validation
process.
PI 10/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 14
2.16.3. The PPMHG 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, Trusts will be asked to supply case material to assist with this research.
2.17
Roles and responsibilities of those involved with the SFO procedures
2.17.1 Trust Boards and Trusts have a responsibility to retain strategic oversight of SFOs at a
local level and must:•
•
•
•
•
receive regular reports from the Chief Executive on the number and type of Reviews
undertaken and highlighting key lessons from these cases;
receive a copy of Reviews, selected on criteria approved by the Chair and Chief
Executive;
monitor the implementation of all Action Plans; and
consider an annual review that analyses all SFOs that have occurred in the Area;
submit a summary report to PPMHG every three months confirming progress in
acting on learning points arising out of SFO Reviews.
2.17.2 Probation Trust Contract Managers have responsibility for the implementation of this
Instruction within their Trust and as part of this must ensure:•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
all Reviews are locally quality assured prior to submission to PPMHG 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;
managers are released to undertake Reviews in other Trusts in the region or wider,
as reasonably required;
Chairs of the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board (LSCB) and the Multi Agency
Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) Strategic Management Board are
informed of the revisions to the procedures outlined in this Instruction;
an Update on each Action Plan is forwarded to the local Trust Board within the
required timescale;
an update on any SFO Review Action Plan is sent to PPMHG 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 PPMHG 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.
2.17.3 The National Director for Probation and Contracted Services, or their representative, will
need to be assured that all Trusts work in accordance with this Instruction and must:•
•
•
PI 10/2011
consider this Instruction and establish, in liaison with Chief Executives, what local
and/or regional activity is appropriate to maximize quality, learning and improvement
from SFO Reviews;
monitor Trust implementation of actions to address deficiencies that have been
identified in SFO reviews;
ensure that learning from SFOs is discussed as appropriate in Contract Review (or
other designated) meetings with particular attention to high profile cases, cases
identifying public protection issues and risks, and those cases which raise regional
or national issues or concerns; and
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
•
Page 15
arrange for, or help facilitate, probation managers to carry ‘out of Trust’ Reviews as
commissioned by the PPMHG on a fair and equitable basis proportional to the size
of the area.
2.17.4 PPMHG 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 Trusts are provided with advice and assistance on SFO matters, as
appropriate, including the delivery of training to reviewing managers in line with
nationally agreed practice standards;
a National Quality Assurance panel is arranged bi-annually to inspect a national
sample of SFO Reviews as part of the SFO Review QA validation;
quarterly statistical information is provided to Trusts and the National Director for
Probation and Contracted Services, or their representative, for analysis and
benchmarking;
Statistical information relating to SFOs is published through the annual MAPPA
Publication of statistics on Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements 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 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 of the Probation Provider and the provision works 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 and should form part of the Probation Provision’s public
protection strategy.
3.2
This Instruction updates national SFO procedures and requires Probation Trusts 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 Trusts 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 Trusts 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 Probation Trusts
continue to learn from the SFO review process, maintain a focus on the key lessons in
relation to risk assessment, risk management and offender management and apply this
learning to further enhance public protection.
PI 10/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 16
SERIOUS 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)
PI 10/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 17
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 (section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956)
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)
PI 10/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 18
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
PI 10/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 19
NOMS Public Protection and Mental Health Group
Fry Building, Marsham St, London, SW1P 4DF
Email SFO@noms.gsi.gov.uk
Annex D
SERIOUS FURTHER OFFENCE (SFO) REVIEW DOCUMENT
Notification
Offender Name:
Probation Trust:
PPMHG SFO reference number:
Notification initiated by:
Telephone number:
Email address:
SFO single
contact:
point
of
administrative
Telephone number:
Email address:
Please refer to the latest SFO Review User Guide (as published on EPIC) when
completing all sections of this document.
PI 10/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 20
SFO 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 PPMHG SFO Team. You must
specify the date that each stage of the process was submitted in the first row; and whether each
stage was submitted within the timescales specified in PI 10/2011, by ticking the box on the
second row.
1st Court appearance date
Stage submitted on time?
Notification submitted date
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.
PI 10/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 21
1. NOTIFICATION
The following criteria must be met:
Offender Eligibility

Offenders who are under any form of supervision by the Probation Service 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 Probation Service which terminated within
28 days prior to 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 10/2011), or an equivalent eligible offence in another jurisdiction.
Cases that will qualify for a SFO Review
Once a case has been checked to see that both the offender and the offence eligibility criteria are met, it will
automatically qualify for SFO Review if:
 The SFO charge is murder, manslaughter, other offence causing death, rape, or 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 (OASys in most instances or an OASys RoH
screening and appropriate level of assessment for tier 1 cases)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.
The Trust’s Senior Lead manager for SFO(s) must ensure that:







The PPMHG 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;
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 PPMHG 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 Trust is informed / consulted in cases which may attract public
interest;
The Board Trust and the Director of Offender Management (DOM) receive a copy of the Notification;
The case record is secured
The Victim Contact Unit is notified if appropriate.
The Trust’s 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;
 In cases where the victim was under probation supervision, PC 60/2005 is referred to;
 In cases where the victim was a resident of Approved Premises, PC 40/2007 is referred to.
PI 10/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 22
1.1. OFFENDERS DETAILS
Offender 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 DETAILS
At 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 DETAILS
Date(s) of SFO(s):
Serious violent offence triggering this
notification:
Select F4 for options
Serious sexual offence triggering this
notification:
Select F4 for options
Details (including known victim information):
Details (including known victim information):
Has the offender been charged with
Yes
No
any additional offences?
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:
PI 10/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 23
1.4. CO-DEFENDANTS
Are there any co-defendants?
Yes
Were any of the co-defendants at the time of the alleged SFO (or
within 28 days) being supervised by your Trust or any other?*
Please enter details of co-defendants in the table below:
Yes
Name
Date of
Birth
Eligible for
notification
Yes
No
Details
No
No
Submission SFO
date
ID
* A separate SFO Notification must be completed and forwarded to the SFO single
point administrative of contact for all relevant co-defendants
.
PI 10/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
PROTECT PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 24
1.5. SFO VICTIM INFORMATION
How many victims were there?
Gender
1
2
3
4
Age
Where possible, please use the table below to provide background information on each victim:
Offender/ Victim
relationship
Was there
revictimisation?
Is there evidence that the victim(s) was/were targeted due to their:
Ethnicity
Gender
Disability
Sexuality
Age
Class
Ethnicity
Gender
Disability
Sexuality
Age
Class
Ethnicity
Gender
Disability
Sexuality
Age
Class
Ethnicity
Gender
Disability
Sexuality
Age
Class
Religious beliefs
Other
Specific
vulnerability
Religious beliefs
Other
Specific
vulnerability
Religious beliefs
Other
Specific
vulnerability
Religious beliefs
Other
Specific
vulnerability
If there are more than four victims or if there is any additional information, please provide a brief summary here:
PI 10/2011
PROTECT PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 25
1.6. OASYS RISK OF SERIOUS HARM
What was the highest OASys risk of serious harm level, prior
to the SFO, during the current sentence, whether in custody Select F4 for options
or community?
Date of this assessment:
1.7. SUPERVISION AT TIME OF SFO
Has another Probation Trust been involved in the
management of the offender at any point during the
current sentence?
If Yes, please provide details:
Yes
No
What was the main type of supervision that the offender
Community Order or
SSO
was subject to at the time of the SFO?
Determinate sentence
post-release licence
Life / IPP Licence
Details of index offence, including significant victim issues:
Details:
PI 10/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 26
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
Select F4 for options
Select F4 for options
Select F4 for options
Select F4 for options
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/IPP licence)
Start date
of prison
sentence
Length of
sentence
Start of
licence
End of
licence
Index
Offence(s)
Type of Licence
Select F4 for options
Select F4 for options
Please specify details of additional licence conditions:
Details:
PI 10/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 27
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
Was the Offender:
A Foreign Nation Prisoner (FNP):
Subject to Home Detention Curfew at the time of the SFO:
Subject to Electronic Monitoring at the time of the SFO:
On licence following a Parole Board decision to release:
On court bail at the time of the SFO:
At the time of the SFO, resident in AP, BASS or any other
supported accommodation?
If Yes to any please provide brief details:
PI 10/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Issue Date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 28
1.8. PRE-CONVICTIONS
How many previous convictions 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
* 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:
Date(s)
PI 10/2011
Offence(s)
Sentence(s)
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PI 10/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 29
Issue Date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 30
Additional Information:
The Trust’s senior lead manager must indicate whether the case qualifies for SFO
review based upon the following questions (please see the User Guide, in particular
the flowchart at Annex B for additional guidance) Answer each of the questions in
turn up to the point at which a Review is indicated:
1.9. MAPPA and CPPC
At the time of the SFO, was the offender a ‘relevant sexual and/or
violent offender’ for MAPPA eligibility purposes?
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?
If Yes, please specify details:
Is the offender, or has the offender previously been registered as a
Critical Public Protection Case?
If Yes, please provide specific details including date of registration:
Yes
No
Select F4 for options
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
1.10. PROLIFIC AND OTHER PRIORITY OFFENDERS
Was the offender identified as a PPO during the period of
supervision when the SFO occurred?
If Yes, please specify:
1.11. PUBLIC INTEREST
Has there been/is there likely to be any national public interest in the
case, e.g. evidence of strong national media interest/coverage?
If Yes, please specify:
PI 10/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Notification completed by (Name
and grade):
PAGE 31
Name:
Grade:
Telephone Number:
Email address:
Eligibility Criteria
1. Does the offender meet the SFO offender eligibility criteria?
If No, this case is not an SFO and the Notification should not be submitted.
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.
3. Does the offence qualify for a mandatory SFO Review i.e. Murder,
manslaughter, other offence causing death, rape, or sexual SFO against
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
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
OR
Significant national public interest
5. 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
PPMHG SFO team.
High Profile
6. Taking account of the notifying officers comments in answer to
question 1.11. Can you confirm if you feel that the case should be
categorised as a high profile case?
PI 10/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 32
Please refer to the Guidance in the SFO User guide Section 6.
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 PPMHG, 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
Name of Trust’s senior lead manager:
PI 10/2011
Date:
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 33
2. Standard Review.
SSTANDARDREVIE
W
Annex E
Offender Name:
PPMHG SFO reference number:
Trusts must:

Ensure the Review is fully completed, by a manager not involved in the line management of
the case, and sent to the PPMHG 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 Trust, that the SFO review
covers all work undertaken.

