1. Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) Developments in Latvia» Jānis Zārdiņš, Head of Cesis Probation Office Imants Jurevičius, Project Manager and CEP Board Member State Probation Service of Latvia 7th November 2014 1

2. MAPPA history in Latvia Study visit to UK in 2008 Project “Development of Supervision and Treatment System for Sex Offenders in Latvia” (budget 722 675 EUR) co-financed by Norway Grants financial mechanism (2009-2011): –4 pilots of MAPPA –Consultations with UK MoJ (cooperation agreement) Economical crisis (2009-2011) and recovery (2012-2014) In 2015 MAPPA should be launched nationally 2

3. 3 Case from MAPPA pilots (2010): M M last time was convicted for theft, but previously had conviction for violence, including sexual. M had single parent family with two children. Problems: –Mistake (neglect) by the Family Court; –Poor/inappropriate parenting; –Unwilling to cooperate; –Maris alcohol misuse; –Lack of information exchange between instances –Necessity to react quickly.

4. 4 Case from MAPPA pilots (2010): M Assessment of the situation –Meeting with the members from Family Court; –Information inquiry; –Evaluation of risk; –MAPPA meeting ; Action plan and results –Safety of the children; –Neighbors; –Boundaries for M; –Individual work/supervision plan; –Information exchange.

5. Conclusions from MAPPA pilots (2010): Weak information exchange between partner institutions Indecisive, passive approach in the work with offender by institutions, as result of the above mentioned. Information exchange had get very effective and quick, by using meetings as a process of sharing information. It helped to make more accurate risk assessment. 5

6. Conclusions from MAPPA pilots (2010): Information from several information sources provided a good ground for the motivated decisions by institutions. It provided support as well to perform current functions. The action plan set during a meeting ensures effective use of resources spent by institutions, and eliminates possibilities of duplications of actions. As the result there is a rise of the effectiveness of each involved partner institution and increased public safety in total. 6

7. 7 Case from today (2014): G G is convicted and sentenced for being involved in organized group for sending a person for sexual exploitation. Court has sentenced G with suspended sentence for 5 years imprisonment, with 5 years probation period. Previously G has several convictions for drunk-driving, for causing intentional bodily injury, hooliganism, cruelty towards and violence against minors. For around two years G lived in other EU MS, but during last conviction in Latvia, he evaded court and was deported back to Latvia.

8. 8 Case from today (2014): Guntars Problems: –Last court sentence does not provide additional restrictions or obligations; –Denies his fault, minimizes offence; –Family members are scared, frightened; –Financial problems; –Manipulates, disrespects authorities, like Probation Service and Court. G had expressed a wish to leave Latvia and to live in that other EU MS.

9. 9 Case from today (2014): G Case management: G applied for permission to leave Latvia. Evaluation of risk. No sufficient information to make decision. Application to colleagues of other MS for additional information. Questions set: –Are there charges against persons in other MS involved in particular offence? –If yes, are these persons plead guilty and sentenced? –Has G legal rights and no restrictions to visit or stay in the other MS regarding actual offence? Decision

10. 10 Discussion What would be a good practice?