NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR SERIOUS FURTHER OFFENCES
This instruction applies to:
Reference
PI 15 / 2014
Providers of Probation Services
AI 15/ 2014
NOMS HQ
Issue Date
Effective Date
Review Date
Implementation Date
1 February 2015
1 June 2014
1 August 2015
(Revised)
Issued on the authority NOMS Agency Board
of:
For action by:
All staff responsible for the development and publication of policy and
instructions
NOMS HQ
Heads of Groups
National Probation Service (NPS) Directorate
Community Rehabilitation Companies
NOMS Rehabilitation Contract Services Team
All other providers of Probation Services
Instruction type
For information
Provide a summary of the
policy aim and the reason
for its development /
revision
Contact
Associated documents
service specification support / service improvement
SFO Leads and, where relevant, Single Points of Contact (SPOC), other
NPS/CRC staff, CRC sub-contractors, Head of OMPPG (NOMS),
Director of NPS, Director of NOMS in Wales, NOMS Director for
Operational Services, Head of Dangerous Offenders Section, OMPPG
(NOMS), OMPPG SFO Team (NOMS)
A revised PI to replace PI 15/2014 is now needed to account for multiple
providers of probation services who will all be required to comply with
this new PI in the notification and review procedures for Serious Further
Offences.
Deanna Francis, Head of Serious Further Offences Team,
Dangerous Offenders Section
Offender Management and Public Protection Group
National Offender Management Service
Deanna.Francis2@noms.gsi.gov.uk
Telephone 0300 047 4550
PI 14/2012 The Approval and Implementation of Policy and Instruction,
PI 32/2014 Implementation of the Approved Premises Specification
PI 01/2014 Reviewing & Reporting Deaths of offenders under Probation
Supervision in the Community
PI 48/2014 Victim Contact Scheme Guidance Manual
PI 57/2014 Process for CRC’s to refer cases in the community to NPS
for Review/Risk Escalation Review
PI 07/2014 Case Transfers for Offenders Subject to Statutory
Supervision Either Pre-Release From Custody or Whilst Completing an
Order Or Licence
Practice Framework: National Standards for the Management of
Offenders 2011,
NOMS Risk of Serious Harm Guidance (2009),
Offender Assessment System (OASys),
MAPPA Guidance,
Inspection of Adult offending work case assessment Guide 2013 (HMI
Probation),
PSI 04/2015 - PI 01/2015 Rehabilitation Services Specification
PSI xx/2015 Release on Temporary Licence (yet to be published)
Community Supervision, Code of Practice for Victims of Crime (October
2013), Extant Transforming Rehabilitation Programme Target Operating
Model (TOM)
Account Management Manual
Multi-Agency Statutory Guidance for the Conduct of Domestic Homicide
Reviews (August 2013),
Replaces the following documents which are hereby cancelled :
Probation Instruction PI 04/2013 All hard copies of these Instructions must be destroyed
Audit/monitoring:
The Director of NPS, Director of NOMS in Wales and NOMS Director of Rehabilitation Services for
CRCs will monitor compliance with the mandatory requirements in this instruction.
NOMS contract management will hold providers to account for delivery of mandated instructions as
required in the contract.
Introduces amendments to the following documents: None
NOTES: Update: 1 February 2015 - PI 15/2014 was prepared in readiness for the implementation
of the Government’s Transforming Rehabilitation Programme (TRP). This revised PI takes account
of the impact of TRP and recognises that the current procedures continue to provide a framework for
the review of practice in incidents of Serious Further Offences. The revisions to the PI take the
opportunity to provide updates in terms of the impact of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 and
highlights the use, by prisons, of these procedures for incidents of SFOs on Release on Temporary
Licence, as set out in PSI xx/2015 Release on Temporary Licence (yet to be published). Additional
annexes relevant to the prison procedures are now also included in this PI.
All mandatory actions in this Instruction are shown in italics and must be strictly adhered to.
PAGE 1
CONTENTS
Section
Title
Relevant to
1
Executive summary
2
Operational Instructions
3
Policy and strategic context
Annex A
Victim summary
guidance.
report
NPS, CRCs and other providers of
probation services involved in
Offender Management and Courts
template
Annex B
SFO Operational Guidance
Annex C
Serious Further Offences qualifying list
and
SFO Review Authors, NPS/CRC
SPOCs and nominated SFO Leads,
OMPPG SFO Team, Deputy
Directors for Custody, Prison
Governors
NPS, CRCs and other providers of
probation services involved in
Offender Management and Courts
SFO Document Set Consists of Annexes
D to L
Annex D
SFO Notification
Annex E
Standard Review form
Annex F
Shortened SFO Review form
Annex G
ROTL SFO Review form
Annex H
Review Chronology
Annex I
Action Plan Update
Annex J
Quarterly Summary of Action on Learning
Points
Annex K
Outcome
Annex L
Media communications template
PSI 15/2014 PI 15/2014
SFO Review Authors, NPS/CRC
SPOCs and nominated SFO Leads,
OMPPG SFO Team, Deputy
Directors for Custody, Prison
Governors
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 2
1.
Executive Summary
Background
1.1
There have been procedures in place for the reporting of serious further offending by
offenders subject to supervision in the community by Probation Trusts, and now the
National probation Service and Community Rehabilitation Companies, for over 10 years
and these have developed over time.
1.2
Prior to this Instruction, the SFO Notification and Review Procedures have applied solely to
Probation Trusts. This new Instruction recognises the changes that have resulted from the
Government’s Transforming Rehabilitation Programme (TRP) which has opened up the
delivery of probation services to create a diverse range of rehabilitation providers.
Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs), who supervise low and medium risk of
serious harm offenders. The National Probation Service (NPS), managed directly through
NOMS will supervise all other offenders, including all MAPPA cases and offenders
assessed as a high risk of serious harm. This new Instruction requires the NPS, CRCs and
all other providers of probation and community services to comply with the SFO Notification
and Review Procedures.
1.3
The SFO Notification and Review Procedures are intended to ensure rigorous scrutiny of
those cases where offenders under the management of the NPS or a CRC have been
charged with a specified violent or sexual offence (please refer to the list of qualifying
offences in Annex C), in order that:-
1.4
•
the public may be reassured that the NPS, CRCs and all other providers of
probation and community services are committed to reviewing practice in cases
where offenders managed by them are charged with certain serious offences;
•
areas of continuous improvement to risk assessment, risk management and
offender management practice and policy within the NPS, CRCs and all other
providers of probation and community services (together with other parts of the
NOMS Agency or beyond as appropriate) are identified and disseminated locally
and nationally, as appropriate; and
•
Ministers, the NOMS Chief Executive, other senior officials within NOMS and the
wider Ministry of Justice (MoJ), where appropriate, can be informed of noteworthy
cases of alleged serious further offences committed by offenders whilst under
supervision. The responsibility for this currently sits in the NOMS Offender
Management and Public Protection Group (OMPPG).
This Instruction aims to reflect the new structures within which probation services are
delivered and provides a reference – at paragraph 2.11 - to PSI xx/2015, Release on
Temporary Licence (yet to be published), which introduces the use of these procedures
with cases of serious further offending when offenders are subject to Release on
Temporary Licence (RoTL). The Instruction acknowledges that multiple providers are
contracted to deliver probation services, and Deputy Directors in the NPS and CRC Chief
Executives must to ensure compliance with this Instruction, in accordance with the SLA (for
the NPS) and contracts (for the CRCs). The governance of the SFO Notification and
Review procedures, including the action plans to take forward lessons learnt, will; for the
NPS, be through the line management function and accountability against the SLA with the
Directors of Probation within NOMS; whilst for CRCs it is recognised that they will have
their own governance structures through the Chief Executive within each organisation but
will also be held accountable through the contract management function within NOMS. This
Instruction confirms the quality assurance function of the SFO Team within OMPPG for
ensuring that all SFO reviews have been completed in line with the mandated procedures.
This quality assurance function sits within NOMS but outside the Directorate of Probation.
PSI 15/2014 PI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 3
Desired outcomes
1.5
This Instruction aims to ensure that all instances of serious further violent or sexual
offending that fall within the remit of the SFO Notification and Review Procedures are
identified, notified and reviewed in line with the Agency’s requirements. This is to ensure
that all providers of probation and community services can learn any lessons from the
serious further offence and demonstrate a commitment to continuous practice improvement
in the management of all offenders. This includes in particular that:
the criteria for placing the cases of offenders charged with a SFO under these
procedures are known and understood;
offenders charged with a SFO are promptly identified at local level and notified to
OMPPG within the required timeframe;
SFO Reviews are appropriately rigorous, produce findings that are supported by
clear and comprehensive evidence and draw out all relevant learning points; and
the role of the OMPPG in informing Ministers and senior officials about noteworthy
SFOs is understood by the NPS, CRCs, all other providers of probation and
community services and relevant stakeholders.



Application
1.6
Section 2 of this Instruction sets out actions that must be taken to ensure that all SFOs are
identified, notified and reviewed in line with current procedures. Requirements for Victim
Summary Reports (VSRs) are also set out here. All staff with responsibility for courts,
offender management, case administration and MAPPA must be familiar with this section.
1.7
Section 3 briefly sets out the policy and strategic context that relates to SFO procedures.
1.8
The revised SFO Document set is given in Annexes D to L.
Mandatory actions
1.9
The mandatory actions for this Instruction are set out, in italics, in section 2 Operational
Instructions. Additional guidance, including a table of mandatory actions is included in the
SFO Operational Guidance, see Annex B.
1.10
The CRC Chief Executive must ensure that all CRC staff, including any sub-contractors
e.g. providers of electronic monitoring or drug treatment services, are aware of the
contractual obligation to comply with this Instruction. The Directors of the NPS, or their
representatives, must ensure that, as part of their SLA and routine oversight of the NPS,
arrangements are in place to monitor the compliance with the requirements in this
instruction.
1.11
In order to demonstrate a commitment to continuous practice improvement in the
management of all offenders, the Director of NPS,, Director of NOMS in Wales, Deputy
Directors in the NPS and Chief Executives of CRCs must ensure that staff in their
organisation:


identify and notify OMPPG of all qualifying SFOs in accordance with the operational
requirements in this Instruction;
undertake SFO Reviews in accordance with the operational requirements in this
Instruction and in such a way that key lessons that arise out of reviews are shared with
their staff and used to further improve policy and practice; and
provide additional information relating to a SFO case to assist with any briefing for
Ministers and senior officials being prepared by OMPPG, as required.
PSI 15/2014 PI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 4
1.12
Deputy Directors in the NPS must ensure that they receive regular updates on progress
against SFO Review learning points. Within CRCs, the Services Agreement, as part of the
contract management function, requires CRCs to report on SFO reviews in service reports.
Resource impact
1.13
The SFO Notification and Review Procedures have always applied across all offenders
subject to any form of statutory supervision irrespective of risk levels resulting, on average,
in the receipt of 450-500 notifications each year – i.e. less than 0.5% of the probation
caseload. However, one of the developments within the TRP, is that the cohort of offenders
receiving sentences of less than 12 months will now be subject to statutory supervision,
whereas previously this was not the case. This will, inevitably, increase the number of
SFOs but it is difficult to estimate how many will be charged with one of the qualifying
offences. Many of the additional SFOs will be committed by offenders who will be
supervised by CRCs given that those sentenced to under 12 months are likely to be
assessed as low or medium risk offenders. Even though it is unlikely that there will be an
even spread of these SFOs across England and Wales, CRCs will need to factor this in to
the consideration of the resources they will require in order to comply with the mandatory
actions in this Instruction and may need to keep this under review with the NOMS contract
management function.
Employee care
1.14
We know from experience that, when dealing with cases of serious further offending, it can
be stressful for those staff involved. Therefore, good practice would suggest that it is
important for both the NPS and the CRCs to exercise good employee care at these times.
It should be remembered that the review process is not about apportioning blame
but developing practice through continuous improvement, even though in a very
small number of cases the review process may result in capability and/or
disciplinary proceedings being invoked. Good practice should include ensuring that any
staff involved in the management of a case that leads to a SFO notification are made
aware when a review is being undertaken, are able to prepare for any interviews that may
be required and are given feedback on those outcomes of the SFO review that relate
directly to them. During this process, line managers should provide appropriate support for
their staff in line with their own agency HR policies, as they would in any other case where
staff need support to deal with challenging issues at work. The NPS and CRCs should also
ensure that any of their staff who are interviewed as part of a SFO Review are given a copy
of ‘Serious Further Offence Review Process – A Guide for Staff’, which can be accessed in
the SFO Operational Guidance at Annex B, via The Authority’s website link or from the
SFO Team in OMPPG. Although the SFO Review is the key process for reviewing how the
case has been managed, the ongoing management of the case will normally require that
the offender manager and their line manager discuss the case, review risk and adjust
sentence plans and risk management plans accordingly. In those few cases where the
reviewing manager decides that they need to interview staff members before this takes
place, they will inform the line manager in the case accordingly.
(Approved for Publication)
Sarah Payne
Director, NOMS in Wales
pp. Digby Griffith
Director of National Operational Services, NOMS
PSI 15/2014 PI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 5
2.
Operational Instructions
Where these constitute a mandatory action they are highlighted in italics. Additional guidance on
the mandatory actions is included in the SFO Operational Guidance at Annex B.
2.1
Notification of cases that qualify for a SFO Review
2.1.1
The NPS and CRCs must notify the OMPPG using the Notification form in the SFO
Document Set and complete the relevant sections when an eligible offender is charged with
a qualifying offence, i.e. a violent or sexual offence listed in Annex C, and meets the criteria
to qualify for a Review, details of which are given in this section and sections 2.2 and 2.3
below. The core requirements when it comes to completing and submitting a Notification in
a qualifying case are that: (i) the NPS, through attendance at court, and the NPS or the
CRCs, from knowledge of the offender, have processes in place to identify SFOs by or at
first court appearance; and (ii) the Notification with full information is received at OMPPG
within 10 working days of the first court appearance. There are three stages to the
completion of the Notification documentation:


2.1.2
Stage 1 and 2 will be completed by the NPS at court or shortly afterwards
Stage 3 will be completed by the allocated provider of probation services so either the
NPS or CRC, before submission of the Notification to OMPPG.
Reviews will be required in any of the following cases:- any eligible offender who has been charged with murder, manslaughter, other specified
offences causing death, rape or assault by penetration, or a sexual offence against a
child under 13 years of age (including attempted offences) committed during the
current period of management in the community of the offender by the NPS or a CRC; or
whilst subject to ROTL. In addition, this will also apply during the 28 day period following
conclusion of the management of the case; or
- any eligible offender who has been charged with another offence on the SFO qualifying
list committed during a period of management by the NPS or a CRC and is or has been
assessed as high/very high risk of serious harm during the current sentence (NPS only) or
has not received a formal assessment of risk during the current period of management; or
- any eligible offender who has been charged with an offence, whether on the SFO list or
another offence, committed during a period of community management by the NPS or a
CRC, and the provider of probation services or NOMS has identified there are public
interest reasons for a review. This may be due to significant media coverage Ministerial
interest or where reputational risks to the organisation may arise; or
- if the offender has died and not been charged with an eligible offence but where the police
state he/she was the main suspect in relation to the commission of a SFO.
2.1.3
In respect of those SFOs relating to offenders who are assessed as low risk of serious
harm at sentence, and remain so up to the point of the SFO, and who are subject to either
a community order or a suspended sentence order, there is a requirement to undertake
only a shortened review as opposed to a standard review. This does not include those
offenders released on post-release supervision or cases fitting this profile where the
individual SFO has been flagged as a high profile case likely to attract significant public
interest. In such cases, the NPS or the CRCs retain the option of completing a standard
review. Any decision to proceed to a standard review would need to be formally agreed
between OMPPG and the relevant NPS or CRC, usually by the Head of the SFO Team and
the SFO lead or relevant senior manager in the CRC or the NPS, either at the point of the
PSI 15/2014 PI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 6
Notification being sent to OMPPG or immediately afterwards. It is anticipated that cases of
this nature will be very rare.
2.1.4
Other than the category of SFOs referred to in 2.1.3 immediately above, all other SFOs will
undergo a standard review.
2.1.5
CRCs and the NPS will need to consider whether the commission of an alleged SFO
requires that the case is considered in line with PI 08/2014, Process for CRC’s to refer
cases in the community to NPS for Review/Risk Escalation Review.
2.2
Offender Eligibility
2.2.1
The following types of offender are eligible for inclusion in SFO procedures:•
•
•
2.2.2
those under any form of management by the NPS or a CRC, including those subject
to the new post sentence supervision arrangements, on the date of the SFO is alleged
to have been committed (excluding offenders where a court or recall warrant had
been issued three months or more prior to the date of the SFO);
those who were under any form of statutory management by the NPS or a CRC,
including those who have been subject to recall and released at Sentence End Date
(SED), which terminated no more than 28 days prior to the date the SFO is alleged to
have been committed; and
those who are subject to the management of the NPS, CRC or any other provider of
probation and community services and are charged with an equivalent eligible
offence in another jurisdiction.
There may be other instances where it is appropriate to complete an SFO Notification, for
example;
cases of deferred sentences where sentencing is deferred to allow an offender to
comply with any requirements set by the court, or cases where a single requirement
has been imposed with no supervision requirement.
Consideration of a discretionary SFO Review would need to take into account the specific
requirements set by the court and the management of the case by the NPS, CRC or the
CRC’s subcontractors during that period
2.2.3
If the NPS or a CRC has a case such as those highlighted in 2.2.2, advice should be
sought from the OMPPG SFO Team before submitting the Notification.
2.3
Offence Eligibility
2.3.1
The list of SFO qualifying offences is at Annex C and is based on, but not identical to,
Schedule 15A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. This remains unchanged since PI 04/2013.
All offences on this list attract either a maximum of 14 years imprisonment or an
Indeterminate Sentence.
2.3.2
Any subsequent amendments to the list will be formally notified to Deputy Directors in the
NPS, Chief Executives of CRCs and the NOMS contract management function, and a
revised list placed on the Authority’s website.
2.4
Subsequent changes in eligibility
PSI 15/2014 PI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 7
2.4.1. A case will cease to qualify for a Review if it subsequently falls outside the SFO eligibility
criteria, as a result of:•
a finding at court of not guilty, other than for reasons of fitness to plead or not guilty
by reason of insanity;
•
the discontinuance of proceedings either pre-trial or at court;
•
the reduction of the charge to one that falls outside the SFO eligibility criteria;
2.4.2
The NPS or CRC must inform the OMPPG using the SFO “outcome section” of the
document set whenever a SFO case that has been previously notified to OMPPG
subsequently falls outside of the SFO eligibility criteria - for example, where charges are
reduced. The provider can decide to continue with a local review in these cases, particularly
if there are clear indications of important lessons to be learned.
2.5
Cases that do not need to be reviewed.
2.5.1
If an offender is charged and appears in court for a SFO committed more than five years
ago, OMPPG, in consultation with the NPS and CRC and, for CRCs the Senior Contract
Manager, will make a decision on whether it will be reviewed as a SFO. Consideration will
need to be given to the amount of case material available and therefore, the likelihood of
any significant lessons to be drawn from the case.
2.6
SFO procedures when the victim is a child
2.6.1. When the SFO eligibility criteria are met, and an associated Serious Case Review (SCR)
will be or is likely to be undertaken by the Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB), the
senior lead manager and/or the reviewing manager for the NPS or the CRC must liaise with
the LSCB to ensure that all necessary information is provided in a timely manner for the
LSCB. This may include information from the SFO Review but also other information
derived from case and other records. Where the bulk of the SFO Review is of direct
relevance to the matters under consideration by the LSCB, it must be forwarded to the
Chair of the LSCB as an ‘OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE’ document; in other cases, the NPS or the
CRC must share a summary of findings from the SFO Review, not the SFO Review itself,
with the LSCB.
2.6.2
In those instances where a SFO Review is to be undertaken alongside a SCR, the NPS or
CRC SFO senior lead must discuss and co-ordinate the timescales for both Reviews with
the appropriate senior officer on the LSCB, either directly or via the probation
representative on the LSCB.
2.7
SFO procedures when the victim is under supervision of a provider of probation
services
2.7.1
In SFO cases where the victim has died and was under the management of a probation
provider at the time of the offence, the NPS or the CRC, as the case may be, must be
aware of the procedures outlined in PI 01/2014, Reviewing & Reporting Deaths of offenders
under Probation Supervision in the Community.
2.8
SFO cases involving deaths of residents in Approved Premises
2.8.1
In SFO cases where the victim was under management and residing in Approved Premises
at the time of the offence, the NPS or CRC must be aware of the procedures outlined in the
Approved Premises Manual, issued under PI 32/2014. There will be instances where a
CRC will be responsible for the management of an offender who is residing within an
Approved Premises, where it has been deemed suitable for the offender to spend a limited
PSI 15/2014 PI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 8
period of time at the Approved Premises without the need for the case to be reallocated to
the NPS.
2.9
MAPPA Level 2 and 3 offenders charged with a SFO
2.9.1
When an eligible offender is charged with a qualifying offence and is being managed at
either MAPPA level 2 or 3, the NPS must ensure that the MAPPA Co-ordinator, or
equivalent, receives a copy of the Initial Notification. The local MAPPA Strategic
Management Board (SMB) may decide, in selected cases, to complete a Serious Case
Review as described in the MAPPA Guidance. The NPS must then provide to the SMB
Chair a copy of the SFO Review once completed as an ‘OFFICIAL-SENSTIVE’ document
not for further disclosure, in line with MAPPA guidance. In all other SFO cases involving
MAPPA level 2/3 management, a brief summary (including the outcome of the case and the
action plan) of the Review (not the Review itself) must be shared with the SMB Chair and
the SMB itself at their next scheduled meeting.
2.10
SFO cases involving a Domestic Homicide Review (DHR)
2.10.1 Where an eligible offender is charged with a domestic violence and abuse incident which
has resulted in the death of the victim, and once it is known that a homicide is being
considered for review, the senior lead/SPOC for the NPS or CRC must liaise with the local
community safety partnership and designated DHR chair to notify them that the case has
triggered an internal review. Each agency contributing to the DHR will be required to carry
out an Internal Management Review (IMR) to look openly and critically at individual and
organisational practice to see whether the homicide indicates that changes could and
should be made.
2.10.2 In terms of sequencing, given the different timescales, the SFO Review would normally
have been prepared some time prior to the IMR being commissioned, and as such the IMR
could be informed by the SFO document, and could contain all the relevant information
identified within the SFO Review. This can also include the relevant learning points which
were identified in the SFO Review.
2.10.3 Under no circumstances should the SFO Review serve as the IMR, as once completed as
an ‘OFFICAL SENSITIVE’ document, the SFO Review is not to be disclosed.
2.11
Commission of a SFO when subject to Release on Temporary Licence
2.11.1 PSI xx/2015 - Release on Temporary Licence (yet to be published) introduces these
procedures for offences committed on ROTL and sets out the mandatory action at 12.2 of
the PSI - The NPS and CRCs must contribute as required to the review of a ROTL failure.
2.11.2 While the majority of this Probation Instruction will apply, to the ROTL process, not all
elements may be required. The ROTL process is set out in separate operational guidance
at Annex B. Where there is uncertainty as to how to proceed the prison Governor should
contact the SFO team in OMPPG for advice; SFO@noms.gsi.gov.uk. The relevant Core
questions for a review on a ROTL SFO can be found at Annex G of this Probation
Instruction.
2.12
Administration, retention and storage
2.12.1 The NPS and CRCs must identify a single point of contact (SPOC) to co-ordinate SFO
cases up to and including the SFO Outcome. The SPOC, on behalf of the NPS or the CRC,
would be the main contact with the OMPPG SFO Team on a day-to-day basis concerning
SFOs.
PSI 15/2014 PI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 9
2.12.2 The NPS and CRCs must ensure there is immediate access to details of SFO cases,
including staff contacts, and further case record details, if required urgently by the OMPPG.
This information may be required for briefings to Ministers and senior officials in respect of
cases that attract significant public interest. The NPS and CRCs should keep electronic
records of SFO reviews for five years from the date of completion of the review, with any
paper records held in line with local records policy. The paper record should include any
notes kept by the reviewing manager, including notes of interviews with staff. Once
completed, all Review documents are marked ‘OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE’ and must be sent
through the GSi network or equivalent via the SPOC or relevant senior manager to
SFO@noms.gsi.gov.uk.
2.13
Communications Strategy
2.13.1 The NPS and CRCs must implement a communications strategy in each case, managed by
a designated person, which should be a senior manager in high profile cases. In cases that
have been designated by OMPPG as high profile for significant public interest reasons, the
draft communications strategy must be sent to, and agreed with, the Head of the SFO
Team in OMPPG, who will then forward it to the relevant Deputy Director for Probation in
NOMS (or their representative), or (as the case may be) the relevant contract manager for
the CRC, and to the MoJ press officer responsible for probation media handling, for final
agreement. (The MoJ Press Office acts for NOMS in line with the Agency Framework
document.) The NPS and CRCs must use the NOMS communication plan template for high
profile SFOs (see Annex L). Where the NPS or a CRC subsequently place statements or
publications relating to SFOs into the public domain, advance copies must be made
available to the SFO Team, the NOMS relevant Deputy Director (or their representative),
the Senior Contract Manager, and MoJ Press Office. All providers of probation services are
encouraged to make early contact with the SFO team and/or MoJ Press Office who will
provide support and advice when requested. The NPS and CRCs should also consider
liaison with other agencies who may be responding to media interest, including the police.
2.13.2 The NPS and CRCs must establish a comprehensive communications strategy with respect
to victims, normally implemented after conviction. This is particularly the case where a
victim summary report is prepared; however, care must also be taken in cases where
probation involvement is disclosed to victims by third parties either pre-trial or through
evidence of ‘bad character’ during the trial.
2.13.3 SFO Reviews must be protectively marked as OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE and are for the
attention of senior management in the NPS and/or a CRC, including Directors and nonexecutive Directors (where relevant), and the OMPPG (including those conducting research
on their behalf) in NOMS, and those directly connected with associated reviews, e.g.
MAPPA SMBs. They are not published, to encourage all those providing information for the
Review to be completely frank and open and not to be discouraged by the prospect of
material which is normally held confidentially (e.g. the detail of the offender’s supervision)
being published. However, the NPS and CRCs must be aware that the information
contained in any SFO Review is subject to the requirements of the Data Protection
Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Exemptions from disclosure may
apply, as assessed on a case-by-case basis. In order to ensure consistent national
practice in compliance with legislation, providers must ensure that the OMPPG and
the NOMS Directors of Probation (or their representative) are notified immediately
whenever information requests for SFO documentation arise, in liaison with the MoJ
Data Access and Compliance Unit (DACU). The NPS and CRCs must also be aware
that in cases where there has been loss of life, the Coroner may request a copy of
the SFO review which may bring the contents of the Review into the public domain.
2.14
Victims
PSI 15/2014 PI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 10
2.14.1 It is important that the SFO process takes account of the needs and concerns of the victim
of the index offence, that led to the offender being placed under statutory supervision in the
first place (primarily in those cases of serious sexual or violent offending where there is an
ongoing victim contact responsibility), and the victim of the SFO. Information about the
circumstances of the SFO may enable the reviewing manager and others to identify if the
new offence has involved re-victimisation of a person who was assessed as being at risk
from the offender and/or their associates, decide if the case may need to be flagged as high
profile and consider if, exceptionally, there should be formal communication prior to
sentence with either set of the victim(s) or their family.
2.14.2 Regarding the victims of the new (SFO) offence, the NPS, which is responsible for
delivering the statutory Probation Victim Contact Scheme, must actively seek and record
victim information from the initial and subsequent court proceedings. In keeping with
existing guidance and the Victims’ Code of Practice, direct contact with the victim of the
SFO should not usually be made prior to conviction for a serious further offence. However,
there may be cases (for example, where the offender is deceased, or where adverse
information is already in the public domain) where early contact is appropriate, particularly
where there is information from the SFO Review that the NPS or CRC feels the victim (or
his/her family, if the victim is deceased) should hear direct from the provider of probation
services, rather than the media or others. In these cases, the NPS or CRC must discuss
any proposed action with the SFO Team at OMPPG and advice must be sought from the
police or Crown Prosecution Service to avoid any jeopardy to the legal process.
2.14.3 Regarding previous victims of the index offence, the SFO Notification must be copied to the
local Victim Contact Unit (VCU) which, having checked their records, will consider with the
Offender Manager, in consultation with senior management, whether previous victims
should be contacted, if they are eligible for statutory victim contact.
2.14.4 Any passing of information to victims or victims’ families, outside of any Victim Summary
Report (VSR), about the nature of previous supervision, and handling areas of contention,
must be managed by a senior manager appropriate to the level of concern, in conjunction
with the local VCU, and in accordance with the SFO Operational Guidance.
2.14.5 Since April 2013, in mandatory SFO cases, Trusts have been required to prepare a
summary of findings from the SFO review to be provided to the victim or the victim’s family
upon the conviction of the offender. This will continue to apply for all notifications received
at OMPPG from 1 April 2014. It will be for the SFO lead, or appropriate senior manager
within the NPS or CRC to liaise with the Victim Contact senior manager, within the NPS, to
ensure that at the point of the initial contact, the victim or the victim’s family is made aware
of the availability of a VSR on the findings of the SFO review.
2.14.6 Guidance on the completion of the VSR and process for delivery of the findings to the victim
are at Annex A. However, it should be noted that where other types of case review are also
being undertaken, such as a MAPPA Serious Case Review, Domestic Homicide Review,
and Child and Adult Safeguarding Reviews, which are already prepared with a view to
disclosure, a SFO VSR is not always required.
2.15
Who should complete SFO Notifications and undertake Reviews of SFO cases?
2.15.1 The core requirements when it comes to completing and submitting a Notification in a
qualifying case are that: (i) the NPS, through attendance at court, and the CRCs, from
knowledge of the offender, have processes in place to identify SFOs by or at first court
appearance; and (ii) the Notification with full information is received at OMPPG within 10
working days of the first court appearance. Where both the NPS and the CRC have to
complete stages of the Notification, then each should take 5 days to allow time for the other
to complete the form and send it to OMPPG within 10 days as required. As set out in 2.1.1,
the three stages to the completion of the Notification documentation are:
PSI 15/2014 PI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 11


