Recurring concern

Unreliable MOSOVO management of sexual and violent offenders

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 15 Sep 2022•Latest report 11 Mar 2025

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in the named MOSOVO offender-management process, including adoption and updating of relevant guidance, provision and use of violence-risk assessment tools, management of escalating violence risk, staff understanding and application of MOSOVO requirements, and dedicated assurance that the process operates effectively.

Not included

Excludes generic offender-management, policing, probation or risk-assessment deficiencies where MOSOVO is not the identified system.
Excludes failures in managing offenders outside sexual or violent offender management unless the assertion explicitly concerns the MOSOVO process.
Excludes downstream supervision, release or public-protection failures where MOSOVO guidance and risk-management arrangements operated reliably.
Excludes generic training, communication or documentation deficiencies unless they directly impair the operation of MOSOVO offender-management arrangements.

Reports: 2
Individual concerns: 2
Date range: 2022–2025
Stated actions: 6

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

College of Policing2

National Police Chiefs’ Council2

Department of Health and Social Care1

HM Prison and Probation Service1

Home Office1

Metropolitan Police Service1

NHS Dorset Integrated Care Board1

NHS England1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

11 Mar2025
Dorset
Concerns raised1
1. Lack of guidance and tools for assessing violence risk in MOSOVO-managed offenders
This report raised 4 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 4
1. Action
  Request a review of MOSOVO authorised professional practice and training materials to strengthen consideration of violence in risk assessments and management plans.
  Stated by National Police Chiefs’ CouncilStated planned
2. Action
  Reiterate the request for a full review of the Active Risk Management System process.
  Stated by National Police Chiefs’ CouncilStated planned
3. Action
  Consult the NPCC MOSOVO lead and relevant subject-matter experts on improving guidance for assessing violence risk.
  Stated by College of PolicingStated planned
1. Action
  Liaise with Dorset Constabulary to ensure awareness of current MOSOVO guidance and available material for managing violent-offender risks.
  Stated by College of PolicingStated planned
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  The established ARMS assessment and risk management process should identify serious violence risks when known to and properly assessed by the assessor.
  Stated by National Police Chiefs’ CouncilExisting arrangements considered sufficient
AI-generated summary

Marta Elena Vento · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Marta Elena Vento was working alone as a hotel receptionist in Bournemouth when she was fatally beaten in an unprovoked attack on 9 December 2020. The report raises concerns about the sharing of remand prisoners’ risk information with sentencing courts, continuity of mental healthcare after release from prison, risk assessment of violent offenders managed by MOSOVO units, and access to patient information through the National Record Locator.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of guidance and tools for assessing violence risk in MOSOVO-managed offenders
Wider context from the report
“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. I am 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 further death. ”
Source location
Marta Elena Vento · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 4 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Request a review of MOSOVO authorised professional practice and training materials to strengthen consideration of violence in risk assessments and management plans.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The NPCC 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.”

Source location
Response from NPCC
Page 2 · response
Published 11 March 2025
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Reiterate the request for a full review of the Active Risk Management System process.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The NPCC 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.”

Source location
Response from NPCC
Page 2 · response
Published 11 March 2025
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Consult the NPCC MOSOVO lead and relevant subject-matter experts on improving guidance for assessing violence risk.

Verbatim wording from the response
“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 Policing Standards Manager, ████████ to consult further with the NPCC Lead for MOSOVO 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.”

Source location
Response from College of Policing
Page 2 · response
Published 11 March 2025
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Liaise with Dorset Constabulary to ensure awareness of current MOSOVO guidance and available material for managing violent-offender risks.

Verbatim wording from the response
“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 Policing Standards Manager, ████████ to consult further with the NPCC Lead for MOSOVO 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.”

Source location
Response from College of Policing
Page 2 · response
Published 11 March 2025
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
The established ARMS assessment and risk management process should identify serious violence risks when known to and properly assessed by the assessor.

Verbatim wording from the response
“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.”

