John Jaundoo

1. 1. inappropriate placement of high-risk offender in unsuitable supported living accommodation

   “Offender 2 should have been recalled to prison and not referred to or accepted into supported living accommodation, it was wholly unsuitable for him and in particular when his behaviour was deteriorating to such an extent in the Approved Premises that his bed was withdrawn.”

2. 2. inappropriate placement of high-risk offender in unsuitable supported living accommodation

   “Offender 3 a high risk offender should never have been referred to or admitted to supported living accommodation (upon his release from prison), the only suitable accommodation where the risks that he posed could be appropriately manged being Approved Premises.”

3. 3. lack of timely and accurate offender information sharing

   “Timely, accurate and up to date information was not provided in respect of offenders 2 & 3 and;”

4. 4. inadequate dynamic risk assessment for high-risk offender

   “The risk assessment which should have been a dynamic process was not reviewed/revised in particular as it should have been in respect of offender 2 when his behaviour started to deteriorate so substantially and which also included alcohol consumption a known precursor to his offending.”

5. 5. failure of local authority oversight of supported living services

   “Missed a number of significant opportunities to properly exercise their influence and oversight function of both the then supported living accommodation provider and the Probation Trust, they also missed opportunities to perform regular, timely validation visits and to satisfy themselves of the procedures that were in place to ensure the aims of the service were being effectively delivered and that public protection (including of staff and other service users) was the overriding priority.”

Linked reports

No published response was found on judiciary.uk.