Stage 1 and 2 will be completed by the NPS at court or shortly afterwards
Stage 3 will be completed by the allocated provider of probation services so either the
NPS or CRC, before submission of the Notification to OMPPG.
2.15.2 There is no set rule about the grade of staff who should prepare SFO Reviews. However,
Deputy Directors in the NPS and Chief Executives of CRCs must ensure that those
undertaking Reviews have up to date professional knowledge of risk assessment, risk
management and offender management and also have an appropriate level of authority to
make recommendations for improvements in policy and practice across the provider of
probation services, where this is felt to be necessary. It is important they should also have
strategic responsibilities for public protection. Reviews must not be undertaken by those
where a conflict of interest may arise, such as where the SFO author also has line
management responsibility for staff involved in the case. The NPS Deputy Director or a
delegated senior manager or the CRC Chief Executive and delegated senior manager (as
the case may be) must agree and sign off the Review before it is sent to the OMPPG, and
in the case of CRCs, the Senior Contract Manager. Reviews may not be signed off by the
reviewing manager.
2.15.3 There will be occasions where multiple providers of probation services, either NPS divisions
or CRCs, have been involved in the management of a case during the current sentence.
The provider managing the offender at the time of the SFO must take responsibility for coordinating and writing the Review and submitting the completed document to OMPPG. It
would be expected that the lead provider liaises with the other provider(s) so that all
relevant enquiries concerning practice, policy and any operational issues are fully
incorporated into the Review. It will be for each provider(s) to conduct all SFO enquiries for
the period of their responsibility for, or involvement in, the management of the case,
including making all relevant case documentation available to the reviewing manager and
ensuring that individual staff are freed up to be interviewed where this is felt to be
necessary. Such liaison between different providers must involve the relevant SFO senior
leads as a matter of routine at the earliest opportunity. Where a difficulty or difference of
opinion between providers emerges in such a way that the review process may be
undermined, this must be raised with the Head of the SFO Team in OMPPG by the
providers concerned with a view to seeking a resolution.
2.15.4 There will be a small number of cases where the SFO is committed by an offender away
from their home area and the offender is charged and appears in a court in another
geographical area. The NPS staff covering the court where the offender first appears are
responsible for identifying the case and starting the Notification form based on details
obtained at court. They would then send the draft Notification to the responsible NPS
division and then if relevant, to the CRC responsible for the offender management for final
completion. That provider is then responsible for notifying OMPPG of the SFO by sending
the completed Notification within the required timescale, as set out in 2.1.1 and reinforced
in 2.14.1. At this point, the provider will confirm with OMPPG that they are to undertake the
Review under the normal arrangements.
2.15.5 In some cases, it will be necessary for the Head of the OMPPG or his/her delegate to
arrange for a review to be undertaken by someone other than that part of the NPS or the
CRC which was supervising the offender, when it is necessary to further enhance public
confidence in the impartiality of the process. In doing so, the Head of OMPPG must consult
with the relevant Deputy Director of the NPS or Senior Contract Manager. Criteria that will
be taken into account include, where there is:•
•
perceived potential conflict of interest (including where more than one provider has
been significantly involved in the management of the case); or
early evidence of exceptionally poor practice; or
PSI 15/2014 PI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 12
•
a clear indication of likely exceptional national public interest in a case.
In exceptional circumstances, an independent reviewer (for example, Her Majesty’s
Inspectorate of Probation (HMI Probation) or another senior civil servant) may be called in
to undertake the Review where there are strong reasons for doing so.
2.16
Notification, Review, Update and Outcome stages.
Notification
2.16.1 The NPS and CRCs must::
•
•

•
•
•

•
ensure that all possible eligible SFOs are identified by the first court appearance by
the NPS and reported to the relevant provider’s single point of administrative
contact (SPOC);
consider whether the case qualifies as a SFO which attracts a mandatory review
(either standard or shortened) and formally record as a SFO where this applies;
in mandatory cases ensure that the proforma to notify witness care units of victim
eligibility is completed and sent (more information is contained in the VSR guidance
at Annex A)
notify the OMPPG, copied to relevant Public Protection Manager and the relevant
Deputy Director in the NPS, or the relevant CRC chief executive (or their
representative) and the relevant Senior Contract Manager of any case that qualifies,
within 10 working days of the first court appearance, by sending the “notification
stage” of the SFO Document Set, including identifying those cases which may
attract significant national public interest and informing the OMPPG and the Director
of NPS and Director of NOMS in Wales in advance, if necessary by telephone;
ensure that where a case is identified as qualifying for a SFO Review, the case
record is secured and sent to the lead senior operational manager or stored locally
as requested;
notify the Chair of the LSCB of those cases involving a child victim;
in cases of domestic homicide, notify the DHR Chair and Community Safety
Partnership that a SFO review will be completed
notify the relevant MAPPA Co-ordinator of those cases where the offender was
supervised by the local MAPPA at level 2 or 3, NPS only.
2.16.2 OMPPG must:
•
•
•
•
confirm within three working days of receipt of notification that the NPS or CRC
should proceed to a Review, relevant Public Protection Manager and the relevant
Deputy Director in the NPS, or the relevant CRC Chief Executive (or their
representative) and the relevant Senior Contract Manager and further consider
whether the Review should be conducted outside the responsible provider for
reasons of public interest (see 2.12.5 above);
confirm whether the case will be dealt with as a high profile case;
confirm whether the case qualifies for either a standard or a shorter review; and
discuss any SFO notification, where it appears that the case does not qualify for a
review.
Review
2.16.3 The NPS and CRCs must:
:
PSI 15/2014 PI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 13
•

•
•
•
using the SFO Review Document Set, the NPS and the [CRCs] must assess the
quality of risk assessment, [the identification of the present risk of serious harm of
that allocated person]; risk management, [the proposed management and mitigation
of the [present] risk of serious harm if that allocated person presents a medium risk of
serious harm]; (including cases where risk escalation is identified) and offender
management, [the needs of the allocated person in the context of the delivery of the
services and the identification of the likelihood of that applicable person re-offending;
and the activity to be undertaken with the allocated person to deliver that part of the
sentence of the court to be served in the community and to reduce the likelihood of
re-offending, using (as applicable) an authority approved system]; of the case,
including the period in custody where appropriate, during the relevant sentence(s) up
to the point of the SFO;
The review must include evidence to support the judgments made about the quality
of practice;
if there are deficiencies relating to the management of the case, outline these
deficiencies, identify the reasons for them, and set out actions to address them;
ensure the “review section” of the SFO Document set is fully completed, signed off by
the NPS Deputy Director (or representative) or the CRC Chief Executive (or
representative) and received by the OMPPG, copied to the Deputy Director (if
appropriate) in NPS cases and the relevant Senior Contract Managers in CRC cases,
within three months of the date the notification was sent. Where there is Ministerial
and/or significant national public interest, an expedited Review may be requested and
must be completed within a timescale agreed with the OMPPG;
ensure a VSR is made available upon request to qualifying victims following
conviction for a mandatory serious further offence, and that a copy of the VSR is
forwarded to the SFO team at OMPPG.
2.16.4 OMPPG must:
•
•
confirm that the review has been received, within three working days of receipt;
ensure that the review is completed to a sufficient standard by undertaking a quality
assessment, within 20 working days of receipt, bringing the attention of the
nominated SPOC, relevant Public Protection Manager and NPS Deputy Director and
CRC Chief Executive and Senior Contract Manager, or their representative, to any
cases that have been inadequately reviewed. Where OMPPG considers that the
review is inadequate – i.e. has not met the requirements of this Instruction, it will
return the review to the reviewing manager and require it to be re-submitted, with the
deficiencies and omissions rectified.
2.16.5 The starting point of the period covered by the SFO review will normally be the
commencement of the current sentence and most usually at the point of the first risk
assessment undertaken by the NPS or the CRC. The review will examine any actions
taken by the CRC following the initial case allocation decision, including risk
escalation, or the NPS when their initial risk assessment does not support the
original case allocation decision. If, at the point of the SFO, the period of management
has been six months or under, and was immediately preceded by a previous period of
management, the review should look at the previous period of management but for no
longer than two years. The end point of the review when considering the quality of
management of the case will normally be the date on which the SFO was alleged to have
been committed (or the last date, where the SFO spans a period of time), although the
chronology should identify any significant events after the commission of the SFO,
particularly where there are matters of public interest. This would apply where there is a
significant time gap between the date of commission of the SFO and the offender’s arrest
PSI 15/2014 PI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 14
and/or charge for this offence, for example, where an offender has committed a SFO whilst
on curfew and/or residing at an approved premises but not been immediately apprehended
or where there are indications of a SFO being committed by the offender as a result of
police investigation and there is not an immediate charge. This would be partly to ensure
that appropriate case management actions had been taken by the offender manager prior
to the offender’s arrest and charge in respect of the SFO and whilst there were indications
of a possible increase in the risk of harm. Where cases such as this are managed within a
CRC, the CRC will need to consider whether risk escalation process should be followed at
this time.
2.16.6 Reviews will normally involve a discussion with the responsible Offender Manager (OM),
the OM’s line manager and other staff directly involved in the management of the case in
order that the Review is as accurate and comprehensive as it can be, drawing not only on
written records but on the direct experience of those working with the offender. Where
appropriate, the reviewing manager will also speak to the relevant area manager or senior
operational manager, especially where the Review raises wider policy and practice issues.
2.16.7 Reviews should consider and assess the quality of implementation of conditions of licences
and requirements of orders or post sentence supervision periods, whether these are
delivered by directly employed staff in the NPS or CRC, or by other provider agencies. In
appropriate cases, inter-agency work may be scrutinised where the SFO senior lead
manager and/or reviewing manager determines that this is feasible and that important
lessons may be learnt, for example, where the risk escalation process is followed in line
with PI 57/2014 Process for CRCs to refer cases for Risk Escalation Review, whereby,
there is management of a case by a CRC and the NPS. Alternatively, the senior lead
manager can bring any concerns about work undertaken by another agency to the attention
of that agency on conclusion of the Review.
2.16.8 As part of the review, the NPS or CRC must identify an Action Plan that will contain
recommendations for the dissemination of good practice and action to address areas for
improvement. In reviews that indicate deficiencies in practice, the NPS Deputy Director (or
representative) or Chief Executive of the CRC, or representative, is required as part of
signing off the Review to consider the standard of practice in the case. Where there have
been deficiencies, improvements to processes and/or knowledge and skill levels may be
required in the action plan. Where a review identifies that there has been exceptionally poor
practice, the NPS Deputy Director (or representative) or Chief Executive of the CRC, or
representative, must indicate when signing off the review any consideration they have given
to instigating capability or disciplinary procedures. A decision not to initiate such procedures
would not preclude action in the future if new information comes to light. Any decision to
instigate formal procedures should be made with full HR advice, in accordance with
relevant policies that should include the duty of care to staff in these specific
circumstances.
2.16.9 As 2.14.3 sets out there will be occasions when multiple providers of probation services are
involved in the completion of a review. Where the provider, who is responsible for the
review, identifies exceptionally poor practice by another provider and it appears that no
action has been taken this must, in the spirit of continuous practice improvement, be
discussed between the senior managers in each of the providers, at the earliest
opportunity. Where it is helpful, OMPPG and, if relevant, the NOMS contract management
function should be included in those discussions. Such a level of deficiency in practice will
inevitably, be identified through the OMPPG quality assurance of the review; however, early
identification and early intervention in cases of exceptionally poor practice may be
necessary to avoid further deficient practice in other cases while the review process is
concluded.
PSI 15/2014 PI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 15
2.16.10. When the review has concluded, feedback must be provided to the Offender Manager and
the line manager, and others who have been interviewed during the review. In cases where
practice has been found to be of a sufficient quality, the reviewing manager (or the line
manager, by arrangement) should confirm that the review has been completed and give
feedback to the staff member(s) concerned, highlighting good practice where applicable. In
cases where there are concerns about the standard of practice, this will be fed back to the
staff member by the reviewing manager (in conjunction with the line manager, as
appropriate) together with the relevant parts of the action plan. Where substantive feedback
has already been given prior to the submission of the Review, and there are no additional
points to be added, the reviewing manager may simply need to confirm this. The important
point is that, although the full SFO documentation is not for distribution, including to the
staff involved, those significantly involved in the SFO review should be aware that it has
concluded and whether there are findings that are relevant to their practice.
Update
2.16.11 CRC Chief Executives must ensure that a brief progress report on the implementation of
the Action Plan, giving assurance that action has been taken on learning points arising out
of SFO Reviews for the specified reporting period is provided to the Senior Contract
Manager no later than six calendar months from the date of the completion of the Review.
Similarly, NPS Deputy Directors or their representative must ensure that a brief progress
report on the implementation of the Action Plan for each SFO Review is provided to the
Director of NPS and the Director of NOMS for Wales. With SFO Reviews that have been
flagged as significant public interest cases, a copy of the progress report may be requested
by OMPPG and used to inform subsequent briefings to ministers and/or senior officials, in
which case the NPS and CRC are required to provide OMPPG with a copy.
2.16.12 OMPPG provides HMIP with details of the learning taken forward on recent SFO cases.
HMIP request this information 10 weeks prior to the commencement of their inspection.
Therefore, OMPPG requires the NPS and CRCs to provide a short summary report, every
3 months, using the template at Annex I. This annex must be signed off by the relevant
senior manager before submission to the Director of NPS,, Director of NOMS in Wales and
Senior Contract Managers. This summary report should be copied to the OMPPG. The
reporting schedule would ensure that only reports on those reviews that were completed
between no less than six and no more than nine months prior to the submission of the
quarterly report from the NPS or CRC. As a rule of thumb, the schedule would be as
follows:Period when SFO Reviews are submitted
to OMPPG on completion
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 NPS/CRC 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
SFO Outcome
2.16.13 The NPS must ensure that the OMPPG and the relevant CRC or NPS SPOC or senior
lead are informed within three working days of an SFO case being concluded in court,
whatever the outcome, and as soon as possible if a case is discontinued or charges are
reduced.
2.17
Other cases that do not qualify for a SFO Review
PSI 15/2014 PI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 16
2.17.1 The NPS and the CRCs should establish a mechanism to review locally other cases where
they feel there could be lessons to learn about public protection. These cases could include
well managed cases and those where offenders are charged with SFO list offences which
do not qualify for a mandatory review. Providers will also be expected to locally review the
small number of “near miss” cases that are considered by the National Joint Review Panel, 1
for example, where an offender was recalled due to deteriorating behaviour and/or
escalation in risk, but not charged with a new offence. There may also be instances of
offenders charged with a SFO who are being supervised by another agency, for example
Youth Offending Teams (YOTs), where a provider of probation services is providing an
intervention such as Unpaid Work/Community Payback. In these cases the relevant
probation provider will review its involvement and provide a contribution to assist the YOT
with any Review they undertake in line with Youth Justice Procedures.
2.18
Quality Assurance and Research
2.18.1 OMPPG will undertake quality assurance of SFO reviews completed by the NPS and
CRCs. They will assess the quality and timeliness of all reviews and give them a quality
rating. Reviews can be rated as good, satisfactory or incomplete. In cases where OMPPG
do not feel there is sufficient evidence to support and justify the judgments which the NPS
or CRC has made about the quality of its practice, OMPPG will return those reviews to the
NPS or CRC rated as “incomplete”. The NPS or CRC must then revise and re-submit the
review to OMPPG, within the stated timescale. Once complete, the quality rating for each
review will be fed back to the NPS Deputy Director and the CRC Chief Executive by means
of a letter, also copied to the Director of NPS and the Director of NOMS in Wales (NPS
cases only) and the Senior Contract managers (CRC cases), which will also record the
main findings of the Review.
2.18.2 A further quality assurance process, SFO review validation, operates whereby a panel
(comprising OMPPG, representatives of the Director of NPS and Director of NOMS in
Wales, HMI Probation, NPS and CRC representatives and invited others) will scrutinise a
sample of completed reviews to determine whether they accurately reflect the information
held on the case file. For the purposes of this process, copies of the case files will be
requested from the NPS and CRC. The NPS and CRCs must provide these case files on
request from OMPPG. SFO Review validation will be undertaken on a geographical basis
bringing together a NPS division and local CRCs. The SFO team will lead the exercise in
the given location drawing cases from both the NPS and CRCs. It is planned to hold 5
events every two years on a rotational basis. NPS Deputy Directors and CRC Chief
Executives will receive written feedback on any of their SFO Reviews that have gone
through the national validation process and key learning points from these events will be
disseminated nationally.
2.18.3. OMPPG will undertake and commission research into SFOs to further disseminate key
lessons from the management of offenders who are high risk of serious harm and/or
commit serious further sexual and violent offences. Some of this work will be done with
partner agencies represented on the National Joint Review Panel. From time to time, the
NPS, CRCs and other providers of probation and community services will be asked to
supply case material to assist with this research.
2.19
Roles and responsibilities of those involved with the SFO procedures
1
The Joint Review Panel (JRP) comprises of: The National Offender Management Service (NOMS), Association of Chief
Police Officers (ACPO), Parole Board, Department of Health (where relevant) bought together under a MOU to identify
learning from the management of offenders who have been recalled to custody following serious further offending during
release on parole or life licence or ‘near miss’ cases where an offender has been recalled following significant concerns
about risk of harm and re-offending and to co-ordinate and take appropriate action in response to this learning to improve
the assessment and management of offenders subject to the parole process.
PSI 15/2014 PI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 17
2.19.1 NPS Deputy Directors and CRC Chief Executives have a responsibility to retain strategic
oversight of SFOs at a local level this should include:•
•
•
•
•
regular reports from the nominated SPOC or senior lead on the number and type of
reviews undertaken and highlighting key lessons from these cases;
receive a sample copy of reviews,
monitor the implementation of all Action Plans (for CRCs, this will also be a
responsibility of the Senior Contract Manager);
consider an annual review that analyses all SFOs that have been committed in their
area; and
submit a summary report to OMPPG (and for CRCs the NOMS contract
management function) every three months confirming progress in acting on learning
points arising out of SFO Reviews.
2.19.2 The Director of NPS, the Director of NOMS in Wales and CRC Chief Executives have
responsibility for the implementation of this Instruction within their division/contract package
area and as part of this must ensure:•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

all reviews are locally quality assured prior to submission to OMPPG and
undertaken with impartiality and integrity;
reviewing managers are competent to undertake SFO Reviews and fully aware of
national and local policies and practice which may be pertinent to the case;
reviewing managers are released to undertake reviews to be completed on behalf of
other probation providers within their division or wider, as required, where an
additional level of objectivity is required, for example in high profile cases. In such
instances, reasonable notice will be given and regard had to the other
responsibilities held by the reviewing manager;
Chairs of the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board (LSCB), the Multi Agency Public
Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) Strategic Management Board and Chairs of
CSPs are informed of the revisions to the procedures outlined in this Instruction;
an Update on each Action Plan is forwarded to the OMPPG, relevant Senior
Contract Manager and NOMS Deputy Directors of Probation within the required
timescale;
an update on any SFO Review Action Plan is sent to OMPPG when so requested
within the required timescale when the SFO relates to a case deemed to be of
significant public interest;
arrangements are made to assist the OMPPG to undertake the Quality Assurance
SFO Review Validation process, where required;
appropriate attention is given to the duty of care in respect of any staff who are
interviewed as part of a SFO Review; and
the VSR must be delivered within the context of the Victim Contact Scheme. Where
a victim requests such a report this will be facilitated by the VLO but delivered by an
operational senior manager from the NPS or the CRC (see detailed guidance in
Annex A)
2.19.3 The Director of NPS, the Director of NOMS in Wales and Senior Contract Managers, will,
by way of their SLA and contract reviews (service reports) need to be assured that NPS
divisions and CRCs work in accordance with this Instruction and:•
•
•
consider this Instruction and establish, in liaison with NPS Deputy Directors,
relevant Public Protection lead managers and CRC Chief Executives, what local
and/or regional activity is appropriate to maximize quality, learning and improvement
from SFO Reviews;
monitor implementation of actions to address deficiencies that have been identified
in SFO reviews;
ensure that learning from SFOs is discussed as appropriate in Contract/SLA Review
(or other designated) meetings with particular attention to high profile cases, cases
PSI 15/2014 PI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 18
•

