Harper Denton

Dear Ms Whitting, Re Preventing Future Deaths Report – Harper Denton Thank you for your report, this was a shocking crime and the sympathies and thoughts of both the College of Policing and National Police Chiefs Council are with her family.

This is a joint response written on behalf of both the College of Policing (College) and National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC).

You have identified two ‘matters of concern’ for policing to respond to and this response deals with each in turn.

1) The MPS does not appear to have adopted ACPO Guidance on Protecting the Public: Managing Sexual Offenders and Violent Offenders 2010 and subsequent APP College of Policing MOSOVO Guidance, particularly with respect to PDPs. Because this concern maybe relevant to other police forces nationally, this concern is directed to the CEO College of Policing and the Chair of the NPCC as well as the Commissioner for the MPS.

Response The ACPO guidance from 2010 has been superseded by the College’s Authorised Professional Practice (APP) on Potentially Dangerous Persons (PDP) which describes the most up to date professional practice for police forces in England and Wales.

In addition, the College has developed risk principles, vulnerability and risk guidelines and, principles for the management of potentially dangerous and serial perpetrators domestic abusers.

These guidelines and principles support forces in their identification, assessment and management of PDPs. College Child Abuse APP is explicit about concerns for a child and the risk presented by people with a history of violent or sexual offences and makes the links across to the Management of Sexual or Violent Offenders (MOSOVO) APP.

Chief Constable is the National Policing Lead for the Management of Sexual Offenders and Violent Offenders, she drives consistency of policing approaches by supporting forces to implement guidance and adopt new, promising practice. Additionally, the Vulnerability Knowledge and Practice Programme (VKPP) actively engages with forces to assist them to assess their own operating processes and offers coordinated peer support when forces ask for assistance. However, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and individual Chief Constables have operational independence and so can deviate from APP if they choose.

2) There appears to be a lacuna in pro-active information sharing practices by Police (similar to those found under Clare's Law and Sarah's Law) in order to protect children from those who may present a threat to them as a result of having previous convictions for violence/cruelty offences against a child - this concern is directed to the CEO College of Policing and the Chair of the NPCC.

Response Where policing becomes aware of a Potentially Dangerous Person, or any person who may pose a risk to a partner of their children, there is a well-developed legal framework to share information with a person considered to be at risk of harm, such as a new partner or the parent / carer of a vulnerable child.

The primary mechanisms for the disclosure of conviction information and, more importantly, risk information to facilitate child safeguarding, are Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements, the Child Sexual Offender Disclosure Scheme and the Domestic Violence disclosure scheme. These mechanisms provide a statutory and common law approach to enable relevant risk information is shared proactively and reactively to ensure safeguarding and public protection

Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) MAPPA provides the legal gateway for police to share information with responsible authorities and a duty to cooperate with agencies such as child social care and / or health. This is to ensure that individuals identified as posing a serious risk to the public are subject to multi agency scrutiny and a risk management plan. A plan would include consideration of disclosure of information to third parties if deemed appropriate. Offenders who have convictions for violence and cruelty offences against children can be managed within the MAPPA framework. In addition, the arrangements are subject to statutory MAPPA guidance which aims to ensures their consistent application.

Child Sexual Offences Disclosure Scheme (CSODS)

Sarah’s law relates to the CSODS and the rights of people who feel that a child may be at risk to ask about an individual’s convictions for child sexual offences.

Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme (DVDS)

Claire’s law relates to the DVDS which affords a right to ask as well as a right to tell. Home Office guidance 2013, provides an explanation of the process to provide increased protection for domestic abuse victims.

MAPPA guidance provides a non-exhaustive list of offences where convictions and/or allegations may be disclosed under the DVDS. Although the list is non-exhaustive and is intended to act as a guide to the types of offences that may be disclosed, it specifically includes Child Cruelty under Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, Section 1 and 2 Child Abduction, under the Child Abduction Act 1984, and Causing or Allowing the Death of a Child under Section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004.

Neither of the disclosure schemes are in statute. However, they formalise processes, based on common law powers of disclosure, to ensure a consistent approach is followed when considering disclosure of information to individuals when risk is identified to children or of domestic violence.

Any disclosure must comply with the existing legal framework, in particular the Human Rights Act 1998, the Data Protection Act 2018, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, and established case law. Information which may be disclosed includes convictions and out-of-court disposals for violent offences and / or information about the person’s behaviour which reasonably leads the police and other safeguarding agencies to believe that the person poses a risk of harm to the potential victim.

College APP on child abuse refers to the powers of police to share information, and this includes employers and regulatory bodies. In response to your report the College will, in the next three months, update APP to make clear that disclosure can also be made to parents and / or carers of children who may be at risk of harm from a particular person.

APP will be amended to make this common law power clear. An individual with a violence or cruelty conviction for children therefore should be subject to necessary operational oversight on a case by case basis and any identified risks shared accordingly.

