Marta Vento

HM Senior Coroner, Rachael Griffin 
via email only: 

1 May 2025 

Dear HM Coroner Griffin, 

Re: Regulation 28 Report following the Inquest into the death of Ms Marta Vento 

Thank you for the Regulation 28 Report, following your inquest into the tragic death (and unlawful 
killing) of Ms Marta Vento by 

.  

I  acknowledge  your  finding,  that  “evidence  was  given  extensively  throughout  the  Inquest  about  the 
management  of  sexual  and  violent  offender  (MOSOVO)  unit  within  Dorset  Police.  Each  police force  in 
England  and  Wales  has  a  MOSOVO  unit  with  a  team  of  staff  managing  sexual  and  violent  offenders. 
Evidence  was  given  that  predominantly  this  is  for  the  management  of  sexual  offenders.  [That]  there  is 
Approved [Authorised] Professional Practice (APP) guidance issued by the College of Policing regarding 
the operation of MOSOVO units. This guidance details the risk assessments to be undertaken which are 
a crucial stage in the management of these offenders.”  

You have further noted, “The risk assessments detailed in the guidance are aimed at the assessment of 
the  sexual  risk  of  offenders  and  evidence  was  given  that  there  is  no  bespoke  risk  assessment  tool  or 
guidance to assess the violence of such offenders to assist staff within MOSOVO units to undertake their 
role. There is, therefore, a lack of guidance on how to risk assess and manage offenders who are managed 
under MOSOVO when they present with the risk of violence, or an escalating risk of violence.  

You have surmised that you are “concerned that [the current arrangements] will result in a failure to 
identify the risk of violence, or the increasing risk of violence, in those being managed by MOSOVO 
which may lead to a further death.” 

The College is responsible for providing guidance to forces in the form of APP for several areas 
of policing. The management of sexual and violent offenders (MOSOVO) is an area where we 
provide  comprehensive  guidance  to  forces  in  line  with  statutory  MAPPA  guidance,  relative 
legislation and evidence-based practice. We aim to ensure the guidance remains up-to-date and 
current in line with emerging practice, lessons from review and new legislation. 

MOSOVO  APP  provides  an  array of  information, from  overview,  through  to  the  introduction  to 
managing sexual offenders and violent offenders, multi-agency public protection arrangements, 
identification  of  MOSOVO  offenders,  managing  public  protection 
the 
identification, assessing and management of risk.  

information,  and 

 
 
 
 The identification of risk section outlines that the process requires information from a range of 
sources, outlining that risk assessment(s) necessitate establishing the likelihood of a behaviour 
or event occurring, the frequency with which it may occur, whom it will or may affect and the extent 
to which that behaviour will cause harm. The APP outlines that while some risk assessment tools 
are sexual offending specific (i.e. ARMS), there are other risk factors that should be considered 
for all offending types. For example, although not comprehensive, static and dynamic risk factors 
can be of great value in designing and delivering risk management plans. Irrespective of offending 
type, risk management plans should be created for all registered offenders and comply with the 
broader  MAPPA  framework,  if  relevant.  Further  information  on  the  available  risk  assessment 
guidance can be found here. 

A number of actuarial tools are cited within the APP, along with more generic risk assessment 
factors, and the importance of professional judgement is outlined. However, it would be remiss of 
us  not  to  further  explore  the  specific  application  of  a  risk  assessment  tool.  I  have  asked  my 
 to consult further with the NPCC Lead for MOSOVO 
Policing Standards Manager, 
and  relevant  subject  matter  experts  to  see  where  we  can  further  improve  our  guidance  and 
direction. Similarly, I shall also ask Sharon to liaise with Dorset Constabulary, to ensure that they 
are fully sighted on the current guidance and available material, to better address the risks posed 
by violent offenders in a MOSOVO setting.  