identifying public protection issues and risks, and those cases which raise regional
or national issues or concerns; and
arrange for, or help facilitate, probation managers to carry ‘out of area’ Reviews as
commissioned by the OMPPG on a fair and equitable basis proportional to the size
of the area.
Discuss as necessary with the relevant Directors and non-executive Directors.
2.19.4 OMPPG has responsibility for the co-ordination and management of SFO procedures at
national level and must ensure:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
the SFO procedures are fully implemented and co-ordinated at national level and all
relevant documentation is maintained and updated;
that the NPS and CRCs are provided with advice and assistance on SFO matters,
as appropriate, including the delivery of training to reviewing managers, by the SFO
team in OMPPG, in line with nationally agreed practice standards;
Quality Assurance panels are arranged to inspect a national sample of SFO
Reviews as part of the SFO Review QA validation;
quarterly statistical information is provided to the NPS, CRCs, the Director of NOMS
in Wales and the Director of NPS, or their representative, for analysis and
benchmarking;
statistical information relating to SFOs is published through the annual MAPPA
Annual Reports and may be made available to MoJ Analytical Services as part of a
contribution to individual publications;
key learning points are disseminated nationally (within NOMS, CRCs and with other
agencies involved in public protection) to inform practice improvement and future
policy development; this will include learning where policy, as distinct from practice,
has been shown to be deficient;
that agencies involved in the management of offenders are aware of the SFO
process at a national level; and
the Minister, the Chief Executive of NOMS and senior officials are informed of any
SFO cases which may cause significant concern.
3. Policy and strategic context
3.1
Protecting the public is a key role for the NPS, the CRCs and all other providers of
probation and community services and they work in partnership with other agencies to
manage and, where feasible, reduce the risk of serious harm posed by offenders.
Compliance with SFO procedures remains an integral part of fulfilling this statutory
responsibility, through a commitment to continuous improvement and should form part of
the provider’s public protection strategy.
3.2
This Instruction updates national SFO procedures and requires the NPS and CRCs to set
up and maintain processes to operate these procedures at local level and to comply with all
mandatory actions. These procedures provide for public accountability in that providers are
required to give account to NOMS (for the Secretary of State) for their management of
offenders charged with a SFO. It is, therefore, critical that appropriate and commensurate
resources are allocated within the NPS and CRCs to ensure effective delivery of these
mandatory actions.
3.3
Learning key lessons about the management of offenders who are assessed as high risk of
serious harm and/or capable of causing serious harm is a central part of the SFO scheme.
By ensuring that SFO Reviews are rigorous and provide an appropriate level of scrutiny, it
is expected that important learning will be drawn out and used to further improve policy and
practice at local, regional and national level. It is therefore critical that the NPS and CRCs
continue to learn from the SFO review process, maintain a focus on the key lessons in
relation to risk assessment (the identification of the present risk of serious harm of that
allocated person – CRCs), risk management (the proposed management and mitigation of
PSI 15/2014 PI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 19
the [present] risk of serious harm if that allocated person presents a medium risk of serious
harm – CRCs), and offender management (the needs of the allocated person in the
context of the delivery of the services and the identification of the likelihood of that
applicable person re-offending; and the activity to be undertaken with the allocated person
to deliver that part of the sentence of the court to be served in the community and to reduce
the likelihood of re-offending, using (as applicable) an Authority approved system and apply
this learning to further enhance public protection.
PSI 15/2014 PI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 1
Annex A
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014 - Notification and Review
Procedures for
Serious Further Offences
Practice Guidance - Victim Summary Report
This guide is a supplement to PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014. It is
designed to provide further detail of the mandatory
requirement to provide a summary of the SFO Review.
March 2015
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 2
Disclosure of overview reports to victims and/or families of victims
INTRODUCTION
The SFO Review procedure was extended in April 2013 to incorporate a new requirement whereby
an overview report of the SFO Review is shared with the victims of serious further offending and/or
their families. This guidance has been written and revised following a series of consultations where
OMPPG has met with Probation Trusts and other stakeholders - for example, senior community
services managers from the Probation and Contracted Services Directorate, and representatives of
the Victims and MAPPA Teams within OMPPG. MoJ Legal Advisers were also consulted in the
production of this guidance. This revised guidance also takes into account the new entitlements
placed on criminal justice agencies under the new Victim’s Code. The revised Victims’ Code was
published in October 2013 with an implementation date of 10 December 2013.
The NPS and the CRCs will need to take great care in providing a bespoke response, based on
the needs of the victim(s) concerned. Relevant staff must ensure that the process is administered
with empathy and responsivity. The NPS and the CRCs will need to engage with victims to
facilitate a process of moving towards resolution of this specific area of work, which will vary in
duration for each victim. It is important that active involvement between the NPS or CRC and the
relevant Victim Liaison Officer/Manager is initiated at the earliest opportunity to manage this
process with the utmost integrity.
The victim summary report (VSR) will be a summary of ‘findings’ from the SFO Review and will
cover, in broad terms, whether there were any deficiencies in the management of the offender
convicted of an SFO and, if there were, what the NPS or CRC concerned is doing to rectify matters
for the management of future cases. This will allow victims and/or their families to see tangible
evidence of the NPS and the CRC’s commitment to identifying learning and improve practice
(where needed).
A number of other factors for producing the summary report were that it would:
i)
help further to involve victims and the families of serious further offending , as part of
HM Government’s aim to put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system;
ii)
provide greater accountability to those most affected by the serious further offending;
iii)
move towards aligning the SFO review process with MAPPA SCRs and Safeguarding
SCRs in terms of at least partial disclosure to victims/their families; and
iv)
give an opportunity for NOMS (and providers of probation services) to offer some
reassurance to victims/their families that SFO review findings are taken seriously and
there is a commitment to acting on critical learning from SFO cases to further improve
practice.
THE VICTIM’S CODE
The Victims’ Code places a statutory obligation on criminal justice agencies to provide a standard
of service to victims of crime. It is designed to be an accessible tool for victims as well as for
agencies. The Code of Practice for Victims’ of Crime was introduced in 2006. The duty to make a
Victims’ Code arises in s.32 DVCVA 2004, which gives the government a statutory obligation to
guarantee minimum standards of service to victims of crime.
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 3
As stated above the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime was revised in 2013. It addresses
victims directly and was designed to be easier for victims to understand in terms of wording and
format, as it follows the criminal justice process chronologically.
In relation to Serious Further Offence Review (SFO Review) Victim Summary Reports (VSR), there
are a number of duties that have been placed on criminal justice agencies, but more specifically on
the single points of contact for victims (Witness Care Units and/or Family Liaison Officer) and on
providers of probation services (in both the NPS and CRCs) to:
-
Contact the Witness Care Unit when notification is received that an offender has been
charged with a SFO, and inform the Witness Care Unit that the victim should be told,
after conviction, of their entitlement to a VSR;
-
Following sentencing and having received contact details from the Witness Care Unit,
contact the victim of a SFO to offer them information about a VSR unless the victim has
expressly stated that they do not want contact from the probation provider;
Offer the victim a face to face meeting with a senior manager to explain the VSR and to try to
answer any questions they may have about the report.
GUIDANCE AND KEY ACTIONS
On which SFO reviews should the NPS or the CRCs prepare a victim summary report
(VSR)?
SFO VSRs should be prepared on mandatory SFO cases as defined in the Probation Instruction,
and contact made with qualifying victims following the offender being convicted of the mandatory
SFO. It is clear that the SFO Review Procedures cover a defined set of the most serious of
offences. The VSR parameters reflect this. All notifications received after 01/04/2013 which go
on to be convicted of a mandatory SFO will qualify.
The NPS and CRCs also have the discretion to prepare a VSR for significant cases where
notification predates 1 April 2013, or where a discretionary SFO Review is carried out, if there is a
strong argument for doing so.
Even in cases where no deficiencies are identified, the VSR provides a mechanism for providing
assurance to a victim/their families that the case has been thoroughly reviewed and that the
probation provider have acknowledged the victim’s position and that they are deserving of
feedback.
How will the NPS or a CRC identify who is a qualifying victim?
The VSR is to be made available to qualifying victims, which is defined as those victims/families
where there is a conviction for a Mandatory SFO.
The right of the victim or victim’s family to have sight of the VSR is not dependent on their
participation in the victim contact scheme (VCS). The victim may receive a VSR without wishing to
receive any other information through the VCS, or may wish to receive information through the
VCS without receiving a VSR. When the WCU or other police single points of contact offers the
services provided under VCS, they will explain the availability of a VSR and, if the victim wishes to
receive either or both services, this will be communicated to the probation provider. Please see
Appendix 1 for further information regarding this process.
The statutory VCS is usually offered following conviction. If the NPS or the CRCs have any contact
with victims prior to conviction, they will need to be very careful about offering a VSR, in order to
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 4
manage victims’ expectations and have regard to the rules on matters under consideration by the
court.
What is the referral process of eligible victims?
The WCU or other police contact has a duty under the Victims’ Code to explain to the victim their
entitlement to the VSR, and to pass on the details of victims who would like to receive a VSR to the
probation provider. This will be done at the same time that they inform the victim about the VCS.
Referrals will be made using the WCU referral form included at Annex I of the PI 11/2013
(Appendix 2 of this guide for reference).
WCUs and other police contacts will often not know whether the offender was under probation
supervision at the time or shortly before the offence was committed. In order to enable WCUs and
other police contacts to fulfil their duty, the NPS or the CRC therefore has a duty to inform the
WCU or other police contact, upon confirmation of notification of a SFO:
-
that the offender was under probation supervision when the offence was committed, or
that probation supervision had ended within 28 days of the offence being committed;
-
that the offence was a serious further offence which would require a mandatory SFO
Review to be undertaken, or that the NPS or the CRC has decided to conduct an SFO
Review and prepare a VSR on a discretionary basis; and
-
that the victim will be entitled to request a VSR, if the offender is convicted of that
offence.
This will be fulfilled by the completion of the template to inform WCUs of victim eligibility. Please
see Appendix 3 for a copy of the template.
It must be made clear to WCUs and other police contacts that they must not discuss the victim’s
entitlement to a VSR until the offender is convicted, and then only if the offence remains a
mandatory SFO.
WCU and other police contacts will not be expected to understand in detail the Probation SFO
Review Procedures or the VSR. The NPS or the CRCs, including VLOs, must be prepared to
explain these processes to WCU staff and provide them with further information if requested.
Victims will be referred to the NPS or the CRCs for more information about these processes, and
VLOs must also be prepared to explain these processes to them.
When the referral of a victim eligible for a VSR is received by the Victim Liaison Unit (VLU), the
SFO lead for the relevant NPS or CRC will liaise with the VLU manager to ensure that the victim is
made aware of the availability of a VSR and that they are given the choice of whether to receive a
VSR. It is suggested that the victim’s eligibility to request a VSR is flagged in the initial contact
letter from the VLO, indicating that a senior manager representing the NPS or the CRC will contact
the victim separately to provide more information, if the victim wishes. An example SFO initial
contact letter can be found at Appendix M of PI 11/2013 (Appendix 4 of this guide for reference).
What must the VSR include?
The VSR must include details from the analysis section of the SFO review document and the
learning points and an analysis of any identified deficiencies and, most importantly, the remedial
action that has been taken to address this. Corporate issues and systemic issues may be the main
points; alternatively, the main points may cover core practice. Taking into account all the issues
and sensitivity involved in the case, the writer of the VSR should consider very carefully
whether it would be appropriate for the VSR to include feedback on good practice. The
content must be general and avoid identification of individuals or any information from which
individuals may be identified. Since April 2013 the SFO Team has received a number of VSRs
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 5
from Probation Trusts, which have had to be sent back to be amended as they contained far too
much information about the offender, which could be challenged under the Data Protection Act.
The Authority’s website contains further guidance on the NPS and CRC’s responsibilities in relation
to data protection.
.
Should staff performance be discussed?
There may be instances where members of staff have undergone capability or disciplinary
procedures as the result of an SFO review. Individual staff names should never be disclosed, but
the VSR places importance on giving an open and honest account of what happened and this
might include details of remedial action that has been taken to address staff capability.
Should reference to other agencies be included in the VSR?
Where other agencies have been involved in the statutory supervision of an offender, their
involvement must be mentioned in the VSR, along the lines that it has been mentioned in the SFO
review document, but only in so far as it relates to the general supervision of the case.
The NPS or CRCs should avoid expressing or implying criticism of named agencies in the VSR, as
criticism would have the potential to create problems as those agencies do not have any right to
reply. Where there is evidence of problems regarding multi-agency working relationships in the
SFO review document, which has given rise to a learning point, that learning point should be
covered in the VSR. The general overarching principle would be that the VSR can comment on
collaboration with other agencies, but not the manner in which other agencies conduct their
business. The NPS or the CRC’s communications officer should consider making contact with MOJ
Press Office to consider a joint media strategy with external agencies in the event of any media
attention.
What about where other reports are being completed?
The timing of the sharing of the VSR with victims will need to take account of other victim
summaries which are being completed (MAPPA Serious Case Review, Domestic Homicide
Review, Safeguarding Review). In cases where a MAPPA Serious Case Review or Safeguarding
Review is being produced, it may not be necessary to share a separate VSR with qualifying
victims.
What is the likelihood of the NPS or the CRCs facing legal action?
The NPS or the CRC could potentially be held liable for poor practice on the part of their
employees in cases of serious further offending. However, this is no different to what could happen
now, as the VSR will flow from the SFO review document – and that SFO review document might,
in certain cases, be disclosed – such as at a coroner’s inquest. It is hoped that the VSR will show
victims - and indeed the general public - that in the cases of the most serious offending steps are
being taken to implement remedial actions to address identified concerns.
What happens when there is disagreement about how a case is managed?
The VSR is based on the SFO review document. When completing the SFO review, the NPS or
CRC have to form judgments as to whether actions taken at the time were reasonable and
defensible, having regard to the fact the training of offender managers/responsible officers and the
pressures under which they were operating. Sometimes SFO reviews will cover differences of view
between supervising probation providers and NOMS HQ – for example, as to whether an offender
should be subject to a standard or a fixed-term recall. In such cases, the NPS or the CRC should
consult the SFO Team in OMPPG on the relevant part of the VSR.
Dissemination
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 6
Who will deliver the VSR?
The VSR should be delivered by a senior manager of the NPS or the CRC that was responsible for
writing the SFO Review in order to reflect the seriousness with which the matter has been treated
by the provider. This also ensures that someone with the necessary grasp of operational
requirements and the authority to implement remedial action is on hand to answer a victims’
questions.
A face to face meeting should be offered to the victim to discuss the VSR. During the meeting, the
VSR may be read to the victim, and/or a copy provided to them, in order that they may read it
though as many times as they wish during the meeting. The victim should be given an opportunity
to ask any questions about the VSR. We advise that the victim and/or their family should not be
provided with a copy of the VSR to take away from this meeting. However, we recognise that this
may be difficult and so local discretion and management can make the decision to provide a copy.
The senior manager should ensure that they contact the relevant VLO to gather information about
the victim/victim’s family so that the VSR can be delivered sensitively and appropriately.
The VLO should attend the VSR meeting with the senior manager, to provide support and ensure
that the VLO is aware of any concerns that the victim may raise about the VSR. However, it should
be noted that the role of the VLO is to facilitate the victim contact scheme and to support the victim
by providing information about the offender at appropriate stages. This role is entirely separate
from the role of the senior manager delivering the VSR and the two roles should not be conflated.
Victims have a right to a high quality contact process and VLOs must confine their remit to the
victim contact scheme. It may be appropriate for an initial meeting to take place, prior to the
meeting with the senior manager, so that the VLO can ‘set the scene’ and manage some of the
expectations of the meeting. However, at no point should the VLO discuss the findings of a SFO
Review with the victim or victim’s family ahead of the formal “disclosure” meeting with the senior
manager.
What if the victim and/or their family lives in a different area to the probation provider that
has completed the SFO Review?
The onus will be on the responsible NPS or CRC to write the VSR in line with the SFO findings,
and to make a decision as to whether it is appropriate for the senior manager to deliver the VSR
(alongside the victim liaison officer from the NPS Division where the victim is residing). The senior
manager may, however, consider requesting that the delivery of the VSR is undertaken by the NPS
Division responsible for the victim liaison contact. In such cases, an agreement will need to be
sought with the relevant senior managers.
When should the VSR be written and disclosed?
It is left to the discretion of the NPS or the CRC to decide when they write the VSR; some
providers may prefer to wait until a conviction for a mandatory SFO before writing the VSR.
However, good practice suggests that the VSR should be written alongside the SFO review and
revisited once the SFO review has been quality assured by OMPPG and the feedback letter has
been provided. Finalising the VSR until after conviction for an SFO would allow providers to
reconsider and comment within the VSR on progress with regard to implementing the action points.
.
Where should the VSR be disseminated?
The victim liaison officer will be best placed to advise as to where the meeting with victims to share
the findings of the VSR should take place. This discussion should take place with both the relevant
senior manager who will be delivering the VSR and the VLO Manager, so that appropriate
arrangements can take place.
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 7
What happens if the victims or family want others present?
The findings of the SFO review are to be disclosed via the VSR at a meeting to which the victim(s)
are invited. Victims may bring along a friend – or even a solicitor but not in the solicitor’s legal
capacity. Media representatives should not be admitted to the meeting.
What format should the VSR take?
It is not mandatory to provide victims with the VSR to take away from the meeting. MAPPA SCR
overview reports are not left with victims. In contrast, DHRs are left with the families of victims
following quality assurance. OMPPG best practice guidance would suggest that the VSR is
delivered verbally, with victims and/or their families being given the option of a follow up letter
containing details of the content of the VSR.
Please see Appendix 5 for reference to a possible structure and format for a VSR and Appendix 6
for a good practice example of a VSR that has been prepared by Wales Probation Trust, which is
based upon the findings from an SFO Review.
Further information on the learning that has been provided from a number of probation trusts since
the implementation of the new requirement to prepare VSRs can be found at Appendix 7.
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 8
Appendix 1
Process for identifying and informing Witness Care Units of victims that are eligible
for a Victim Summary Report (VSR).
For all cases where the relevant NPS or CRC has received confirmation from the
SFO Team (following submission of Stage 3 of the SFO Notification Document) that
the case does qualify for a mandatory SFO Review the following actions are
required:
- The NPS or the CRC will contact the local WCU, using the SPOC list and the SFO WCU
Template (Appendix 3). The template will inform the WCU that the offender has
committed an offence which would make the victim eligible for a VSR, and that on
conviction for that or another VSR eligible offence, the WCU must inform the victim about
the VSR at the same time as they inform them about the Victim Contact Scheme (VCS);
- Once the offender has been convicted and sentenced for a VSR eligible offence, the
WCU inform the victim about the VSR and the VCS, and ask the victim if they would like
their details to be passed to the probation provider. The WCU will also direct the victim to
ask the probation provider if they would like more detail;
- Once the 10 day period has expired in which the victim may opt out of having their details
referred, the WCU will pass the victim's details to the probation provider using the WCU
Referral Form (Appendix 2), completing the new Part III as well as Part I and Part II, and
indicating whether the victim was informed about the VSR and whether or not they have
stated whether they wish to receive one;
- The NPS or CRC will then contact the relevant Victim Liaison Officer/Manager (as per
local arrangement) to discuss next steps in contacting the victim to offer them the VCS and
the VSR.
If there is an Family Liaison Officer (FLO) rather than a WCU involved, the WCU should
pass the details to their police colleagues accordingly.
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 9
Appendix 2
Example template for referral of Cases from Witness Care to the
providers of probation services
In cases where the victim has requested that they do not want further contact from probation, the
Witness Care Unit should only complete Part I of this template, plus Part III of the victim is a
victim of a mandatory serious further offence.
In all other cases where the victim is eligible for contact from the Victim Liaison Scheme (see
attached list of eligible offences), the Witness Care Unit should complete Parts I and II, and, if
applicable, Part III of this referral form and pass it to the relevant Victim Liaison Unit.
All data will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998
Part I:
1) COURT CASE NUMBER:
2) Details to be passed to VCS:
YES
NO
3) Victim’s Gender:
Male
Female
4) Victim’s ethnicity:
i. Asian or Asian British
Indian
Pakistani
Bangladeshi
Any other Asian background
iv. Mixed
White and Black Caribbean
White and Black African
White and Asian
Any other mixed background
ii. Black or Black British
Caribbean
African
Any other Black background
v. White
British
Irish
Any other White background
iii. Chinese or Other ethnic group
Chinese
Any Other
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 10
Part II:
5) Victim’s name:
6) Victim’s contact details:
i) address:
ii) telephone number:
iii) email address:
7) Victim’s date of birth:
8) Name of the victim’s of carers, guardian or parents (where appropriate):
9) Preferred method of contact (if specified):
10) Preferred contact time (e.g. day of week / time of day) (if specified):
11) Inappropriate times for contact (if specified):
12) Victim’s special requirements (e.g. disability, special educational needs, children,
language needs etc).
13) Other relevant information (e.g. if the victim has been identified as vulnerable / health and
safety issues, or if the victim is an offender, poses a risk to staff etc)
14) Details of offender, offence, sentence and relationship to victim
15) Specify lead Police Officer, Police Family Liaison Officer or Sex Offence Liaison Officer, and
contact details (where appropriate or available)
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 11
Part III:
This section should be completed if the victim is a victim of a serious further offence which
mandatorily requires a Serious Further Offence Review to be completed. This includes
cases involving:
-
Murder;
Manslaughter;
Death by dangerous driving;
rape;
assault by penetration;
a sexual offence against a child who is under 13 years of age; and or
an attempt at any of the above.
16) Is the victim a victim of a mandatory serious further offence, as listed above?
YES
NO
17) Has the victim been informed about their right to ask the probation provider for a Serious Victim
Summary Report outlining the findings of the Serious Further Offence Review?
YES
NO
18) Has the victim indicated that they would like to receive a Victim Summary Report, or to receive
more information about the Victim Summary Report?
YES, VSR/more information requested
NO, VSR/more information is not wanted
UNSURE OR NO RESPONSE regarding VSR/more information
If the answer to 18 is no, and the victim explicitly does not want contact from probation
under the Victim Contact Scheme, Part II of this document should not be filled in.
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 12
Appendix 3
Serious Further Offence Review: Pro forma to notify WCU of victim eligibility (on
conviction) for a Victim Summary Report
To be filled in by Probation SFO Lead or SFO SPOC, and sent to the Witness Care Unit
handling the victim(s) of the new offence and NOMS SFO Team.
Name of offender:
D.O.B:
Offence offender is charged with:
To be filled in by WCU for WCU reference
Name of victim:
D.O.B:
The offender was under Probation supervision when the offence was committed / within 28 days of
the offence being committed (delete as appropriate).
(NPS/name of CRC) will carry out a Serious Further Offence Review of the offender’s
management at the time the offence was committed.
On conviction of the offender for this offence or another offence listed below, please inform the
victim(s) of their entitlement to receive a Victim Summary Report of this Serious Further Offence
Review. The victim(s) should be informed about this entitlement at the same time they are
informed about the Victim Contact Scheme.
For more information, the victim should be directed to
(NPS/name of CRC).
If the offender is acquitted of this offence, or is convicted of a different offence which is not
listed below, the victim must not be informed about the Victim Summary Report. The
offender must be convicted of one of the following:







Murder
Manslaughter
Rape
Assault by penetration
A sexual offence against a child under 13
An attempt at any of the above
Death by dangerous driving
For more information, and to confirm upon conviction that the victim is eligible, please contact:
Contact name:
Telephone number:
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
NPS/CRC:
Email address:
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 13
Appendix 4
As referenced in APPENDIX M of PI 11/2013
Example initial contact letter where the victim is eligible for a Serious
Further Offence Review Victim Summary Report
This letter should only be sent out if the victim is eligible for an SFO Review Victim
Summary Report due to the offence triggering a mandatory SFO Review or the Chief
Executive deciding that it would be appropriate to offer a Victim Summary Report.
[name and contact details of Probation Victim Liaison Unit]
[date]
[name(s) and address of victim(s)]
Dear [victim’s name/victims’ names]
My name is [VLO’s name] and I am a Victim Liaison Officer with the National Probation Service.
As a victim of a serious crime, in a case sentenced at [Crown Court location] Crown Court in
[month and year of sentencing], you have a legal right to receive contact from Probation under
the statutory Probation Victim Contact Scheme, and I have been assigned to provide this contact
to you if you wish to receive it.
The purpose of the Victim Contact Scheme is to provide you with information about the criminal
justice system and about the offender’s sentence, including about the likely month and year of the
offenders’ eventual release. Through the Victim Contact Scheme, you also have the right to make
representations about the conditions to which the offender may be subject upon release [delete
the following if offender’s case will not be considered by the Parole Board], and to make a
Victim Personal Statement when the offender is considered for release or transfer to open
conditions by the Parole Board.
The job of your Victim Liaison Officer is to provide you with this information and help you to make
these representations. The information that you pass on to me will not be passed on to the
offender, unless I let you know otherwise, as Victim Liaison Officers are not directly involved in the
supervision of offenders.
As you may be aware, the offender who committed an offence against you was being supervised
by NPS/CRC [delete as appropriate] at the time of this offence / until very recently prior to the
offence. Because of this, [NPS/name of CRC] have undertaken a Serious Further Offence Review,
to investigate how the case was managed, whether there were any deficiencies in management,
and whether or not there are any lessons to be learned to improve future practice. You will have
been informed about this by the Police or Witness Care Officer with whom you were in contact
during the trial and sentence of the offence.
You are entitled to ask to receive a summary of this Serious Further Offence Review, called a
Victim Summary Report. A senior manager in [NPS/name of CRC] will contact you separately in
due course to explain more about the Victim Summary Report, and will offer you a meeting to
discuss it and to try to answer any questions you may have.
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 14
I would emphasise that the offer of contact is entirely optional and it is entirely your choice whether
or not you participate in the Victim Contact Scheme or receive a Victim Summary Report. You may
also choose to receive certain aspects of contact: for example, even if you do not wish to be kept
informed throughout the offender’s sentence, you may wish to receive a Victim Summary Report. It
is also worth noting that even if you do not wish to take up contact at this time, you may contact me
at any point during the offender’s sentence to do so.
You may find it helpful to discuss the Victim Contact Scheme or the Victim Summary Report in
person. I am available to visit you on [provide at least two dates/times when visit would be
possible], and can come to your house or to somewhere convenient for you such as your
workplace [edit as appropriate if visiting the victim’s house raises potential concerns].
However, I will only visit with your confirmation. I would be grateful if you would fill in the attached
form to indicate whether you would like to meet with me, and return it in the stamped addressed
envelope enclosed. You can also indicate if you would like a friend, relative or other supporter to
be present, and whether it would be helpful for me to arrange an interpreter or signer to attend.
If you would prefer, or if you would prefer a different meeting time, please do not hesitate to call or
email me to discuss this: my direct line is [insert telephone number] and my email is [insert
email]. I would be grateful if you could let me know whether you would like to meet by [date],
whatever your decision, so that I know that you have received this letter. The Victim Contact
Scheme is a flexible service and if at all possible, I will try to fit around your other commitments.
You will see that I have also enclosed an Equality of Opportunity Form, which I would be grateful if
you would complete and return with the reply slip. This information is used purely to ensure that all
people who come into contact with providers of probation services are treated in a fair and
unbiased manner.
Finally, I apologise if my contacting you has caused any distress and assure you that any contact
we may have will be dealt with sensitively and discreetly. I would like to assure you again that I
work specifically with victims, and have no direct contact at all with the offender in this case.
Yours sincerely
Victim Liaison Officer
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 15
Appendix 5
NATIONAL OFFENDER MANAGEMENT SERVICE
X PROBATION PROVIDER
SERIOUS FURTHER OFFENCE REVIEW SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT OF REVIEW:
XXXXX
This report is the property of x Probation Provider. It has a HM Govt. Protective Marking
Scheme classification of ‘Official- Sensitive’. Its contents may only be shared with the
permission of X Deputy Director of the NPS or Chief Executive for the CRC
Date: xx/xx/xxxx
Author – Name/title/organisation address
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 16
Structure of Report
Brief explanation of SFO Review Procedure and purpose of SFO Reviews and Summary
Reports
This section will include words along the lines of –
The commission of a serious further offence (SFO) to a victim is an occurrence over
which we extend our sympathies and compassion to those affected. Each SFO
represents a tragedy to the victim and their family and we are mindful of their need
for answers and assurances which might help them or be of help to others in the
future. In carrying out SFO reviews, reviewing managers are asked to determine
whether everything was done which might reasonably have been expected to
manage the offender’s risk of harm effectively – and to provide evidence to support
their judgments.
As the former Chief Inspector of Probation commented, when an offender is being
supervised in the community, it is simply not possible to eliminate risk altogether,
but the public is entitled to expect that the authorities will do their job properly, that
is to say, to take all reasonable action to keep to a minimum each offender’s risk of
harm to others.
The Probation SFO review process requires providers of probation services to
undertake rigorous and open reviews of their own practice, in order to identify
learning for the future. Reviews may sometimes uncover deficiencies, across core
practice areas Deficiencies do not mean that probation providers are somehow
responsible for the offences committed by offenders under their supervision. The
responsibility for those offences always lies with the offender. The fact that there
have been deficiencies should not be taken to read that, but for those deficiencies,
the offender would not have committed a serious further offence.
Case History (factual information, e.g. Y sentenced on xx/xx/xxxx for offences of xxxxxx;
sentence details. All information provided within this section needs to ensure that it
complies with DPA requirements. Only factual information that would have already be
available within the public domain, should be contained to prevent the offender’s
confidentiality being breached.
Practice Issues and Findings – linked to critical learning points and good practice findings
within the SFO Review
Conclusions/Recommendations – relating to either local or national policy and practice, as
appropriate
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 17
Appendix 6
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
WALES PROBATION TRUST
SERIOUS FURTHER OFFENCE REVIEW
VICTIM SUMMARY REPORT
Mr XX
JANUARY 2014
Author: XXX, Reviewing Manager
Wales Probation Trust
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 18
Case History
On the 09/10/09, at Swansea Crown Court, Mr. XX received a sentence of 7 years (part of
which was to be served in custody and part in the community) for the offence of conspiracy
to supply Class ‘A’ drugs. Mr. XX was released from prison on the 21/09/12 and was
subject to a period of licence supervision which due to expire on 23/03/16. Mr. XX’s
licence consisted of six standard licence conditions and the following four additional
conditions:




To participate in the Prolific Priority Offender Scheme;
To comply with any requirements of your Supervising Officer in order to address
your drug and prolific offending behaviour;
To permanently reside at your specified home address;
Not to seek to communicate with named co-defendants.
On the 21/11/13 at Swansea Crown Court, Mr. XX was sentenced to a further sentence of
7 years (part of which was to be served in custody and part in the community) for the
offence of rape.
Practice Issues and Findings
An internal review was conducted into the overall management of Mr. XX’s licence in order
to identify any practice or policy areas which could be improved. The review highlighted
three key areas for development:

Sentence Planning – Every offender has a sentence plan which is designed to
address issues that pose a risk of harm to others, so that the risk might be
minimised. A sentence plan identifies the specific areas of work which each
individual offender must address whilst supervised by the probation service and can
also identify work which must take place with partner agencies (for example, drug
testing or counselling services). Whilst Mr. XX did have a sentence plan, the review
concluded that a more robust plan should have been in place at a much earlier
stage (i.e. at the beginning of Mr XX’s prison sentence). Whilst this review did not
conclude that this would have prevented the offence being committed, this would
have enabled more consistent contributions from all involved agencies. Such a plan
would have also included more formal and structured work designed to address Mr.
XX’s offending behaviour.

Risk Management – It is expected that Offender Managers will respond to changes
in circumstances and risk, using up to date risk assessments throughout the course
of an offender’s sentence. The review identified that Mr. XX’s Offender Manager
did respond appropriately on occasion, however, the focus was judged to be too
simplistic and reactive. This could have been improved by a more pro-active
response where the Offender Manager’s efforts to engage Mr. XX could have been
more structured and sequenced in addressing his offending behaviour.

Multi - Agency Working – In working with offenders, it is expected that Probation
staff will work closely with other key partners in sharing information to manage risk
and reduce re-offending. The review highlighted areas where multi-agency working
was effective (for example, conducting joint visits with the Police); however, over
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 19
the course of the sentence this was highlighted as inconsistent. Better joint working
would have seen probation and other agencies working together on a regular and
routine basis throughout the duration of Mr XX’s sentence.
There were clearly times when we could have managed Mr XX’s period of supervision
more consistently and the sentence planning and risk management in this case could have
been more thorough. Notwithstanding these areas for improvement, it is clear from the
review that there was no occasions when Mr XX’s behaviour would have required a recall
back to prison and that no one could have foreseen that Mr XX would have gone on to
commit such a devastating offence.
Recommendations
As part of the review process, the following action plan was designed and focussed on
improving key practice and policy areas both for staff who worked directly with Mr. XX and
the organisation as a whole. The action plan identified three areas for improvement:

The Offender Manager’s Line Manager will review several practice areas with a
view to strengthening sentence planning, risk assessment, risk management plans
and multi-agency working.

The Offender Manager will attend a specific training event aimed at improving risk
management practice.

Wales Probation will deliver refresher training to all staff across the organisation,
highlighting the critical areas of sentence planning, risk management and multiagency working.
The action plan is being robustly implemented and managers are providing critical
oversight to ensure its completion. Wales Probation has cascaded the learning points
from the review across the whole organisation.
We understand that you have agreed to receive support offered by the Victim Liaison
Officer and we hope that this will continue to support you in receiving information, advice
and clarification as the Mr XX progresses through his sentence.
Once again, we would like to say that we are so sorry for what you have been through.
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 20
Appendix 7
Learning so far - Victim Summary Process

We have received some very positive feedback from a number of senior managers
across the country, who been and delivered the findings of some of the victim summary
reports. Senior managers from a number of Trusts have commented that the meetings
with the victim and/or their family members had been constructive and whilst it was
never going to be a positive experience for the victims’ they had commented that they
appreciated that the Trusts had a difficult job and that despite any failings in the
management of the case, they understood that they could not have foreseen and
prevent the offences being committed.

In another case where the delivery of the VSR was being undertaken on a
retrospective basis, two separate meetings took place with members of the victim’s
family. The victim in the case had been murdered by his nephew, which left the Trust
delivering a report to one family member whose brother had been killed by the family
member’s son. This meeting was held by the CEO of the Trust, the Director of
Probation and the Director of Legal Services. The family member stated that whilst he
had heard a lot of the information before (as there had been extensive contact with the
family) he was interested in the ‘practice issues’ of the VSR and what learning the
Trust had taken away from this case.

A senior manager from another Trust provided feedback on how the process went with
a case which was also a retrospective (high profile) case. The meeting took place with
the director and the VLO at the probation office, as this was the preferred choice of the
victim. During the meeting the victim had asked for some points of clarification, which
the Trust agreed to check and subsequently responded to the victim on the points
raised. The Trust made the decision to leave the VSR with the victim

Kent Probation Trust (KPT) made the decision to take out all of the corporate wording
from the VSR and send a separate letter to the victim from the CEO, so that the VSR
just focused on the detail and makes things more personal to that case. KPT have very
kindly agreed to this being shared as an example of good practice. Please see
Appendix 8

KPT have also devised a flow chart of the Victim Summary Report Process and have
again, agreed that this can be shared. Please see Appendix 9.

A number of Trusts have made the decision not to incorporate any detail in the VSR
that would not be relevant to the victim or their family. For example, there has been a
case where there were deficiencies in relation to child protection, but the victim of the
SFO was a stranger rape, so it was not felt relevant to add this information into the
VSR.

A number of Trusts have decided different processes and procedures with regard to
the role of victim liaison officers. Some Trusts have decided that they are going to keep
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 21
the process completely separate and others are using the VLO to facilitate the initial
meeting with the victim and/or family.

A number of Trusts have made the decision to leave the VSR with the victim.

With regard to the content of the VSRs, the SFO Team have received a number of
VSRs with the SFO Reviews which have had been sent back for amendment as they
contained too much information about the offender, which was resulting in Data
Protection Act concerns. For example, specific information about programmes the
offender undertook, progress on such programmes, information regarding an
offender’s personal circumstances (examples such as a bereavement, relationship
breakdown), and additional non-victim focused licence conditions.

Think about the information that a victim would ordinarily be provided, and what
additional information may not necessarily be helpful from a victim’s point of view.

Remember not to use jargon, and whilst not always needed in the VSR, be prepared to
answer questions regarding processes and practice issues. For example, a victim may
want more information about the sentence planning process – what does this involve,
what would an offender be expected to do. These questions can be answered on a
generic basis without providing too much specific detail about the offender.

If completing the VSR at the time of the SFO Review, please remember not to use the
word ‘alleged’ if making reference to the SFO. The delivery of the SFO will only take
place once the offender has been convicted, with any offence being proven rather than
alleged. The word ‘alleged’ will be very insulting to a victim post-conviction.
Appendix 8
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
Kent Probation
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 22
Mrs XX
Date:
Dear Mrs XX
I understand you have taken up contact with XXX, Victim Liaison Officer and would like the
opportunity to see the Victim Summary Report that was produced following the Serious
Further Offence review completed in relation to XXX period of Licence with Kent
Probation.
Serious Further Offence Reviews are undertaken by all Probation Trusts in England
whenever an eligible offence is committed by an offender subject to supervision by the
Probation Service. This was the case for Mr XX. The purpose of such reviews is to
assess both the quality of probation work in assessing and managing offenders risk and
also how well staff engaged the offender to complete their Order or Licence. Essentially
the review determines whether everything was done which might reasonably have been
expected to manage the offender’s risk of harm effectively and to identify any learning to
be taken forward by the Trust. As the former Chief Inspector of Probation commented,
when an offender is being supervised in the community, it is simply not possible to
eliminate risk altogether, but the public is entitled to expect that the authorities will do their
job properly, that is to say, to take all reasonable action to keep to a minimum each
offender’s risk of further harm to others.
Reviews may sometimes uncover deficiencies across core practice areas. If there are
deficiencies it should not be assumed that had there not been, the offender would not have
committed a serious further offence. However, clearly the identification of learning is
crucial for future practice. In the attached Victim Summary Report you will find an outline
of the case history, practice issues and findings and recommendations relevant to the
context of the offence. Kent Probation places a significant emphasis on learning and I
would like to assure you that the learning identified as part of this review has been
addressed robustly.
May I take this opportunity to convey our sincerest condolences for your loss and I hope
you will continue your contact with XXX under the Victim Contact Scheme. She will be able
to offer you information, advice and support as Mr XX progresses through his sentence.
Yours sincerely,
Cchief Executive
Enc.
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 23
PROCESS
: SFO Victim Summary Report Process Flowchart
Related Process
:
SFO PROCESS
Purpose
:
To identify the process in relation to sharing a victim summary
report to victims following conviction for a mandatory SFO.
Responsibility
Process
Mandatory SFO Review allocated to IO
Head of
BI&PD/
Investigations
co-ordinator
On completion of Review & draft victim
summary report (VSR) - email CEO the
Review sufficiencies
Investigations
Officer
Outcome:
Was offender convicted of a mandatory
SFO?
Investigations
co-ordinator
Notes
Within 3 months of the
Notification
Within 3 working days of
Sentencing
No
Yes
END *
IO Team to
notify VLO
Team & relevant
Director (cc’d
for info) by
email of
sentence
outcome
VLO Team write to
qualifying victim, offering
statutory contact service
and highlight that they can
elect to see findings of
SFO via the VSR
Investigations
Co-ordinator/
VLO Team
No
IO Team record
appropriately.
Case closed
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
Yes
VLO team to establish if there is
VLO involvement, i.e contact to
be made with Police Witness
Care Unit/ Family Liaison Officer
to gather victim name/contact
details). Victims are sent a 56
day letter offering appointment.
If no response, a second 28 day
letter is then sent, again if no
response final letter from
HoBI&PD stating VSR available.
If still no contact, case closed
after 21 days.
Investigations
Co-ordinator
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 24
Responsibility
Process
VLO undertakes initial contact
visit and then feeds back to
HoBIPD in prep for CEO letter
and VSR finalising.
HoB&IPD to complete CEO
cover letter and update
VSR
Chief Exec signs off hard
copy letter & VSR
HoBI&PD to email
LDU Director and
VLO with CEO cover
letter and VSR
Report (cc: Comms
Manager)
VLO Team/LDU
Director arrange
home visit to share
report with victim
and notify HoBIPD
when scheduled
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
Ensure IO Team
send VSR to
relevant SPO
before home visit
to share with
staff in
supervision
VLO Team to
update HoBI&PD
following visit
Following update
from HoBI&PD, IO
Team to record
when feedback
given and case
logged as closed
Notes
VLO/Head of
BI&PD
Head of
BI&PD
Chief
Executive
Head of
BI&PD
Allocation made to LDU Director
and the Report sent to them by
HoBI&PD. Cc: Comms Manager.
LDU Director to contact
HoBI&PD if there are any queries
with the report prior to the home
visit.
Head of
BI&PD/
VLO
VLO to liaise with HoBI&PD
to coordinate and arrange date
of home visit and update
HoBI&PD following visit.
HoBI&PD to update
Investigations Co-ordinators to
log.
Head of
BI&PD/Investi
gations Coordinator
End – case closed
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 25
Annex B
PI 14/2014 – AI 14/2014 - Notification and Review
Procedures for
Serious Further Offences
Operational Guidance
This Operational Guidance is a supplement to PI 14/2014 –
AI 14/2014. It is designed to provide further detail where
needed. You should always refer to the PI in the first
instance.
March 2015
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 26
Contents
Page
Section 1 – Background
1
Section 2 – The SFO document
2
Section 3 – How does a case qualify?
6
Section 4 – Notification
9
Section 5 – Review, Update, and Outcome
13
Section 6 – Communications
16
Section 7 – Victims
19
Section 8 – Quality Assurance
20
Section 9 – Reviews completed outside the
Supervising Probation provider
22
Section 10 – Statistics
23
Section 11 – Local Reviews
23
App 1 – SFO process flowchart
24
App 2 – SFO eligibility flowchart
26
App 3 - HMiP Case Assessment guidance
27
App 4 – Ways of explaining errors
30
App 5 – SFO Guide for Staff
31
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 27
Section 1 – Background
1.
The SFO Notification and Review Procedures are intended to ensure a rigorous scrutiny of
probation practice where specified offenders under the management of the NPS, CRC or
other providers of probation and community services have been charged with a serious
further violent or sexual offence, so that:



Areas of continuous improvement to risk assessment, risk management and
offender management practice and policy within the NPS or a CRC (together with
other parts of the NOMS Agency or beyond as appropriate) are identified and
disseminated locally, and nationally, as appropriate;
the public may be reassured that the NPS, CRCs and other providers of probation
services are committed to reviewing practice in cases where offenders under
supervision are charged with certain serious offences; and
Ministers, the NOMS Chief Executive, other senior officials within NOMS and the
wider Ministry of Justice (MoJ), where appropriate, can be informed of noteworthy
cases of alleged serious further offences committed by offenders whilst under
supervision. This responsibility for this currently sits in the NOMS Offender
Management and Public Protection Group (OMPPG)
The SFO Notification and Review Procedures have been revised to recognise the changes to
the delivery of probation services, whereby Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) will
supervise low and medium risk of serious harm offenders and a new National Probation
Service (NPS), managed directly through NOMS will supervise all other offenders, including
all MAPPA cases and offenders assessed as a high risk of serious harm.
2.
.Summary Table of Mandatory actions for the NPS and CRCs and their management of
the SFO Notification and Review Procedures.
Mandatory actions are set out in the following sections of the PI
NOTIFICATIONS
1.10, 1.11, 1.12
2.1
2.9.1
2.15.1
2.15.2,
REVIEWS
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.14.2, 2.14.3
2.15.3, 2.15.4
2.17.1, 2.17.2
UPDATES
2.15.8
2.15.11
OUTCOMES
2.4.2
2.15.10
2.15.13
OTHER ASPECTS
2.6.1, 2.6.2
2.8.1
2.11.1
2.12.1, 2.12.2, 2.12.3
2.13.2, 2.13.3, 2.13.4 2.13.5
2.18.2, 2.18.4
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 28
This operational guidance (OG) provides additional information to support the
processes and complete the mandatory actions outlined in the revised Probation
Instruction (PI). The OG will assist the NPS, CRCs and other providers of probation
and community services to implement the revised procedures when a serious
further offence is committed.
Section 2 – The SFO Document Set
3.
The SFO Document Set is contained in Annex D to L of PI 15/2014 and the up to date
version is stored on the Authority’s website. It is designed to enable the NPS and CRCs to
carry out an internal structured review and analysis of SFOs, in a standard format. It is not
intended to be a published document and, once completed, should be stored as an
‘OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE’ document at all times.
4.
The SFO Document Set will be updated on the Authority’s website when necessary and
senior lead managers and single points of administrative contact (SPOC) will be informed
when this happens.
5.
NPS, CRCs and prison establishments should have quality assurance systems in place to ensure that
SFO documentation is complete when it is submitted. The nominated SFO lead and the SPOC should
ensure that all information required for each stage of the process is completed in full before the
document is submitted to the OMPPG SFO team.
6.
Appendix 1 to the OG contains a flow chart explaining what the NPS, CRCs and the OMPPG SFO
Team need to do at each stage of the process.
7.
Appendix 2 contains the ROTL SFO flow chart.
8.
Appendix 3 contains a flow chart explaining how offenders qualify for a SFO Review.
Who should complete the SFO Documents?
Notification
9.
The NPS, CRCs or the prison senior lead must notify the OMPPG using the Notification Form
in the SFO Document Set and complete the relevant sections when an eligible offender is
charged with a qualifying offence (listed at Annex C). The Notification Form is in three stages
which represent:

Stage 1 - The factual details of the offender (name, DOB, address etc) and
details of the alleged SFO

Stage 2 - The review of the case allocation process. (This stage need not be
completed for SFOs committed whilst the offender is on ROTL.