In conclusion, there are a number of means to share risk related information with statutory and non-statutory partners including carers of children, where a suspect is identified as posing a risk to children or others. The uses of these mechanisms and identification of individuals is an operational responsibility for the chief officer of each force

I hope that this response addresses your concerns regarding this tragic case. The College and National Policing Lead will ensure that the lessons from the murder of Harper Denton are disseminated amongst all the police forces of England and Wales.

Dear Ms Whitting,

Re: Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths – Harper Denton

I am the Deputy Assistant Commissioner for the Directorate of Professionalism in the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). I write to provide the response on behalf of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to the matter of concern addressed to the MPS in the Report to Prevent Future Deaths dated 15 September 2022.

On behalf of the MPS may I first of all express my sincere condolences to Harper’s family. Our thoughts and sympathies are very much with them.

Matter of concern

The MPS does not appear to have adopted ACPO Guidance on Protecting the Public: Managing Sexual Offenders and Violent Offenders 2010 and subsequent APP College of Policing MOSOVO Guidance, particularly with respect to PDPs. Because this concern maybe relevant to other police forces nationally, this concern is directed to the CEO College of Policing and the Chair of the NPCC as well as the Commissioner for the MPS.

Response

There is no legislative definition of a Potentially Dangerous Person (PDP). A PDP is someone who is not eligible for management under the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) as they have not been convicted of, or cautioned for, any offence that would thereby place them into one of the three MAPPA categories. However, their behaviour gives reasonable grounds for believing that there is a risk of them committing an offence or offences that will cause serious harm.

/…

Page 2/Ms Emma Whitting

On a number of previous occasions, the MPS has scoped the feasibility of introducing a PDP process as outlined in the guidance provided by the NPCC Policing Practice 2017 and College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice (APP), which superseded the ACPO Guidance on ‘Protecting the Public: Managing Sexual Offences and Violent Offenders 2010’.

On each of those occasions the MPS has encountered difficulty in two areas;

1. Within London, even after applying strict filter parameters, the sheer number of nominals who would fall within the definition of a PDP would have made such a process unworkable.
2. The lack of a legislative framework (as recognised by the APP guidance) proved problematic particularly with regard to partnership working.

The Commissioner of the Metropolis and individual Chief Constables have operational independence and so can deviate from the APP guidance if they so choose. In light of the two difficulties mentioned above, the MPS has not adopted a PDP process to date.

Other than the PDP process, the MPS does have existing mechanisms in place that comply with other areas of the College of Policing’s (CoP’s) APP for violent offenders. In particular the use of Category 3 MAPPA and Violent Offender Orders (VOO) where appropriate.

For a person to be treated as a Category 3 MAPPA, they would need to have an existing caution or conviction for a relevant offence and pose a risk of serious harm to the public.

MAPPA provides a gateway for the MPS and policing generally, to share information with responsible authorities and other third parties where persons are identified as posing a serious risk to the public. The MPS is required to follow the statutory MAPPA guidance which exists to try to ensure consistent application of MAPPA, including considerations of disclosure.

MAPPA provides an information sharing protocol and a mechanism to provide disclosure based on risk to the public. In all MAPPA Level 2 or Level 3 managed cases, disclosure is a mandatory consideration.

Common Law powers of disclosure can be used to protect those at risk. To be lawful, any disclosure must comply with the Human Rights Act 1998, Data Protection Act 2018, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, and established case law. Such disclosure can be to parents and/or carers of children who may be at risk of harm from a particular person.

The MPS is committed to ensuring that organisational learning from the events which led to Harper’s murder is captured and addressed appropriately.

The MPS is currently reviewing its existing MAPPA processes. This review will include consideration of a new scoping exercise to assess the feasibility of introducing a PDP process as outlined by the College of Policing’s APP Guidance. It is currently anticipated that the outcome of this review will be completed within six months and will determine whether the MPS adopts the CoP APP guidance with regard to PDP’s.

/…

Page 3/Ms Emma Whitting

I hope that this response addresses the matter of concern you have raised and that you are reassured that the issue is being addressed as part of the ongoing review into MPS MAPPA processes.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any queries.

Dear Mrs Whitting Thank you for forwarding a copy of the Regulation 28 report relating to the death of Harper Denton. My experience giving evidence in relation to this tragic case left a powerful impression and my thoughts remain with Harper’s family. The report raised a specific point for the Home Office to consider: (3) There is nothing today, such as a form of Offender Register, to protect children from an individual who has already been convicted of a cruelty offence against a child and served their sentence. We are committed to ensuring that the safeguarding system is as robust as it can be. I would like to set out some of the actions under active consideration by the Home Office in relation to the issues raised. Offender Management HM Government is continuing to consider options for better management of domestic abuse offenders. The Tackling Domestic Abuse Plan, published in April, committed to consider the implementation of a domestic abuse ‘register’ to deal with, and effectively manage, the most harmful perpetrators of such offences and reduce the risk they pose. It is anticipated that there will be overlap between those offenders who commit domestic

violence and those convicted of specific child cruelty offences, and other offences of violence that may be committed against a child. This sits alongside our ongoing work to improve the management of offenders, including an independent review to evaluate police management of registered sex offenders in the community. The previous Home Secretary appointed former chief constable