If I can offer you any further assistance or reassurance, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Yours sincerely, 

Detective Chief Superintendent 
Crime & Criminal Justice Delivery Lead 
College of Policing 
E:

Mrs Rachael Griffin 
Senior Coroner for Dorset 
Civic Centre 
Bourne Avenue 
Bournemouth, BH2 6DY 

Dear Mrs Griffin, 

Director General of Operations
HM Prison and Probation Service
8th Floor Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

20 October 2025 

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS –  
MARTA ELENA VENTO 

Thank you for your Regulation 28 report of 11 March 2025 following the inquest into the 
death of Marta Elena Vento. I apologise for the delay in responding, which has been the 
result of the need to work through the complex issue that you have raised about the sharing 
of risk information between the prison and the sentencing court where a prisoner has been 
held in custody on remand. 

I know that you will share a copy of this response with Ms Vento’s family, and I would first like 
to express my condolences for their loss in such tragic circumstances. 

HMPPS is conscious of the complex and challenging issues associated with the 
management of people on remand who may be subject to release immediately from court on 
bail or on licence, or as a result of time served, and we are undertaking a range of activities 
better to understand and address these issues.  

The National Immediate Release Task and Finish Group has established immediate release 
pathfinders in three prisons, with a focus on developing multi-agency approaches to identify 
in advance those people who may be immediately released from court and to take steps to 
ensure that they are supported and managed effectively. This includes exploring methods of 
information exchange for those on remand who have an upcoming court case which may 
result in immediate release.  

More generally, our Prison Safety Policy Framework requires Governors to ensure that risk 
information is shared with probation services and others with responsibilities for the prisoner 
on release. However, whilst this broad requirement is clear, there is currently no routine way 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 of sharing with courts information about behaviour in custody that may impact on risk of harm 
or offending. In response to the concerns that you have raised, I have asked the Safety 
Group in HMPPS to give further consideration to this specific area when they undertake a 
review of this policy framework later in the 2025-26 business year. This work will be informed 
by the results of the pathfinder projects described above.   

Thank you again for bringing your concerns to my attention and I trust that this response 
provides assurance that we will be taking forward action to address them.  

Yours sincerely, 

Director General of Operations

14th May 2025 

Rachael Griffin 
HM Senior Coroner to Dorset 
BCP Council Civic Centre 
Bourne Avenue 
Bournemouth 
BH2 6DY 

Dear Mrs Griffin 

Integrated Care Board 
County Hall 
Colliton Park 
Dorchester 
DT1 1XJ 

Re: Prevention of Future Deaths Report for Marta Elena Vento 

Please accept my apologies for the delay in submitting our response to your letter of 11th March 
regarding the Prevention of Future Deaths Report issued following the inquest touching the death 
of Marta Elena Vento. 

The  full  report  was  considered  as  part  of  the  system  Mortality  Surveillance  Group  on  the  4th  of 
April with intention of assuring proposed actions triggered by your findings of: 

o  Slippage in mental health care following discharge from HMP Winchester 
o  Communication  breakdown  between  prescriber,  111  clinicians,  GPs  and  patient 

about medication required. 

o  No processes in place to ensure medication continued in community. 
o  Learning around communication across sectors and across county boundaries. 

We  were  assured  that  the  case  has  been  subject  to  an  independent  review  Case-no.-2020-
23751-Summary-Report-Final-Version.pdf.  The  Independent  Investigation  report  was  published 
by  NHS  England  7/11/23.  No  specific  recommendations    were  identified  for  NHS  Dorset  
although we have supported system and regional partners in the subsequent improvement work. 
To this end an in-person learning event, led by the NHSE regional team, took place in November 
2024 with the aim to help understand how different parts of the system work together to meet the 
needs  of  an  individual  who  presents  with  mental  health  needs  in  addition  to  their  sexual  and 
violent offending behaviours.  

Themes for learning included information sharing, however this was not specific to the availability 
of information in the National Record Locator used by the ambulance service referred to in your 
report  but  on  risk  information  shared  through  Multi-agency  Public  Protection  Arrangements 
(MAPPA), in PPN (public protection notices) and in transferring the prescribing and clinical needs 
of prisoners on release from prison, particularly when at short notice.  