Ensure that the Review is signed off by the Chief Officer, or their delegate (not the
manager who completed the review) before it is sent to the PPMHG SFO Team, with the
Trust Board Chair and DOM copied in.
Review completed by (Name and
Grade):
Name:
Grade:
Telephone Number:
Email Address:
SFO TIMELINESS
Review Submitted Date
Stage submitted on time
PI 10-2011
Yes
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
No
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 34
Interviews
All 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).
** Individual staff names should not be included **
Grade and role of the
Identified role Date(s) of
Subjects and issues discussed
interviewee
type (e.g. OM1, interview
SPO, etc)
PI 10-2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 35
Please complete section 2.1. Case Chronology (Annex G) as a separate attachment and
insert here. Please continue to complete the review at section 2.2.
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
%
OGP score at start of sentence:
12
months
%
OVP score at start of sentence:
12
months
%
OASys risk of serious harm level at start of select F4 for options
sentence (start of prison sentence for OM Phase
2 and 3 cases, start of order or licence for other
cases):
PI 10-2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
24
months
%
24
months
%
24
months
%
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 36
Please provide a breakdown in the table below:
Children
Risk in
community
Risk in
custody
Public
Risk in
community
Risk in
custody
Known adult
Risk in
community
Risk in
custody
Staff
Risk in
community
Prisoners
Risk in
custody
V High
High
Med
Low
Please give details of people at risk e.g. known adult, children and nature of risk:
PI 10-2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue date 07/07/2011
Risk in
custody
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 37
Was there consistent and accurate recording of risk and MAPPA
levels between OASys and other case management records?
(for example, CRAMs, ICMS, Delius)
If No, please provide details:
Is the offender subject to a Violent Offender Order (VOO) or
considered for one?
If Yes, please provide details:
Yes
No
Yes
No
2.4. CRIMINOGENIC FACTORS
a) Were any of the following identified in OASys at the start of sentence as related to
risk of reoffending?
Accommodation
Details:
ETE
Details:
Financial Management
and Income
Details:
Relationships
Details:
Lifestyle and Associates
Details:
Drugs misuse
Details:
Alcohol misuse
Details:
Emotional wellbeing
Details:
PI 10-2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Thinking behaviour
Details:
Attitudes
Details:
Health and other
considerations
PAGE 38
Details:
b) Were any of the following identified in OASys at the start of sentence as related to
risk of serious harm?
Accommodation
Details:
ETE
Details:
Financial Management Details:
and Income
Relationships
Details:
Lifestyle and associates
Details:
Drugs misuse
Details:
Alcohol misuse
Details:
Emotional wellbeing
Details:
Thinking behaviour
Details:
Attitudes
Details:
Health
and
considerations
other Details:
2.5. CHILD SAFEGUARDING
PI 10-2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 39
Are there any child protection/safeguarding concerns in relation to
the SFO charge(s)?
If Yes, please give detail:
Yes
Is a LSCB Serious Case Review being undertaken or expected to
be undertaken?
If Yes, please give detail:
Yes
Are there any child protection/safeguarding concerns in relation to
any previous offences, or to the offender’s circumstances?
If Yes, please give detail:
Yes
No
No
No
2.6. DOMESTIC ABUSE
Are there any domestic abuse concerns in relation to the SFO
charge(s)?
If Yes, please give detail:
Yes
Are there any domestic abuse concerns in relation to any previous
offences, or to the offender’s circumstances?
If Yes, please give detail:
Yes
If there were domestic abuse concerns, was the offender assessed
using SARA? (paper or e-SARA)
If Yes, please specify the outcome of the assessment(s):
Yes
No
No
No
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?
Comments:
PI 10-2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Yes
No
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 40
2.7. SEXUAL OFFENCES
Are there any sexual offence concerns in relation to the SFO
charge(s)?
If Yes, please give detail:
Yes
No
Are there any sexual offending concerns in relation to the
Yes
offence(s) for which the offender was under supervision; or to any
No
previous offences?
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?
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?
If Yes, please give detail:
Yes
Yes
No
No
N/A
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
N/A
No
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
Yes
tools?
Please specify the type(s) of risk assessment tool(s), and the outcome:
PI 10-2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
No
N/A
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 41
2.8. OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
Was the case in scope for Offender
Yes
No
Management Phase 2 or 3?
National Offender Management Model tier at select F4 for options
start of sentence:
Details (in particular, please specify any
changes to the offender’s tier level during
the supervision):
What grade was the Offender Manager?
Details:
2.9. DIVERSITY
Were 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:
PI 10-2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 42
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.
2.10. RISK ASSESSMENT
1. Was an accurate risk of harm screening undertaken at
the start of sentence, using all of the information
available at the time? (for offender subject to OM Phase 2
or 3 this refers to start of custody or when first assessed
as in scope for OM2/OM3, for other custody cases, this
refers to start of licence)
Please provide evidence here:
2. If the risk of harm screening identified the need for a
full OASys risk of harm assessment, was a full analysis
completed that was clear, accurate and undertaken in the
appropriate timescale?
Please provide evidence here:
3. Where required in line with National Standards, was
the post-sentence initial risk management plan
comprehensive, with appropriate time limited actions
included to reduce the risk of serious harm. Was it
completed using the appropriate format and within the
required timescale? (Relevant details of the RMP should
be included to support this answer, e.g. key actions and
controls, any contingency plan)
Please provide evidence here:
4. Were the OASys reviews, including reviews of the risk
management plan, up-to-date taking into account all
available information, and completed satisfactorily
according to National Standards? (Include reviews for
transfer and in response to significant events)
Please provide evidence here:
PI 10-2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
5. Were recommendations for sentence and/or release
appropriate given the level and nature of the risk posed
by the offender? (Details of the PSR proposals for
sentencing and/or pre-release assessment
recommendations for any licence conditions should be
addressed)
Please provide evidence here:
PAGE 43
Yes
Judgment
Based on your answers to the questions 1-5 above, was the risk
assessment carried out to a sufficient standard? (Documents that
should be used to assist in this judgment include the OMI Toolkit,
National Standards, Probation Instructions, Trust policy and
practice guidelines)
You must provide evidence to substantiate your answer here:
No
Yes
N/A
No
Analysis of deficiencies
What were the reasons and/or contributory factors for any deficiencies in risk
assessment?
Please discuss each of the deficiencies identified, exploring the possible reasons. (This
might include reference to workload and resourcing issues, experience of staff,
knowledge and capability of staff, line management oversight, training, systems and
organisational context):
Additional Comments:
PI 10-2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 44
2.11. RISK MANAGEMENT
1. Was the Risk Management Plan delivered as intended?
Yes
No
(including when amended following reviews)
Please summarise key actions & controls listed in RMP and provide evidence for
implementation of these actions:
2. Were there any significant incidents of concern or
deterioration in behaviour during the sentence?
If Yes, please give detail:
Yes
No
3. Was risk of harm managed appropriately throughout the
sentence, particularly following any significant incident or
deterioration in behaviour, e.g. use of relevant
Yes
No
enforcement/sanctions, consultation with line manager/senior
management, liaison with other relevant agencies, review of risk
on OASys where appropriate?
Please provide evidence of action taken in response to any key events or changes:
4. Was there effective communication about risk between the OM
and others involved in the case, (including reference to line
management discussion, decision making & possible referrals to
and liaison with other agencies)?
Provide brief evidence of communication with others:
Yes
No
5. If the risk assessment indicated the need for a referral to
Yes
No
MAPPA levels 2 or 3 management, was this referral made?
Please add comments, e.g. how timely was referral made, what factors supported referral
being made?
6. If the offender was subject to MAPPA levels 2 or 3
Yes
management did the Offender Manager and all other relevant
No
staff contribute effectively to MAPPA?
Please give brief details of contribution to MAPPA working, e.g. information sharing with
police and other agencies, relevant staff attending meetings:
PI 10-2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
7. Were MAPPA arrangements carried out efficiently and
effectively, e.g. timeliness of meetings, overall MAPPA process,
decision making.
Please provide details:
8. Was effective action taken by the OM (and others where
appropriate) to promote victim safety where there was a direct
victim/known person at risk and/or if there were
restrictive/prohibitive conditions in the order, licence or other
court orders/bail conditions?
Please give brief details of actions taken:
PAGE 45
Yes
No
Yes
No
Judgment
Based on your answers to questions 1- 8 above, was the risk
management carried out to a sufficient standard? (Documents
Yes
that should be used to assist in this judgment include the OMI
No
Toolkit, National Standards, Probation Instructions, Trust Policy
and practice guidelines)
You must provide evidence to substantiate your answer here, including taking account of
specific comments made in relation to questions:
Analysis of deficiencies
What 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):
Additional Comments:
PI 10-2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 46
2.12. OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
1. Did the OASys assessment accurately identify the
criminogenic factors exhibited by the offender?
Please provide evidence here:
Yes
2. Was the sentence plan appropriate (i.e. targeting relevant
criminogenic factors, particularly related to risk of harm and/or
Yes
the purposes of sentencing and prioritising objectives in line
with RoH)?
Please provide evidence here, including details of the objectives identified:
3. In licence cases, was sufficient probation contact undertaken
pre-release to promote effective offender management in the
community? (for phase 2/3 cases, please refer to extent of
Offender Manager involvement in sentence planning process
pre-release)
Please provide evidence here:
4. Was the offender located at the appropriate tier of the Offender
Management model?
Please provide evidence here:
5. Was an OM allocated within the required timescale?
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Please provide evidence here:
6. Was the sentence plan implemented effectively? (Make
reference to referrals to requirement activities, 1:1 work and
attendance on programmes/courses, accredited or voluntary,
extent to which requirements and/or objectives were
implemented, set contact levels maintained in line with national
standards)
Please provide evidence here:
7. Was there evidence of appropriate line management
supervision and oversight? (Reference OASys countersigning/ad
hoc and formal/supervision/ contact log entries)
Please provide evidence here:
PI 10-2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 47
8. Was timely and effective action taken in response to absences
or other failure to comply?
Please provide evidence here:
9. If the case was transferred internally between OMs during
the sentence, was the transfer completed to a sufficient
standard to ensure continuity of management?
Please provide evidence here:
10. If the case had been transferred in from another Trust or
from a YOT, was the transfer timely and appropriately handled
to ensure continuity of management? For example, according
to any existing protocols, PC25/07 and MAPPA Guidance.
Please provide evidence here:
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Judgment
Based on your answers to questions 1- 10 above, was the
offender 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, Trust policy and practice guidelines)
You must provide evidence to substantiate your answer here:
Yes
No
Analysis of deficiencies
What 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)
Additional Comments:
PI 10-2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 48
2.13. SFO REVIEW – FINAL QUESTIONS
The Review demonstrates that there was a sufficient
standard of risk assessment:
Yes
No
The Review demonstrates that there was a sufficient
standard of risk management:
Yes
No
The Review demonstrates that there was a sufficient
standard of offender management:
Yes
No
PI 10-2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 49
2.14. SFO REVIEW – GOOD PRACTICE
Use the table below to summarise any areas of good practice which were identified during the Review.
Good practice
Review
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
PI 10-2011
PROTECT PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 50
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.
Review
Action to address the
By When
How the impact of the action taken will be
Learning Point
Question
By Whom
Learning Point
(give date)
reported and evaluated
number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
PI 10-2011
PROTECT PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 51
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 in your Trust that is needed to put the action plan in context?
Please add any comments here:
Yes
No
This section must be signed off by the Chief Officer or their delegate, before the completed Review is forwarded to the PPMHG 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:
Trust:
Date:
Grade:
Please add any comments here:
PI 10-2011
PROTECT PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 52
2. REVIEW FOR LOW RISK OF SERIOUS HARM OFFENDERS SUBJECT
TO COMMUNITY OR SUSPENDED SENTENCE ORDER SUPERVISION
(NOT LICENCE CASES)
Annex F
Offender Name:
PPMHG SFO reference number:
Trusts must:

Ensure the Review is fully completed, by a manager not involved in the line management of
the case, and sent to the PPMHG 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 the Review is signed off by the Chief Executive, or their delegate, (not the
manager who completed the review) before it is sent to the PPMHG SFO Team, with the
Trust Board Chair and National Director for probation or their representative copied in.
Review completed by (Name
and Grade):
Name:
Grade:
Telephone Number:
Email Address:
SFO TIMELINESS
Review Submitted Date
Stage submitted on time
PI 10-2011
Yes
PROTECT PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
No
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 53
Interviews
All 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).
** Individual staff names should not be included **
Grade and role of the
Identified role
Date(s) of
Subjects and issues discussed
interviewee
type (e.g. OM1, interview
SPO, etc)
Please complete section 2.1. Case Chronology (Annex G) as a separate attachment and
insert here. Please continue to complete the review at section 2.2.
PI 10-2011
PROTECT PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 54
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:
OGP score at start of sentence:
OVP score at start of sentence:
Oasys risk of serious harm at start of sentence:
PI 10-2011
12 months 24 months
%
%
12 months 24 months
%
%
12 months 24 months
%
%
select F4 for options
PROTECT PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
NA
NA
NA
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 55
2.4. CRIMINOGENIC FACTORS
a) Were any of the following identified at the start of sentence as related to risk of
reoffending?
Accommodation
Details:
ETE
Details:
Financial Management and Income
Details:
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:
PI 10-2011
PROTECT PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 56
2.5. CHILD SAFEGUARDING
Are there any child protection/safeguarding concerns in relation to the
SFO charge(s)?
If Yes, please give detail:
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Is a LSCB Serious Case Review being undertaken or expected to be
undertaken?
If Yes, please give detail:
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?
If Yes, please give detail:
2.6. DOMESTIC ABUSE
Are there any domestic abuse concerns in relation to the SFO charge(s)?
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?
If Yes, please give detail:
If there were domestic abuse concerns, was the offender
assessed
using SARA? (paper or e-SARA)
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?
Comments:
PI 10-2011
PROTECT PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 57
2.7. SEXUAL OFFENCES
Are 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
Yes
No
which the offender was under supervision; or to any previous offences?
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
registration?
If Yes, please give detail:
to
statutory
sex
offender
Was the offender subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention
Order (SOPO), a Risk of Sexual Harm Order or a Foreign Travel
Order?
If Yes, please give detail:
Yes
No
N/A
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:
PI 10-2011
PROTECT PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 58
2.8. OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
select F4 for options
National Offender Management Model tier at start Details (in particular, please specify any
of sentence:
changes to the offender’s tier level during the
supervision):
What grade was the Offender Manager?
Details:
2.9. DIVERSITY
Were any of the following identified as factors relevant to the offender, their offending, or their
supervision at any stage leading up to the SFO?
Details:
Ethnicity
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.
2.10. RISK ASSESSMENT
1. Was the work completed at the PSR stage appropriate and
accurate (e.g was the most appropriate form of court report
used, was the assessment of risk accurate covering all
essential factors relating to risk and behaviour, were proposals
for sentence appropriate?)
Please provide evidence here:
PI 10-2011
PROTECT PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Yes
No
N/A
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
2. Was an accurate, timely and full risk of harm screening
undertaken at the start of sentence, drawing on all known
behaviour and relevant information available at the time?
PAGE 59
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
Please provide evidence here:
3. If the risk of harm screening identified the need for a full
OASys risk of harm assessment, was a full analysis completed
that was clear, accurate and undertaken in the appropriate
timescale?
Please provide evidence here:
4. Was the risk of harm classification accurate at the start of
sentence?
Please provide evidence here:
Judgment
Based on your answers to the questions 1-4 above, was the risk
assessment carried out to a sufficient standard? (Documents that should
be used to assist in this judgment include the OMI Toolkit, National
Standards, Probation Instructions, Trust policy and practice guidelines)
You must provide evidence to substantiate your answer here:
Analysis of deficiencies
What were the reasons and/or contributory factors for any deficiencies in risk assessment?
Please discuss each of the deficiencies identified, exploring the possible reasons. (This might include
reference to workload and resourcing issues, experience of staff, knowledge and capability of staff,
line management oversight, training, systems and organisational context):
Additional Comments:
PI 10-2011
PROTECT PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 60
2.11. RISK MANAGEMENT
1. If there were any known significant incidents of concern or
deterioration in behaviour, were they managed appropriately
throughout the sentence e.g. was there a review of risk where
appropriate,
liaison
with
UPW,
use
of
relevant Yes
No
enforcement/sanctions, consultation with other agencies and
line manager, decision made to re-tier and/or increase
frequency of contact?
Please provide evidence of action taken in response to any key events or changes:
Judgment
Based on your answers to question 1 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, Trust Policy and practice guidelines)
Yes
N/A
No
Analysis of deficiencies
What 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):
Additional Comments:
PI 10-2011
PROTECT PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 61
2.12. OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
1. Was the supervision process commenced within the required
timescales e.g. timely allocation and induction?
Please provide evidence here:
2. Was the initial sentence plan appropriate (e.g. included relevant
objectives that were related to purposes of sentencing and to the
identified criminogenic factors relating to risk of reoffending)? Was it
reviewed at regular intervals as required?
Please provide evidence here:
3. Was the sentence plan implemented effectively ( e.g. progress with
meeting objectives, prompt start in delivery of requirements, effective
partnership arrangements)?
Please provide evidence here:
4. Was timely, effective and appropriate action taken in response to
absences or other failure to comply?
Please provide evidence here:
5. If the case was transferred in from another Trust/YOT during
the sentence, was the transfer completed to a sufficient
standard to ensure continuity of management (e.g. in line with
PI 17/2010, local protocols)?
Please provide evidence here:
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Judgment
Based on your answers to questions 1- 5 above, was the offender
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, Trust policy and practice
guidelines)
Yes
N/A
No
You must provide evidence to substantiate your answer here:
PI 10-2011
PROTECT PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 62
Analysis of deficiencies
What 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)
Additional Comments:
2.13.1 SFO REVIEW – FINAL QUESTIONS
Are 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?
Please provide details here:
Yes
No
The Review demonstrates that there was a sufficient
standard of risk assessment:
Yes
No
The Review demonstrates that there was a sufficient
standard of risk management:
Yes
No
The Review demonstrates that there was a sufficient
standard of offender management:
Yes
No
2.13.2 FINAL JUDGMENTS
PI 10-2011
PROTECT PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 63
2.14. SFO REVIEW – GOOD PRACTICE
Use the table below to summarise any areas of good practice which were identified during the Review.
Good practice
Review
Question
number
How will the good practice be highlighted
and taken forward?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
PI 10-2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue date 07/07/2011
By whom (grade and
role)
Timescale (include
dates)
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 64
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
Review
Question
number
Action to address the
Learning Point
By Whom
By When
(give date)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
PI 10-2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue date 07/07/2011
How the impact of the action taken will
be reported and evaluated
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 65
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 in your Trust that is needed to put the action
plan in context?
Please add any comments here:
Yes
No
This section must be signed off by the Chief Officer or their delegate, before the completed Review is forwarded to the PPMHG 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:
Trust:
Date:
Grade:
Please add any comments here:
PI 10-2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT PERSONAL – WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 66
ANNEX G
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 User Guide 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 OM2
and OM3 cases;
First contact in custody as appropriate and pre-release contact;
First contact in community as appropriate;
Assessments/reviews of OASys, inc ISP/SPR and RMP;
Risk of serious harm level and any changes;
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
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 OM 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 10-2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT PERSONAL – WHEN COMPLETED
Date
PI 10-2011
Event
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 67
Reviewing Manager Comments
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT PERSONAL – WHEN COMPLETED
PI 10-2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 68
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT PERSONAL – WHEN COMPLETED
PI 10-2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 69
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT PERSONAL – WHEN COMPLETED
PI 10-2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 70
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT PERSONAL – WHEN COMPLETED
PI 10-2011
PROTECT - PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 71
Issue date 07/07/2011
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 72
3. ACTION PLAN UPDATE (OPTIONAL)
ANNEX H
FORM FOR
Offender Name:
PPMHG SFO reference number:
Trusts must:

Ensure that an update on progress with each SFO Review Action Plan is signed off by the Chief Officer, or their delegate,
before it is sent to their Trust Board and/or relevant Board sub-committee. In doing so, Trusts have the option to use this
template, although any decisions about how progress with action plans is reported to the local Board rests with the Chief
Executive and their senior management team. Trusts should bear in mind, however, that PPMHG 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, PPMHG may require an
update on progress at other times.

SFO TIMELINESS
Action Plan Submitted Date
Stage submitted on time
Pi 10/2011
Yes
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
No
Issue Date 07/07/2011
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
What action has taken
place?
By whom
Date
PAGE 73
What impact has it had?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Pi 10/2011
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 74
This section must be signed off by the Chief Officer or their delegate, before the completed Action Plan Update is forwarded to
the Board.
Name:
Trust:
Date:
Grade:
Please add any comments here:
Pi 10/2011
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Page 75
ANNEX I
3A. SFO REVIEW ACTION PLAN LEARNING POINTS UPDATE – Summary of progress
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 Board is satisfied that progress in further improving local practice and/or policy has
been made.
Number of SFO Review Action Plans covered
by this reporting period:
Reporting period – please indicate which
quarter you are reporting on for the update on
Action Plan learning points :
Date of this report – please indicate
Jan-March/April to June/July to September/October to December
Year ______
January 20__/ April 20__/ July 20__/ October 20__
Trusts must:
 Provide the PPMHG SFO Team with a brief report on the implementation of the Action Plan within 3 months, copied to the Board
Trust;
 Ensure that the Update is signed off by the Board Chair before it is sent to the PPMHG SFO Team, and copied to the local Board
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
Themes
Please highlight any significant learning or change in practice/policy that may have relevance for
any wider learning across the Service nationally
1
Failure to complete
unscheduled review of OASys
following a significant event
2
Incomplete OASys Risk
Assessment/RoH Analysis –
‘pull through’ without change
when review due; key
background factors missing
from current OASys
PI 10/2011
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
3
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)
4
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
5
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
6
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/objectives
PI 10/2011
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Page 76
Issue Date 07/07/2011
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Page 77
7
Problems/delays in case
transfers from one trust to
another or within same trust,
failure to follow PI 17/2010
8
Lack of awareness of DV
issues and/or failure to
respond appropriately to DV
concerns (eg not using SARA,
lack of active liaison with
police re. worrying incidents)
9
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)
10
OM absence issues – absence
of effective systems for
covering staff leave, sickness,
retirement/failure to activate
cover systems for absence
11
Recording of information
failures – absence of
recording of case transfer
dates, significant events,
MAPPA actions/decisions,
Safeguarding
PI 10/2011
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Page 78
actions/decisions,
discussions about recall
12
13
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
incident
Other areas of practice –
please specify
This section must be signed off by the Board Chair before being forwarded to the PPMHG SFO Team. The Board and I have been briefed on SFO
Reviews in this last reporting period and I am satisfied that all appropriate action has been taken within the Trust 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:
Trust:
Date:
Grade:
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:
PI 10/2011
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Page 79
4. SFO OUTCOME
Annex J
Offender Name:
PPMHG SFO reference number:
Trusts must:
 Ensure that the PPMHG 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 this is copied to the Board Trust and the DOM
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:
SFO TIMELINESS
Outcome Submitted Date
Stage submitted on time
PI 10/2011
Yes
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
No
Issue Date 07/07/2011
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Page 80
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 DETAILS
If the offender has been sentenced, please specify the length/type of sentence:
Select F4 for options
4.4. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Use this space to add any 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)
PI 10/2011
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Page 81
COMMUNICATIONS TEMPLATE: CASES CONFIRMED AS HIGH PROFILE ONLY.
Annex K
Aim/Objectives:
To maintain public confidence in the Probation Provision 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:
Probation Trust:
(Please note names of
other trusts 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)
PI 10/2011
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Page 82
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 codefendant was on
probation 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
PI 10/2011
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Page 83
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 early indications if
review not complete)
Has the review identified
any other possible areas
of vulnerability in the
management of the case
PI 10/2011
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Page 84
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:
PI 10/2011
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Page 85
Additional lines:
Q & A:
Nominated spokesperson
(If necessary):
Media enquiries:
Media coverage so far:
Contact Numbers:
Trust communications
lead telephone/e-mail:
Trust SFO lead
telephone/e-mail:
Trust 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 trust
PI 10/2011
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Page 86
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 Probation Trust and Ministry of Justice.
MoJ Press Office:
David Langton: 020 3334 35..
Hugo Biggs: 020 3334 3514
Catherine Macdonald: 020 3334 3535
Out of hours: 07659 173 270 (Between 8pm-7am Monday to Friday and weekends)
PI 10/2011
PROTECT – PERSONAL WHEN COMPLETED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
This User Guide is intended as supplementary material for PI 10/2011
Page 1
ANNEX L
PI 10/2011 - Notification and Review Procedures for
Serious Further Offences
SFO Review User Guide
This User Guide is a supplement to PI 10/2011. It is
designed to provide further detail where needed. You
should always refer to the PI in the first instance.
July 2011
PI 10/201
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
This User Guide is intended as supplementary material for PI 10/2011
Contents
Page 2
Page
Section 1 – Purpose
3
Section 2 – The SFO document
3
Section 3 – How does a case qualify?
5
Section 4 – Notification
7
Section 5 – Review, Update, and Outcome
10
Section 6 – Communications
12
Section 7 – Victims
15
Section 8 – Quality Assurance
17
Section 9 – Reviews completed outside the
Supervising Trust
18
Section 10 – Statistics
18
Section 11 – Local Reviews
18
App 1 – SFO process flowchart
19
App 2 – SFO eligibility flowchart
20
App 3 – OMI 2 Case Assessment guidance
21
App 4 – Ways of explaining errors
23
PI 10/201
Issue Date 07/07/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
This User Guide is intended as supplementary material for PI 10/2011
Page 3
Section 1 – Purpose
1. The Serious Further Offences Team, as part of the Public Protection and Mental Health
Group (PPMHG), oversees the Serious Further Offences (SFOs) process on behalf of
NOMS. This Guide will help Trusts to implement the revised procedures for the notification
and review of cases where offenders who are supervised in the community are charged
with committing a SFO, as set out in P1 10/2011.
2. The purpose of the SFOs procedure is to ensure that there is a rigorous system of scrutiny
for cases where specified offenders under the supervision of Probation Provision have
been charged with a serious further violent or sexual offence, so that:



Areas of continuous improvement to risk assessment and management practice within
Probation Provision (together with other parts of the NOMS Agency or beyond as
appropriate) may be identified and disseminated locally, regionally and nationally
the public may be reassured that NOMS is committed to reviewing practice in cases
where offenders under supervision are charged with certain serious offences and
Ministers, Chief Executive of NOMS, Director of Probation and Contracted Services (of
their representative) and the wider MoJ, where appropriate, can be informed by the
NOMS Public Protection and Mental Health Group (PPMHG) of noteworthy cases of
alleged serious further offences committed by offenders whilst under the supervision of
Probation Provision.
Section 2 – The SFO Document
3. The SFO Document Set is contained in Annex D to J of PI 10/2011 and the up to date
version is stored on EPIC. It is designed to enable Trusts 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 should be stored as Restricted at all times.
4. The SFO form will be updated on EPIC when necessary and senior lead managers and
single points of administrative contact will be informed when this happens.
5. Trusts should have quality assurance systems to ensure that SFO documentation is
complete when it is submitted. The Trust’s single point of administrative contact (SPOC)
and the senior lead manager should ensure that all information required for each stage of
the process is completed in full before the document is submitted to the PPMHG SFO
team.
6. Appendix 1 to the User Guide contains a flow chart explaining what Trusts and PPMHG
SFO Team need to do at each stage of the process.
7. Appendix 2 contains a flow chart explaining how offenders qualify for a SFO Review.
Who should complete the SFO documents?
8. Trusts should decide who initiates and contributes to the SFO Notification, according to
how local court and offender management operations are structured. Chief Executives
should ensure that those completing the SFO Review part of the document 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 Trust, partly as some learning points requiring action may apply to
policy and practice relating to the whole Trust.
PI 10/201
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
This User Guide is intended as supplementary material for PI 10/2011
Page 4
9. The SFO Notification Form 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. The completed SFO Review Form must be signed off by the Trust Chief
Executive or their nominated senior delegate.
Language & Terminology
10. 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 Trusts use the term to describe an aggrieved person instead of ‘victim’,
easily confused with Approved Premises). Where there may be ambiguities about offences,
Trusts should directly quote the Act and the Section of the Act as found on the charge
sheet, or as announced in Court.
Confidentiality, Data Protection Act (DPA) and Freedom of Information (FOI)
11. 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 PPMHG.
12. 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.
13. Any request for disclosure of SFO Reviews under the Freedom of Information or Data
Protection Acts must immediately be referred to the MoJ Open Government Unit (OGU),
copied to SFO mailbox for the attention of the Head of the PPMHG SFO Team.
Organisational Impact
14. Trusts should refer to PC 02/2007 and the NPS ‘Risk Management Policy & Strategy’
(2004) when considering whether SFO cases constitute a key risk for the Trust. Certain
high profile SFO cases might require an assessment in their own right.
Cases where more than one Probation Trust has been involved
15. There may be some cases where more than one Trust has been involved in the
management of the offender, and 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
PI 10/201
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
This User Guide is intended as supplementary material for PI 10/2011
Page 5
geographical area and/or was being supervised by another Trust at the time the alleged
SFO occurred.

The Trust covering the area in which the offender appeared at court for the SFO identifies
the offender and notifies the current supervising Trust. The initial notifying Trust should
start and send the partly completed SFO Notification Form to the current supervising
Trust, ensuring in particular that full information about the SFO charge has been
captured.

The current supervising Trust submits the fully completed Notification (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 Trust which was supervising the offender at the time of the SFO undertakes the
Review (and coordinates review enquiries with other trusts where necessary), and
submits the Review to the PPMHG.
Section 3 – How does a case qualify for a SFO Review?
Offender Eligibility
16. A case is eligible for consideration for a SFO Review only when an offender is/was being
supervised by a Probation Trust. This will normally be an Order or Licence or Notice of
Supervision but could also be any kind of conditional release from Court; or any kind of
formal caution which is supervised in the community by the Probation Provision. For
example, a person who:



is released from Court on conditional bail to reside at an Approved Premises (AP); or
is conditionally cautioned by police with a condition to attend a programme organised
and supervised by Probation Provision; or
is released from prison on temporary licence (ROTL) with the condition to reside in an
Approved Premises.
If a Trust has a case such as this, they should seek advice from the PPMHG SFO Team before
submitting the Notification.
17. A case will also become an SFO when an offender was being supervised by Probation
Provision but where the offender has died before being charged with an offence on the
SFO list. Whilst there is sometimes doubt, Trusts 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 PPMHG. Full details of offender eligibility
are given in the current Probation Instruction.
Offence Eligibility
18. Once it has been established that the offender appearing in court is an “eligible” offender,
the next step is to consider offence eligibility.
19. The list of SFO offences is detailed in Annex C of PI 10/2011 and is based on Schedule
15a of Criminal Justice Act, 2003. It was originally based on those offences in the Schedule
which carried maxima of 14 years and Life, but excludes s18 wounding with intent.
PI 10/201
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
This User Guide is intended as supplementary material for PI 10/2011
Page 6
20. 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 offence causing death, rape, or a
sexual offence against an under 13 year old (including attempted offences).
21. 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).
22. 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 probation supervision, 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 PPMHG will make a decision in consultation with the Trust about whether it is
practicable to review the case, based on whether details of the management of the case
are still available. The National Director for Probation and Contracted Services, 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;
Qualifying for a SFO Review
23. 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. Further details are given in the current Probation Instruction.
Significant national public interest
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. Examples of cases which would need to be considered:



PI 10/201
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 supervision,
however satisfactory, into the public eye
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
This User Guide is intended as supplementary material for PI 10/2011




Page 7
a S18 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
SFOs committed by Young Offenders
27. When a SFO is committed by an offender supervised 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.
28. In some instances, the offender may be subject to supervision by the YOT, but with an
intervention provided by Probation Provision. An example of this is where a young person is
being supervised by a YOT on a Community Punishment & Rehabilitation Order (CPRO),
or a Youth Rehabilitation Order (YRO), with an Unpaid Work element being provided by
Probation Provision. In cases where both YOT and Probation 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.
29. The definition of a serious further offence for NOMS covers a larger number of offences
than the YJB serious incident procedures which relate 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 Trust may undertake a local
review if it feels it is appropriate to do so.
Section 4 – Notification.
A flowchart on SFO eligibility is attached at App 2.
30. The Trust’s 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 PPMHG within 10 working days of the first Court appearance. Trusts will need
to identify and gather information on the SFO(s) at the offender’s first Court appearance.
Trusts 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. Thereafter, information from the case record and other sources should be
added to the information provided at Court, and the single point of administrative contact
should coordinate the completion of the Notification.
Information from the Court
31. Accurate and timely reporting of Court details are of the utmost importance. Trusts should
ensure that Court duty staff record the exact details of the charge. In cases which are likely
PI 10/201
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
This User Guide is intended as supplementary material for PI 10/2011
Page 8
to attract significant national public interest, staff should inform their Trust Head Office so
that the PPMHG is able to accurately inform Ministers and senior officials, rather than
learning details from other sources, such as reports in the media.
32. Trusts 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.
33. In cases where charges have been brought for an SFO offence, and there are indications
that the defendant is/was recently being supervised by another Trust, it is the responsibility
of the single point of administrative contact (SPOC) in the Trust where the defendant has
been charged to notify the single point of administrative contact (SPOC) from the possible
supervising Trust of the offender’s details and, if appropriate, send these on the SFO
notification form to the other Trust.
34. It is the responsibility of the current supervising Trust to submit the correct SFO
documentation to the PPMHG.
35. Trusts, 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, Trusts should send early notice of the expected
Notification to the PPMHG as soon as possible and advise the Chair and the National
Director for Probation or their representative in advance. Arrangements should be made to
track the subsequent Court dates for these cases, and keep the PPMHG routinely updated
via the single point of administrative contact. It may also be necessary to expedite the SFO
Review in line with Court dates.
36. Where the SFO was not identified at the first Court appearance, and therefore not notified
to the PPMHG within the timescale, Trusts must identify the reasons and improve local
practice. Any follow up actions should be included as a learning point in the subsequent
Review.
37. If the offender was supervised with the involvement of another agency, such as a local
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 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.
38. Some elements of the Notification Form may require careful checking to ensure all relevant
information given is accurate. These include:
1.7 Has another Probation Trust 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
Probation Trust(s) which have seconded staff into prisons.
PI 10/201
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
This User Guide is intended as supplementary material for PI 10/2011
Page 9
1.7 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.
1.7 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 Trust it can be included by including the specific HDC
period and the substantive licence period separately.
1.8 Pre-convictions
This table now asks for details of offensive weapon offences.
1.9 MAPPA and CPPC.
The question now asks, “was the offender a relevant sexual and/or violent offender for
MAPPA eligibility purposes?” The aim now 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 Cat 1 and Cat 2 by looking at the details of their current sentence, and
previous convictions. The new form also specifically asks if a MAPPA Serious Case Review
(SCR) is to be undertaken by the SMB.
1.10 Confirmation.
The senior lead manager 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 10/2011 (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.
One of the criteria (Q4), may pose difficulties. This refers to whether the offender has
received a risk assessment during the current period of supervision – 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 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 Tier 1 case/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. We will keep this guidance under review.
 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.
PI 10/201
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
This User Guide is intended as supplementary material for PI 10/2011
Page 10
Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCB) Serious Case Reviews (SCR)
39. 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 Trust will be required by
the LSCB to undertake an Internal Management Review (IMR). After consultation with the
LSCB, the Trust 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, the SFO document might then serve as the IMR, or it 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.
40. Where the SFO offender and offence eligibility is met, and a child has suffered significant
injury and the case proceeds to an SCR, the 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 then serve as the IMR, or it might form part
of the IMR, or it might inform the contents of a separately produced IMR.
41. In all these cases, Trusts are advised to check arrangements with the SFO Team and/or
the PPMHG lead on Safeguarding Children.
Section 5 – Review, Update and Outcome.
42. The Review consists of four main sections:




Background information and chronology
Risk Assessment
Risk Management
Offender Management
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) OMI Toolkit Part 2 which is at:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmiprobation/docs/OMI2_Case_Assessment_Guide_V4-rps.pdf
Appendix 3 to this User Guide has a table which indicates where you can find information in
the HMiP OMI 2 Case Assessment Guidance relating to each of the core SFO questions.
b) ‘Risk of Harm’ Key Concepts & Definitions, which can be found in the NPS Risk
training materials on EPIC or available on disc (June 2009).
c)
NOMS Risk of Serious Harm Guidance (2009)
d) OASys Manual– Chapter 8 Risk of Serious Harm (2006).
PI 10/201
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
This User Guide is intended as supplementary material for PI 10/2011
Page 11
e) OMI Risk Of Harm Area Assessment 2
(HMIP).http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmiprobation/docs/RoHAA_2_Criteria-rps.pdf
43. 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.
44. 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 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.
45. 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.
46. 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 happened
b) what, if any defences were in place and why did they not work
c) what context was there which made the task difficult, even if it did not cause the
problem
d) was the error made more or less likely by any resourcing or management
decisions
47. An illustration of how this framework could be used is in App. 4.
48. Care must 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.
49. 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.
PI 10/201
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
This User Guide is intended as supplementary material for PI 10/2011
Page 12
50. 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.
51. 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:






first impressions of the offender
the main things to be achieved with the offender
difficulties in supervising the offender
the main achievements
whether the SFO came as a surprise
with hindsight, would anything be done differently
Good Practice and Learning Points
52. 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.
53. 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 Trust. Simple errors should be dealt with simply.
More complex matters (e.g. where systems or processes have not worked) may require
team or Trust solutions.
54. 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 Trust is 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.
55. 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) have impacted on the management of the
offender, consideration should be given by the Chief Executive writing to that agency
raising the relevant matter. Trusts should not make recommendations that are beyond the
scope of the Trust to carry out.
Action Plan Updates
56. The Action Plan Update (Annex H) can be used by Trusts when providing a progress report
on individual SFO Review Action Plans to their board, but this is optional and it is left to
Chief Executives of Trusts to decide how this information is reported to their local board
and/or relevant sub-committee. Either way, progress with action plans should clearly outline
the following:
PI 10/201
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
This User Guide is intended as supplementary material for PI 10/2011


Page 13
The progress made on the learning points identified in the Action Plan.
The impact of this action on local practice and/or policy.
Trusts should bear in mind that in high profile cases, PPMHG require an update on the SFO
Review Action Plan on the supplied template (Annex H).
Each quarter, Trusts are required to provide PPMHG with a brief 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 SFO Reviews for the specified reporting period as laid
out in the PI. This report must also give confirmation that the Trust Board(s) 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 Trust Chair before submission to PPMHG
and a copy must be sent to the NOMS Director for Probation and Contracted Services or their
representative.
Outcome
57. The Outcome (Annex J) should be sent to PPMHG 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.
58. 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)
Section 6 – Communications
Communications should be
 Clear
 Coordinated, and
 Recorded
Communication between Trusts and the PPMHG
59.
PI 10/2011 requires Trusts to appoint a single point of administrative contact for SFOs,
which is line with PC 22/2008. The single point of contact (SPOC) should be able to
access details of cases either directly, or by making enquiries within the Trust. In order to
ensure that all communications between Trusts and PPMHG 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 Trust will
remain responsible for keeping the National Director for Probation (or their representative)
and Trust Chair updated on individual SFOs as required in line with PI 10/2011.
60.
Notifications and updates of existing SFO cases should be submitted by e-mail to
SFO@noms.gsi.gov.uk using the GSI network and ensuring that the email is marked as
‘Restricted’.
PI 10/201
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
This User Guide is intended as supplementary material for PI 10/2011
Page 14
61.
Consideration should be given by each Trust 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. Trusts 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. sfo@anywhere.probation.gsi.gov.uk).
62.
The PPMHG keeps a list of email addresses for each Trust’s single point of administrative
contact(s), senior lead manager(s) and communications officer(s), and it is essential to let
the PPMHG know of changes.
63.
Each SFO is allocated a national reference number. The following electronic protocol
should be used by Trusts and PPMHG:

SFO/surname in lower case/initial in upper case/Stage (the SFO notification initially
sent by e-mail from the Trust is therefore: SFObloggsJ(Notification))
When received by the PPMHG, the case is assigned a number and becomes:
SFO60001bloggsJ(Notification)

64.
The SFO document set has been designed as one ongoing document, but separated into
separate annexes. When each Stage is completed, the relevant annex should follow on
from the previous completed stage. It important that Trusts use the shortened version of the
Review form for offenders who were subject to community orders or suspended sentence
orders and who were assessed as low risk of serious harm throughout the supervision
period.
65.
The case files of offenders dealt with under SFO procedures should be retained in
accordance with local Trust policies, or for 2 years after the SFO conviction, whichever is
the greater.
66.
Trusts 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 Trust data policy and procedures.
Communications Strategy
67.
PI 10/2011 states that Trusts 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 PPMHG,
including media lines to be taken Trusts 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 Trusts use the
standard media communications template for all High Profile SFO cases (Refer to Annex K
in PI 10/2011).
68.
It is important that the local Trust, MoJ Press Office and the PPMHG work closely together.
All Media strategies completed on High Profile cases must be routed through the SFO team
in PPMHG in the first instance, using the template at Annex K. It is important that this
template is completed as fully as possible, as this will enable a pro-active stance to be
taken on those cases which may attract adverse criticism or misleading information in the
media. Additionally it will enable PPMHG to quickly and accurately respond to requests for
information from ministers or senior officials, and help provide a solid factual account of
what is known to be true about individual SFO cases.
PI 10/201
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
This User Guide is intended as supplementary material for PI 10/2011
69.
Page 15
When a SFO is identified Trusts should identify the likely level of public interest (Q 1.12).
The PPMHG will consider this and determine the level of communications strategy
required, in liaison with the relevant Trust(s) and, where appropriate, the National Director
for Probation and Contracted services or their representative. Cases will ordinarily be
allocated to one of the following categories:
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
Independent Review, are highly likely
to attract heavy and sustained public
criticism of NOMS and MoJ policies.
Communications strategy overseen by or on behalf of the
CE of NOMS in conjunction with the MoJ Press Office.
‘High profile’ SFO which could attract
public criticism of both the local
Probation Trust 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
Trust using template at Annex J of PI 10/2011, cleared
with Head of the SFO Team, (on behalf of the Head of
PPMHG) and the MoJ Press Office.
All other SFOs. Any SFO may attract
public criticism of the Probation Trust
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.
PPMHG prepares ministerial briefing/submission, press
lines for MoJ Press Office. MoJ Press Office lead on all
media matters, liaising with the local Trust to agree
handling.
PPMHG prepare ministerial briefing/submission
required and press lines for MoJ.
as
MoJ Press Office deal with all national media interest and
local Trust deals with local media interest, and keep each
other appraised.
Advice provided by MoJ Press Office and / or PPMHG on
request.
70.
Based on the information provided by the Probation Trust, the PPMHG prepares Ministerial
submissions on potentially high profile cases in a standardised format, as required.
71.
The PPMHG responds to Parliamentary Questions (PQs) tabled by Members of Parliament (MPs),
and other ministerial requests for information. The PPMHG may require quick and urgent
contributions from Trusts within short timescales, sometimes in a matter of hours, in order to prepare
a draft reply. .
72.
MPs may be prompted by their constituents to write to ministers. ‘Minister’s letters’, have to be
responded to within 14 days. Additionally, the PPMHG will receive letters direct from members of the
public (known as ‘treat officials’) that need to be answered promptly. The PPMHG may also require
the relevant Probation Trust to provide a contribution to the draft reply, and may contact Chief
Executives when further information is required.
PI 10/201
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
This User Guide is intended as supplementary material for PI 10/2011
Page 16
Other Agencies
73.
Where an offender has been supervised with the involvement of another agency, e.g.







police;
a mental health trust;
a drugs or alcohol agency;
a partnership agency commissioned by Probation Provision;
electronic monitoring agency;
an education and employment agency;
any other statutory agency,
74.
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.
75..
In some SFO cases, other agencies will be closely involved, particularly the police, and
establishing joint local strategies with relevant agencies has considerable advantages. Most
Trusts will already have good liaison arrangements with Communications Officers in other
agencies.
Section 7 – Victims
This User Guidance should be read in conjunction with the most recent Victims PC on EPIC.
http://npsintranet.probation.gsi.gov.uk/document_library/Probation_Circulars/pc11-2008.pdf
76.
The following is an extract from the Victims PC 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 Probation Trust 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 Review User Guide sets out that ownership of the strategy
should be managed by a senior manager appropriate to the level of concern.
A small number of the highest profile cases will be dealt with as part of the Gold Group arrangements
coordinated by the Police, details of which are in Probation Circular 05/2005, and which provides for a
structured way of considering the needs of victims.
77. 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. Trusts should
PI 10/201
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
This User Guide is intended as supplementary material for PI 10/2011
Page 17
consider the possibility of victim’s wishing to brief the media following conviction, and any impact this
might have.
Multi-agency working and Gold Groups
78.
The Memorandum of Understanding between the police and Probation Provision dealing with victims
and their families was published in January 2005 under cover of PC05/2005. The Memorandum refers
to the establishment of Gold Groups when a SFO occurs. Where Gold Group is not established, it is
the responsibility of the police senior investigating officer (SIO) to ensure an effective relationship with
the Probation Trust. It remains important that close liaison between the police and probation takes
place.
Section 8 – Quality Assurance
Quality Assurance and Timeliness – Assessing the Review
79.
Under PI 10/2011, the PPMHG will quality assure all Reviews according to the following criteria and
give feedback to the Trust:
 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
3 Both stages
on time.
2 One stage
on time
1
0 No stage on
time.
PI 10/201
Chronology and
evidence
Comprehensive
in all or most
respects. There is an
overall sense of how
the case was
managed.
Judgment
Analysis
Action Plan
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.
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 reasonable
standard
Addresses all or most
of the areas that were
analysed in the
Review and/or is
mostly SMART.
Significant elements
are missing or there
are significant
contradictions. The
overall sense of how
the case was
managed is limited.
Omits most of the
items required. There
is no overall sense of
how the case was
managed.
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
Judgments are
inconsistent with
evidence in the
Review.
Analysis fails to
address
significant
deficiencies
Significant
deficiencies lack
actions to address
them
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
This User Guide is intended as supplementary material for PI 10/2011
80.
Page 18
All Reviews are given a quality rating by PPMHG after they have been submitted and these are as
follows:> Good
> Satisfactory
> Incomplete
Where a Review has been rated as ‘incomplete’, the Trust 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 PPMHG as a
guiding reference. Re-submitted Reviews are not given a further quality rating but PPMHG 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
PPMHG:
“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 PPMHG:
“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 PPMHG and the evidence
provided supported the judgments made.”