Source location
Response from NPCC
Page 2 · response
Published 11 March 2025
Open published response
15 Sep2022
Bedfordshire and Luton
Concerns raised1
1. Failure to adopt MOSOVO guidance for managing sexual and violent offenders, particularly PDPs
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 2
1. Action
  Review existing MAPPA processes, including the feasibility of introducing a Potentially Dangerous Person process.
  Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceStated in progress
2. Action
  Develop risk principles and vulnerability and risk guidelines for identifying, assessing and managing potentially dangerous persons and serial domestic-abuse perpetrators.
  Stated by College of Policing and National Police Chiefs’ CouncilStated completed
Respondent positions 5
1. Position
  The volume of potential PDPs in London makes implementing a PDP process unworkable, even after applying strict filtering parameters.
  Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceUnable to act
1. Position
  The absence of a legislative framework makes implementing a PDP process problematic, particularly for partnership working.
  Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceUnable to act
2. Position
  Police and Home Office matters were addressed directly by those bodies, so this response does not undertake further work on them.
  Stated by Department of Health and Social CareRedirects responsibility
3. Position
  The 2010 ACPO guidance is superseded by current APP, which sets out up-to-date professional practice for potentially dangerous persons.
  Stated by College of Policing and National Police Chiefs’ CouncilDisputes the concern
4. Position
  Individual chief constables retain operational independence and responsibility for implementing or departing from APP guidance.
  Stated by College of Policing and National Police Chiefs’ CouncilRedirects responsibility
AI-generated summary

Harper DENTON · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Harper DENTON, aged one month, was unlawfully killed by her father, who had previously been convicted of violent offences against a two-year-old child. The inquest found that failures by state agencies to manage the continuing risk he posed contributed to her death. Concerns included police information-sharing and risk-management practices, the absence of an offender register for people convicted of cruelty offences against children, and the non-mandatory nature of full safeguarding assessments by health visitors.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to adopt MOSOVO guidance for managing sexual and violent offenders, particularly PDPs
Wider context from the report
“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. ”
Source location
Harper DENTON · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Review existing MAPPA processes, including the feasibility of introducing a Potentially Dangerous Person process.

Verbatim wording from the response
“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.”

Source location
Response from Metropolitan Police
Page 2 · response
Published 6 October 2022
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Develop risk principles and vulnerability and risk guidelines for identifying, assessing and managing potentially dangerous persons and serial domestic-abuse perpetrators.

Verbatim wording from the response
“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.”

Source location
Response from National Police Chiefs' Council
Page 1 · response
Published 6 October 2022
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
The volume of potential PDPs in London makes implementing a PDP process unworkable, even after applying strict filtering parameters.

Verbatim wording from the response
“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’.”

Source location
Response from Metropolitan Police
Page 2 · response
Published 6 October 2022
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
The absence of a legislative framework makes implementing a PDP process problematic, particularly for partnership working.

Verbatim wording from the response
“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’.”

Source location
Response from Metropolitan Police
Page 2 · response
Published 6 October 2022
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Police and Home Office matters were addressed directly by those bodies, so this response does not undertake further work on them.

Verbatim wording from the response
“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.”

Source location
Response from Department of Health and Social Care
Page 1 · response
Published 6 October 2022
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
The 2010 ACPO guidance is superseded by current APP, which sets out up-to-date professional practice for potentially dangerous persons.

Verbatim wording from the response
“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 may be 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.”

Source location
Response from National Police Chiefs' Council
Page 1 · response
Published 6 October 2022
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Individual chief constables retain operational independence and responsibility for implementing or departing from APP guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response
“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.”

Source location
Response from National Police Chiefs' Council
Page 2 · response
Published 6 October 2022
Open published response

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised1

Lack of guidance and tools for assessing violence risk in MOSOVO-managed offenders

Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.4

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

Concerns raised1

Failure to adopt MOSOVO guidance for managing sexual and violent offenders, particularly PDPs

Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.5

Actions described in response 4

Respondent positions 1

Actions described in response 2

Respondent positions 5