With regards to your specific concerns regarding information sharing within Dorset: 

(4)  The  National  Record  Locator  (NRL)  allows  health  or  social  care  workers  to  find  and  access 
patient  information  shared  by  other  health  and  social  care  organisations  across  England  to 
support the direct care of a patient. Evidence was given by the Head of Clinical Development and 
Organisational Development at South West Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (SWAST) 
that  in  the  South  West  region  all  Integrated  Care  Boards  (ICBs),  apart  from  the  ICB  in  Dorset, 
NHS Dorset, are at some stage of implementing the use of NRL so that SWAST can access this 
information to assist in the provision of care to those they treat. Evidence was given that as this 
would  limit  the  information  SWAST  had  access  to  about  a  patient  in  Dorset,  this  would  impact 
upon the care provided to those in Dorset by SWAST which could lead to a future death. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 It is important to point out that some of the allegations made are not factually accurate regarding 
the  involvement  of  Dorset  ICB  in  addressing  the  issues  of  connection  to  the  National  Record 
Locator. 

NHS  Dorset  and  the  Dorset  Care  Record  (DCR)  Partnership  are  involved  in  the  regional  and 
national  work  to  adopt  sharing  information  via  the  National  Recorder  Locator  and  were  in  fact 
founding members of the One South West Programme.  This is a complex area and although a 
number  of  ICSs  in  the  South-West  are  making  progress,  there  is  much  work  to  be  done.   The 
issue  is  not  as  simple  as  suggested,  and  the  current  focus  of  the  work  across  the  One  South 
West  programme  is  supporting  ambulance  crews  to  access  care  plans supporting  patients  with 
frailty and palliative care.  The One South West programme would need to expand their activity 
significantly  to  also  support  the  sharing of  mental  health  care  plans.  We would  actively  support 
the expansion of this work. 

Meanwhile  in  the  absence  of  this  capability  DCR  is  looking  to  have  the  technical  capability  to 
share  information  with  others  using  NRL  from  March  2026  onwards.  Currently  our  system 
supplier  has  not  been  able  to  delivery  this  capability.   Importantly,  this  will  meet  the  national 
deadline set by NHS England, which is important because the benefit of using a single system to 
share  is  enjoyed  when  all  parties  are  consistent.   Shortly  after  this,  DCR  will  then  start  sharing 
records  to  others  using  NRL,  which  will  mean  that  SWASFT  can  access  the  data  through  this 
method.   

Although this technical capability is essential, there are other critical requirements, including that 
Dorset  Healthcare  NHS  Trust  shares  the  mental  health  care  plans  (and  other  data),  and  that 
SWASFT themselves make sure that their existing system has a significantly improved uptake by 
their ambulance crews.   

NHS Dorset remain keen to work with SWAST to enable access to Dorset Care Record directly, 
which is a possibility today, meaning that SWAST personnel could access all the information held 
on our ICS shared care record (DCR).  However, SWASFT have prioritised the NRL approach to 
sharing data, meaning that the delivery is pushed back.   

The  DCR  partnership  is continuing  to  work  with Dorset  Healthcare  to  share  their  information to 
DCR in 2025, another critical part of the solution. This has been highlighted as an urgent area of 
focus for the Dorset Healthcare team. 

NHS  Dorset  and  the  DCR  Partnership  remain  at  the  forefront  of  using  shared  care  records  to 
support  the  efficient,  effective  and  safe  delivery  of  care,  allowing  professionals  across 
organisational boundaries to see the information they need to give the best and safest possible 
care to their patient. 

However,  it  is  recognised  that  this  is  not  the  first  Prevention  of  Future  Deaths  notice  that  has 
been  issued  where  the  lack  of  visibility/accessibility  of  important  information  across  system 
partners has been raised. The solutions to this lie across different partner organisations and not 
within  the  ICB.  In  order  to  ensure  that  there  is  active  scrutiny  of  this  area  and  to  ensure  that 
progress  is  being  made  a  risk  has  been  opened  on  the  system  risk  register  where  all  system 
partners have a role in ensuring active mitigation of any on going risk. 

Please  let  me  know  if  you  require  further  information.  I  hope  that  I  have  been  able  to  address 
your concerns. 