Stage 3 - Further details of the offender’s status, supervision details and
confirmation from a senior manager that the case qualifies as an SFO.

Stages 1 and 2 will be completed by the NPS at Court or shortly after the first
court appearance

Stage 3 will be completed by the responsible provider (NPS or CRC) who was
managing the offender at the point the SFO was committed.
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 29

For ROTL SFOs stages 1 and 3 will be completed by the NPS or the prison
senior lead.
The NPS, through attendance at court should make arrangements to determine who initiates
and contributes to the SFO Notification Stage 1, according to how local court and offender
management operations are structured. The NPS should ensure that Stage 2 of the
Notification is completed and countersigned by an appropriate member of staff that has the
knowledge and experience to fully review and comment on the relevant aspects of the case
allocation process.
For ROTL SFOs the NPS through attendance at court should make arrangements in
discussion with the prison senior lead to establish who initiates and contributes to the SFO
Notification.
In cases where the offender has appeared at a court within another jurisdiction for an SFO,
the NPS covering the area in which the offender appeared at court for the SFO identifies the
offender and notifies the NPS or CRC responsible for the management of the case. The
initial notifying NPS court member of staff should start and send the partly completed SFO
Notification Form to the NPS or CRC responsible for the management of the case and the
relevant NPS SPOC to ensure that all three stages are appropriately completed and
ensuring, in particular, that full information about the SFO charge has been captured and the
review of the case allocation process has been completed by the appropriate NPS division.
10.
Chief Executives of CRCs and the Deputy Director of the NPS (or their representatives)
should ensure that the SFO Notification Form at Stage 3 must be signed off by the senior
lead manager or their delegate who will consider each of the SFO criteria in Q 1.13, to
determine if the case qualifies for a SFO Review. For ROTL SFOs the Notification must be
signed off by the prison senior lead.
Review
11.
Chief Executives of CRCs, the Deputy Director of the NPS (or their representatives) and
prison senior leads should ensure that those completing the SFO Review (Annex E and F)
have the necessary knowledge of offender management, risk assessment and risk
management, good investigative and report writing skills and knowledge of
strategy/resourcing issues within their organisation. It is recommended they should also have
an appropriate level of authority within the NPS, CRC or prison establishment, partly as some
learning points requiring action may apply to policy and practice relating to the relevant
provider as a whole.
12.
The completed SFO Reviews must be signed off by the CRC Chief Executive, the NPS
Deputy Director, or the Deputy Director for Custody as appropriate, or their nominated senior
representative.
Language & Terminology
13.
When completing the SFO Document Set, managers will need to refer to procedures and tools used to
assess and supervise offenders. Nationally used terminology, such as MAPPA, OASys etc., is
acceptable but care should be taken to avoid ambiguity in the use of local acronyms, including
abbreviations of offences (e.g. TDA and TWOC; use of the term AP (some probation providers use the
term to describe an aggrieved person instead of ‘victim’, easily confused with Approved Premises).
Where there may be ambiguities about offences, the NPS, CRCs and/or prison establishment should
directly quote the Act and the Section of the Act as found on the charge sheet, or as announced in
Court.
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 30
Confidentiality, Data Protection Act (DPA) and Freedom of Information (FOI)
14.
Care must be taken to maintain strict confidentiality and this must be made clear to all staff
who are being interviewed for SFO Reviews. Disclosure of SFO related information to third
parties may create a risk of information appearing in the public domain. In instances where
unauthorised information concerning SFO Reviews comes into the public domain, this must
be reported immediately to the Head of the SFO Team in OMPPG.
15.
Particular care should be taken to avoid disclosing the identity or personal details of any individual
which is not legitimately already in the public domain, including members of staff. SFO Review
authors should use abbreviations (with a suitable key) for staff or others (e.g. OM1 for the principle
Offender Manager, APM for an Approved Premises manager, PW for Partnership Worker). Names of
victims of the SFO should be included in the offence details unless they hold entitlement to anonymity
in Court (e.g. in cases of designated sexual offences and where the victim is a child) or where it is felt
victim details should not be included for other reasons. The rationale for including the name of the
SFO victim is that press coverage may (particularly in cases where it had taken some time to
apprehend the offender) focus as much on the victim as the offender and in potentially high profile
cases it may be easier to gauge press interest by searching for references to the victim than to the
offender. Please note we do not record the name of the victim on any SFO databases.
16.
Any request for disclosure of SFO Reviews under the Freedom of Information or Data Protection Acts
must immediately be referred to the MoJ Data Access and Compliance Unit (DACU), copied to SFO
mailbox for the attention of the Head of the OMPPG SFO Team.
Cases where more than one provider of probation services has been involved
17.
There may be some cases where more than one provider of probation services has been
involved in the management of the offender, for example, the NPS and CRC if their has been
an escalation in risk or a number of CRCs if the offender has moved to a different contract
package area. The issue of who does what may be especially complicated where the SFO
happened some time ago. The following will be the normal way of managing the process
when either an offender appears at a court in another geographical area and/or was being
supervised by another provider of probation services at the time the alleged SFO occurred.

The NPS covering the area in which the offender appeared at court for the SFO identifies
the offender and notifies the NPS or CRC responsible for the management of the case.
The initial notifying NPS court member of staff should start and send the partly completed
SFO Notification Form to the NPS or CRC responsible for the management of the case
and the relevant NPS SPOC to ensure that all three stages are appropriately completed
and ensuring; in particular, that full information about the SFO charge has been captured.

The current supervising NPS division will then send stages 1 and 2 and the relevant
probation provider (NPS or CRC) will then submit stage 3, (and later the Outcome) to the
SFO Team, ensuring that full and accurate information is provided about supervision
details and risk of serious harm.

The NPS or CRC which was managing the offender at the time of the SFO undertakes
the Review (and coordinates review enquiries with other Probation providers where
necessary), and submits the Review to the OMPPG.
Section 3 – How does a case qualify for a SFO Review?
Offender Eligibility
18.
A case is eligible for consideration for a SFO Review only when an offender is/was being
supervised by the NPS or CRC. This will normally be an Order or Licence or Notice of
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 31
Supervision but could also be any kind of conditional release from Court; or any kind of
formal caution which is managed in the community by the NPS or CRC. For example:

cases of deferred sentences where sentencing is deferred to allow an offender to
comply with any requirements set by the court. Consideration of a discretionary SFO
Review would need to take into account the specific requirements set by the court and
the management of the case by the probation provider during that period
A case is eligible for consideration for an SFO Review when an offender released from prison
on temporary licence (ROTL) has committed an offence as outlined in Schedule 15A
If the NPS or CRC has a case such as this, they should seek advice from the OMPPG SFO
Team before submitting the Notification.
19.
A case will also become an SFO when an offender was subject to offender management
(including release on ROTL) but where the offender has died before being charged with an
offence on the SFO list. Whilst there is sometimes doubt, the NPS, CRC or prison senior lead
must satisfy themselves that the police consider the individual to have been a prime suspect.
In such cases, the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) and Data Protection
Act (DPA) need to be borne in mind in as much as the DPA generally only covers data held
on living persons. Further advice should always be sought in such cases from the OMPPG.
Full details of offender eligibility are given in the current Probation Instruction.
Offence Eligibility
20.
Once it has been established that the offender appearing in court is an “eligible” offender, the next step
is to consider offence eligibility.
21.
The list of SFO offences is detailed in Annex C of PI xx/2014 and is based on Schedule 15A of the
Criminal Justice Act, 2003. It was originally based on those offences in the Schedule which carried
maxima of 14 years custody or Life, but excludes Section 18 wounding with intent.
22.
If an offender is charged with one of the most serious SFOs the case will always qualify for a SFO
Review. These are murder, manslaughter, other specified offences causing death, rape, or a sexual
offence against an under 13 year old (including attempted offences). These are referred to as
MANDATORY SFOs.
23.
Other offences on the SFO list may qualify the case for Review but only once the offender’s risk of
harm level(s) has/have been established (see below). These are referred to as DISCRETIONARY
SFOs.
24.
There are practical limitations on how far back in time an alleged offence was committed for it
to be treated as an SFO. Any alleged offence committed by an offender within the last five
years whilst he/she was subject to offender management, will be treated as an SFO. When
an offender is charged with an offence on the SFO list dating back more than five years, the
OMPPG will make a decision in consultation with the NPS or CRC, NOMS Account
Management function and/or prison establishment, about whether it is practicable to review
the case, based on whether details of the management of the case are still available. The
relevant Deputy Director, the CRC Chief Executives, or Deputy Director for Custody, or their
representative, may also be consulted where appropriate. Any decision on whether to
exclude a SFO should take into account:



the relative seriousness of the offence, its nature, and its impact;
the likely level of public interest;
the practical possibility of being able to gain any organisational learning;
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 32
Qualifying for a SFO Review
25.
Once offence and offender eligibility has been established, there are two “types” of case that
will qualify. The first are all cases involving the most serious type of SFO, e.g. murder (see
above). The second are those offenders who have been charged with any other offence on
the SFO list and had been assessed as high or very high risk of harm at some stage during
their current sentence, or who had not received a risk assessment during their current period
of supervision. For those offenders assessed as low risk of serious harm at the start of their
sentence, and remain as such during the supervision period, and who are subject to a
community or suspended sentence order, it will only normally be necessary to complete a
review using the shorter review template that focuses chiefly, but not exclusively, on risk
assessment. All other qualifying SFOs will be subject to a standard review.
26.
A case is eligible for consideration for a SFO Review when an offender released from prison
on temporary licence (ROTL) has committed any offence as outlined in Schedule 15A
regardless of the assessed level of risk of serious harm.
Significant national public interest
27.
In exceptional cases, however, when the offence criterion is not met, but where there is
substantial national public interest (for example, when an offence is widely reported in a
national newspaper or on national television news), the case may still become an SFO that
needs to proceed to Review.
28.
As broad guidance, a case is of significant national interest (whether it meets the other
SFO criteria or not) when it is likely to receive national attention and criticism which is likely to
impact upon national policy or national reputation of NOMS or the Authority.
29.
Examples of cases which would need to be considered:








a case where an offender with sexual pre-convictions had been released by the Parole
Board and is accused of rape
any other cases which involved recall and an offence has been committed whilst an
offender is unlawfully at large
a case with bizarre offence details which will bring the offender’s management,
however satisfactory, into the public eye
a Section18 wounding case, involving re-victimisation, where the victim or their family
are reported in the national press as alleging that the case was very poorly managed
cases involving gangs, guns and stabbings
murders committed on bail or during a period of indeterminate sentence licence
supervision where the index offence is murder/manslaughter
terrorism and political extremism offences
any case involving multiple agencies where there is a potential for the NPS, CRC or
other providers of probation and community services to come under particular scrutiny.
SFOs committed by Young Offenders
30.
When a SFO is committed by an offender managed in the community by a local Youth
Offending Team, there is a requirement for the responsible Youth Offending Team (YOT) to
follow the equivalent Youth Justice Board (YJB) procedure. This is set out in “Serious
Incidents - Guidance on serious incident reporting procedures” on the YJB website.
31.
In some instances, the offender may be subject to management by the YOT, but with an
intervention delivered by a provider of probation services. An example of this is where a
young person is being supervised by a YOT on a Youth Rehabilitation Order (YRO), with an
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 33
Unpaid Work element being provided by a CRC. In cases where both YOT and a provider of
probation services are involved:-
32.

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.
The definition of a serious further offence for NOMS covers more offences than the YJB
serious incident procedures. The YJB process confines itself to offenders charged with
murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape, torture, kidnapping, false imprisonment and
firearms offences. YOTs are required to complete a review in line with YJB guidance in
cases where young offenders have been charged with one of these offences. In cases where
the YOT has offender management responsibility and is not completing a SFO Review, this
does not make it a Probation SFO, although the NPS or CRC may undertake a local review if
it feels it is appropriate to do so.
Section 4 – Notification.
A flowchart on SFO notification process is attached at Appendix 1, whilst Appendix 2
details eligibility.
33.
The SFO notification process consists of three stages, stage 1 details initial SFO identification. Stage 2
encompasses consideration of the initial allocation process, and stage 3 details final notification sign
off and submission to the SFO team in OMPPG.

Stage 1 of the initial notification involves the NPS court staff identifying an SFO case. NPS
senior leads will need to ensure provision is in place to identify and gather information on the
SFO(s) at the offender’s first Court appearance to complete stage 1 of the initial notification,
and then make provision to alert the relevant prison senior lead, CRC or NPS OM unit to
complete the final sign off of the notification. The NPS senior lead should decide who should
complete the initial part of the form, according to local arrangements. Often the Court duty
officer is best placed to identify and provide the initial information.
The following two stages must be completed at the same time in order to ensure that the notification
is received at the SFO team within 10 days of the first Court Appearance.

Stage 2 of the notification should be completed by NPS staff, and will encompass an
examination of the initial allocation decision. This step should be completed in tandem with the
step below in order that the complete notification is received within 10 days of the first court
appearance. Stage 2 may not be completed for ROTL SFOs.

Stage 3 of the notification, final sign off may be completed by NPS, CRC or prison senior lead
as appropriate, dependant on who is supervising the offender. The relevant senior lead manager
for SFOs must ensure that processes are in place to collect information in order to send the fully
completed SFO Notification (Annex D) document to OMPPG within 10 working days of the first
Court appearance, along with the SFO with the risk escalation referral form; if they consider
that the risk has escalated due to the charge. At this stage, in the case of MANDATORY SFO
charges, the relevant Probation Provider must ensure the VSR pro-forma is completed and sent
to relevant Witness Care Unit (WCU). See Victim Summary Report Guidance at Annex A for
more details.
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 34
Information from the Court
34.
Accurate and timely reporting of Court details are of the utmost importance. NPS senior lead
should ensure that Court duty staff record the exact details of the charge. In cases which are
likely to attract significant national public interest, staff should inform their Head Office so that
the OMPPG is able to accurately inform Ministers and senior officials, rather than learning
details from other sources, such as reports in the media.
35.
The NPS senior lead should ensure that arrangements are in place to provide a brief
summary of the offence. For example, if the charge is murder, the SFO document should
describe how the victim died (e.g. stabbed, shot etc); where the offence happened (e.g. in the
home, the street, a public house, etc); when it happened (the time and date) and other
relevant circumstances (after ‘closing time’, following an argument, etc); the relationship
between the offender, victim and other witnesses (were they known to each other); how it
happened; and the alleged motivation or reasons, where known.
36.
In cases where charges have been brought for an SFO, and there are indications that the defendant
is/was recently being managed by another provider of probation services, it is the responsibility of the
NPS or CRC where the offender has been charged, to notify the possible supervising probation
provider of the offender’s details and, if appropriate, send these on the SFO notification form to the
other Probation provider. This information will be required at the supervising court for the NPS SPOC
and also for the SPOC responsible for the management of the offender (NPS or CRC)
37.
It is the responsibility of the supervising probation provider (NPS or CRC) or prison establishment at
the time of the first court appearance to submit the correct SFO documentation to the OMPPG.
38.
The NPS, CRCs and prison establishments, in conjunction with the local communications
officer, must have a process for identifying those cases that are likely to attract national
media attention. If a case is likely to attract public interest or concern, the responsible NPS,
CRC or prison establishment should send early notice of the expected Notification to the
OMPPG as soon as possible and advise the CRC Chief Executive, the Deputy Director for
Probation or the Deputy Director for Custody (as appropriate) or their nominated
representative, in advance. Arrangements should be made to track the subsequent Court
dates for these cases, and keep the OMPPG routinely updated. It may also be necessary to
expedite the SFO Review in line with Court dates.
39.
Where the SFO was not identified at the first Court appearance, and therefore not notified to
the OMPPG within the timescale, The NPS senior lead must identify the reasons and
improve local practice, if applicable. Any follow up actions should be included as a learning
point in the subsequent Review.
40.
If the offender was supervised with the involvement of another agency, such as a local
community mental health trust, or a partnership; or if there are implications for another
agency, such as the police or a prison; or if the offender was subject to electronic monitoring,
the offender manager will inform other practitioners of the SFO charge as part of normal case
management practice. However, there will be cases where the senior lead manager for the
NPS or CRC should inform that agency, giving brief details of the SFO, where it is expected
that access to the other agencies’ records or staff may be required to complete the SFO
Review. It is essential to bear in mind issues of disclosure of information under the Data
Protection Act (DPA). It is inappropriate to send a copy of the SFO documentation to other
agencies, including sub-contractors, but summaries of the relevant aspects can be shared
accordingly.
41.
Some elements of the Notification Form may require careful checking to ensure all relevant
information given is accurate. These include:
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 35
3.2 Has another probation provider been involved in the management of the offender during
the current sentence?
This relates to transferred cases and cross border arrangements. It does not relate to
the NPS seconded staff in prisons.
3.2 Table for Community Order/Suspended Sentence Order
This table has space for one Order (Row 1), with up to 4 requirements (Final column Rows 1-4). Further information should be entered in the space below.
3.2 Table for post release licence
This table has space for 2 types of licence, so that where HDC is running alongside a
licence supervised by the Probation provider it can be included by including the
specific HDC period and the substantive licence period separately.
3.2 Additional Information
Please provide details of any recalls or parole board involvement in the case,
specifically dates and outcomes.
3.2 Was the offender? (specific questions about offender’s circumstances.)
Please provide details of key components of inter agency involvement. Early factual
briefing to NOMS senior management, MOJ press office and Ministers can often
provide an essential role in ensuring that SFO cases, and the role of responsible
officers and providers of probation services are presented in a fair an accurate light.
3.3 Pre-convictions
Please provide details of all previous convictions up to the point of the index offence(s).
3.4 MAPPA and other reviews.
The question asks, “was the offender a relevant sexual and/or violent offender for MAPPA
eligibility purposes?” The aim is to identify cases which were MAPPA eligible during their
current sentence and whether they were identified as such, or not. You will know this for
Category 1 and Category 2 by looking at the details of their current sentence, and previous
convictions. The form also specifically asks if a MAPPA Serious Case Review (SCR) is to be
undertaken by the SMB. The form also asks if a Local Authority Child Safeguarding Board
(LSCB) or Community Safety Partnership Domestic Homicide Review (DHR) is due to be
undertaken. Past experience has shown that the findings of these reviews can often
comment on probation practice, and it is essential that OMPPG are aware of the potential for
such information to be placed in the public domain in order that an agreed media response
can be established.
3.7 Confirmation
The senior lead manager in the relevant NPS, CRC or prison establishment should complete
this section to determine whether it qualifies as a SFO Review or not. When doing so, they
must ensure they indicate whether a shortened review as per Appendix F of PI 15/2014 (for
eligible cases where the offender is subject to a community order or SSO and was assessed
as low risk of serious harm throughout the supervision period) or a standard review as per
Appendix E (for all other eligible cases) will be undertaken.
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 36
One of the criteria (Q4) may pose difficulties. This refers to whether the offender has
received a risk assessment during the current period of management – order or licence.
In judging this issue you need to bear in mind:

A risk screening or a full risk of harm analysis constitutes a risk assessment for these
purposes, regardless of whether it shows as a start or a review assessment.

The test of whether either of these has been completed (one of the criteria) is if they
are in a locked OASys or equivalent Authority approved document, which means you
should find a risk level either in the summary sheet or in the risk section. The assessment
or review must have been completed after the Order or Licence was started.

The exception to this is if the case is a standalone Unpaid Work order. Our current
guidance is that you should look for a paper screening document if an electronic one is
not available and identify the risk level from that document and record it by adding extra
text into 1.6 ‘Date of this assessment.’

Regarding all assessments, you are checking first of all to see whether there is one.
Not (for these purposes) whether the screening or full analysis has been
accurately completed or not, or if the screening should have resulted in a full
analysis or not. Therefore in practice what you will be looking for is a completed
screening.
Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCB) Serious Case Reviews (SCR)
42.
There will be cases where the SFO offender and offence eligibility is not met, but a child has
suffered significant injury and the case proceeds to an SCR for example, for reasons of
neglect which do not result in an SFO offence. In these cases the NPS, CRC or prison
establishment will be required by the LSCB to undertake an Internal Management Review
(IMR). After consultation with the LSCB, the NPS or CRC may complete the SFO
documentation as a local structured review of probation practice. In cases where the LSCB
have not specified a standard template for the IMR, might form part of the IMR, or it might
inform the contents of a separately produced IMR. If there are indications that probation
practice might be publicly criticised then consideration should be given to whether the case
qualifies as a SFO under the public interest criterion.
43.
Where the SFO offender and offence eligibility is met, and a child has suffered significant
injury and the case proceeds to an SCR, the NPS, CRC or prison establishment senior lead
manager (direct, or via the probation representative on the LSCB) should discuss and
coordinate timescales for the SFO review and the LSCB Review. In cases where the LSCB
have not specified a standard template for the IMRs, the SFO document might form part of
the IMR, or it might inform the contents of a separately produced IMR.
44.
In all these cases, the NPS, CRCs and prison establishments are advised to check
arrangements with the SFO Team and/or the OMPPG lead on Safeguarding Children.
SFO cases involving a Domestic Homicide Review (DHR)
45.
Where an eligible offender is charged with a domestic violence and abuse incident which
has resulted in the death of the victim, and once it is known that a homicide is being
considered for review, the senior lead/SPOC for the NPS, CRC or prison establishment must
liaise with the local community safety partnership and designated DHR chair to notify them
that the case has triggered an internal review. Each agency contributing to the DHR will be
required to carry out an Internal Management Review (IMR) to look openly and critically at
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 37
individual and organisational practice to see whether the homicide indicates that changes
could and should be made.
46.
In terms of sequencing, given the different timescales, the SFO Review would normally have
been prepared some time prior to the IMR being commissioned, and as such the IMR could
be informed by the SFO document, and could contain all the relevant information identified
within the SFO Review. This can also include the relevant learning points which were
identified in the SFO Review.
47.
Under no circumstances should the SFO Review serve as the IMR, as once completed as an
‘OFFICAL SENSITIVE’ document, the SFO Review is not to be disclosed
Section 5 – Review, Update and Outcome.
48.
The Review consists of four main sections:





Background information and chronology
Risk Assessment
Risk Management
Offender Management
ROTL Reviews contain a fifth section on ROTL processes
When completing these sections the following materials will provide you with information
about the standards expected to answer each of the questions. It is important to note that
there is a shortened review form for all eligible cases concerning offenders who were
subject to community order or SSO supervision and who were assessed as low risk of
serious harm throughout the supervision period. The standard review form should be
completed in all other cases that qualify for a Review.
a.
HMiP Case Assessment Guidance which is at:
www.justice.gov.uk/about/hmi-probation/inspection-programmes-adult
Appendix 3 to this OG has a table which indicates where you can find information in the
HMiP Case Assessment Guidance relating to each of the core SFO questions.
49.
b.
‘Risk of Harm’ Key Concepts & Definitions, which can be found in the Probation
Risk of Harm Guidance and training materials on the Authority’s website or available on
disc (version 4, May 2011).
c.
NOMS Risk of Serious Harm Guidance (2009)
d.
OASys Manual– Chapter 8 Risk of Serious Harm (2006).
e.
PI xx/2014 Process for CRCs to refer cases for Review/Risk Escalation Review
f.
PI xx/2014 Case Transfers for offenders subject to statutory supervision
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.
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 38
50.
In the Review some of the questions contain a number of different aspects. This is to avoid the
situation where, if there were a larger number of questions about single aspects of practice, it would be
difficult to get a sense of the case as a whole. So, answer the question in relation to all the parts and
“qualify” your answer when you provide the evidence in the text box.
51.
When coming to your judgment about the sufficiency of risk assessment, risk management and offender
management, you must explicitly state the factors that are positive and those that are negative. It is not
a matter of counting the number of “yes’s” and “no’s”. Where an offender has been incorrectly
assessed, or the risk management plan is flawed, you will need to provide high quality evidence of
compensating work to support a judgment that a case has been managed to a sufficient standard.
52.
When trying to find out what the reasons were for any deficiencies, it is important to go beyond an
account of what happened and when. Often in probation work one event (say, not checking a record
which showed violent offending was in fact sexually motivated) can then have a knock on effect for
other aspects of practice, e.g. the content of RMP, the interventions that are selected etc. However, to
get to grips with the case, the reviewing manager should establish why the precipitating event (in this
case, not checking the record) happened. In doing so, you may find the following framework useful:
a.why does the staff member say the error 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
53.
An illustration of how this framework could be used is in Appendix 4.
54.
Care should be taken to distinguish between what was known at the time, what should, or
might possibly have been known; and what is now known in hindsight.
55.
It is important that interviews with staff are conducted well. The purpose is to understand
what happened and why in the management of the case and should therefore be conducted
in a properly investigative way. The reviewing manager should also bear in mind that staff
who have been managing an offender who has been charged with a serious offence may be
upset or anxious about the tragic event that has led to the charge. Some staff may be very
critical of themselves, convinced that they should have done something else to avoid the
event, even when all the evidence is that what could have been done was done. Other
people, who may be worried or anxious, might have a tendency to defensiveness, whether
the case was well managed or not. Reviewing managers should bear this in mind when
preparing for and conducting the interview.
56.
Reviewing managers should contact staff who are to be interviewed in good time and confirm
that the purpose of the interview is to gain an understanding of how the case was managed,
and the background to any key decisions or actions that were taken. Where a particular
period or event is of specific interest then the staff member should be asked to refresh their
memory on these points, but it is not usually appropriate to inform the staff member in
advance of the findings so far. This is so that both reviewing manager and staff member can
talk through the key issues one at a time with objectivity. Extensive research shows that
talking through events as they happened, with open questioning, promotes accurate recall
and reflection. Appendix 5 provides the SFO Review Process - A Guide for Staff.
57.
Although the Review document sets out a series of questions based on whether key actions
were taken and standards met, there are certain “meta” questions which will help to put the
case in context and provide material for many parts of the Review. They may also promote
discussion and insight. They include:
i.
first impressions of the offender
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 39
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
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
58.
The intention of the SFO Review is to identify the standard of practice, including cases that
have been managed well, sometimes in difficult circumstances. It is important for good
practice to be included in the Review and disseminated appropriately.
59.
Where there have been deficiencies in practice, actions to address Learning Points must be
Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bounded (SMART). Learning Point
objectives should address both the specific issues arising within the case, and where
appropriate, organisational issues for the Probation provider, or prison establishment. Simple
errors should be dealt with simply. More complex matters (e.g. where systems or processes
have not worked) may require team or organisational solutions.
60.
Where the source of an error has already been dealt with, or there is useful background
information (e.g. if the RoHAA has shown the NPS or CRCs overall very good at RMPs but
this SFO involved a poor RMP) this can be entered in the text section under the action plan
table.
61.
When it has been found that the actions of the Prison Service or another agency, (such as a
YOT, social care or mental health agency etc), or another prison establishment in the case of
ROTL SFOs (have impacted on the management of the offender, consideration should be
given by the Chief Executive, Deputy Director or their delegate writing to that agency raising
the relevant matter. The NPS or CRCs should not make recommendations that are beyond
their scope to carry out.
Action Plan Updates
62.
The Action Plan Update (Annex H) can be used by the NPS, CRCs or prison provider when
providing a progress report on individual SFO Review Action Plans but this is optional and it
is left to Chief Executives of CRCs, Deputy Directors for the NPS and Deputy Directors for
Custody. Either way, progress with action plans should clearly outline the following:


The progress made on the learning points identified in the Action Plan.
The impact of this action on local practice and/or policy.
The NPS, CRCs and prison establishments should bear in mind that in high profile cases,
OMPPG may require an update on the SFO Review Action Plan on the supplied template
(Annex H).
Each quarter, the NPS, CRCs and prison establishments are required to provide OMPPG,
NOMS Account Managers, or Deputy Director of Probation (or their representatives) as
appropriate, with a summary report (using Annex I) providing assurance that all appropriate
action has been taken at local level on learning points that have arisen out of individual SFO
Reviews for the specified reporting period as laid out in the PI at page 20. Individual learning
points from SFO cases should be categorised into themes, with the individual SFO
identification, specific learning points and remedial action recorded on the template as
identified in the individual SFO reviews. Progress on the implementation of remedial action
must receive a RAGG rating, with evidence of progress recorded in the appropriate column.
It is envisaged that this document will form the basis of ongoing discussions with NOMS
Account Managers and NPS Deputy Directors to ensure that learning identified in individual
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 40
SFO reviews is successfully embedded in future practice within individual providers of
probation services.
This report must also give confirmation that the CRC Chief Executive, NPS Deputy Director
and Deputy Director for Custody (or their representative) is satisfied that that progress has
been made in using action on the learning points to further improve policy and practice. This
report must be signed off by the relevant Senior Manager for the NPS, CRC or prison
establishment before submission to OMPPG and a copy must be sent to NOMS Account
Manager for the CRCs, the NOMS Director of Probation, England, the Director of NOMS for
Wales and the Deputy Director for Custody.
Outcome
63.
The Outcome (Annex J) should be sent to OMPPG by the NPS, copied to the relevant
provider (NPS or CRC) and/or prison establishment, within 3 days of the court sentencing
date, or other event which has led to the case being discontinued. The case will then cease
to be an SFO, which will have the result of removing the case form the SFO review
procedures.
Offenders dealt with under Mental Health legislation.
64.
If the offender is charged but then not convicted, or found not guilty by reason of insanity, of
an SFO offence, but the Court is satisfied that the person did what they are accused of
doing, and a hospital order is made under the Mental Health Act 1983*, then the case will be
treated as equivalent to a SFO conviction. This will also apply if a Court makes an order to
allow the transfer of a convicted prisoner or a prisoner on remand to hospital.
(*MHA section 36 (remand for treatment), 37 (hospital order). 38 (interim order), 41
(restriction order).
The Victim Summary Report
65.
Following conviction for a MANDATORY SFO, the NPS or CRC provider must undertake to
produce and present a summary of the SFO findings to the victim, or family of the victim.
Further details of this mandatory requirement are outlined in Annex A.
Section 6 – Communications
Communications should be
 Clear
 Coordinated, and
 Recorded
Communication between NPS, CRCs, prison establishments and the OMPPG
66.
PI 15/2014 requires the NPS or CRC to appoint a single point of administrative contact
(SPOC) for SFOs. The single point of contact (SPOC) should be able to access details of
cases either directly, or by making enquiries within the relevant NPS or CRC. In order to
ensure that all communications between probation providers, prison establishments and
OMPPG are clear and there is a clear audit trail of any communication relating to SFOs kept
on file; both the SPOC and the SFO email in box should be included in all such
communications. The supervising probation provider or prison establishment will remain
responsible for keeping the relevant NPS Deputy Director, Deputy Director for Custody, or
CRC Chief Executive or their delegates, updated on individual SFOs as required in line with
PI 15/2014.
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 41
67.
Notifications and updates of existing SFO cases should be submitted by e-mail to
SFO@noms.gsi.gov.uk using the GSI network or other Authority approved system, and
ensuring that the email is marked as ‘OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE’.
Type of SFO
Communications Strategy
68.
Consideration should be given by each NPS and CRC to setting up a dedicated SFO email
address, which would be accessible to all members of staff involved in SFO administration,
as an alternative to using the personal email inboxes of individual SPOCs. The NPS and
CRCs should ensure that the Service name features prominently in the address as it needs
to be made clear who the email is from, (e.g. sfo@anywhere.probation.gsi.gov.uk).
69.
The OMPPG keeps a list of email addresses for each probation provider’s single point of
administrative contact(s), senior lead manager(s) and communications officer(s), and it is
essential to let the OMPPG know of changes.
70.
Each SFO is allocated a national reference number. The following electronic protocol should
be used by the NPS, CRCs, prison establishment and OMPPG:


SFO/surname in lower case/initial in upper case/Stage (the SFO notification initially
sent by e-mail is therefore: SFObloggsJ(Notification))
When received by the OMPPG, the case is assigned a number and becomes:
SFO60001bloggsJ(Notification)
71.
The SFO document set has been designed as one ongoing document, but separated into
annexes. When each Stage is completed, the relevant annex should follow on from the
previous completed stage.
72.
The case files of offenders dealt with under SFO procedures should be retained in
accordance with local policies, or for 2 years after the SFO conviction, whichever is the
greater.
73.
The NPS, CRCs and prison establishments should open an SFO Review file for each SFO
separate from the case file. This should include a record of the evidence considered for the
Review, with copies of any relevant documents. Notes from the interviews should be retained
together with a key to the abbreviations used and kept in accordance with the NPS, CRC and
prison data policy and procedures.
Communications Strategy
74.
PI 15/2014 states that the NPS, CRC and prison establishment should put in place a
Communication Strategy in each SFO case, proportional to the level of local and national
media interest. In high profile cases this should be agreed and managed by a senior
manager in conjunction with the OMPPG, including media lines to be taken, the NPS, CRC or
prison provider should have local procedures in place to ensure that the local
Communications Officer is included in any strategy. The table below outlines the 3 levels at
which SFOs will be managed. It would be an expectation that the NPS and CRCs use the
standard media communications template for all High Profile SFO cases (Refer to Annex K in
PI 15/2014).
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 42
‘’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 provider and NOMS because
 the details of the SFO in
themselves are likely to attract
significant national media coverage
or
 the case was so poorly managed
 the case raises significant national
policy issues, beyond how the case
was managed in practice.
Communications strategy (for local use)
prepared by the probation provider or
prison establishment using template at
Annex K of PI xx/2014, cleared with Head
of the SFO Team, (on behalf of the Head
of OMPPG) and the MoJ Press Office.
OMPPG
prepares
ministerial
briefing/submission, press lines for MoJ
Press Office. MoJ Press Office lead on all
media matters, liaising with the local
probation provider to agree handling.
OMPPG prepare ministerial
briefing/submission as required and press
lines for MoJ.
MoJ Press Office deal with all national
media interest and local probation provider
deals with local media interest, and keep
each other appraised.
All other SFOs. Any SFO may attract
public criticism of the probation provider
locally because of a SFO having
occurred. This criticism could be
prompted by, or exacerbated by
knowledge that the case was not
sufficiently well managed.
Communications strategy prepared by
local
Communications
Officer
in
conjunction with assigned senior lead
manager; specific lines prepared for local
media and interested parties.
Advice provided by MoJ Press Office and /
or OMPPG on request.
75.
Based on the information provided by the NPS, CRC or prison establishment, the OMPPG
prepares Ministerial submissions on potentially high profile cases in a standardised format,
as required.
76.
The OMPPG undertakes to provide a weekly briefing note to MOJ press office, copied to
Ministerial and the MOJ Permanent Secretary’s private office detailing factual details of High
Profile SFO cases scheduled to appear in Court the following week.
77.
The OMPPG responds to Parliamentary Questions (PQs) tabled by Members of Parliament
(MPs), and other ministerial requests for information. The OMPPG may require quick and
urgent contributions from the NPS or CRC within short timescales, sometimes in a matter of
hours, in order to prepare a draft reply.
78.
MPs may be prompted by their constituents to write to ministers. Ministerial Correspondence
has to be responded to within 14 days. Additionally, the OMPPG will receive letters direct
from members of the public (known as ‘treat officials’) that need to be answered promptly.
The OMPPG may also require the relevant NPS, CRC or prison establishment to provide a
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 43
contribution to the draft reply, and may contact Chief Executives or senior leads, NOMS CRC
Account Managers, Deputy Directors for Custody or NPS Deputy Directors when further
information is required.
Other Agencies
79.
Where an offender has been supervised with the involvement of another agency, e.g.







police;
a mental health Probation provider;
a drugs or alcohol agency;
a partnership agency commissioned by Probation Provision;
electronic monitoring agency;
an education and employment agency;
any other statutory agency,
then the SFO reviewing manager should consider whether and how information should be
gained from that agency to inform the SFO Review. He/she should also carefully consider
what information should be given to that agency, together with the implications of passing on
the information. Care should be taken on disclosing personal details protected under the
DPA, unless there is an exception (e.g. for prevention or detection of a crime); or a statutory
duty under MAPPA.
80.
In some SFO cases, other agencies will be closely involved, particularly the police, and establishing
joint local strategies with relevant agencies has considerable advantages. The NPS or CRC should
have good liaison arrangements with Communications Officers in other agencies. Consideration
should be given to the content of PI 21/2010 – Information Sharing Agreement between Police and
Probation.
Section 7 – Victims
This section of the OG should be read in conjunction with the most recent Victims PI:
PI: 11/2013 on the Authority’s website.
http://npsintranet.probation.gsi.gov.uk/document_library/Documents/pi_11_2013.doc
83.
The following is an extract from the Victims PI which covers how contact may be used in
SFO cases and what information might , and might not, be given.
‘’Information that would not be appropriate for release to the victim includes anything that
could have any influence over any subsequent judicial process, including information that is
covered by freedom of information or data protection legislation, information that is related to
the sentence planning process or supervision of the offender, or any documentation derived
from the SFO review process.
The purpose of providing the victim of the index offence with information about the SFO fulfils
a number of purposes. It may alleviate their distress, especially if there has been or there is
likely to be any reporting of the offence in the media, and may contribute to the management
of any risk posed by the offender while they remain in custody or if they are subsequently
released. Victims provided with any information must be made aware of any issues around
the confidentiality of the information they are being provided with, and the consequences that
revealing any such information might have on securing a conviction if any proceedings
against the offender are declared sub judice.
While contact would not usually be initiated with the victim of an offence before the offender’s
conviction the NPS or CRC should establish a communications strategy to consider
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 44
arrangements for handling matters related to the case. This should include planning for
liaison with the victim of the SFO (whether directly or via other agencies) should details
become more widely known or emerge in the local or national media. The SFO Operational
Guidance sets out that ownership of the strategy should be managed by a senior manager
appropriate to the level of concern’’.
84.
It will not always be possible to provide the correct facts of a SFO early in the process.
However, the victim should be alerted, where possible when inaccurate information has been
reported. The NPS, CRC or prison establishment should consider the possibility of victim’s
wishing to brief the media following conviction, and any impact this might have.
Section 8 – Quality Assurance
Quality Assurance and Timeliness – Assessing the Review
85.
Under PI 15/2014, the OMPPG will quality assures all Reviews according to the following
criteria and gives feedback to the Probation provider or prison establishment:
 Level of evidence and analysis shown in the SFO Review;
 The extent to which the Action Plan addresses all areas of concern raised in the
SFO Review;
 Timely completion of the Notification and Review
The scoring framework to guide quality rating of all Reviews is as follows:
Timeliness
3 Both stages
on time.
2 One stage
on time
1
0 No stage on
time.
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
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
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 45
managed.
86.
All Reviews are given a quality rating by OMPPG after they have been submitted and these
are as follows:> Good
> Satisfactory
> Incomplete
Where a Review has been rated as ‘incomplete’, the NPS, CRC or prison establishment will
be given a further period (usually no more than one calendar month) to undertake additional
work and re-submit the Review. When doing this extra work, the reviewing manager should
ensure they use the written feedback received from OMPPG as a guiding reference. Resubmitted Reviews are not given a further quality rating but OMPPG will comment specifically
on how far the Review has addressed the points of concern raised when first given an
incomplete rating and may use one of the following responses depending on the content of
the resubmitted review:
Cases where the resubmitted review is not felt to have addressed all concerns
identified by OMPPG:
“We still have serious concerns about the level of evidence provided in the resubmitted
review to support the judgments made…”

Cases where some further evidence is presented in the resubmitted review to address
the concerns identified by OMPPG:
“The resubmitted review provided some further evidence which, on balance, supported
the judgments made.”

Cases where most/all issues have been addressed:
“The resubmitted review fully addressed the issues raised by OMPPG and the
evidence provided supported the judgments made.”

Resubmitted reviews where OMPPG do not agree with the judgments made: “The
resubmitted review presented some well argued points which were accompanied by
evidence, however we are unable to concur with the judgments made for the following
reasons… “
Where OMPPG conclude that the resubmitted review is not of a sufficient quality (those
cases that fall into bullet point 1 above), the NPS or CRC will be offered the opportunity to
discuss this further with the head of the SFO team to identify any ways in which OMPPG may
be able to assist the NPS or CRC in improving staff understanding of the SFO review
process and the expectations of what is required for a SFO Review.
The senior lead managers for the prison establishment, NPS or CRC are of course welcome
to contact the SFO team to discuss any issues raised in feedback letters received from
OMPPG following a SFO review or resubmitted review.
SFO Review Quality Validation
87.
A further quality assurance process, SFO Review validation, operates whereby a panel
(comprising OMPPG, representatives of the NOMS Director of Probation and Director of
NOMS for Wales, HMI Probation, NPS and CRC representatives and invited others) will
scrutinise a sample of completed reviews to determine whether they accurately reflect the
information held on the case file. For the purposes of this process, copies of the case files
will be requested from the prison establishments, NPS and CRC. The prison
establishments, NPS and CRCs must provide these case files on request. SFO Review
validation will be undertaken on a geographical basis bringing together a NPS division
and local CRCs. The SFO team will lead the exercise in the given location drawing cases
from both the NPS and CRCs. It is planned to hold 5 events every two years on a
rotational basis. Deputy Directors for Custody, NPS Deputy Directors and CRC Chief
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 46
Executives will receive written feedback on any of their SFO Reviews that have gone
through the national validation process and key learning points from these events will be
disseminated nationally.
88.
In conjunction with Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMI Probation), the OMPPG
will:



89.
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.
The result of the quality assurance meeting will be disseminated to CRC Chief
Executives, NOMS CRC Account Managers, NPS Deputy Directors and Deputy Directors
for Custody; and feedback will be provided on individual cases to the NPS, CRCs or
prison establishments.
Section 9 – Reviews undertaken outside the supervising Probation provider
Working within local and National structures
90.
NOMS Deputy Directors or CRC Account Managers will arrange, from time to time, for
senior operational managers from outside the managing probation provider to carry out
Reviews as commissioned by the OMPPG, which would advise the relevant senior
managers on their preparation as required. Most typically, a senior manager from another
probation provider not involved in the management of the case in question would be
brought in to prepare a SFO Review where there might be a conflict of interest if the
supervising probation provider were to carry out the Review. This contingency might also
apply with certain SFOs that are deemed to be exceptionally high profile for reasons of
public interest. The commissioning of such reviews would normally be brokered by OMPPG
under the auspices of the Deputy Director for Probation, the Chief Executive for the CRC or
NOMS CRC Account Manager, or their representative. This would be done on a fair and
equitable basis taking into account the size and circumstances of the outside Probation
provider that is brought into this process.
Section 10 – Statistics
Quarterly SFO summary and statistics
91. The OMPPG will produce quarterly information for Probation providers, NOMS CRC
Account Managers, the Director for Probation, England and NOMS Director of Wales (or
their representative). All statistics will include details of performance across key SFO
metrics, detailing quality and timeliness. The statistics will include data on individual
contract package areas, contrasted with divisional and national baseline figures for
comparative purposes. The statistics will include data relating to notification numbers and
timeliness, including MAPPA level at the time of the SFO and highest ROSH level recorded
on the current order. Each SFO Review that is submitted by the NPS or CRC is quality
assured by the SFO Team at NOMS and rated, providing evidence of the quality of reviews
of their own practice completed by differing providers. The NPS and CRCs rate the overall
sufficiency of risk assessment, risk management and offender management for each
individual case, based on the standard of practice in managing the offender displayed
between the start of sentence and the date of the SFO. This data is issued to provide
evidence of standards of practice within the individual areas, and inform Ministers
and Senior Official’s of the sufficiency of practice within key areas of probation
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 47
delivery. It is extremely important that all questions are completed in relation to SFO
notification and review pro-formas, even where the question being considered does
not seem immediately relevant to the matter in hand.
Section 11 – Local Reviews
92.
PI xx/2014 refers to NPS and CRCs establishing a mechanism for local review which
could apply to cases that do not meet the SFO criteria or to cases where managers have
identified some potential problems (e.g. a delayed recall, or a voluntary hostel complaining
about the standard of offender management). It could also apply to cases that have been
identified as well managed, and allow the NPS or CRC to establish the critical success
factors that underpin the effective management of cases. The SFO Team will advise any
NPS or CRC that needs advice about how such Reviews might be undertaken.
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 48
SFO Process flowchart
Notification and
Allocation
assessment (to be
completed within 10
working days of first
court appearance)
Review (completed
within 3 months of the
date of notification
submission) whether
standard or shortened
version.
Action Plan
Update (to be
completed on
reviews completed
within a relevant
quarter
Outcome
(completed
within 3 working
days of case
completion)
VSR Dissemination
following conviction
for mandatory SFO
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
Appendix 1
NPS Court staff identify
that a case is a SFO using
the offence and offender
eligibility in PI 15/2014;
and SPOC complete
Stage 1 Notification
CRC or NPS commence review of
community supervision, If NPS
Managed this will incorporate initial
risk assessment
NPS senior lead and CRC
contract manager to satisfy
themselves that learning
has been successfully
implemented and ‘sign off’
on completed actions.
NPS senior lead manager
notifies the relevant
manager of the
supervising OM unit (NPS
or CRC) so the case file
can be secured and sent
to senior lead manager of
the relevant unit.
NPS to complete Stage
2 notification reviewing
initial case allocation and
and send details to SFO
team and NPS lead.
CRC / NPS to submit
SFO review to NOMS
OMPPG for quality
assurance, copied to
contracted services
contract manager
and NPS lead.
NPS Senior lead and
CRC leads to submit
Action Plan Updates
detailing learning points
highlighted in SFOs within
the specified reporting
period as set out in the
PI.
VSR proforma to be
completed by NPS or
CRC (depending on OM
unit) and sent to relevant
WCU.
OMPPG Quality assure
SFO review within 20
working days of receipt.
Feedback to be sent to SFO
lead in NPS lead (for initial
allocation) and CRC lead
NPS or CRC (as appropriate)
considers Stage 3 final sign off
of sfo notification and whether
HP, and send to SFO team.
With risk escalation doc (if
appropriate)
OMPPG SFO team
confirm that sfo review
should go ahead within 3
working days and inform
NPS / CRC SPOC
If rated as ‘incomplete’ the
Review will require further
work by the NPS / CRC and
resubmission within up to 1
calendar month to address
the points made
A summary report on progress with acting on SFO Review learning points
should be sent by the NPS/CRC to the OMPPG SFO mailbox
SFO@noms.gsi.gov.uk in line with the reporting schedule.
A summary report on progress with acting on SFO Review learning points should be sent
by Trust to the OMPPG SFO mailbox SFO@noms.gsi.gov.uk in line with the reporting
schedule.
NPS/ CRC to complete victim summary report if not already completed
and present to qualifying victims where offenders convicted of a
mandatory SFO. If previously completed Trust to consider revising to
incorporate implementation of identified learning points.
NPS/CRC to forward a copy of the victim summary report
to OMPPG for retention on file.
UPDATE ISSUED
01/02/2015
SFO ROTL Process flowchart
Prison Governor in
liaison with court staff
identify that a case is a
SFO using the offence
and offender eligibility in
PI 15/2014; and SPOC
complete
Notification and
Allocation
assessment (to be
completed within 10
working days of first
court appearance)
VSR proforma to be
completed by NPS
and sent to relevant
SLM and SFO Team
Review
(completed within 3
months of the date
of notification
submission) whether
standard or
shortened version.
Deputy Director for Custody
(DDC) senior lead manager
notifies the relevant
manager(s) and OS of the
supervising OM unit so the
case file can be secured and
sent to senior lead manager.
The SLM should ensure the Review is allocated for
completion. SLM ensures the Review is fully
completed including good practice and action points.
Appendix 2
PAGE 49
SLM sends the
Notification to the
OMPPG inbox and cc’s
to the DCC and
Governor along with
brief details.
Senior lead manager
(SLM) ensures case files
are examined and
confirms the details and
ensures the Notification is
completed.
OMPPG SFO team to
send
acknowledgement of
Notification within 3
working days, confirm
whether Review
should go ahead
The DDC (or delegate)
quality assures the
Review and signs off at
divisional level.
SLM sends the Review to the OMPPG
SFO mailbox SFO@noms.gsi.gov.uk
within 3 months of the Notification.
Copies should be sent to the Director
of Contracted Prisons, Phil Copple;
Director of Public Prisons.
Action Plan
Update (to be
completed on
reviews
completed within
a relevant
quarter
SLM to submit Action Plan Update for
each SFO Review to the DDC no later
than 6 months after completing the
Review.
Outcome
(completed
within 3 working
days of case
completion)
VSR Dissemination
following conviction for
mandatory SFO
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
summary report detailing learning points with
evidence of progress should be sent by the SLM
to the OMPPG SFO mailbox
SFO@noms.gsi.gov.uk in line with the reporting
schedule
OMPPG SFO Team sends feedback on the
quality and timeliness of the Review within
20 working days to DCC, copied into the
DPP, SLM, Governor, DCP (where required
and the DD –community. If rated as
‘incomplete’ the Review will require further
work.
NPS/prison establishment completes and sends Outcome to the SFO
mailbox SFO@noms.gsi.gov.uk (cc’d to Deputy Director Custody,
Governor and DD- community) within 3 working days of a case being
concluded in court or confirmation that the charges have been
discontinued/ reduced to non SFO charges
Prison establishment to complete victim summary report if not already completed and
present to qualifying victims where offenders convicted of a mandatory SFO. If previously
completed prison establishment to consider revising to incorporate implementation of
identified learning points.
Prison establishment to forward
a copy of the victim summary
report to OMPPG for retention
on file.
UPDATE ISSUED
01/02/2015
PAGE 50
Intentionally left blank.
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED
01/02/2015
PAGE 51
Appendix 3 - SFO eligibility flowchart*
Does the offender meet
the SFO offender
eligibility criteria?
Yes
Does the offence meet
Yes the SFO offence
eligibility criteria?
No
No
Is there public
interest in the
case?
OMPPG’s SFO
Team/the Trust
make joint
decision where
there is public
interest, but
which fall
outside of the
offence
eligibility criteria
No
This case is not an SFO
No
Does the offence meet the
mandatory offence criteria
for initiating a Review?
Yes
No
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
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 47 for
The SFO Review should
be completed using
either the STANDARD or
LOW RISK SFO Form as
appropriate (see para 47 for
further guidance)
further guidance)
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
* Please note that this flow chart is not applicable to ROTL SFOs as all offences of
Schedule 15a qualify under the scheme
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 52
HMiP Case Assessment Guidance (CAG)
SFO
SFO
Question
Question
(Low Risk (Standard
Reviews)
Reviews)
RA 2.10.1
RA 2.10.1
Appendix 4
Theme
CAG Question Number
Post Sentence assessment.
All of B 3.1, B 4.1,
RA 2.10.2
RA 2.10.2
Risk assessment timeliness
B 4.1.5, c2.1.8
RA 2.10.3
RA 2.10.3
Incorporate previous
assessments
B 3.1.1, B4.1.5, B4.1.6, B 4.1.7, B
4.1.13,
RA 2.10.4
RA 2.10.4
Incorporate previous
assessments
B 3.1.1, B4.1.5, B4.1.6, B 4.1.7, B
4.1.13,
Anything missing from
additional assessments
B 3.1.1, B4.1.5, B4.1.6, B 4.1.7, B
4.1.13,
Assessment communicated to
all
B 3.1.1, B4.1.5, B4.1.6, B 4.1.7, B
4.1.13,
RA 2.10.5
RA 2.10.6
RA 2.10.5
RA 2.10.6
RA 2.10.7
RA 2.10.7
RA 2.10.8
RA 2.10.8
RA 2.10.9
RA 2.10.9
Reviewed in line with local
policy?
D 2.2.21, D 2.2.22, D 3.2.23, D
2.2.24,
Risk assessment reviewed
promptly
D 2.2.21, D 2.2.22, D 3.2.23, D
2.2.24, D4.2.13
Change in risk level justified
D 2.2.21, D 2.2.22, D 3.2.23, D 2.2.24,
RA 2.10.10
RA 2.10.10
RA 2.10.11
RA 2.10.11
RA 2.10.12
RA 2.10.13
RA 2.10.12
RA 2.10.13
Case referred to NPS
Risk escalation process
followed
Nature of risk escalation
D.2.2.27, D 2.2.28
D.2.2.27
D 2.2.22, D 3.2.23, D 2.2.24
D.2.2.28
Did NPS confim risk level?
RA 2.10.14
RA 2.10.14
If NPS didn’t assess case as
high risk
D.2.2.28 D2.2.30
RA 2.10.15 RA 2.10.15
Quality of risk assessment
reviews.
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
D 2.2.21, D 4.2.14, D 4.2.15
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 53
RA 2.10.16 RA 2.10.16
Reviews focus on imminence of
risk
RM 2.11.1
Sufficient initial RMP
RM 2.11.2
Was the RMP implemented
effectively?
RM 2.11.3
B 3.1.1, B4.1.5, B4.1.6, B 4.1.7, B
4.1.13, E 4.3.1, E 4.3.2., E 4.3.3, E
e.3.3.U,
E 4.3.6
B 4.1.5, c2.1.8
RM 2.11.4
RM 2.11.5
RMP attention children
RM 2.11.6
Was the sentence or licence
sufficient to manage risk
11, 14d, 16, 17, B 4.1.8, D 2.2.3, D
4.2.4,
D 4.2.5, D 4.2.11, E 4.3.6
B 4.1.8, D 4.2.4, D 4.2.5
11, 14d, 16, 17, B 4.1.8, D 2.2.3, D
4.2.4,
D 4.2.5, D 4.2.11
B 3.1.1, B4.1.5, B4.1.6, B 4.1.7, B
4.1.13,
Was key risk information
communicated
B 3.1.1, B4.1.5, B4.1.6, B 4.1.7, B
4.1.13,
RMP attention to victims
RM 2.11.2
D 2.2.21, D 3.2.15, D 4.2.1
RMP attention to vulnerable
adults
RM 2.11.7
RM 2.11.8
MAPPA Criteria
D 4.2.8
MAPPA level 1
No ref
MAPPA carried out effectively
D 4.2.8
RM 2.11.9
RM 2.11.10
OM 2.12.1
Custody Pre release contact
and planning
C 2.1.3, C 2.1.6 C 2.1.4
Adequate handover from
custody
C 2.1.3, C 2.1.6 C 2.1.4
Resettlement plan quality
C 2.1.3, C 2.1.6 C 2.1.4
OM 2.12.2
OM 2.12.3
OM 2.12.4
Resettle plan quality
OM 2.12.5
Release at SED.
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
C 2.1.1, C2.1.2, C2.1.3, C 2.1.6 C
2.1.7, C 2.1.8,
No specific references, but key
elements of sentence planning and
delivery are relevant in preparation for
release at SED: C 2.1.8, C 2.1.9 C
2.1.10, D 2.2.3
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 54
OM 2.12.1
OM 2.12.6
Allocated promptly to promote
engagement
Om 2.12.2,
OM 2.12.3,
OM 2.12.7
Sufficient needs assessment
and sentence plan?
OM 2.12.8
Sentence plan delivered
appropriately
OM 2.12.4
OM 2.12.5
OM 2.12.6
Rm 2.11.1,
OM 2.12.7,
C 2.1.3, C 2.1.6 C 2.1.7, C 2.1.8, C
2.1.14,
C 2.1.15, C2.1.16, C 2.1.17ab, c 2.1.18,
C 2.1.19, C 2.1.20
B 3.1.1, B4.1.5, B4.1.6, B 4.1.7, B
4.1.13, E 4.3.1, E 4.3.2., E 4.3.3, E
e.3.3.U,
E 4.3.6
C 2.1.3, C 2.1.6 C 2.1.7, C 2.1.8, C
2.1.14,
C 2.1.15, C2.1.16, C 2.1.17ab, c 2.1.18,
C 2.1.19, C 2.1.20, D 2.2.1, D 2.2.3,
OM 2.12.9
Licence and conditions
explained
C 2.1.3, C 2.1.6 C 2.1.7, C 2.1.8, C
2.1.9, C2.1.10, C 2.1.11, C 2.1.12,
Sentence plan delivered?
D 2.2.1, D 2.2.3, , D2.2.8, D 2.2.9, D
2.2.13, D2.2.16, D2.2.19,
D 2.2.21, D 2.4.6
Investigative monitoring of
compliance
D2.2.8, D 2.2.9, D 2.2.13, D2.2.16,
D2.2.19,
D 2.2.21, D 2.4.6. E 2.3.5
Timeliness of response
D2.2.8, D 2.2.9, D 2.2.13, D2.2.16,
D2.2.19,
D 2.2.21, D 2.4.6, E 2.3.5
OM 2.12.10
OM 2.12.11
OM 2.12.12
OM 2.12.13
Line management oversight
Om2.12.9
D 4.2.16,
Om 2.12.14
Information exchange in even
of transfer
D 2.2.7, D 2.2.28, D 2.2.30
Om 2.12.8
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
PAGE 55
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 conditionsaccess to training- individual factors e.g. poor eyesight – team factors – lack of support