Resubmitted reviews where PPMHG 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 PPMHG conclude that the resubmitted review is not of a sufficient quality (those cases that fall into
bullet point 1 above), the Trust will be offered the opportunity to discuss this further with the head of the SFO
team to identify any ways in which PPMHG may be able to assist the Trust in improving staff understanding
of the SFO review process and the expectations of what is required for a SFO Review.
Trusts are of course welcome to contact the SFO team to discuss any issues raised in feedback letters
received from PPMHG following a SFO review or resubmitted review.
Bi-Annual SFO Review Quality Validation
81.
A sample of full case files where the case has been reviewed will be requested by PPMHG on a
twice yearly basis. Trusts will be asked to submit for each case selected for this validation process
the full set of documents and electronic information that was seen by the reviewing officer in the
course of compiling their Review.
82.
In conjunction with Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMI Probation), the PPMHG will:



PI 10/201
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.
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
This User Guide is intended as supplementary material for PI 10/2011
83.
Page 19
The result of the bi-annual quality assurance meeting will be disseminated to Chief Executives, and
Board Chairs; and feedback will be provided on individual cases to Trusts.
Section 9 – Reviews undertaken outside the supervising Trust
Working within NOMS Regional and National structures
84.
NOMS will arrange, from time to time, for senior operational managers from outside the supervising
Probation Trust to carry out Reviews as commissioned by the PPMHG, which would advise the
relevant senior managers on their preparation as required. Most typically, a senior manager from
another Trust 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 Trust 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 PPMHG under the auspices of the National Director for Probation and
Contracted Services or their representative. This would be done on a fair and equitable basis taking
into account the size and circumstances of the outside Trust that is brought into this process.
Section 10 – Statistics
Annual SFO summary and statistics
85.
The PPMHG will produce quarterly information for Trusts and the National Director for Probation (or
their representative) and a half yearly summary on SFOs containing an analysis of key statistics,
learning points and good practice.
Section 11 – Local Reviews
86.
PI 10/2011 refers to Trusts 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
Trust to establish the critical success factors that underpin the effective management of cases. The
SFO Team will advise any Trust that needs advice about how such Reviews might be undertaken.
PI 10/201
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
This User Guide is intended as supplementary material for PI 10/2011
Page 20
working days of first court appearance)
Trust identifies that a
case is a SFO using the
offence and offender
eligibility in PI 10/2011;
and SPOC completes
Notification
70.
the date of completion of the
Review.
date of notification submission) whether
standard or shortened version.
PPMHG SFO Team to
send acknowledgement of
Notification within 3
working days, confirm
whether Review should go
ahead
Trust SPOC/senior lead
manager notifies the relevant
manager(s) and OMof the
supervising OM unit so the
case file can be secured and
sent to senior lead manager.
Senior lead manager
ensures case file is
examined and confirms
the details and ensures
the Notification is
completed
SPOC sends the Notification to the PPMHG SFO
mailbox (cc’d to Board Chair and National Director for
Probation or their representative)
SFO@noms.gsi.gov.uk within 10 working days of the
first court appearance; and brief details to the Chair
of the LSCB & MAPPA SMB where applicable
The senior lead manager
should ensure the Review is
allocated for completion.
Senior lead manager
ensures the Review
is fully completed
including good
practice and action
points
SPOC sends the Review to the
PPMHG SFO mailbox
SFO@noms.gsi.gov.uk within 3
months of the Notification. Copies
should be sent to the Trust
Board/Chair and Nat Director for
Probation/their representative.
Trust SFO Senior lead to submit Action Plan
Update for each SFO Review to Trust Board no
later than 6 months after completing the
Review.
The Chief Executive (or
delegate) quality assures
the Review and signs off at
Trust level
PPMHG SFO Team sends
acknowledgment to the
Trust within 3 working days
PPMHG SFO Team sends feedback
on the quality and timeliness of the
Review within 15 working days. If
rated as ‘incomplete’ the Review will
require further work by the Trust
A summary report on progress with acting on
SFO Review learning points should be sent by
Trust to the PPMHG SFO mailbox
SFO@noms.gsi.gov.uk in line with the reporting
schedule.
SPOC completes and sends Outcome to the
SFO mailbox SFO@noms.gsi.gov.uk (cc’d to
National Director for Probation) within 3
working days of a case being concluded in
court or confirmation that the charges have
been discontinued/ reduced to non SFO
charges
PI 10/201
UNCLASSIFIED
completed
within 3 working
days of case
completion)
Outcome
Action Plan Update
(completed within 6 months from
Review (completed within 3 months of the
Notification (to be completed within 10
Appendix 1 - SFO Process flowchart
Issue Date 07/07/2011
This User Guide is intended as supplementary material for PI 10/2011
Page 21
Appendix 2 - SFO eligibility flowchart
Does the offender meet
the SFO offender
eligibility criteria?
Does the offence meet
the SFO offence
eligibility criteria?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Is there public
interest in the
case? No
PPMHG’s SFO
Team/the Trust
make joint
decision where
there is public
interest, but
which fall
outside of the
offence
eligibility criteria
No
Does the offence meet the
mandatory offence criteria
for initiating a Review?
No
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?
Yes
Yes
No
This case is an SFO.
Please submit a SFO
Notification.
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 42 for
The SFO Review should
be completed using
either the STANDARD or
LOW RISK SFO Form as
appropriate (see para 42 for
further guidance)
further guidance)
This case is not an SFO
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
PI 10/201
Yes
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
This User Guide is intended as supplementary material for PI 10/2011
Page 22
Appendix 3 - OMI 2 Case Assessment Guidance
SFO
Question
(Low Risk
Reviews)
SFO
Question
(Standard
Reviews)
Theme
OMI Question
Number
OMI 2 Case
Assessment Guidance
Page
RA Q1
N/A
Work at PSR stage
All of 1.1
9-21
RA Q2
RA Q1
Satisfactory ROH
Screening
1.2.5a,b,c
23-24
RA Q3
& Q4
RA Q2
Full OASys ROH
Assessment & risk
classification
1.2.1, 1.2.2,
1.2.4, 1.2.7a,b,c,
1.2.8, 1.2.9
22 - 28
Quality of RMP
1.2.9
1.2.10
1.2.13,a,b,c,d
1.2.15a,b
1.2.16a,b
1.2.17
N/A
N/A
RA Q3
RA Q4
Satisfactory and
Timely RAs &
Reviews
2.1.28,
2.1.29a,b,
2.1.30a,b,
2.1.31a,b,
2.1.37a,b
1.1.6a,b,c,de
1.1.10a,b,
1.1.11, 1.1.12,
1.1.13, 1.1.17,
1.1.18a,b,c,d,
SQ1.1
2.1.1a,b,c,d,e
2.1.2, 2.1.3,
2.1.5, 2.1.7
2.2.10, 2.2.11
SQ2.1
16--21
61-63
RA Q5
Recommendations for
sentence/ release
N/A
RM Q1
Delivery of RMP
RM Q1
RM Q2
Significant incidents
of concern or
deterioration
2.1.19, 2.1.20,
2.1.22, 2.1.23,
2.1.24a,b) -
RM Q1
RM Q3
ROH Management
2.1.30a,b, 2.2.1
2.2.25A,B
RM Q1
RM
Q4
Communication about
risk between OMs &
others
1.2.25a,b
2.1.17a,b,2.1.19
2.1.20,
RA identify need for
MAPPA
1.2.18, 1.2.20,
1.2.22, 1.2.25
N/A
N/A
PI 10/201
RM Q5
UNCLASSIFIED
26 - 32
65-68
55-56
76
70
66-67, 70, 81
36-37
60-61
33-37
Issue Date 07/07/2011
This User Guide is intended as supplementary material for PI 10/2011
Page 23
1.2.24, 1.2.25
2.2.3, 2.2.4,
2.2.5
36-37
72-73
MAPPA Effectiveness
and Efficiency
2.2.2 and 2.2.4
71-72
RM Q8
Victim safety
2.2.12,
2.2.13
OM Q1
Criminogenic factors
1.3.11c, 3.3.11
1.3.6c
N/A
RM Q6
Contribution to
MAPPA process
N/A
RM
Q7
N/A
N/A
77 - 78
43, 44, 96
1.3.11a,b,c,
1.3.12a,b,c,d,e,f
1.3.13, 1.3.14,
1.3.15
SQ 1.3. 1.4.2a,c,
1.4.3 – 1.4.13,
SQ1.4
45-54
2.1.9, 2.1.10 2.1.15,
2.1.16, 2.1.17.
2.3.1, 2.3.2
56-57
59-61
83
OM Q2
OM Q2
Appropriate SP
N/A
OM Q3
Pre-release contact
OM Q4
Tiering
OM Q5
OM Allocation
1.3.3, 1.3.4,
2.1.11
41-42
57
OM Q3
OM Q6
SP implementation
All of sections
2.1 & 2.3
55-70
83-89
N/A
OM Q7
Line management
oversight
OM Q4
Q8
Enforcement
N/A
Q9
Internal Transfer
N/A
OM Q1
OM 5
PI 10/201
OM Q10
Transfers from YOT
and other Trusts
UNCLASSIFIED
1.3.1
1.3.2
38-41
1.2.25a,b
2.2.5a,b
2.1.19, 2.1.20,
2.1.22a,b,c,
2.1.23, 2.1.24,
2.2.19, 2.2.20,
2.2.22
36-37
81-82,
1.2.10
2.1.37a,b
68
28
1.2.1, 1.2.5a,b,c,
1.2.7a,b,
2.1.37a,b
61-64
80-81
22-25
68
Issue Date 07/07/2011
This User Guide is intended as supplementary material for PI 10/2011
Page 24
Appendix 4 - Ways 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.
For further details.see : http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7237/768
PI 10/201
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 1
Annex B
Equality Impact Assessment Initial Screening – Relevance to Equality Duties
Before you complete an EIA you must read the guidance notes and unless you have a comprehensive knowledge of the equality
legislation and duties, it is strongly recommended that you attend an EIA training course
The EIA should be used to identify likely impacts on:
 Disability
 Gender (including gender identity)
 Race
 Age
 Caring responsibilities (usually only for HR policies and change management processes such as back offices)
 Religion and belief
 Sexual orientation
1. Name of the proposed new or changed legislation, policy, strategy, project or service being assessed
NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR SERIOUS FURTHER OFFENCES
.
This instruction aims to ensure that all instances of serious further sexual or violent offending that fall within the remit of the SFO scheme are
identified, notified and reviewed in line with the requirements of this PI, which replaces PC 22/2008
2. Individual officer(s) & Unit responsible for completing the Equality Impact Assessment:
Al Reid, Senior Manager C, Dangerous Offenders Section, Public Protection and Mental Health Group.
PI 10/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 2
3. What is the main aim or purpose of the proposed new or changed legislation, policy, strategy, project or service and what are the