Yours sincerely   

Chief Executive Officer 
NHS Dorset

Rachael Clare Griffin 
Senior Coroner for the Coroner Area of Dorset 
Coroner’s Office for the County of Dorset 
BCP Civic Centre  
Bourne Avenue  
Bournemouth  
BH2 6DY 

National Medical Director  
NHS England  
Wellington House 
133-155 Waterloo Road  
London 
SE1 8UG 

25 April 2025  

Dear Coroner, 

Re: Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths – Marta Elena Vento who 
died on 9 December 2020.  

Thank  you  for  your  Report  to  Prevent  Future  Deaths  (hereafter  “Report”)  dated  11 
March  2025  concerning  the  death  of  Marta  Elena  Vento  on  9  December  2020.  In 
advance of responding to the specific concerns raised in your Report, I would like to 
express  my  deep  condolences to  Marta’s family  and  loved ones. NHS  England are 
keen  to  assure  the  family  and  the  Coroner  that  the  concerns  raised  relevant  to  the 
perpetrator of Marta’s death and this incredibly sad incident have been listened to and 
reflected upon.   

Your  Report  raises  the  concern  that  there  is  a  lack  of  national  guidance  to  assist 
healthcare  providers  in  ensuring  continuity  of  care  for  a  prisoner  with  physical  or 
mental health needs upon release from prison, and lack of practical guidance around 
delivery of care to ensure such continuity. Your Report also raises a concern that there 
is no national guidance about the continuity of care for prisoners upon release from 
prison when homeless, as some Mental Health Trusts will not accept a referral where 
a person is homeless.  

My  response  to  the  Coroner  has  been  aided  by  engagement  with  NHS  England’s 
national Health and Justice, Mental Health and South West regional teams.  

As  part  of  the  2024/25  NHS  Priorities  and  Operational  Planning  Guidance,  NHS 
England  required  all  Integrated  Care  Boards  (ICBs),  the  organisations  with 
responsibility for commissioning (paying for) local mental health services, to complete 
a review of their community mental health services by the end of September (Quarter 
2) 2024/25. 

The aim of this was to ensure that Systems have robust policies and practices in place 
to  support  individuals  with  serious  mental  illness  who  require  intensive  community 
treatment and follow-up, particularly where engagement may be challenging. 

NHS  guidance  emphasises  a  ‘no  wrong  door’  approach,  to  ensure  individuals  can 
access holistic mental health care regardless of where they first seek support, and any 
people experiencing psychosis receive evidence-based treatment that enables them 

                                                                                                                       
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 to  recover  from  a  psychotic  episode  and/or  live  a  meaningful  life  while  managing 
ongoing symptoms.  

Some  individuals,  however,  can  face  challenges  in  accessing  appropriate  care  and 
barriers  to  this  may  include  services  struggling  to  meet  their  needs,  the  impact  of 
symptoms  such  as  paranoia,  or  a  lack  of  insight  into  their  condition.  For  such 
individuals,  it  is  crucial  that  mental  health  services  provide  tailored  support  through 
flexible engagement strategies, continuity of care, and a range of treatment options 
suited to varying symptom severity. 

A significant change in circumstances, such as discharge from hospital or release from 
prison, can be associated with heightened risk, especially when individuals return to 
unstructured  or  unsafe  environments.  Therefore,  individuals  with  serious  mental 
illness  and  co-occurring  needs,  which  might  include  homelessness,  a  history  of 
violence or offending behaviour, and who also have difficulty engaging with services, 
should  receive  intensive  and  assertive  community  treatment,  in  line  with  national 
guidance. 

Local ICB reviews can ensure appropriate intensive and assertive mental healthcare 
and  treatment  in  the  community  is  available  to  meet  the  needs,  and  to  support  the 
wellbeing  of  a  particular  group,  of  people  with  severe  mental  health  illness:  NHS 
England » Guidance to integrated care boards on intensive and assertive community 
mental health care 

To  support  this  approach  when  individuals are  leaving  prison,  there  are  services  in 
place such as RECONNECT, a non-clinical ‘care after custody’ service that seeks to 
improve the continuity of care of individuals with identified health needs, by working 
with them before they leave the secure estate. RECONNECT supports transition to 
community-based services, enabling the safeguarding of health gains made whilst in 
the secure estate, with the aim of helping to reduce inequalities and address health-
related drivers of offending behaviours.  