was the error made more or less likely by any resourcing or management decisions?
the OM had been working in Interventions and had only just completed a locally organised
introduction to OASys day. The normal training had been temporarily suspended as there was no
resource to fund a replacement for the OASys trainer who was off work for 3 months.
See
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7237/768 for further details.
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 56
APPENDIX 5
THE SERIOUS FURTHER OFFENCE (SFO) REVIEW PROCESS
A GUIDE FOR STAFF
The Guide
This guide provides information about the SFO Review process for staff in the NPS, CRCs or
prison establishment. The SFO Review process, and the list of serious further offences, is set
out in more detail in PI xx/2014 on the authority’s system.
When is a SFO Review carried out?
Whenever an offender under probation supervision is charged with a serious sexual or violent
offence the need for a SFO Review (hereafter a Review) is considered. A Review is always
undertaken if the SFO charge is murder, manslaughter, or other specified offence involving
loss of life, rape, or a sexual offence against a child under 13 years of age. A Review is also
undertaken in cases of other offenders charged with a qualifying serious further violent or
sexual offence if they had been assessed as high or very high risk of serious harm during their
current sentence, or had not received an assessment as part of their sentence. The full list of
offences that can qualify as a SFO is based on schedule 15A of the 2003 Criminal Justice Act
and can be found in Annex C of PI xx/2014.
Reviews may be undertaken in other cases involving re-offending where there are public
interest reasons for doing so. Overall, the procedures focus on the most serious offences and
the most serious offenders.
A Review is always undertaken if an offender released on ROTL commits an offence which is
contained within schedule 15A.
Why do we Review SFO cases?
The purpose of a Review is to provide an objective assessment of the quality of practice in the
management of an individual case up to the point of the SFO and to identify any actions that
are needed to improve practice in the management of future cases and/or update relevant
policy or guidance to assist with wider improvements. We need to establish whether everything
was done that might reasonably have been expected to manage the offender’s risk of harm
effectively during the supervision period. Many cases that result in SFO charges will have been
managed satisfactorily, or indeed very well. But in those cases where our policy or practice is
shown to be unsatisfactory, it is important to learn and improve, mindful of our statutory duty to
protect the public.
SFOs in context.
Serious reoffending occurs in a small proportion of the probation and prison caseload and in all
risk categories. This means that some staff may be involved in a number of SFO Reviews in
their career; others rarely or not at all.
Who reviews the SFO case?
A Review is undertaken by a manager working for the NPS, CRC or prison establishment that
supervised the case, who is independent of the line management of the case. In certain
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 57
cases, a manager from another division of the NPS or the CRC may undertake the Review and
exceptionally Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation may undertake a Review.
What does a Review involve?
The reviewing manager assesses the standard of risk assessment, risk management and
offender management. He or she will highlight any particular strengths in how the case was
managed, and any deficiencies (or concerns), together with the reasons for them (whether
they are at organisational, team or individual level; or a combination). He or she will then
devise an action plan to address any shortcomings. The Review can take up to three months
to be completed.
In cases where the offender has been assessed as low risk of serious harm and was subject to
a community or suspended sentence order, the NPS, CRC or prison establishment would
normally complete a shortened review which focuses mainly, but not exclusively, on risk
assessment. All other qualifying cases would be subject to a standard review looking equally at
risk assessment, risk management and offender management.
What information is used in a Review?
The main sources of information are the case records, the staff who managed the case and
other staff who worked with the offender, together with line managers. Interviews with staff both practitioners and managers - are part of the fact-finding process. They explore whether
the case was managed to the standard expected, taking into account factors such as the
challenges posed by the case and the overall workload of the staff member. The interview is
also an important opportunity for those involved in a case to talk it through and place it in
perspective for themselves.
Feedback and employee care.
Managers (the reviewing manager or the line manager if appropriate) will feed back to staff
who have been interviewed any findings or action points relevant to them. The experience of
having responsibility for a case which gives rise to a SFO can be a protracted and, at times, a
stressful one. Staff involved in these cases may understandably be upset and anxious and
should be offered support and counselling, where necessary, including the employers support
service. Overall, senior management and employers will exercise their duty of employee care.
A Review is not a capability or disciplinary investigation.
The Review is not a disciplinary or a capability process. Interviews therefore ordinarily involve
only the staff members concerned and the reviewing manager. If there are matters which
require separate consideration under capability procedures (or, very occasionally, under
discipline procedures, where there are indications of potential misconduct), the reviewing
manager will liaise with the employers Human Resources team. If the formal stages of these
other procedures were reached, the staff member would, subject to agreed agency
procedures, then have the right to be accompanied in any capability or disciplinary procedure
by a trade union representative or colleague.
The Review pro- forma and confidentiality.
The completed Review pro-forma does not contain the names of anyone involved in the case.
It is an internal official document written for the CRC Chief Executive Officer, NPS Deputy
Director, the NOMS CRC Account Manager, Deputy Director for Custody and designated
others in NOMS. Others (e.g. Coroners) may have an entitlement in special cases, and the
Review may inform MAPPA, DHRs and LSCB Reviews also which are concerned with the
SFO. The NPS or the CRC may, from time to time, be asked to release information under the
Freedom of Information Act, and by law this has to be considered on a case by case basis.
However, SFO Reviews are not published in accordance with NOMS policy.
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 58
Media and other interest.
SFO cases will often be the subject of understandable media and other community interest.
Staff should ensure they are familiar with their employer’s Code of Conduct and other policies
relating to confidentiality, and know where to refer enquiries from the media.
Further advice.
Each NPS, CRC and prison establishment has a senior lead manager for SFO Reviews and a
Single Point of Administrative Contact, who will advise locally on any aspect of this guidance.
SERIOUS FURTHER OFFENCES TEAM, OFFENDER MANAGEMENT AND PUBLIC
PROTECTION GROUP, NOMS
January 2015
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 59
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}
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 60
Carrying a firearm with criminal intent (section 18 of the Firearms Act 1968)
Robbery or assault with intent to rob (section 8(1) of the theft Act 1968). [NB. Only where a
firearm/imitation firearm is used]
Burglary with intent to- Inflict grievous bodily harm on a person, (section 9 of the Theft Act 1968) –
Aggravated burglary (section 10 of the Theft Act 1968)
Aggravated vehicle-taking involving an accident which caused the death of any person (Section
12A of the Theft Act 1968)
Arson with intent to endanger life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another
would be thereby endangered. (section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971)
Aggravated criminal damage - destroying or damaging property other than an offence of arson
(section 1(2a) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971)
[NB - - there must be intention or recklessness as to the endangerment of life by the criminal
damage].
Hostage-taking (section 1 of the Taking of Hostages Act 1982)
Hijacking (section 1 of the Aviation Security Act 1982)
Destroying, damaging or endangering safety of aircraft (section 2 of the Aviation Security Act
1982)
Other acts endangering or likely to endanger safety of aircraft (section 3 of the Aviation Security
Act 1982)
Torture (section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988)
Causing death by dangerous driving (section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988)
Causing death by careless driving when under influence of drink or drugs (section 3A of the Road
Traffic Act 1988)
Endangering safety at aerodromes (under section 1 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act
1990)
Hijacking of ships (section 9 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990)
Seizing or exercising control of fixed platforms (section 10 of the Aviation and Maritime Security
Act 1990)
Destroying fixed platforms or endangering their safety (section 11 of the Aviation and Maritime
Security Act 1990)
Other acts endangering or likely to endanger safe navigation (section 12 of the Aviation and
Maritime Security Act 1990)
Offences involving threats (section 13 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990)
Offences relating to Channel Tunnel trains and the tunnel system (Part II of the Channel Tunnel
(Security) Order 1994 (S.I. 1994/570))
Genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and related offences), other than one involving
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 61
murder (section 51 or 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001)
Female genital mutilation (section 1 of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003)
Assisting a girl to mutilate her own genitalia (section 2 of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003)
Assisting a non-UK person to mutilate overseas a girl's genitalia (section 3 of the Female Genital
Mutilation Act 2003)
Sexual Serious Further Offences
Rape or assault by penetration (section 1 or 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)
Intercourse with girl under thirteen (section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956)
Incest by a man with a woman whom he knows to be his grand-daughter, daughter, sister or
mother (section 10(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956)
Abduction of woman by force or for the sake of her property (section 17 of the Sexual Offences
Act 1956)
Permitting girl under thirteen to use premises for intercourse (section 25 of the Sexual Offences
Act 1956)
Burglary with intent to commit rape (section 9 of the Theft Act 1968)
Rape (section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)
Assault by penetration (section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)
Rape of a child under 13 (section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)
Assault of a child under 13 by penetration (section 6 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)
Sexual assault of a child under 13 (section 7 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)
Causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity (section 8 of the Sexual Offences
Act 2003)
Sexual activity with a child (section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)
Causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity (section 10 of the Sexual Offences Act
2003)
Arranging or facilitating commission of a child sex offence (section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act
2003)
Sexual activity with a child family member (section 25 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)
Inciting a child family member to engage in sexual activity (section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act
2003)
Sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder impeding choice (section 30 of the Sexual
Offences Act 2003)
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 62
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 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 63
Annex D
NOMS Offender Management and Public Protection
Group, Grenadier House, Horseferry Road, SW1P 2DD
Email SFO@noms.gsi.gov.uk
SERIOUS FURTHER OFFENCE (SFO) REVIEW DOCUMENT
Stage1 Initial Notification
Offender Name:
Probation Provider (CRC or NPS Division) :
NOMS Ref Number
Notification initiated by:
Telephone number:
Email address:
SFO single point of administrative contact
(NPS Courts) :
Telephone number:
Email address:
SFO single point of administrative contact
(NPS or CRC:
Telephone number:
Email address:
Please refer to the latest SFO Operational Guidance at Annex B (as published on the Authority’s
website) when completing all sections of this document.
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 64
Timeliness
This page must be updated by the Trust’s single point of administrative contact at each stage of the SFO
process, before the updated document is forwarded to the OMPPG SFO Team.
1st Court appearance date
Notification submitted date
Yes
Stage submitted on time?
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 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 65
Notification
The following criteria must be met:
Offender Eligibility

Offenders who are under any form of supervision by the NPS or a CRC (licence or post
sentence supervision) on the date of the SFO (excluding however offenders where a court or
recall warrant had been issued 3 months or more prior to the date of the SFO);
 Offenders who were under any form of supervision by the NPS or CRC including those who
have been subject to recall and released at SED, which terminated within 28 days prior to the
SFO; where an offender is released from prison on temporary licence (ROTL)
 In cases of deferred sentences where sentencing is deferred to allow an offender to comply with
any requirements set by the court. Consideration of a discretionary SFO Review would need to
take into account the specific requirements set by the court and the management of the case by
the probation provider during that period
 Offenders under supervision as above, who are charged with an equivalent eligible offence in
another jurisdiction;
Offence Eligibility

The list of eligible offences comprises serious violent and serious sexual offences (as described
in Annex C of PI xx/2015), or an equivalent eligible offence in another jurisdiction.
Cases that will qualify for a SFO 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 a SFO Review if:
 The SFO charge is murder, manslaughter, other specified offences causing death (including
death by dangerous driving), rape, assault by penetration (s.2 2003 SOA), or a sexual
offence against under 13 (including attempted offences) or
 The offender was high or very high risk of serious harm at any point during their current
sentence or had not been subject to a formal risk assessment using an Authority approved
system (For NPS this will be OASys in most instances or an OASys RoH screening and
appropriate level of assessment post case allocation and for CRCs identification of the present
risk of serious harm posed by an offender, dated during the current supervision period).
 Exceptionally, the offence, whether a SFO or not, may qualify a case for a SFO Review if it is
likely to attract national public interest - please see Operational Guidance at Annex B for
further details
 For ROTL cases, all Schedule 15A offences will automatically qualify for an SFO Review
irrespective of the risk of serious harm that the offender posed.
The Senior Lead manager for SFO(s) must ensure that:




The OMPPG SFO Team receives the fully completed SFO Notification document, for cases
that are to proceed to a SFO Review, within 10 working days of the first court appearance;
and that the Review is then commenced. This will incorporate stage 1 and stage 2 from the
NPS and stage 3 from NPS or CRC.
Stage 2- case allocation process is reviewed by the NPS and signed by the relevant manager.
Notification forms on cases that are not to receive a SFO Review are stored locally for audit
purposes. They should include the information that is needed to enable the Senior Lead
manager to establish that the case does not qualify for a SFO Review.
The OMPPG SFO Team is informed of any case which is likely to attract national public
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED





PAGE 66
interest immediately by telephone and email;
The Communications Officer for the NPS or CRC is informed / consulted in cases which may
attract public interest;
The NPS deputy director (or their representative) and the NOMS CRC Account Manager (or
their representative) where relevant, receive a copy of the Notification;
The case record is secured
The Victim Contact Unit is notified if appropriate.
The Witness Care Unit is provided with the template as detailed in Annex A once OMPPG has
confirmed SFO eligibility.
The Senior Lead manager for SFO(s) must ensure that the following actions are taken for all cases
which are considered for Review whether a Review is undertaken or not:
 The LSCB is informed of any case where the victim is a child and there is a SFO Review.
 The local MAPPA SMB co-ordinator, or equivalent, is notified of any case where the offender
was under MAPPA level 2 or 3 supervision;
 The CSP is notified and liaison with CSP Chair take place where a DHR is also being
completed.
 In cases resulting in death where the victim of the was under probation supervision, PI
01/2014 is referred to;
 In cases where the victim was a resident of Approved Premises, PI 04/2011 is referred to.
1.1. OFFENDERS 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:
Ethnic Origin:
Date of Birth:
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:
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
Details/date
appearance:
of
next
PAGE 67
court
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 any
Yes
No
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 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 68
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
Yes
days) being supervised by any probation provider?
Please enter details of co-defendants in the table below:
Name
Date of
Birth
Eligible for
notification
Yes
No
Details
No
No
Submission
date
SFO
ID
* A separate SFO Notification must be completed and forwarded to both SFO single point
administrative of contact for all relevant co-defendants.
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 69
1.5. SFO VICTIM INFORMATION
How many victims were there?
Gender
Age
Where possible, please use the table below to provide background information on each victim:
Offender/ Victim
relationship
Was there any
evidence of
revictimisation?
1
2
3
4
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:
1.6 EVIDENCE OF PRESS OR PUBLIC INTEREST
Has the offence attracted or is it likely to attract public interest,
by virtue of the circumstances or type of offence, or the national
public profile or well-known identity of the offender or the
victim, which would normally fall outside of the eligibility
criteria?
If Yes, this case may still need to become an SFO – Discuss the case
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
Yes
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
No
UPDATE ISSUED
01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 70
with OMPPG SFO team.
Please provide further details below
Name of senior lead manager:
Name:
Date:
Grade:
Telephone Number:
Email address:
This part of the notification (Stage 1) should now be sent to the relevant designated senior manager in the NPS to complete Stage 2 – Review of
the Case Allocation Process. This should be completed and countersigned before submission to the SFO Team
Stage 1 should ALSO be sent to the relevant NPS or CRC, who was responsible for the management of this case in order that Stage 3 is
completed and sent to OMPPG. Please note, Stages 2 and 3 must be submitted within 10 working days to the SFO Team.
It is important that Stage 1 is dispatched to the relevant NPS or CRC in good time (no more than 5 working days) to ensure the completed Stage
3 is received by OMPPG within ten days. Completion of Stage 2 is not a pre requisite to Stage 3 being completed.
PI 15/2014 – AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED
01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 71
STAGE 2 REVIEW OF THE CASE ALLOCATION PROCESS - TO BE COMPLETED BY THE NPS IN
ALL CASES
To be completed and signed by the designated manager within the NPS.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS SECTION DOES NOT NEED TO BE COMPLETED FOR ROTL SFO CASES
The allocation of offenders to service providers is reserved to the National Probation Service. The Case Allocation system sets out general
criteria on which offender allocation decisions must be based, these are set out below:
1. The appropriate application of the case allocation process completed by the NPS either pre sentence or immediately post sentence,
where it was clear that the offender was in scope for probation services.
2. In cases where the offender had either left court or was sentenced to immediate custody without an NPS interview, the case allocation
tool completed using all the information available to the court.
3. The case allocation tool is always completed, in accordance with the criteria set out in sections 1 – 3 on which offender allocation
decisions must be based:
Section 1 – Summary of Risk/Harm Scores
Using the range of predictor tools, including the RSR tool
Section 2 – Risk of Serious Harm (RoSH) Screening, and if applicable
A full RoSH Analysis, if the RoSH Screening identifies one is required in accordance with the operational guidance
Section 3 – The Case Allocation Decision to determine cohort allocation to either the CRC or the NPS.
4. Following sentence, the case allocated to the appropriate provider in accordance with the timescales set within the operational
guidance
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 72
5. The appropriate provider is informed of the sentence within the required time frame
6. All the necessary paperwork and associated information is communicated to the appropriate provider, within the required timeframe.
2.1. CASE ALLOCATION PROCESS
Was the case allocated in accordance with all the criteria set out
Yes
No
above?
Please provide evidence to support your answer, specifically if there were criterion that was not met, with any known reasons for this.
Please provide comment where relevant to support your answers, including any information that should have been taken into consideration and the
reasons for the absence of such (for example, was it not available at the time of sentence, was it an oversight)
Please indicate if there is any associated learning that requires further investigation or remedial action.
2.15. ACTION PLAN
Please use the table below to summarise the actions that will be taken to address any deficiencies that have been identified. The actions should be SMART (Specific, Measurable,
Achievable, Realistic and Time-bound). They may include referral of concerns to other bodies where appropriate.
Action to
By
Related to
Learning
address the
By
When
Case
How the impact of the action taken will be reported and evaluated
Point
Learning
Whom
(give
Allocation
Point
date)
1
2
3
4
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
Name of senior lead manager authorising this notification:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
PAGE 73
Date:
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 74
Stage 3 to be completed by relevant (at point of SFO)
probation provider (NPS or CRC)
3.1. OASYS RISK OF SERIOUS HARM
What was the highest OASys (or equivalent) risk of serious harm
Select F4 for options
level, prior to the SFO, during the current sentence, whether in
custody or community?
Date of this assessment:
3.2 SUPERVISION AT TIME OF SFO
NPS Division:
NPS Division please select
NPS LDU
A-E [select]
Please select
NPS LDU
F - R [select]
Please Select
NPS LDU
S – Z [select] Please Select
CRC
Please Select
Has another NPS division or CRC been involved in the management
of the offender at any point during the current sentence?
If Yes, please provide details:
Yes
No
Community Order or
What was the main type of supervision that the offender was
SSO
subject to at the time of the SFO?
Determinate sentence
post-release
supervision
Life / Indeterminate
Release on temporary
licence (please list prison
establishment below).
Details of index offence, including significant victim issues:
Details:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 75
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/Indeterminate licence)/ ROTL
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 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 76
Discharging Prison:
Additional information (including, for example, where applicable):




Details of any recalls
Details of any Parole board involvement in the release or re-release of the offender
Any other relevant information
Previous ROTLS
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 77
Was the Offender:
A Foreign Nation Prisoner (FNP):
If yes please provide Home Office CID Reference
Yes
Subject to Home Detention Curfew at the time of the SFO:
Yes
Subject to Electronic Monitoring at the time of the SFO:
Yes
Yes
On licence following a Parole Board decision to release:
Yes
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:
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
3.3. PREVIOUS-CONVICTIONS
How
many
previous
convictions (prior to the index
offence) does the offender
have?
For how many offences?
For how many different types of
offence?
Has the offender previously been convicted or cautioned for any of the following
offences?
Other violence or
Murder/manslaughter/
GBH/wounding/robbery/abduction/
harassment, or
attempted murder*
kidnapping/unlawful imprisonment*
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:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
Date(s)
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
Offence(s)
PAGE 78
Sentence(s)
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 79
Additional Information:
3.4. MAPPA AND OTHER REVIEWS
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:
Are there any indications that a LCSB Safeguarding SCR is to be
undertaken by the SMB?
If Yes, please specify details:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
Yes
No
Select F4 for options
Yes
Yes
No
No
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 80
Are there any indications that the local Community Safety Partnership
are undertaking a Domestic Homicide Review (DHR)?
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
Yes
No
No
3.5 OFFENDERS SUBJCT TO INTEGRATED OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
Was the offender identified as an IOM case during the period of supervision
when the SFO occurred?
If Yes, please specify:
No
Yes
3.6. 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:
No
Yes
Name:
Notification completed by (Name and grade):
Grade:
Telephone Number:
Email address:
3.7. CONFIRMATION
The Senior manager must indicate whether the case qualifies for SFO review based upon the
following questions (please see the Operational Guidance, in particular the flowchart at
Appendix B of Annex B for additional guidance) Answer each of the questions in turn up to the
point at which a Review is indicated:
Eligibility 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.
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
Yes
No
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 81
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,
assault by penetration, sexual offence vs. child under 13
(including attempts)?
If Yes, the case requires a Review and the Notification should be
submitted. If No, proceed to Question 4.
4. Does the offender qualify for a SFO Review on the basis that
either he/she was assessed as high/very high risk of serious
harm during the current sentence (including custody element
where applicable) or has not received a risk assessment during
the current period of supervision (order or licence)?
If Yes, the case requires a Review and the Notification should be
submitted. If No go to Question 5.
Yes
No
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 OMPPG SFO team.
High Profile
6. Taking account of the notifying officers comments in answer
to question 1.6 and 3.6 Can you confirm if you feel that the case
should be categorised as a high profile case? Please refer to the
Annex B Operational Guidance Section 4.
Yes
No
Based on the answers above, does this case qualify for a
Review?
If the case does not qualify for a Review you should not submit this form to the SFO
Team in OMPPG, but you should retain the paperwork locally for audit purposes and
consider whether the case warrants a local review. If the case does qualify for a
review, please indicate one of the following options.
Based on the answers above, does this case qualify for a shortened Review?
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
Yes
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
No
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 82
Based on the answers above, does this case qualify for standard Review?
Based on the answers above, does this case qualify for ROTL Review?
Name of senior lead manager:
Name:
Yes
No
Yes
No
Date:
Grade:
Telephone Number:
Email address:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 83
ANNEX E
STANDARD REVIEW
Annex E
Offender Name:
OMPPG SFO reference number:
The NPS and CRCs must:

Ensure the Review is fully completed, by a manager not involved in the line management of
the case, and sent to the OMPPG SFO Team within 3 months of the initial notification;

Assess the quality of the risk assessment, risk management, and offender management of the
case, and where necessary the reasons for any deficiencies and what will be done to address
them, as well as identifying good practice;

Where applicable, provide updated details of the SFO if they were not available during the
Notification submission, or if further revised information is available.

Ensure that if the case has been supervised by more than one provider, that the SFO review
covers all work undertaken.

Ensure that the Review is signed off by The NPS Deputy Director or a delegated senior
manager or the CRC Chief Executive and delegated senior manager (as the case may be) (not
the manager who completed the review) before it is sent to the OMPPG SFO Team.
Review completed by (Name and
Grade):
Name:
Grade:
Telephone Number:
Email Address:
SFO TIMELINESS
Review Submitted Date
Stage submitted on time
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
Yes
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
No
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 84
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).
Please state role and grade of staff involved in the management of case, who were not
interviewed, with reasons for their absence (such as staff on long term sick leave.)
** Individual staff names should not be included **
Grade and role of the
Identified role Date(s) of
Subjects and issues discussed
interviewee
type (e.g. OM1, interview
SPO, etc)
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 85
2.1. CASE CHRONOLOGY
Please provide a concise summary of key significant events, in custody and/or the community,
between the start of the sentence and the commission of the SFO, together with your
observations, including where applicable;
Please refer to the SFO Operational Guidance for advice if the period of supervision has been brief
(less than 6 months)














Court reports and proposals, including details of the PSR
Commencement of the sentence/ community based supervision, including details of date of
sentence, type of sentence, requirements/additional licence conditions;
Information for or attendance at Sentence planning boards or Parole hearings in relevant
custody cases;
First contact in custody as appropriate and pre-release contact;
First contact in community as appropriate;
Assessments/reviews of OASys (or equivalent), inc ISP/SPR and RMP;
Risk of serious harm level and any changes;
escalation of risk, including whether there was appropriate liaison between CRC and NPS;
Referrals onto and commencement of programmes or other interventions;
Warnings, breaches and recalls; plus unauthorised absences;
MAPPA, MARAC, CP or prison based risk meetings;
References to future SFO victim during the course of the supervision, including any prior
association or knowledge of victim(s) by offender;
Perceived, alleged or known deterioration in behaviour – including for example any known
adjudications in custody, arrests in community by police, drug/alcohol relapse, DV incidents and how they were dealt with.
Overall levels of contact/compliance and whether in line with National Standards / local policy
and procedures.
Please do not use local acronyms without also adding their full title.
Observations/comments could highlight elements of good or poor practice, that are then referred to
and developed in answering the core question. These might include:





Timeliness and quality of work undertaken
Response of RO and other staff to significant information or events
Appropriateness of decisions and actions taken or that might have been taken
How far were agreed actions/decisions followed through
Appropriate levels of inter-agency work/information sharing
Please complete section 2.1. using Annex H as a separate attachment
and insert here. Please continue to complete the review at section 2.2.
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 86
2.2. SFO BACKGROUND INFORMATION
You must ensure that the following information is provided in full before answering the core questions in
sections 2.10 – 2.12.
Was there consistent and accurate recording of risk and MAPPA levels between
OASys and other case management records? (for example, N- Delius)
Yes
No
Yes
No
If No, please provide details:
Is the offender subject to a Violent Offender Order (VOO) or considered for one?
If Yes, please provide details:
2.3. RISK ASSESSMENT
12 months
%
12 months
OGP score at start of sentence:
%
12 months
OVP score at start of sentence:
%
select
F4
for
options
OASys or equivalent risk of
serious harm level at start of
sentence (start of prison
sentence for relevant cases,
start of order or licence for
other cases) Please see
question guidance for details:
OGRS risk of reconviction at start of sentence:
24 months
%
24 months
%
24 months
%
Please provide a breakdown in the table below:
Children
Risk in
community
Public
Risk in
custody
Risk in
community
Known adult
Risk in
custody
Risk in
community
Staff
Risk in
custody
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 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
Risk in
custody
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 87
2.4. CRIMINOGENIC FACTORS
a) Were any of the following identified in OASys or an Authority Approved System at the start of
sentence as related to risk of reoffending?
Accommodation
Details:
ETE
Details:
Financial Management
and Income
Details:
Relationships
Details:
Lifestyle and Associates
Details:
Drugs misuse
Details:
Alcohol misuse
Details:
Emotional wellbeing
Details:
Thinking behaviour
Details:
Attitudes
Details:
Health and other
considerations
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
Details:
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 88
b) Were any of the following identified in OASys or an Authority Approved System at the start of
sentence as related to risk of serious harm?
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
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
Details:
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 89
2.5. CHILD SAFEGUARDING
Are there any child protection/safeguarding concerns in relation to the SFO
charge(s)?
If Yes, please give detail:
Is a LSCB Serious Case Review being undertaken or expected to be
undertaken? Have you been in contact with the LCSB lead?
If Yes, please give detail:
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
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
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)
(NB, an incomplete, this question should be answered as: NO.)
If Yes, please specify the outcome of the assessment(s):
If No, please explain why a SARA assessment was not undertaken:
If there were domestic abuse concerns, was there liaison with appropriate
Police domestic abuse unit?
Comments:
Is a Domestic Homicide Review being undertaken or expected to be
undertaken? Have you been in contact with the DHR lead?
If Yes, please give detail:
2.7. SEXUAL OFFENCES
Are there any sexual offence concerns in relation to the SFO charge(s)?
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 90
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 to statutory sex offender registration?
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
If Yes, please give detail:
Was the offender subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order
(SOPO), a Risk of Sexual Harm Order or a Foreign Travel Order?
If Yes, please give detail:
If the offence for which the offender was subject to supervision was a sexual offence, or if any
previous convictions were sexual offences, was the offender assessed using:
Risk Matrix 2000?
Yes
No
N/A
If Yes, please specify the outcome of the assessment(s):
If No, please explain why a Risk Matrix 2000 assessment was not undertaken:
Other sex offender specific structured risk assessment tools?
Yes
No
N/A
Please specify the type(s) of risk assessment tool(s), and the outcome:
2.8. OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
Was the case sentenced to over 12 months in
custody?
National Offender Management Model tier at start
of sentence:
What grade was the Responsible Officer?
Yes
No
select F4 for options
Details (in particular, please specify any changes
to the offender’s tier level during the supervision):
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
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
Details:
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
Gender
Details:
Disability
Details:
Religious beliefs
Details:
Age
Details:
Class
Details:
PAGE 91
Review Core Questions
The Review Core Questions must be answered in full for the period between the start of
sentence and the commission of the SFO with supporting factual evidence (not only giving
judgment or comment) to support both positive and negative answers.
The Review Core Questions below address the assessment and management applied within the
NPS and the activities within the identification of the risk of serious harm for the allocated
person that informs the plan for each offender within the CRC. The plan is defined as
(i) the identification of the present risk of Serious Harm of that Allocated Person;
(ii) the proposed management and mitigation of the [present] risk of Serious Harm if that
Allocated Person presents a medium risk of Serious Harm;
(iii) the needs of the Allocated Person in the context of the delivery of the Services and the
identification of the likelihood of that Applicable Person reoffending; and
(iv) the activity to be undertaken with the Allocated Person to deliver that part of the sentence
of the court to be served in the community and to reduce the likelihood of reoffending,
using (as applicable) an Authority Approved System.
2.10. NPS - RISK ASSESSMENT
CRCs - THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE PRESENT RISK OF SERIOUS HARM OF THAT ALLOCATED
PERSON
2.10.1. Post sentence, was a sufficient assessment of the
offender’s risk of re-offending and risk of serious harm completed
by the probation provider?
Please consider whether the quality of the initial assessment prepared
post-sentence included and analysed all available information such as:
pre-cons; previous behaviour; safeguarding issues; domestic abuse
considerations; ViSOR information; witness or victims’ statements. Did the Yes
No
N/A
assessment draw on the OASys risk of serious harm screening completed
at the pre-sentence stage and clearly outline what it is the offender may
do and what may increase the likelihood of this happening? Does the
assessment clearly identify and describe what the assessor thinks might
happen, what the possible dangers are, what the harm might be, to whom
and in what circumstances?
Please provide evidence here:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 92
2.10.2. Was this risk assessment completed on time?
Taking account of the timings specified in the Service Level Measure in
accordance with the relevant sentence type for both providers of probation
services
Please provide evidence here:
2.10.3.Completed so as to draw on previous assessments?
Were all relevant assessments that could have been used actually used? If
the risk of serious harm screening was accurate and prompted a full risk
analysis, how was this taken forward to inform assessment?
Please provide evidence here:
2.10.4. Did it incorporate, as necessary, information from
additional assessments?
For example; Mental Health, CAADA DASH, Domestic Abuse, Child
Protection, SARA, RM2000, Risk to Self.
Please provide evidence here:
2.10.5. Was there any information within the additional
assessments that was missing or incomplete?
Please provide evidence here:
2.10.6. Was the assessment communicated to all relevant
parties?
Please provide evidence here:
2.10.7 Was the risk assessment reviewed in line with local policy
and procedures, in response to changes in circumstances,
significant events, and/or where any changes indicated an
increased in risk of serious harm and/or re-offending?
Please provide evidence here:
2.10.8. Was the risk of serious harm and/or re-offending
reviewed promptly?
Please provide evidence here:
2.10.9. Did the review provide sufficient analysis for the change
in the risk and was the new information given appropriate
weighting in the revised risk management plan and risk
assessment?
Please provide evidence here:
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
CRC cases only – Questions 2.10.10 – 2.10.14
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 93
2.10.10. Did the review conclude that the case needed to be
referred to NPS?
Please provide evidence here:
2.10.11. If so, was the risk escalation process followed?
In accordance with PI 08/2014 Risk Escalation Process for CRC to refer to
the NPS.
Please provide evidence here:
2.10.12 If so, what was the nature of the concerns which
prompted the risk escalation and how were these concerns
subsequently addressed?
Please provide evidence here:
2.10.13 Did the NPS confirm the high risk of serious harm
assessment and assume the management of the case?
Please provide evidence here:
2.10.14. If the NPS did not assess the case to be high, what
measures were put in place and practical steps taken to manage
the escalated risk of serious harm?
Please provide evidence here:
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
2.10.15. What was the quality of these risk assessment reviews?
Were the assessments based on evidence, using validated tools,
discussion and reflection?
Please provide positive and negative information as evidence, in
accordance with organisational policy and procedures, HMiP CAG and
ROHAA and supported by Good Practice Principles contained within the
NOMS Risk of Serious Harm Guidance (2009)
Please provide evidence here:
2.10.16. Did the assessment reviews evaluate the likelihood of
the risk of re-offending occurring and the imminence of the risk
of serious harm occurring?
Please provide evidence here:
Judgment
Based on your answers to question above, was risk assessment carried
out to a sufficient standard? (Documents that should be used to assist
in this judgment include service specifications, service levels and
service credits within contracts, HMIP expectations, mandatory
instructions, non-mandatory guidance, National Standards, and
organisational polices and procedures. Please also provide any good
practice identified, to inform the overall judgment on the sufficiency of
risk assessment.
Yes
No
You must provide evidence to substantiate your answer here:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 94
Analysis of deficiencies/Concerns/Areas of good practice
Please discuss each of the areas identified, exploring the possible reasons. This might include reference to
workload, resourcing issues, experience of staff, knowledge and capability of staff, line management oversight,
training systems and organisational context. Please also consider the use of areas for improvement, and
development, both at an individual and organisational level, if required.
Additional Comments:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 95
2.11. NPS - RISK MANAGEMENT
CRCs - THE PROPOSED MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION OF THE [PRESENT] RISK OF SERIOUS
HARM IF THAT ALLOCATED PERSON PRESENTS A MEDIUM RISK OF SERIOUS HARM.
2.11.1. Was a sufficient initial risk management plan completed?
Please consider whether it clearly evidenced how the assessed risks would
be managed. Was the RMP completed in a timely manner and did it
identify the range of risks to be managed? Did the plan directly and
accurately address the identified risks and outline what will be done by
whom and by when? Were the victim safety measures articulated within Yes
No
the plan? Was the contingency plan specific to the risks posed by this
offender?
Were the actions and controls contained in the plan
appropriately intended to protect others from the risks posed by the
offender, and did it evidence the offender’s role in managing their own
risk.
Please provide evidence here:
2.11.2. Was the risk management plan implemented effectively
and in a timely fashion?
Please consider whether there was adequate evidence to demonstrate that
the responsible officer (RO) has delivered what contained in the RMP in a
holistic and considerate way taking into account the needs of others and
the diverse needs of the offender, whilst prioritising the protection of
others. Is there evidence that the elements of the RMP that required
immediate or prompt action have been acted on accordingly.
Please provide evidence here:
2.11.3. Did the risk management plan and subsequent risk
management practice give sufficient priority to the safety of
current and potential victims by the RO and others involved in
the management of the case?
Please consider whether restrictive measures were adequately enforced;
was there a victim safety plan in place? were MARAC/MAPP arrangements
used appropriately; is there evidence of the effective use of ViSOR?; was
enforcement utilised as a measure to manage the risk of serious harm? is
there evidence of effective victim awareness work; did effective and
appropriate liaison take place with the VLO/WSW?)
Please provide evidence here:
2.11.4. Did the risk management plan and subsequent risk
management practice give sufficient priority to the safeguarding
of children?
Please consider whether there is evidence of effective liaison with
children’s social care; attendance at and contribution to any multi-agency
meetings; completion and use of CAF; enforcement of SOPO’s and any
other restrictions; use of MAPPA processes; the effective use of ViSOR;
that the RO has taken an investigative approach.
Please provide evidence here:
2.11.5. Did the risk management plan and subsequent risk
management practice give sufficient priority safeguarding
vulnerable adults?
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 96
Please consider whether there is evidence of effective liaison with adult
social care; attendance at and contribution to any multi-agency meetings;
completion and use of relevant safeguarding documents; that restrictive
measures were in place; use appropriate use of MAPPA processes; the
effective use of ViSOR; that the RO has taken an investigative approach;
whether enforcement was utilised as a measure to manage the risk of
serious harm.
Please provide evidence here:
2.11.6. Was the sentence imposed by the court and/or the
conditions in the post release licence sufficient to enable the
probation provider to manage the risks posed by the offender?
Please consider whether they took into account the offender’s risks of
serious harm and of re-offending, as well as their diverse needs,
protecting known or potential victims and a focus on rehabilitation and
reducing offending?
Please provide evidence here:
2.11.7. Was key risk information communicated between all
relevant staff and agencies?
From the risk analysis and RMP consider who needs what information in
order to keep risks others to a minimum in this case; is there evidence
that this information has been communicated in a way that is received,
understood and appropriately acted upon? Include how the offender was
involved in this.
Please provide evidence here:
2.11.8. Did this case meet the criteria for MAPPA at any time
during this sentence.
Please provide evidence here:
2.11.9. If yes, - for Level 1 cases - did the MAPPA status of the
offender enhance the focus of the single agency management
and the management of risk of serious harm?
Please provide evidence here:
2.11.10. Were MAPPA processes (for all levels of management)
carried out efficiently and effectively, including the timeliness of
referrals and meetings, the overall MAPPA process, decision
making, and consideration of disclosure?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Please provide evidence here:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 97
Judgment
Based on your answers to question above, was risk
management carried out to a sufficient standard? (Documents
that should be used to assist in this judgment include service
specifications, service levels and service credits within
contracts, HMIP expectations, mandatory instructions, nonYes
mandatory guidance, National Standards, and organisational
polices and procedures. Please also provide evidence of good
practice identified, to inform the overall judgment on the
sufficiency of risk management.
No
You must provide evidence to substantiate your answer here, including taking account of specific comments
made in relation to questions:
Analysis of deficiencies\Concerns\Areas of good practice
Please discuss each of the areas identified, exploring the possible reasons. This might include
reference to workload, resourcing issues, experience of staff, knowledge and capability of staff,
line management oversight, training systems and organisational context. Please also consider
the use of areas for improvement, and development, both at an individual and organisational
level, if required.
Additional Comments:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 98
2.12. NPS - OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
CRCS - THE NEEDS OF THE ALLOCATED PERSON IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DELIVERY OF THE
SERVICES AND THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE LIKELIHOOD OF THAT APPLICABLE PERSON REOFFENDING; AND THE ACTIVITY TO BE UNDERTAKEN WITH THE ALLOCATED PERSON TO DELIVER
THAT PART OF THE SENTENCE OF THE COURT TO BE SERVED IN THE COMMUNITY AND TO REDUCE
THE LIKELIHOOD OF RE-OFFENDING, USING (AS APPLICABLE) AN AUTHORITY APPROVED
SYSTEM.
2.12.1 In custody cases, is there evidence of appropriate prerelease contact and planning with the offender to ensure a
positive and effective release?
Please consider what contact had taken place and with whom; protocols
and policies; MAPPA and other public protection actions taken;
Yes
No
N/A
accommodation provision and checks; licence conditions; use of
curfew/HDC/RoTL/Approved Premises. To consider the NPS/CRC
management of relevant cases in accordance with the roles and
responsibilities for each provider.
Please provide evidence here:
2.12.2 Is there evidence of an adequate handover meeting?
Please consider whether the minimum set of information was provided as
part of the handover, was there evidence of the some level of engagement
between the recipient and the current owner of the case'.
Please provide evidence here:
Yes
No
N/A
FOR CASES WHERE THE OFFENDER HAS COMMITTED THE ALLEGED SFO WITHIN 28 DAYS AFTER
RELEASE, AND WERE EITHER SUBJECT TO LICENCE SUPERVISION OR WERE RELEASED AT THEIR
SED FOLLOWING RECALL – PLEASE ALSO ANSWER QUESTIONS 2.12.3 to 2.12.5
2.12.3 Was the resettlement plan completed within the
appropriate timescales?
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Please provide evidence here:
2.12.4 Was the resettlement plan of adequate quality that
reflected the identified needs?
Please provide evidence here:
2.12.5For those offenders released at their SED, is there evidence
that the risk management plan was reviewed prior to release,
and the range of risks communicated to those agencies
concerned?
Please provide evidence here:
2.12.6 Was there clear evidence that the offender in this case
was allocated an appropriate responsible officer promptly to
promote offender engagement?
For example, consider allocation immediately post-sentence and refer to
any transfers that have taken place; consider the skill base and experience
of the allocated OM and the needs of the offender.
Please provide evidence here:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
2.12.7 Was a sufficient needs assessment and sentence plan
completed, that was timely and informed?
Please consider if there was adequate evidence to demonstrate that the
offender was being managed according to an appropriate sentence plan
(evidence should also cover in custody where required); did the sentence
plan reflect the risk management plan; how were the criminogenic needs
identified, assessed and incorporated into the sentence plan; was it clear
what work would be undertaken to address the identified needs?.
Please provide evidence here:
2.12.8 Did the sentence plan contain appropriate outcomefocused objectives and is there evidence that the offender was an
active participant in the sentence planning process and that the
objectives reflect the goals they have set?
Please consider whether the offender was involved in the sentence
planning process, consider the SAQ; what interventions were planned and
what was hoped to be achieved; were they SMART and did they take into
account other considerations relating to diversity. Is there evidence of
links to the risk management plan; and, was there evidence that the
sentence plan identified protective and restrictive measures.
Please provide evidence here:
2.12.9 Were licence conditions and supervision requirements
explained to the offender in a way they could understand?
Please provide evidence here:
2.12.10. Has the sentence plan been appropriately and effectively
delivered by the supervising agency, in accordance with risk of
serious harm and/or risk of re-offending concerns?
Please consider how far the sentence plan objectives were prioritised and
appropriately sequenced in accordance with risk of serious harm; referrals
to other agencies; commencement/completion of requirements; progress
made on each objective; contact levels and engagement and compliance
of the offender; evidence that the RO has taken a pro-active role in
leading and effectively co-ordinating the management of the offender.
Please provide evidence here:
2.12.11 Did the responsible officer for the case take a timely and
investigative approach in monitoring the offender’s attendance
and compliance across all aspects of the sentence and ensure
that statutory enforcement action was taken when required?
Please consider any steps taken to encourage the offender’s compliance,
include monitoring of licence conditions and any other restrictive
requirements including SOPO restrictions; were decisions about
acceptability of absences acceptable and appropriate?; were sanctions
regarding absences taken appropriately, including recall action where
there was a deterioration in behaviour but no charge by the police.
Please provide evidence here:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 99
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
2.12.12 Was timely and effective action taken in response to
absences or other failure to comply?
Please consider the effectiveness of the interfaces and information sharing
between the CRC and NPS when dealing with the enforcement, both via
the courts and in cases of recall. Were all practical, necessary steps taken
by each relevant probation, at the correct time, with the most up-to-date
information, and the quality of the advice provided.
Please provide evidence here:
2.12.13 Were contact and events up-to-date and clearly recorded
against the offender’s record according to all protocols and
policies?
Please consider if all contact activity was reflected in the electronic file
and, if in the absence of the RO, another person could easily take over
management of this offender based on the information contained within
the case records on NDelius or an Authority approved system.
Please provide evidence here:
PAGE 100
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
2.12.14 Was there evidence of sufficient line management
oversight and support in this case?
Please consider supervision; appraisals; other meetings; protocols/policies
as well as any direct input such as countersigning/risk assessments,
informal discussions.
Please provide evidence here:
2.12.15 Where an offender has been transferred: Is there clear
evidence of a sufficient exchange of information on the case for
the purpose of transfer?
Please consider the full range of circumstances when answering this
question, for example, an internal transfer within the team, to the NPS
following the risk escalation process; from prison to prison; or
geographically when the offender has moved address. Please consider
what evidence there is in the planning of the transfer; meetings and
liaison between RO’s and the offender; protocols/policies followed;
meetings held in response to offenders’ diverse needs; meetings of the
right people at the right time etc., consider protocol/policies/local
expectations/PI’s; can the contents of the plans be delivered by the new
agency/area?; have all risk checks been completed prior to any moves?
Consideration should also be given to the interface between the NPS and
CRCs in line with the allocation guidance document. Is there a clear and
evidenced review of the risk and sentence plans in response to the
changes prompting transfer, including progress/achievement of objectives,
recall/breach and taking into account all the current circumstances and the
offenders needs – did this take place pre and post transfer?
Please provide evidence here:
Judgment
Based on your answers to question above, was offender management a
sufficient standard? (Documents that should be used to assist in this
judgment include service specifications, service levels and service credits
within contracts, HMIP expectations, mandatory instructions, nonPI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
Yes
No
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 101
mandatory guidance, National Standards, and organisational polices and
procedures. Please also provide evidence of good practice identified, to
inform the overall judgment on the sufficiency of offender management.
You must provide evidence to substantiate your answer here:
Analysis of deficiencies\Concerns\Areas of good practice
Please discuss each of the areas identified, exploring the possible reasons. This might include
reference to workload, resourcing issues, experience of staff, knowledge and capability of staff,
line management oversight, training systems and organisational context. Please also consider the
use of areas for improvement, and development, both at an individual and organisational level, if
required.
Additional Comments:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 102
2.13. SFO REVIEW – FINAL QUESTIONS
The Review demonstrates that there was a
sufficient standard of risk assessment
or
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
sufficient identification of the present risk of
serious harm of that allocated person:
The Review demonstrates that there was a
sufficient standard of risk management
or
that the proposed management and mitigation of
the [present] risk of serious harm if that allocated
person presents a medium risk of serious harm was
sufficient:
The Review demonstrates that there was a sufficient
standard of offender management
or
that the needs of the allocated person in the context of the
delivery of the services and the identification of the
likelihood of that applicable person re-offending; and the
activity to be undertaken with the allocated person to
deliver that part of the sentence of the court to be served in
the community and to reduce the likelihood of re-offending,
using (as applicable) an authority approved system, was
sufficient:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 103
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
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 104
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
Learning Point
Question
By Whom
Learning Point
(give date)
be reported and evaluated
number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 105
Has this SFO Review raised any other policy or practice issues about the effective management of offenders under
supervision or is there any information about initiatives/achievements within the NPS or CRC that is needed to put the
action plan in context?
Please add any comments here:
Yes
No
This section must be signed off by the Chief Executive of the CRC or NPS Deputy Director, Public Protection lead or their delegate, before the
completed Review is forwarded to the OMPPG SFO Team. If the Review has identified exceptionally poor practice please indicate the consideration
that has been given to initiating capability or disciplinary procedures, unless already stated above.
Name:
Probation Provider:
Date:
Grade:
Please add any comments here:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 106
Annex F
REVIEW FOR LOW RISK OF SERIOUS HARM OFFENDERS
SUBJECT TO COMMUNITY OR SUSPENDED SENTENCE ORDER
SUPERVISION (NOT LICENCE CASES)
Annex F
Offender Name:
OMPPG SFO reference number:
The NPS and the CRC must:

Ensure the Review is fully completed, by a manager not involved in the line management of
the case, and sent to the OMPPG SFO Team within 3 months of the initial notification;

Assess the quality of the risk assessment, risk management, and offender management of the
case, and where necessary the reasons for any deficiencies and what will be done to address
them, as well as identifying good practice;

Where applicable, provide updated details of the SFO if they were not available during the
Notification submission, or if further revised information is available.

Ensure that if the case has been supervised by more than one provider, that the SFO review
covers all work undertaken.

Ensure that the Review is signed off by The NPS Deputy Director or a delegated senior
manager or the CRC Chief Executive and delegated senior manager (as the case may be) (not
the manager who completed the review) before it is sent to the OMPPG SFO Team, with the
Deputy Director NPS (if relevant) OR NOMS CRC account manager.
Review completed by (Name and
Grade):
Name:
Grade:
Telephone Number:
Email Address:
SFO TIMELINESS
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 107
Review Submitted Date
Stage submitted on time
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
Yes
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
No
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 108
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).
Please state role and grade of staff involved in the management of case, who were not interviewed,
with reasons for their absence (such as staff on long term sick leave.)
** Individual staff names should not be included **
Grade and role of the
Identified role Date(s) of
Subjects and issues discussed
interviewee
type (e.g. OM1, interview
SPO, etc)
Please complete section 2.1. Case Chronology as a separate attachment and insert
here. Please continue to complete the review at section 2.2.
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 109
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:
12 months 24 months
%
%
12 months 24 months
%
%
12 months 24 months
%
%
select F4 for options
NA
NA
NA
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:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
Health and other considerations
PAGE 110
Details:
2.5. CHILD SAFEGUARDING
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
Yes
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 Yes
offender’s circumstances?
If Yes, please give detail:
No
No
No
2.6. DOMESTIC ABUSE
Are there any domestic abuse concerns in relation to the SFO charge(s)?
Yes
No
If Yes, please give detail:
Are there any domestic abuse concerns that were known by the OM or
other agencies in relation to any previous offences, or to the offender’s Yes
circumstances?
If Yes, please give detail:
If there were domestic abuse concerns, was the offender assessed
using SARA? (paper or e-SARA)
(NB, an incomplete, this question should be answered as: NO.)
If Yes, please specify the outcome of the assessment(s):
Yes
No
No
N/A
No
N/A
No
N/A
If No, please explain why a SARA assessment was not undertaken:
If there were domestic abuse concerns, was there liaison with the
Yes
appropriate Police DV unit, initially and at regular intervals?
Comments:
Is a CSP Domestic Homicide Review being undertaken or
expected to be undertaken? Have you been in contact with the Yes
DHR lead?
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 111
Comments:
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 to statutory sex offender registration?
Yes
No
N/A
No
N/A
If Yes, please give detail:
Was the offender subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order
(SOPO), a Risk of Sexual Harm Order or a Foreign Travel Yes
Order?
If Yes, please give detail:
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 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 112
2.8. OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
National Offender Management Model tier at select F4 for options
Details (in particular, please specify any
start of sentence:
changes to the offender’s tier level during the
supervision):
What grade was the Responsible Officer?
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 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 113
Review Core Questions
The Review Core Questions must be answered in full for the period between the start of
sentence and the commission of the SFO with supporting factual evidence (not only giving
judgment or comment) to support both positive and negative answers.
The Review Core Questions below address the assessment and management applied within the
NPS and the activities within the identification of the risk of serious harm for the allocated
person that informs the plan for each offender within the CRC
The Review Core Questions below address the assessment and management applied within the
NPS and the activities within the identification of the risk of serious harm for the allocated
person that informs the plan for each offender within the CRC. The plan is defined as
(i) the identification of the present risk of Serious Harm of that Allocated Person;
(ii) the proposed management and mitigation of the [present] risk of Serious Harm if that
Allocated Person presents a medium risk of Serious Harm;
(iii) the needs of the Allocated Person in the context of the delivery of the Services and the
identification of the likelihood of that Applicable Person reoffending; and
(iv) the activity to be undertaken with the Allocated Person to deliver that part of the sentence
of the court to be served in the community and to reduce the likelihood of reoffending,
using (as applicable) an Authority Approved System.
2.10. NPS - RISK ASSESSMENT
CRCs - THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE PRESENT RISK OF SERIOUS HARM OF THAT
ALLOCATED PERSON
2.10.1. Post sentence, was a sufficient assessment of the
offender’s risk of re-offending and risk of serious harm
completed by the probation provider?
Please consider whether the quality of the initial assessment
prepared post-sentence included and analysed all available
information such as: pre-cons; previous behaviour; safeguarding
issues; domestic abuse considerations; ViSOR information; witness
Yes
No
N/A
or victims’ statements. Did the assessment draw on the OASys risk
of serious harm screening completed at the pre-sentence stage and
clearly outline what it is the offender may do and what may increase
the likelihood of this happening? Does the assessment clearly
identify and describe what the assessor thinks might happen, what
the possible dangers are, what the harm might be, to whom and in
what circumstances?
Please provide evidence here:
2.10.2. Was this risk assessment completed on time?
Taking account of the timings specified in the Service Level
Measure in accordance with the relevant sentence type for both
providers of probation services
Please provide evidence here:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
Yes
No
N/A
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
2.10.3.Completed so as to draw on previous assessments?
Were all relevant assessments that could have been used actually
used? If the risk of serious harm screening was accurate and Yes
prompted a full risk analysis, how was this taken forward to inform
assessment?
Please provide evidence here:
2.10.4. Did it incorporate, as necessary, information from
additional assessments?
Yes
For example; Mental Health, CAADA DASH, Domestic Abuse,
Child Protection, SARA, RM2000, Risk to Self.
Please provide evidence here:
2.10.5. Was there any information within the additional
Yes
assessments that was missing or incomplete?
Please provide evidence here:
2.10.6. Was the assessment communicated to all relevant
Yes
parties?
PAGE 114
No
N/A
No
N/A
No
N/A
No
N/A
No
N/A
No
N/A
No
N/A
No
N/A
Please provide evidence here:
2.10.7 Was the risk assessment reviewed in line with local policy
and procedures, in response to changes in circumstances,
significant events, and/or where any changes indicated an
increased in risk of serious harm and/or re-offending?
Please provide evidence here:
Yes
2.10.8. Was the risk of serious harm and/or re-offending
Yes
reviewed promptly?
Please provide evidence here:
2.10.9. Did the review provide sufficient analysis for the change
in the risk and was the new information given appropriate
Yes
weighting in the revised risk management plan and risk
assessment?
Please provide evidence here:
CRC cases only – Questions 2.10.10 – 2.10.14
2.10.10. Did the review conclude that the case needed to be
referred to NPS?
Please provide evidence here:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
Yes
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
2.10.11. If so, was the risk escalation process followed?
In accordance with PI 08/2014 Risk Escalation Process for CRC to Yes
refer to the NPS.
Please provide evidence here:
2.10.12 If so, what was the nature of the concerns which
prompted thee risk escalation and how were these concerns
subsequently addressed?
Please provide evidence here:
Yes
2.10.13 Did the NPS confirm the high risk of serious harm
Yes
assessment and assume the management of the case?
Please provide evidence here:
2.10.14. If the NPS did not assess the case to be high, what
measures were put in place and practical steps taken to manage
the escalated risk of serious harm?
Please provide evidence here:
Yes
2.10.15. What was the quality of theses risk assessment reviews?
Were the assessments based on evidence, using validated tools,
discussion and reflection?
Please provide positive and negative information as evidence, in
Yes
accordance with organisational policy and procedures, HMiP CAG
and ROHAA and supported by Good Practice Principles contained
within the NOMS Risk of Serious Harm Guidance (2009)
PAGE 115
No
N/A
No
N/A
No
N/A
No
N/A
No
N/A
No
N/A
Please provide evidence here:
2.10.16. Did the assessment reviews evaluate the likelihood of the
risk of re-offending occurring and the imminence of the risk of
Yes
serious harm occurring?
Please provide evidence here:
Judgment
Based on your answers to question above, was risk assessment carried out to
a sufficient standard? (Documents that should be used to assist in this
judgment include service specifications, service levels and service credits
within contracts, HMIP expectations, mandatory instructions, nonYes
mandatory guidance, National Standards, and organisational polices and
procedures. Please also provide any good practice identified, to inform the
overall judgment on the sufficiency of risk assessment.
No
You must provide evidence to substantiate your answer here:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 116
Analysis of deficiencies
Please discuss each of the areas identified, exploring the possible reasons. This might include
reference to workload, resourcing issues, experience of staff, knowledge and capability of staff, line
management oversight, training systems and organisational context. Please also consider the use of
areas for improvement, and development, both at an individual and organisational level, if required.
Additional Comments:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 117
2.11. NPS - RISK MANAGEMENT
CRCs - THE PROPOSED MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION OF THE [PRESENT] RISK
OF SERIOUS HARM.
2.11.1. If there were any known significant incidents of concern
or deterioration in behaviour, were they managed appropriately
throughout the sentence?
Yes
No
N/A
Was there a review of risk where appropriate, liaison with UPW, use
of relevant enforcement/sanctions, and line manager, decision made
to re-tier and/or increase frequency of contact?
Please provide evidence of action taken in response to any key events or changes:
2.11.2. Was the key information communicated between all
relevant staff and agencies?
Is there evidence that this information has been communicated in a Yes
way that is received, understood and appropriately acted upon?
Include how the offender was involved in this.
Please provide evidence here:
No
Judgment
Based on your answers to questions 1 and 2 was the risk management
carried out to a sufficient standard? (Documents that should be used to assist
in this judgment include the OMI Toolkit, National Standards, Probation Yes
Instructions, Policy and practice guidelines)
N/A
No
You must provide evidence to substantiate your answer here:
Analysis of deficiencies \Concerns\Areas of good practice
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 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 118
2.12. NPS - OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
CRCs - THE NEEDS OF THE ALLOCATED PERSON IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
DELIVERY OF THE SERVICES AND THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE LIKELIHOOD OF
THAT APPLICABLE PERSON RE-OFFENDING; AND THE ACTIVITY TO BE
UNDERTAKEN WITH THE ALLOCATED PERSON TO DELIVER THAT PART OF THE
SENTENCE OF THE COURT TO BE SERVED IN THE COMMUNITY AND TO REDUCE
THE LIKELIHOOD OF RE-OFFENDING, USING (AS APPLICABLE) AN AUTHORITY
APPROVED SYSTEM.
2.12.1 Is there clear evidence that the offender in this case was
allocated an appropriate responsible officer promptly to
promote offender engagement?
(please consider allocation immediately post-sentence and refer to
any transfers that have taken place; consider the skill base and
experience of the allocated OM and the needs of the offender)
Please provide evidence here:
2.12.2 Was a sufficient needs assessment and sentence plan
completed, that was timely and informed?
Please consider if there was evidence adequately to demonstrate the
offender was being managed according to an appropriate plan
(evidence should also cover phase 2 where required); was it
informed by the assessed risks of harm and likelihood of
reoffending? Was there an assessment of the offender’s community
integration and social skills such as skills for life, ETE needs,
family/community support, accommodation, health needs? Was the
offender adequately engaged with the development of the plan.
Please provide evidence here:
2.12.3 Did the sentence plan contain appropriate outcomefocused objectives and is there evidence that the offender was an
active participant in the sentence planning process and that the
objectives reflect the goals they have set?
Please consider whether the offender was involved in the sentence
planning process, consider the SAQ; what interventions were
planned and what was hoped to be achieved; were they SMART and
did they take into account other considerations relating to diversity.
Is there evidence of links to the risk management plan; and, was
there evidence that the sentence plan identified protective and
restrictive measures.
Please provide evidence here:
2.12.4. Were supervision requirements explained to the offender
in a way they could understand?
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Please provide evidence here:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
2.12.5. Was the sentence plan appropriately and effectively
delivered?
Is there clear evidence of a review of the sentence plan in response
to changes, including progress/achievement of objectives,
recall/breach and taking into account all the current circumstances
and the offenders needs? Consider if the SP focuses on further work
to be done with the offender; encourages the use of community
resources and community integration etc.
Please provide evidence here:
2.12.6. Did the responsible officer for the case take a timely and
investigative approach in monitoring the offender’s attendance
and compliance across all aspects of the sentence and ensure
that statutory enforcement action was taken when required?
Please consider any steps taken to encourage the offender’s
compliance, include monitoring of licence conditions and any other
restrictive requirements including SOPO restrictions; were decisions
about acceptability of absences acceptable and appropriate?; were
sanctions regarding absences taken appropriately, including recall
action where there was a deterioration in behaviour but no charge by
the police.
Please provide evidence here:
2.12.7. Was timely, effective and appropriate action taken in
response to absences or other failure to comply?
Please provide evidence here:
2.12.8 Were contact and events up-to-date and clearly recorded
against the offender’s record according to all protocols and
policies?
(consider if, in the absence of the OM, another person could easily
take over management of this offender based on the records etc)
PAGE 119
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Please provide evidence here:
2.12.9 Where an offender has been transferred:
Is there clear evidence of a sufficient exchange of information on
the
case for the purpose of transfer?
Please consider the full range of circumstances when answering this
question, for example, an internal transfer within the team, to the
NPS following the risk escalation process; from prison to prison; or
geographically when the offender has moved address. Please
consider what evidence there is in the planning of the transfer;
meetings and liaison between RO’s and the offender;
protocols/policies followed; meetings held in response to offenders’
diverse needs; meetings of the right people at the right time etc.,
consider protocol/policies/local expectations/PI’s; can the contents
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 120
of the plans be delivered by the new agency/area?; have all risk
checks been completed prior to any moves? Consideration should
also be given to the interface between the NPS and CRCs in line
with the allocation guidance document. Is there a clear and
evidenced review of the risk and sentence plans in response to the
changes prompting transfer, including progress/achievement of
objectives, recall/breach and taking into account all the current
circumstances and the offenders needs – did this take place pre and
post transfer?
Please provide evidence here:
Judgment
Based on your answers to questions above, was the offender management
carried out to a sufficient standard? (Documents that should be used to assist
Yes
in this judgment include the OMI case assessment guidance, National
Standards, Probation Instructions, policy and practice guidelines)
You must provide evidence to substantiate your answer here:
No
Analysis of deficiencies\Concerns\Areas of good practice
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:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
Yes
No
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 121
2.13.2 FINAL JUDGMENTS
The Review demonstrates that there was a sufficient
standard of risk assessment or
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
sufficient identification of the present risk of serious harm of
that allocated person:
The Review demonstrates that there was a sufficient
standard of risk management or
that the proposed management and mitigation of the
[present] risk of serious harm was sufficient:
The Review demonstrates that there was a sufficient
standard of offender management or that
the needs of the allocated person in the context of the delivery of the
services and the identification of the likelihood of that applicable
person re-offending; and the activity to be undertaken with the
allocated person to deliver that part of the sentence of the court to be
served in the community and to reduce the likelihood of re-offending,
using (as applicable) an authority approved system, was sufficient:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 122
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
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 123
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
Learning Point
Question
By Whom
Learning Point
(give date)
be reported and evaluated
number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 124
13
Has this SFO Review raised any other policy or practice issues about the effective management of offenders under
supervision or is there any information about initiatives/achievements within the NPS or CRC that is needed to put the
action plan in context?
Please add any comments here:
Yes
No
This section must be signed off by the Chief Executive of the CRC or NPS Deputy Director, Public Protection lead or their delegate, before the
completed Review is forwarded to the OMPPG SFO Team. If the Review has identified exceptionally poor practice please indicate the
consideration that has been given to initiating capability or disciplinary procedures, unless already stated above.
Name:
Probation Provider:
Date:
Grade:
Please add any comments here:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 125
SFO TEAM - OMPPG
Grenadier House, 99-105 Horseferry Road
London, SW1P 2DD
Email SFO@noms.gsi.gov.uk
Serious Further Offence (SFO) Review Document
PRISONS
Offender Name:
Prison Service Area:
OMPPG SFO reference number:
SFO single point of administrative contact:
Telephone number:
Email address:
Please refer to the latest SFO Operational Guidance (as published on EPIC) when completing
all sections of this document.
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 126
NOTIFICATIO
N
The following criteria must be met:
Offender eligibility
The following types of offender are eligible:



Offenders who were subject to Release On Temporary Licence (ROTL) on the date of the
SFO;
Offenders under supervision as above, who are charged with an equivalent eligible offence
in another jurisdiction;
Offenders meeting the above criteria, who have allegedly committed an SFO but have died
prior to being charged.
Offence Eligibility
The list of eligible offences comprises serious violent and serious sexual offences (as
described in Annex C of PI xx/2015), or an equivalent eligible offence in another jurisdiction.
Once a case has been checked to see that both the offender and the offence eligibility
criteria are met, it will qualify for SFO Review.
For every qualifying SFO, the following must take place:


The prison Governor notifies the DCC of the alleged SFO;
The prison Governor ensures the SFO Team receives the SFO Notification form within 10
working days of the first court appearance and the Review is then commenced;
 The SFO Team is informed of any case which is likely to attract national public interest
immediately by telephone and email;
 Reviewing manager (as nominated by the DDC) will complete the SFO Review,
interviewing relevant establishment and community staff in line with required timescales
(submission date to be provided by the SFO team);
 SFO team will complete the quality assurance process and a feedback letter will be
provided to the DDC, copied to DD or CEO or PP lead for the probation provider.
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 127
REVIEW
OFFENDERS DETAILS
SFO reference
number:
Offender name:
Alias(es):
SFO - Offence Details
Prison Number:
Date of Birth:
Gende
Male
r:
Ethnic Origin:
Female
REVIEW DETAILS
Prison Service
Region
HMP/ YOI
REVIEW COMPLETED BY
Full Name:
Grade:
Email
address
Department:
Telephone Number:
Interviews
All interviews must be noted and the notes retained. Please enter under topics, only the main
topics that were discussed (e.g. sickness absence, training).
INTERVIEW LOG
Grade and role of the
interviewee
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
Identifier (e.g.
OS, CA, Gov,
etc.)
Date of
interview
Topics
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 128
2.1 – CASE CHRONOLOGY
Please provide a concise summary of key significant events in custody, between the start of
sentence and release on post release licence, together with your observations, including
where applicable;














Transfers- paying particular attention to moves to open conditions or returns to closed
conditions
Perceived, alleged or known deterioration in behaviour
Adjudications, IEPs, SIRs
Assessments/ reviews of OASys, including Sentence Plans (from initial onwards) and
Risk Management Plans, and changes to risk levels
Escalation of risk and whether appropriate liaison took place between CRC and NPS
(where relevant).
Information for or attendance at sentence planning boards or parole hearings
Commencement, quality and completion of interventions (accredited and nonaccredited)
ROTL, HDC assessments
ROTL events including breaches or failures
MAPPA or other risk management meetings- IRMT
Reference to future SFO victim
Contact with outside agencies if relevant
Information sharing including SIRs and LISP 4s
Contact with OM whilst in custody
CASE CHRONOLOGY
Date
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
Event
Reviewing Manager Comments
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 129
COURT INFORMATION
Index Offence
Date of
Conviction
Length of
Sentence
Any other information please specify:
Court
Sentencing
Date of
Sentence
Remand Date
MAPPA and CPPC INFORMATION
At the start of sentence, was the offender a ‘relevant sexual and/or violent offender’ for
MAPPA eligibility purposes? Yes
No
If yes, which category?
If yes, was this correctly identified in prison?
Is the offender, or has the offender previously been registered as a Critical
Yes
Public Protection Case? If yes, please specify
No
If yes was this correctly identified in prison?
PROLIFIC AND OTHER PRIORITY OFFENDERS
Was the offender identified as a PPO by the establishment?
If yes, please specify:
Yes
No
Was the prison establishment informed that the offender was a PPO
Case?
If yes how was this done, please specify
Yes
No
2.2 SFO BACKGROUND INFORMATION
You must ensure that the following information is provided in full before answering the core
questions in sections 2.10 – 2.12.
2.3 RISK ASSESSMENT
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 130
OGRS risk of reconviction at start of sentence:
12 months
%
24 months
OASys likelihood of reconviction score at start of
sentence:
OASys risk of serious harm level at start of sentence
%
Details:
Please tick the relevant box provided in the breakdown in the table below:
Children
Risk in
community
Risk in
custody
Public
Risk in
community
Known adult
Risk in
custody
Risk in
community
Risk in
custody
Staff
Risk in
community
Prisoners
Risk in
custody
Risk in
custody
V
High
High
Med
Low
2.4 CRIMINOGENIC FACTORS
Were any of the following identified in OASys at the start of sentence as related to risk of reoffending? i.e. to the right of the line on OASys
Accommodation
Emotional wellbeing
Drugs misuse
Relationships
Health and other considerations
Alcohol misuse
Attitudes
Lifestyle and associates
Thinking / behaviour
Education Training and Employment
Finance management and income
DETAILS
Were any of the following identified in OASys at the start of sentence as related to risk of
serious harm?
Accommodation
Emotional wellbeing
Drugs misuse
Relationships
Health and other considerations
Alcohol misuse
Attitudes
Lifestyle and associates
Thinking / behaviour
Education Training and Employment
Finance management and income
DETAILS
2.5 CHILD PROTECTION
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 131
Are there any child protection concerns noted in relation to the index
or previous offences, or to the offender’s previous circumstances? If
yes, specify:
- was the offender identified as presenting a risk to children?
- were appropriate measures put into place in response to the
risks?
Yes
No
Were there any child protection concerns raised by the offender’s
behaviour while in custody? If Yes specify:
Yes
No
Were Social Care/Children’s Services, the Probation Service and the
Police informed of the offender’s ROTL proposal prior to the date of
temporary release? Please specify:
Yes
No
Are there any domestic abuse concerns in relation to the previous and
index offences, or to the offender’s circumstances and behaviour in
Yes
custody? If yes specify:
No
2.6 DOMESTIC ABUSE
If there were domestic abuse concerns, was the offender assessed using SARA in custody?
N/A
Yes
Please specify the outcome of the assessment(s):
No
Please explain why a SARA assessment was not undertaken:
If there were any domestic abuse concerns, was there liaison with the appropriate
Offender Manager and Police domestic abuse unit, either ahead of, or as part of the
ROTL consideration process.
Were there any applicable court orders in relation to protection of public/victims
from harassment?
Was appropriate action taken to restrict contact?
Yes
No
N/A
Comments:
2.7 SEXUAL OFFENCES
Are there any sexual offending concerns in relation to the previous or
Yes
No
index offence(s), or behaviour in prison?
If no, please move on to Offender Management (section 2.8). If yes, please specify, and ensure
that this issue is fully addressed in your answers to the Review core questions:
Was the offender subject to the statutory sex offences registration
requirements?
If yes, please provide details including dates
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
Yes
No
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 132
Was the offender informed when temporarily released from custody for
Yes
ROTL? If yes specify:
No
Was the offender subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order
(SOPO), a Risk of Sexual Harm Order or a Foreign Travel Order? If
yes specify, including dates:
Yes
No
Was the offender on any sexual offender programmes or other
accredited programmes while in custody? If yes specify:
Yes
No
While in custody did the offender refuse to attend any programmes?
If yes specify:
Yes
No
Were there any concerns raised by any members of staff relating to the
Yes
offenders sexual behaviour while in custody? If yes specify:
No
If the index or if any previous convictions were sexual offences, was the offender assessed
using: Risk Matrix 2000? Yes
No
N/A
Please specify dates and the outcome of the assessment(s):
Please explain why a Risk Matrix 2000 assessment was not undertaken:
Other sex offender specific structured risk assessment tools? If yes.
provide outcome
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
2.8 OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
Was the case in scope for what is now called Offender Management
Phases 2 or 3?
Was a prison based offender supervisor allocated whilst the offender
was in custody?
Was information on custodial progress shared with the OM please
provide details below:
Was the Offender Manager in regular contact with the Offender
Supervisor while the offender was in custody?
Was information relating to risk shared at appropriate points?
Was there good communication on MAPPA arrangements, including
notification of levels when set and meetings planned? Specify Details:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 133
2.9 DIVERSITY
Were any of the following identified as factors relevant to the offender, their offending, or their
time in custody?
Ethnicity
Sexuality
Gender
Disability
Religious beliefs
Age
Class
Please specify if you have ticked any of the above boxes:
REVIEW CORE QUESTIONS
The Review Core Questions (2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) must be answered in full for the period
whilst the offender was in custody, with supporting comments, whether the answers are
positive or negative.
2.10 RISK ASSESSMENT
This whole section leads a reviewer to focus on OASys. A prison review
should reflect the fact that in scope (Phases 2 and 3) offenders OASys is the
responsibility of the OM. It should also allow for comment on local risk
screening, and/or Enhanced Case Monitoring arrangements which are in
place to identify risks, communicated them and ensure that appropriate
restrictions/limitations are in place from reception.
Also – OASys is not the only risk assessment used in custody. For ‘Restricted’
ROTL cases, please also consider the Psychology case file review completed
on arrival at the open prison.
1.
Was a satisfactory risk of harm screening undertaken at the start of
sentence, using all of the information available at the time?
Yes
No
N/A
Please add comments here:
2.
If the risk of harm screening identified the need for a full OASys risk of
harm assessment, was that full assessment clear, accurate and undertaken in the
appropriate timescale?
Yes
No
N/A
Please add comments here:
3.
Where required, was a comprehensive risk management plan completed
using the appropriate format and within the required timescale?
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
Yes
No
N/A
PAGE 134
Please add comments here:
4.
Were the reviews up-to-date, taking into account all available information, and
completed satisfactorily and on time?
Yes
No
N/A
Please add comments here:
5.
Did prison staff (including security, wing officers, and others) contribute effectively to risk
assessment and reviews?
Yes
No
N/A
Please add comments here:
6.
Were recommendations for allocation (within the prison estate, or within the prison)
appropriate, given the level and nature of the risk posed by the offender?
Yes
No
N/A
Please add comments here:
7.
– CRC only question
If risk escalation to the NPS was required, what was the outcome, and what was the impact on
the management of the case
Please add comments here:
Based on your answers to the questions 1-7 above, were risk assessments and reviews carried
out to a sufficient standard? (Documents that should be used to assist in this judgment
include service specifications, service levels and service credits within contracts, HMIP
expectations, mandatory instructions, non-mandatory guidance, National Standards,
and organisational polices and procedures. Please also provide any good practice
identified, to inform the overall judgment on the sufficiency of risk assessment).
Yes
No
You must provide evidence to substantiate your answer:
What were the reasons and/or contributory factors for any deficiencies in risk
assessment?
Additional comments:
2.11 RISK MANAGEMENT
1.
Yes
Was the OASys Risk Management Plan implemented effectively and in a timely fashion?
No
N/A
Please add comments here:
2.
Were there any significant incidents of concern or deterioration in behaviour during the
period in custody (include in what period the incidents occurred)?
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
Yes
No
N/A
PAGE 135
Please add comments here:
3.
Was risk of harm managed appropriately throughout the custodial period, particularly
following any significant incident or deterioration in behaviour, using relevant sanctions where
appropriate?
Yes
No
N/A
Please add comments here:
4.
Was there effective communication about risk, between departments in Prison, and or
between departments in Prison and others involved in the case? This should be linked to
interdepartmental risk management meetings.
Yes
No
N/A
Please add comments here:
5.
Did the prison remind and/or update the OM of the release dates of those managed at
MAPPA Level 2 or 3? Note here that the prison can only remind of release dates for MAPPA
2 or 3 if they are aware that a MAPPA level has been set.
Yes
No
N/A
Please add comments here:
6.
If the offender was subject to MAPPA levels 2 or 3 management, did the Offender
Supervisor and all other relevant staff contribute effectively from the prison establishment to
MAPPA, including attendance at external risk management meetings and/or provision of
written reports as appropriate?
Yes
No
N/A
Please add comments here:
7.
Was effective action taken to promote victim safety where there was a direct
victim/known person at risk and/or if there were restrictive/prohibitive conditions?
Yes
No
N/A
Please add comments here:
Based on your answers to questions 1- 7 above, was the risk management carried out to a
sufficient standard? (Documents that should be used to assist in this judgment include
service specifications, service levels and service credits within contracts, HMIP
expectations, mandatory instructions, non-mandatory guidance, National Standards,
and organisational polices and procedures. Please also provide any good practice
identified, to inform the overall judgment on the sufficiency of risk management).
Yes
No
You must provide evidence to substantiate your answer:
What were the reasons and/or contributory factors for any deficiencies in risk
management?
Additional comments:
2.12 ROTL PROCESSES AND PRACTICE
1. Was the offender a “Restricted ROTL” case?
Yes
No
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
Please add comments here:
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 136
2. If the offender was in open conditions, how long had he/she been there before the ROTL
event that led to the SFO?
Please add comments here:
3. When was the offender’s first ROTL release?
Please add comments here:
4. How many occasions of the following ROTL types has the offender successfully
completed?
Supervised ROTL:
RDR:
ROR:
5. Were all approved ROTL events clearly linked to objectives within the sentence plan?
Yes
No
Please add comments here:
6. In Processing ROTL applications, were the requirements of PSIxxxx clearly followed in
full? If there were any local assumptions or variations applied, please identify.
Yes
No
Please add comments here:
7. Was the first ROTL Board decision (not necessarily for the ROTL when the SFO
allegedly occurred) based on full agreement by all report writers and contributors?
Yes
No
Please add comments here:
8. Were subsequent ROTL board decisions based on full agreement by all report writers
and contributors?
Yes
No
Please add comments here:
9. If a “Restricted ROTL” case, was there evidence that the relevant notes and information
arising from the Enhanced Case Monitoring approach were utilised in considering
ROTL?
Yes
No
Please add comments here:
10. Have there been any incidents of ROTL failure, including any minor infringement, during
any period of ROTL? Please provided details (include a review of Mercury and NOMIS
case notes, in case a minor infringement was not formally recorded as a Temporary
Release Failure).
Yes
No
Please add comments here:
11. What was the agreed management response to any known ROTL failure (including any
minor infringement)?
Please add comments here:
Based on your answers to questions 1- 11 above, were the ROTL processes and practice
carried out to a sufficient standard? (Documents that should be used to assist in this
judgment include mandatory instructions, non-mandatory guidance, and organisational
polices and procedures. Please also provide any good practice identified, to inform the
overall judgment on the sufficiency of ROTL processes and practice).
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
Yes
No
PAGE 137
You must provide evidence to substantiate your answer:
What were the reasons and/or contributory factors for any deficiencies in risk
management?
Additional comments:
2.13 OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
1. Did the OASys assessment at the start of sentence accurately identify the criminogenic
factors exhibited by the offender?
Yes
No
N/A
Please add comments here:
2. Did the sentence plan contain appropriate outcome-focused objectives and is there
evidence that the offender was an active participant in the sentence planning process
and that the objectives reflect the goals set?
Yes
No
N/A
Please add comments here:
3. Is there evidence of appropriate pre-release contact and planning with the offender to
ensure a positive and effective release? (Please include comments of both prison and
probation contact).
Yes
No
Please add comments here:
4. Was an Offender Supervisor allocated within the prison establishment in a timely
manner?
Yes
No
N/A
Please add comments here:
5. What was the frequency and quality of the offender supervisor engagement with the
offender during the custodial period?
Yes
No
N/A
Please add comments here:
6. Has the sentence plan been appropriately and effectively delivered by the prison,
working with the supervising agency, in accordance with risk of serious harm and/or risk
of re-offending concerns? (Please include details of responses to any non-compliance
with sentence plan interventions).
Yes
No
N/A
Please add comments here:
7. If the case had been transferred in from another Prison, was it a progressive transfer,
and was the transfer timely and appropriately handled?
Yes
No
N/A
Please add comments here:
8. Prior to release on ROTL how were the objectives and conditions explained to the
offender in a way that they could understand?
Yes
No
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
N/A
Please add comments here:
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 138
9. Were contact and events up-to-date and clearly recorded against the offender’s record
according to all protocols and policies?
Yes
No
N/A
Please add comments here:
Based on your answers to the questions 1-9 above, was offender management practice
delivered to a sufficient standard? (Documents that should be used to assist in this
judgment include service specifications, service levels and service credits within
contracts, HMIP expectations, mandatory instructions, non-mandatory guidance,
National Standards, and organisational polices and procedures. Please also provide any
good practice identified, to inform the overall judgment on the sufficiency of offender
management).
Yes
No
You must provide evidence to substantiate your answer:
What were the reasons and/or contributory factors for any deficiencies in Offender
Management?
Additional comments:
2.14 REVIEW – FINAL QUESTIONS
1. The Review demonstrates that there was a sufficient standard of risk
assessment:
2. The Review demonstrates that there was a sufficient standard of risk
management:
3. The Review demonstrates that there was a sufficient standard of ROTL
practice
4. The Review demonstrates that there was a sufficient standard of offender
management:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 139
2.14 SFO REVIEW – GOOD PRACTICE
Use the table to summarise any areas of good practice which were identified during the Review.
Review
How will the good practice be highlighted and
Good practice
question
taken forward?
number
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
By whom
(grade &
role)
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
Timescale
(include
dates)
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 140
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 141
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
How the impact of the action
Learning point
question
Date
Learning Point
whom
taken will be checked
number
Has this SFO Review raised any other issues about the effective management of offenders under supervision or is there any information
about Initiatives/achievements in your prison/Area that is needed to put the action plan in context? Yes
No
Please add any comments here:
This section must be signed off by the countersigning officer, before the completed Review is forwarded to the PPU SFO Team. If the
Review has identified exceptionally poor practice please indicate the consideration that has been given to initiating capability or
disciplinary procedures, unless already stated above.
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
Full
Name:
PAGE 142
Grad
e:
Date:
ACTION PLAN UPDATE
Offender
Name:
SFO Reference
Number:
Areas must:
o Provide the OMPPG SFO Team with a brief report on the implementation of the Action Plan within 6 months.
o Ensure that the Update is signed off by the countersigning officer, before it is sent to the OMPPG SFO Team.
What action has taken place?
By
whom
Date
What impact has it had?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 143
11
12
13
14
This section must be signed off by the countersigning officer, before the completed Action Plan Update is forwarded to the OMPPG SFO
Team.
Name
Dat
Prison Region
:
e:
Comments:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 144
Annex H
2.1. CASE CHRONOLOGY
Please provide a concise summary of key significant events, in custody and/or the
community, between the start of the sentence and the commission of the SFO,
together with your observations, including where applicable;
Please refer to the SFO Operational Guidance for advice if the period of supervision
has been brief (less than 6 months)














Court reports and proposals, including details of the PSR
Commencement of the sentence/ community based supervision, including
details of date of sentence, type of sentence, requirements/additional licence
conditions;
Information for or attendance at Sentence planning boards or Parole hearings
in relevant custody cases;
First contact in custody as appropriate and pre-release contact;
First contact in community as appropriate;
Assessments/reviews of OASys (or equivalent), inc ISP/SPR and RMP;
Risk of serious harm level and any changes;
escalation of risk, including whether there was appropriate liaison between
CRC and NPS;
Referrals onto and commencement of programmes or other interventions;
Warnings, breaches and recalls; plus unauthorised absences;
MAPPA, MARAC, CP or prison based risk meetings;
References to future SFO victim during the course of the supervision,
including any prior association or knowledge of victim(s) by offender;
Perceived, alleged or known deterioration in behaviour – including for example
any known adjudications in custody, arrests in community by police,
drug/alcohol relapse, DV incidents - and how they were dealt with.
Overall levels of contact/compliance and whether in line with National
Standards / local policy and procedures.
Please do not use local acronyms without also adding their full title.
Observations/comments could highlight elements of good or poor practice, that are
then referred to and developed in answering the core question. These might include:





Timeliness and quality of work undertaken
Response of RO and other staff to significant information or events
Appropriateness of decisions and actions taken or that might have been taken
How far were agreed actions/decisions followed through
Appropriate levels of inter-agency work/information sharing
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
Date
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
Event
PAGE 145
Reviewing Manager Comments
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 146
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 147
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 148
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 149
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 150
3. ACTION PLAN UPDATE (DISCRETIONARY)
ANNEX
FORM FOR
I
Offender Name:
OMPPG SFO reference number:
Probation providers must:

Ensure that an update on progress with each SFO Review Action Plan is signed off by the Deputy Director for the NPS,
Chief Executive for the CRC, or their delegate. In doing so, the NPS and CRCs have discretion to use this template,
although any decisions about how progress with action plans is reported to the relevant account management function.
The NPS and CRCs should bear in mind, however, that OMPPG may request an update on progress with action plans on
this template, usually after six months, in SFO cases that have been flagged as High Profile and likely to( attract
significant public interest. For cases that attract a significant level of public interest, OMPPG may require an update on
progress at other times.
SFO TIMELINESS
Action Plan Submitted Date
Stage submitted on time
What action has taken
place?
Yes
By whom
No
Date
What impact has it had?
1
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 151
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
This section must be signed off by the Deputy Director, Chief Executive or their delegate, before the completed Action Plan
Update is forwarded.
Name:
NPS or CRC:
Date:
Grade:
Please add any comments here:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 152
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 153
Annex J
Annex J SFO REVIEW ACTION PLAN LEARNING POINTS UPDATE – Summary of progress
The NPS or CRC must:
• Provide the OMPPG SFO Team with a brief summary report to highlight key themes
that have featured in SFO Review Action Plans in the given three month period,
indicating any significant lessons that may have relevance for wider learning and
including confirmation from the Relevant Senior Manager hat the key SFO Learning
points have been implemented by the Provider
• Ensure that the this quarterly summary of progress is signed off by the relevant Senior
manager before it is sent to the OMPPG SFO Team, and copied to the local Board
Please Indicate progress on each of the
learning points and code them with the
following RAGG Rating
Red
Amber
Green
Grey
Date or activity not reached
Progressing for achievement by due
date
Achieved but not tested
Achieved and evidence that activity embedded into
practice
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 154
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 relevant senior manager of the CRC or NPS (as appropriate) is satisfied that progress in further improving local
practice and/or policy has been made. This report must be submitted to the Director of Probation for England, Director of NOMS for Wales, and
NOMS CRC Account Managers copied to OMPPG on a quarterly basis. This will cover a specified reporting period (e.g. the July 2015
summary of progress report will relate to progress with Action Plan learning points for SFO reviews submitted during the quarter October to
December 2014; the October 2015 summary of progress report will relate to progress with Action Plan learning points for SFO reviews
submitted to OMPPG during the quarter period January to March 2015; and so on, each quarter thereafter.
SFOs covered by this reporting period, please insert individual SFO
identification numbers.:
Reporting period – please indicate which quarter you are reporting on for the update
on Action Plan learning points :
Apr-Jun
Jan-March
Jul-Sept
Oct-Dec
Year:
KEY LEARNING POINTS FEATURING IN SFO REVIEW ACTION PLANS IN THIS REPORTING PERIOD
Please indicate if any of the learning point themes listed below have featured in SFO Review Action Plans in the reporting period
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
Themes
SFO
ID(s)
Learning Points Identified
Action Required
PAGE 155
Timescale Responsible Revised Progress and RAG
Senior
Timescale
Evidence
Rating
Member of
Staff
Failure to
complete
unscheduled
review of
OASys
following a
significant
event
Incomplete
OASys Risk
Assessment/R
oH Analysis –
‘pull through’
without
change when
review due;
key
background
factors
missing from
current OASys
Risk
Management
Plans - lacking
in quality
and/or detail
(e.g. no clarity
on controls
and actions,
no timescales
for key
actions, lack
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 156
of detail on
input from
other
agencies)
Lack of
timeliness
with OASys –
initial
assessment
not completed
in line with
national
standard
timescales
and/or reviews
not
undertaken at
appropriate
intervals
during the
supervision
period
Pre Sentence
reports –
inappropriate
use of
FDR/Oral
Report, lack of
quality of PSR
(key
information
missing,
inappropriate
proposal), no
PSR
requested/pro
vided to assist
sentencing
Insufficient
Sentence
planning- poor
quality SP,
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 157
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/objective
s
Problems/dela
ys in case
transfers from
one trust to
another or
within same
trust, failure to
follow PI
17/2010
Lack of
awareness of
Child
Safeguarding
issues and/or
failure to
respond
appropriately
to
safeguarding
concerns (eg
lack of active
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 158
liaison with
Children’s
Services re.
worrying
incidents,
failure to
contribute
effectively to
inter-agency
working)
OM absence
issues –
absence of
effective
systems for
covering staff
leave,
sickness,
retirement/fail
ure to activate
cover systems
for absence
Recording of
information
failures –
absence of
recording of
case transfer
dates,
significant
events,
MAPPA
actions/decisi
ons,
Safeguarding
actions/decisi
ons,
discussions
about recall
Lack of
evidence of
investigative
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 159
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/arrest
ed following
incident
Other areas of
practice –
please specify
Good Practice
examples
As the CRC Chief Executive or NPS deputy Director (or their delegate) I have been briefed on SFO reviews
in this last reporting period and I am satisfied that all appropriate action has been taken within my
command to implement key learning points that have arisen in these reviews and that there is evidence to
demonstrate that practice has improved or is improving.
Name
Please indicate any outstanding action to implement learning
points, reasons for any delay in action and proposed timescale
for completions
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 160
Please add any additional comments here:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 161
4. SFO OUTCOME
Annex K
Offender Name:
OMPPG SFO reference number:
The NPS or CRC must:
 Ensure that the OMPPG SFO Team receives the SFO Outcome document
within three working days of an SFO case being concluded, either in court or
prior to court, whatever the outcome; and that the NPS Deputy Director (or
their representative) and the CRC Chief Executive and NOMS CRC Account
Manager (or their representative) where relevant, receive a copy
Name of the person completing the SFO
Outcome notification:
Telephone Number:
Email address:
Sentencing Court:
Date of Result:
Court Result:
Select F4 for options
Any other details:
If the offender has died before charge
please give the details here:
SFO TIMELINESS
Outcome Submitted Date
Stage submitted on time
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
Yes
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
No
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 162
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
Please detail additional relevant information (e.g. a summary of the judge’s sentencing
comments; length of tariff; type of sentence; reasons for withdrawal of charges etc).
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE
WHEN COMPLETED
1
COMMUNICATIONS
TEMPLATE:
CASES CONFIRMEDPAGE
AS HIGH
PRO
Aim/Objectives:
To maintain public confidence in the NPS, CRCs and the Criminal Justice System by
reviewing offender management processes and, where appropriate, describing how steps
have been taken to identify and apply lessons learned from each Serious Further Offence
in the task of improving offender supervision and the protection of the public.
Offender Details:
NPS or CRC:
(Please note names of
other providers that
were involved in
supervision of this
case).
Offender’s full name:
(including any
relevant aliases)
Offender’s date of
birth:
Details of
order/licence:
(for licence cases
please include
relevant release
dates, any previous
recalls on current
sentence, start of
licence supervision
and licence expiry
date)
Previous convictions:
SFO charge(s) and
related charge(s):
Summary of events
that led to the new
offence:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 2
Names of codefendants for SFO
(where relevant).
Please state whether
co-defendant was
subject to probation
management and how
the two are linked:
Current status in
court:
(including any
indications of plea)
Next/key court
appearance date:
Any unusual and/or
noteworthy factors
relating to the SFO,
victim, offender
and/or community
reaction to the SFO
that might further
increase the profile of
this case
SFO Review:
Has the SFO review
been completed?
If not, what is
deadline for
completion?
Did the review
demonstrate that
there was a sufficient
standard of risk
assessment? (Give
early indications if
review not complete)
Did the review
demonstrate that
there was a sufficient
standard of risk
management? (Give
early indications if
review not complete)
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 3
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 that may attract
media attention?
If so give main
headlines.
Has/will any
disciplinary action or
other action (e.g.
capability,
performance
improvement plan?
been/be taken against
staff?
Have any learning
points been identified
in relation to policy,
procedures or
practice in the light of
this SFO? If so, how
far have these
learning points been
implemented?
Are there any positive
comments on the
supervision that have
come out of the
review? If so give
main headlines.
Media Lines:
Statement:
Additional lines:
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
PAGE 4
Q & A:
Nominated
spokesperson (If
necessary):
Media enquiries:
Media coverage so
far:
Contact Numbers:
NPS or CRC
communications lead
telephone/e-mail:
NPS or CRC SFO lead
telephone/e-mail:
NPS or CRC SFO
Single Point of
Contact (SPOC):
Only normally to be
contacted if neither of
the above can be
contacted and the help
of the SPOC is
required to be put in
touch with another
responsible officer
within the organisation
If a Serious Further Offence is likely to attract national media attention please get in
touch with Ministry of Justice Press Office at the earliest opportunity. Any lines on
these cases need to be agreed with the NPS or CRC and Ministry of Justice.
MoJ Press Office:
Suzanne O’Brien: 020 3334 35.
Kurt Moroz: 020 3334 3514.
Out of hours: 07659 173 270 (Between 8pm-7am Monday to Friday and weekends)
PI 15/2014 AI 15/2014
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED
UPDATE ISSUED 01/02/2015