Introduction and context

The 1990s saw a growing preoccupation with high-risk offenders, particularly their accurate identification, reliable risk assessment and effective risk management. By the turn of the century this preoccupation had also extended to young offenders, and included the formalised use of risk assessment tools and increasing attention to the early identification of those young offenders likely to become ‘dangerous’ (see Kemshall, 2008a, for a full review). A key component of the policy and organisational response to high-risk offenders was the development of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) (see Kemshall, 2003, for a full review). By the late 1990s, MAPPA extended across England and Wales (with slightly later developments in Scotland and Northern Ireland). These arrangements were given legislative force in the 2000 Criminal Justice and Court Services Act (Sections 67 and 68) with the police and the probation service forming ‘Responsible Authorities’ (and the prison service being added as a statutory partner by the 2003 Criminal Justice Act. MAPPA are tasked with making ‘joint arrangements for the assessment and management of the risks posed by sexual and violent offenders, and other offenders who may cause serious harm to the public’ (Home Office, 2001, p 1).

MAPPA have been characterised as a ‘community protection model’ (Connelly and Williamson, 2000). This model is embedded in the criminal justice system and is characterised by the use of restriction, surveillance, monitoring and control, compulsory treatment and the prioritisation of victim/community rights over those of offenders. Special measures such as licence conditions, tagging, exclusions, registers and selective incarceration are all extensively used (Kemshall, 2001, 2003; Kemshall et al, 2005). Risk management plans are devised and delivered by statutory agencies in partnership (Home Office, 2004; Ministry of Justice, 2007). Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) come within the remit of MAPPA and were designated a ‘duty to cooperate’ agency by the 2003 Criminal Justice Act. This places a duty on YOTs to cooperate with MAPPA in the risk assessment and management of high-risk offenders (see YJB, 2006a, 2006b).

These developments can be placed within a broader penal trend usually referred to as the ‘new penology’ of risk or ‘actuarial justice’ (Feeley and Simon, 1992, 1994), although the extent and nature of the new penology has been the subject of much debate (see, for example, O’Malley, 2001; Rigakos and Hadden, 2001; Kemshall, 2002, 2003).