RECONNECT  offers  support  and  release  planning  to  individuals  for  up  to  twelve 
weeks prior to release, or as soon as they are referred, and works with them up to six 
months  post-release, or  when all  health  care  needs are met,  whichever  is  soonest. 
Referrals  can  be  taken  from  anyone,  including  His  Majesty’s  Prison  and  Probation 
Service (HMPPS), prison healthcare, family members and self-referrals. At the time of 
Marta’s perpetrator’s release, RECONNECT services were not in place. However, I 
hope that this provides some assurance to the Coroner and Marta’s loved ones that 
processes are now in place to provide more support to people leaving prison in similar 
circumstances.  

From a prison mental health perspective, continuity of care is included in the current 
Integrated  Mental  Health  Service  Specification  for  Prisons  in  England,  which  was 
published in 2018, as one of three key measurable objectives which are: 

1.  Improved mental health and emotional wellbeing. 
2.  The  rehabilitation  of  prisoners  and  a  reduction  in  reoffending  through  the 
improvement  of  mental  health  and  contribution  to  sentence  planning  where 
appropriate. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3.  Improved continuity of care through the gate and within the prison system. 

This service specification highlights essential and expected standards for delivery of 
different elements of the service, which include: 

•  Onward referrals to community services.  
• 

Inviting community teams to discharge/release planning and Care Programme 
Approach (CPA) meetings.  

•  A follow-up interview with the patient/new care co-ordinator or service provider 

within fourteen days of release. 

At  present,  there  is  no  specific  national  pathway  guidance  setting  out  what  an 
individual  on  release  can  expect  from  their  local  Community  Mental  Health  Team 
(CMHT). The guidance relating to the Adult Mental Health Team is generic rather than 
focused on the prison population.  

While  there  are  no  plans  currently  to  develop  national  pathway  guidance,  NHS 
England  will  be  considering  this  in  the  longer-term,  working  with  the  Adult  Mental 
Health Team to ensure services are able to fully support those leaving prison.  

There is also, at present, a review and refresh of the service specification mentioned 
above underway, and learning from this case will be taken into consideration as part 
of  this  refresh.  Attention  will  be  given  to  strengthening  the  service  specification  to 
ensure continuity of care is robust, to ensure successful transfer of care arrangements 
from prison healthcare to community healthcare teams.  

I  understand  from  my  regional  South  West  colleagues  that  a  full  investigation  was 
undertaken  into  Marta’s  death.  A  multi-agency  investigation  stakeholder  group  was 
convened with the following organisations contributing to the investigation process: 

•  Dorset Council 
•  Orchid House Surgery/Dr Grana 
•  HMP Winchester 
•  NHSE Health & Justice team (South East) 
•  NHS Dorset (ICB) 
•  Practice Plus Group (PPG) 
•  Dorset & Hampshire Police 
•  Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust 

The perpetrator did not contribute to the process, and the perpetrator’s family did not 
wish  to  contribute  to  the  process  or  receive  the  report,  although  this  was  offered.  I 
understand  that  Marta’s  family  have  been  provided  with  a  copy  of the  investigation 
report. 

There has also been a learning event held to help understand how different parts of 
the system work together to meet the needs of an individual who presents with mental 
health needs,  in  addition to  their  offending behaviours.  This  was  well  attended  with 
engagement throughout the session from various agencies, including but not limited 
to; NHS England (regional health and justice and independent investigation teams), 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 police, healthcare within prisons, NHS healthcare services, Local Authority, housing, 
and HM Prison & Probation Service.    