intended outcomes?
Aims/objectives
Outcomes
This instruction aims to; update Probation Circular 22/2008 and introduce guidance
and mandatory actions to streamline the existing SFO review
process
 ensure that Probation Trusts continue to learn from SFO
Reviews and maintain a focus on the key learning areas in
relation to risk assessment, risk management and offender
management;
 ensure that changes to the process are explained fully to
Probation trusts, and in particular those staff involved in
offender management and courts,to help them understand
how these changes will assist them to work more efficiently;
 explain the role of NOMS Public Protection and Mental
Health Group in managing the SFO review process centrally
and, where necessary, informing Ministers and MPs about
high profile SFO cases;
 ensure a significantly streamlined format for all SFO Reviews
relating to low risk of harm offenders who are subject to
community order/suspended sentence order supervision,
even where the offence attracts a mandatory SFO Review;
 introduce streamlined arrangements for monitoring progress
with implementing SFO Review action plans; and
 introduce a reduced frequency in the deeper QA process,
,SFO Review validation, from once a quarter to once every
six months.
PI 10/2011
The new procedures will reduce resource requirements within Trusts
but maintain the focus on key aspects of practice and therefore
ensure that learning from SFO Reviews can continue; there will be
no change to existing guiding principle that most of the critical
learning will come from those cases involving higher risk offenders
and/or the most serious offending and that most resources should
focus on these categories of cases.
With low risk of harm offenders who commit a SFO whilst subject to
a community order/suspended sentence order, the chief focus
switches to risk assessment. Previously reviews required Trusts to
consider this equally alongside offender management and risk
management. With those assessed as low risk the priority will now
be to determine if the risk assessment was accurate in the first
instance.
Trusts are required to provide and report on action plans to
demonstrate how they have taken forward their learning from the
SFO review. The follow up process for these action plans has also
been streamlined and again should reduce resource requirements
for Trusts.
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 3
4. What existing sources of information will you use to help you identify the likely equality on different groups of people?
(For example statistics, survey results, complaints analysis, consultation documents, customer feedback, existing briefings submissions or
business reports, comparative policies from external sources and other Government Departments)
There is no indication that the new PI will impact in an adverse way on different groups. The SFO review process is about learning the
lessons for Probation Trusts on the way that SFO cases have been managed. Therefore, it is the serious further offending that triggers a
review. Details of the offender’s, gender, race and ethnic background are provided by the Trust as part of the review but because it is key
aspects of the management of the offender that is being reviewed, rather than the offender themselves, no further information is held.
5. Are there gaps in information that make it difficult or impossible to form an opinion on how your proposals might affect different groups of
people. If so what are the gaps in the information and how and when do you plan to collect additional information?
Note this information will help you to identify potential equality stakeholders and specific issues that affect them - essential information if you
are planning to consult as you can raise specific issues with particular groups as part of the consultation process. EIAs often pause at this
stage while additional information is obtained.
Again the impact of the PI is about organisational improvements and streamlining an existing scheme, rather than individuals or groups of
people, although it is obviously hoped that if the organisation improves its practice then staff will receive enhanced supervision and
guidance and offenders will experience improvements in their management. During the period of revising these procedures, there has been
a full consultation with Probation Trusts and other key stakeholders and no adverse equality impact issues have been raised during this
consultation. At present, there is no way to tell how this might impact on one group of staff over and above another.
Trusts are required to put in place an Action Plan which builds from the lessons learned about the management of each individual case that
is reviewed under these procedures. They then feed back to PPMHG on the implementation of the Action Plan but this is, generally, in
broad organisational terms rather than specifics regarding individuals.
PI 10/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 4
6. Having analysed the initial and additional sources of information including feedback from consultation, is there any evidence that the
proposed changes will have a positive impact on any of these different groups of people and/or promote equality of opportunity?
Please provide details of who benefits from the positive impacts and the evidence and analysis used to identify them.
The aim of the PI, which has been backed up by those we have consulted, is that by the changes we are introducing to the new process we
are not losing any benefits from SFO reviews but saving on some of the resources required to conduct a review. Therefore the aim is to
retain the same positive impact for Trusts and those that work within it and adding to that a small reduction in workload.
7. Is there any feedback or evidence that additional work could be done to promote equality of opportunity?
If the answer is yes, please provide details of whether or not you plan to undertake this work. If not, please say why.
There is no evidence that this refinement to the existing SFO review procedures will have any impact on different groups. There is a
reduction in the work for Trusts to complete SFO reviews.
A formal launch of these new procedures is planned, to be followed up by a national meeting with all Trusts and other stakeholders to
reinforce the implementation of the new procedures and evaluate early stage implementation. This will encompass relevant equality issues.
8. Is there any evidence that proposed changes will have an adverse equality impact on any of these different groups of people?
Please provide details of who the proposals affect what the adverse impacts are and the evidence and analysis used to identify them.
No evidence for reasons previously given.
9. Is there any evidence that the proposed changes have no equality impacts?
Please provide details of the evidence and analysis used to reach the conclusion that the proposed changes have no impact on any of
these different groups of people.
PI 10/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 5
As the changes in this PI are aimed at organisational improvements and also aimed to reduce resource demands on the organisation.
SFOs are committed by a wide range of offenders who are managed by a wide range of staff, we do not, therefore, believe this will have
any equality impact on different groups of people.
10. Is a full Equality Impact Assessment Required?
(If no, please explain why not)
No
NOTE - You will need to complete a full EIA if:
 the proposals are likely to have equality impacts and you will need to provide details about how the impacts will be mitigated or
justified
 there are likely to be equality impacts plus negative public opinion or media coverage about the proposed changes
 you have missed an opportunity to promote equality of opportunity and need to provide further details of action that can be taken to
remedy this
A full EIA is not required. As stated above there are no equality impacts anticipated, nor is this change in practice liable to attract any
adverse publicity. We do not believe that an opportunity to promote equality of opportunity has been missed.
11. If a full EIA is not required, you are legally required to monitor and review the proposed changes after implementation to check they
work as planned and to screen for unexpected equality impacts. Please provide details of how you will monitor evaluate or review your
proposals and when the review will take place.
Copies of reviews completed by Trusts are recorded here and a small selection are re-called and used on a 6 monthly basis to provide
quality assurance, using SFO leads from a variety of regions and there is also a benchmarking exercise with the HMiP
PI 10/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 6
12. Name of Senior Manager and date approved
(Note - sign off at this point should only be obtained if:


there are no equality impacts
the changes have promoted equality of opportunity
You should now complete a brief summary (if possible, in less than 50 words) setting out which policy, legislation or service the EIA relates
to, how you assessed it, a summary of the results of consultation a summary of the impacts (positive and negative) and, any decisions
made, actions taken or improvements implemented as a result of the EIA, including the review mechanism. The summary will be published
on the external MoJ website.
The current SFO Review Process was introduced in December 2008 with the publication of Probation Circular (PC) 22/2008. It represents a
significant improvement on its predecessor which ran from April 2006 to November 2008 and which placed an unsustainable burden on
probation boards. There was always an intention to take stock of the current SFO Review Process after around 18 months. The interrelated
challenges of the Spending Review and the Restructuring of NOMS have provided impetus to the need for further streamlining of the Process.
Following consultation and discussion at the NEMC the proposed changes have been supported and there is no evidence to suggest there will
any equality impact for trusts or those working within them
Name Gordon Davison
Department: Public Protection and Mental Health Group , NOMS
Date:
14 February 2011
Note: If a full EIA is required hold on to the initial screening and when the full EIA is completed send the initial and full screening together. If a full
EIA is not required send the initial screening by email to the Equality, Diversity and Human Rights Division for publication
PI 10/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue Date 07/07/2011