to look specifically at how the police use their current capabilities to manage the risk posed by registered sex offenders and whether the regime protecting the public from them could be strengthened further. The review concluded in October 2022, delivering recommendations to HM Government on what needs to be done across the policing and law enforcement landscape to enhance the management of registered sex offenders in the community in England and Wales. It is now for Ministers to decide how the findings of the review will be shared and consider any response to the recommendations; including potential implications for work on the development of offence-based ‘registers’. We are also continuing to support disclosure schemes through the provision of national guidance. The Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme and the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme both provide members of the public with a clear process to seek information from the police on individuals who may pose a risk of harm to children. The Home Office acknowledges the perception that Violent Offender Orders have been sparingly used by the police, and we will be engaging with policing partners to identify barriers to their use and options to promote awareness of their utility. Child Protection reforms You will appreciate that the management of offenders is only one component of the state’s responsibility to keep children safe. To be successful, any development of a child cruelty register would need to complement wider reforms to improve collaboration and information sharing across the key agencies that are responsible for safeguarding children. We know information and data sharing between agencies is a challenge, and across Government we are actively considering how to improve relevant processes for operational partners. The Health and Social Care Act 2022 commits the Government to laying a report before Parliament in Summer 2023 setting out its policy on information sharing by public authorities for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children; including the feasibility of using a consistent child identifier. In May, we welcomed the publication of the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, and the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel’s national review ‘Child Protection in England’; while October saw the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in England and Wales. All three of those reviews make recommendations to Government on how to improve multi-agency working to strengthen child protection, and taken together provide us with an opportunity to consider how safeguarding can be improved in the round. The Government will be responding to the recommendations in those reviews in due course, and we will continue to consider the case for a child cruelty register in context of all ongoing policy discussions in this space. I hope this letter has been helpful in setting out the ways in which these complex policy questions will be kept under constant review.

Dear Ms Whitting,

CORONER REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS: HARPER MARIE DENTON

Thank you for your letter of 15 September 2022 to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, about the death of Harper Denton. I am replying as Minister with responsibility for Health and Secondary Care and I thank you for the additional time allowed. Firstly, I would like to say how deeply saddened I was to read of the circumstances of Harper’s death. I can appreciate how distressing her death must be for those who knew and loved her, and I offer my heartfelt condolences. It is vital that we take the learnings from what happened to Harper to prevent future deaths. I am aware that the Police, as well as, the Home Office have responded to you directly on the relevant matters of concern. Therefore, this response focuses solely on your concern related to safeguarding assessments. Health visitors and school nurses as leaders of the Healthy Child Programme have a vital role in keeping children safe. They work with their teams and partners to support local safeguarding arrangements. We are currently updating a set of resources for health visitor and school nurse-led services. This includes emphasising the importance for children who may have additional needs to complete an assessment of family relationships and chronology of events to identify strengths and vulnerabilities. These are due to be published shortly. The Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel has highlighted evidence and challenges to consider in their report on safeguarding children under 1 from non-accidental injury by

PDOHFDUHUV³7KH0\WKRIWKH,QYLVLEOH0HQ´7KHUHSRUWFOHDUO\LGHQWLILHVWKHQHHGWR DGGUHVVWKHLQWHUFRQQHFWHGLVVXHVWKDWZHUHDSSDUHQWLQFDVHVZKHQPHQKDUPHGFKLOGUHQ DQGWRGHDOZLWKWKHZD\VWKDWWKHVHULVNVLQWHUVHFW ,QUHVSRQVHWRWKH&KLOG6DIHJXDUGLQJ3UDFWLFH5HYLHZ3DQHOZHKDYHDJUHHGDFURVV
*RYHUQPHQWSURJUDPPHRIZRUNIRFXVLQJRQVWUHQJWKHQLQJZKROHIDPLO\DSSURDFKHVDQG LPSURYLQJHYLGHQFH:HKDYHKRVWHGDURXQGWDEOHZLWK3DUWQHUVRQKRZWREHWWHUHQJDJH IDWKHUVDQGDUHGHYHORSLQJQHZUHVRXUFHVWRSURYLGHVHQVLWLYHUHVSRQVLYHFDUHIRULQIDQWV LQYXOQHUDEOHKRXVHKROGV:HZLOODOVRORRNIRURSSRUWXQLWLHVWRVKDUHHYLGHQFHIURP 1DWLRQDO,QVWLWXWHIRU+HDOWK &DUH5HVHDUFKSURMHFWVWKDWLQFOXGHHYDOXDWLRQRI³,&21´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±IURPWKHLGHQWLILFDWLRQRIULVNWRHDUO\KHOSDQGWDUJHWHGZRUNDQGIRUPDOFKLOG SURWHFWLRQ ,KRSHWKLVUHVSRQVHLVKHOSIXO7KDQN\RXIRUEULQJLQJWKHVHFRQFHUQVWRP\DWWHQWLRQ  <RXUV6LQFHUHO\

1(,/2¶%5,(103