During the learning event, consideration was given to how an individual is assessed 
for their mental health needs when entering and leaving prison, how ongoing mental 
health and social care needs are shared with colleagues in health and local authority 
services, alongside the public protection responsibilities under the Multi-Agency Public 
Protection Arrangements (MAPPA), in assessing and managing the risks posed by the 
most serious offenders. Common themes identified were: 

•  Data and information sharing (including application of consent) 
• 

Impact of the courts on the pathway(s), such as early release and notification 
of release   

•  Clearer communication channels between all agencies 

The  NHS  England  South  West  Independent  Investigations  Team  will  support  next 
steps from the learning event to be shared, and then taken forward within the Serious 
Case Review Subgroup, led by the Chief Inspector of Dorset Police. 

Nationally, the findings, information and any learning from this Report will be tabled at 
a  future  NHS  England  Health  and  Justice  Delivery  Oversight  Group  (HJDOG).  The 
HJDOG is the senior leadership forum, which holds responsibility for the oversight of 
delivery and continuous improvement in Health and Justice commissioned services, 
through  both  national  and  regional  teams.  All  health  and  justice  related  Reports  to 
Prevent  Future  Deaths  are  shared  and discussed  at  the  HJDOG, and  assurance  is 
sought  from  regions  where  learning  and  action  is  identified.  This  case  will  also  be 
tabled  and  discussed  at  the  NHS  England  Health  and  Justice  and  Sexual  Assault 
Referral  Centres  (HJ&SARCs)  meeting  scheduled  for  13  May  2025,  where  the 
learning and any improvements will be shared. These meetings are attended by Health 
and Justice Quality leads and representatives.  

Your report also raises a concern that, in the South West region, all Integrated Care 
Boards (ICBs), apart from NHS Dorset, are at some stage of implementing the use of 
the  National  Record  Locator  (NRL)  system so  that  South  West  Ambulance  Service 
NHS Foundation Trust (SWASFT) can access this information to assist in the provision 
of care to those they treat. You raised that the lack of implementation by NHS Dorset 
would limit the information SWAST has access to about a patient in Dorset.   

NHS  Dorset  and  the  Dorset  Care  Record  (DCR)  Partnership  are  involved  in  the 
regional  and  national  work  to  adopt  sharing  information  via  the  National  Record 
Locator and were founding members of the One South West Programme. The current 
focus of the work across the One South West programme is supporting ambulance 
crews to access care plans supporting patients with frailty and palliative care. In order 
to  also  support  the  sharing  of  mental  health  care  plans,  the  One  South  West 
programme would need to expand their activity. NHS England understands that NHS 
Dorset would actively support the expansion of this work.  

In the absence of this capability, the DCR Partnership is looking to have the capability 
to share information with others using the NRL from March 2026 onwards, which will 
meet the national deadline set by NHS England. The DCR Partnership will then start 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 sharing records to others using the NRL, meaning that SWASFT can access the data 
through this method.  

NHS Dorset remain keen to work with SWASFT to enable access to the Dorset Care 
Record  directly.  However,  SWASFT  have  prioritised  the  NRL  approach  to  sharing 
data.  The  DCR  Partnership  is  hoping to  work  with  Dorset  Healthcare  to  share their 
information to the DCR in 2025, which will be another critical part of the solution.  

I  would  also  like  to  provide  further  assurances  on  the  national  NHS  England  work 
taking  place around  the  Reports  to  Prevent Future  Deaths.  All  reports  received  are 
discussed  by  the  Regulation  28  Working  Group,  comprising  Regional  Medical 
Directors,  and  other  clinical  and  quality  colleagues  from  across  the  regions.  This 
ensures that key learnings and insights around events, such as the sad death of Marta, 
are shared across the NHS at both a national and regional level and helps us to pay 
close attention to any emerging trends that may require further review and action.   

Thank you for bringing these important patient safety issues to my attention and please 
do not hesitate to contact me should you need any further information.  

Yours sincerely,  

National Medical Director

HM Coroner Rachael C Griffin 
Dorset Coroner’s Office  
Civic Centre 
Bourne Avenue 
Bournemouth 
BH2 6DY  

Sent via email: 

6th May 2025 

Dear Ms Griffin, 

Regulation 28 Report – Marta Elana Vento 

I write on behalf of the National Polcie Chiefs Council (NPCC) in relation to paragraph 7, Schedule 
5 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and regulations 28 and 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) 
Regulations 2013, in relation to the prevention of future deaths report sent via email to the NPCC 
dated 11th March 2025.  

The notice sets out concerns  following the inquest into the death of Marta Elena Vento, namely that 
there is a lack of guidance on how to risk assess and manage offenders who are managed under 
MOSOVO when they present with the risk of violence, or an escalating risk of violence and you are 
concerned that this will result in a failure to identify the risk of violence, or the increasing risk of 
violence, in those being managed by MOSOVO which may lead to a future death. I am very sorry to 
read of Marta’s death, in extremely violent circumstances. My sympathies are with her family and 
friends.  

I  have  noted  that  there  has  been  similar  correspondence  to  the  Chief  Executive  Officer  of  the 
College of Policing and in my response I have liaised with both the College and the Portfolio lead for 
the Management of Sexual Offenders and Violent offenders (MOSOVO), Assistant Chief Constable 

. 

The Police management of offenders in a statutory context sits primarily within Multi Agency Public 
Protection Arrangements (MAPPA), as a responsible authority under S325-7, of the Criminal Justice 
Act 2003. These arrangements provide a statutory framework for the three responsible authorities 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
            
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 of Police, HM Prisons and HM Probation (HMPPS), to work together to manage the risks posed to 
the public by eligible offenders in the community. The management of violent offenders is generally 
undertaken within category two (2), of MAPPA when an offender is subject of statutory supervision. 
This  places  the  lead  agency  responsibility  on  to  HM  Probation  Service  to  undertake  a  risk 
assessment and formulate a risk management plan with consultation of statutory partners.  

However,  in  this  particular  circumstance  the  offender  left  custody  at  sentence  end  date  was 
therefore not subject to statutory supervision by HM Probation. This ordinarily would have meant 
no statutory police involvement as regards a risk of violent offending unless a referral to Category 3 
was being considered. This was not required in this case as the offender was subject of notification 
requirements  under  the  Sexual  Offences  Act  2003,  which  made  him  automatically  eligible  for 
MAPPA under Category 1 and made him subject of police lead agency. The offender was managed 
a sexual offender as this was the basis for their MAPPA eligibility.  

It is therefore uncommon for a violent case not subject of statutory supervision by HM Probation to 
be managed by the police as lead agency. In these circumstance the police have no direct powers 
to  require  an  offender  not  subject  of  statutory  supervision  to  cooperate  with  a  violence  risk 
assessment process. In this case however, police had the statutory powers to manage the offender 
as a sexual offender with the subsequent authority to require them to submit to a risk assessment 
and to formulate  risk management plan. 

The risk assessment process police use for sexual offenders is the Active Risk Management System 
(ARMS), which has been in use by Police in England and Wales since 2014 and is well established. 
This  system  assesses  11  factors  both  risk  and  protective  bespoke  to  the  offenders  personal 
circumstances at the time of assessment alongside their static risk of sexual recidivism based on 
the OASys Sexual Predictor (OSP). These are combined to provide an overall level of risk and most 
importantly  a  risk  management  plan  articulating  the  plan  to  mitigate  the  risks  identified  and  to 
support the offenders desistance. We would expect that this activity should look at the offenders 
circumstances  holistically  and  should  identify  risks  of  serious  violence  as  part  of  the  overall 
assessment if known to the assessor and if undertaken adequately. 

The NPPC MOSOVO Lead liaises regularly with the College of Policing who develop the training for 
MOSOVO staff in England and Wales and who produce Authorised Professional Practice. I will ask 
that  the  NPCC  Lead  request  the  College  of  Policing  review  their  APP  and  training  material  to 
highlight more strongly the consideration of violence within the assessment when considering the 
formulation  of  the  risk  management  plan.  In  addition,  we  have  previously  requested  from  the 
College  of  Policing  a  full    review  of  the  ARMS  process  as  part  of  normal  good  practice  and  will 
reiterate this need. 

I hope the information provided will go some way to address your concerns. Please do not hesitate 
to contact me if you require any further information in relation to my response.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Kind regards 

Yours sincerely, 

Chair  
National Police Chiefs’ Council