Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

Prolific Offenders Unit

Offender Profile

THE SUBJECT, born 24.11.65, CRO 126639/81D

On the 6th February 2004 THE SUBJECT was released from HMP Leyhill, on parole,
having been sentenced at Bristol Crown Court on the 7th May 2002 to four years
imprisonment for burglary. Upon his release, THE SUBJECT was immediately taken
on by the Prolific Offenders Unit at Bath.

THE SUBJECT’S first conviction was at the age of twelve and since then, he has had
32 court appearances for which he has been convicted of 93 offences. Many of
these offences relate to dwelling burglary. Intelligence states that these offences
were committed in order to fund a drug addiction that was mostly based on heroin,
but also included the use of crack cocaine. This addiction at times was costing THE
SUBJECT several hundred pounds each day.

On the 23rd March 2001, THE SUBJECT was released from prison after a sentence
relating to dwelling burglaries. Almost immediately, he resumed his drug addiction
that quickly spiralled out of control. Within a short time of his release, there was a
dramatic increase in the number of dwelling burglaries in Bath (illustrated by the
attached graph). Analysis of these crimes indicate a common M.O in the vast
majority of offences.

During the relevant period, 141 intelligence reports (Form 78d) were received,
indicating that THE SUBJECT was responsible for most of the burglaries. When this
intelligence was combined with the analysis of the burglary M.O’s, it became possible
to identify offences for which THE SUBJECT was responsible, reasonably
accurately. Over the following months, until his eventual arrest, it was estimated that
THE SUBJECT was committing between two and four dwelling burglaries a day.
Many of these offences were night-time “creeper” burglaries, often with the
householders asleep in the premises.

THE SUBJECT would steal cash, jewellery and cash point cards with PIN numbers if
he could find them. That same night he would go to a cash-point and withdraw the
maximum amount of cash permitted (usually £300). Latterly during this period, he
would also steal the householder’s car, using keys he would find in the premises.

It is a conservative estimate that during this period of liberty, THE SUBJECT was
responsible for the theft of well in excess of £100,000’s worth of property.

During the analysis of the burglary M.O’s, it also became obvious that THE
SUBJECT was very forensically aware. He always covered his shoes, to avoid
leaving shoe marks and would wipe surfaces to remove finger marks or biological
evidence. There were no forensic enquiries available in relation to any of the
offences.
After identifying THE SUBJECT as the most likely suspect for these offences, a
number of operations were set up in order to effect his arrest. This would involve the
following methods:

i. Targeted patrols.

ii. Tasking of C.H.I.S’s (resulting in reward payments).

iii. Warrants executed at the addresses of drug dealers/handlers to recover


property.

iv. Surveillance on THE SUBJECT’S home address.

v. Technical enquiries (surveillance on cash points).

vi. Forensic examination of recovered STOVECS.

vii. Night-time, plain clothes operations.

All of these methods were very personnel intensive and resulted in considerable
financial expenditure by the force. Owing mainly to the fact that THE SUBJECT was
random in selecting areas of Bath to commit burglaries, the fact that identifiable
property was quickly disposed of and the timings of the offences, close surveillance
was difficult. These enquiries were fruitless.

In December 2001, another surveillance operation was mounted, incorporating the


Force Targeting Team. In total, twenty-five officers were involved. As the result of
this operation THE SUBJECT was seen to commit a night-time burglary and was
subsequently arrested.

Case Management

On the 7th May 2002, THE SUBJECT was convicted of two dwelling burglaries and
was sentenced to four years imprisonment. During his time in prison, THE
SUBJECT began to make efforts towards rehabilitation and went on to engage with
the Bath Prolific Offenders Unit.

He was accepted on to the Avon and Somerset Prolific Offender Scheme on the 18th
July 2003. He was visited on a monthly basis by both Eamann DEVLIN Probation
Officer for E and J Districts and Mike LYNCH of DHI Drug Services. Work was
undertaken to prepare THE SUBJECT for release, including drug testing. The POU
were involved in the Parole Assessment Process. Upon release THE SUBJECT was
taken to a London Clinic and received a NALTRAXONE implant which will last 6
months. NALTRAXONE is a chemical implanted underneath the skin which
effectively blocks the intake of any form of opiate.

Owing to his criminal history, THE SUBJECT was extremely anti-police, which would
often result in confrontation. On the 28th January 2004, a Detective from Bath was
attached to the district Prolific Offenders Unit. Initially, THE SUBJECT refused to
engage with this officer, but through persistent engagement by the officer and
discussions with the Probation Service, THE SUBJECT has now accepted the
officer’s involvement and freely engages with him. In fact, this is a good example of
THE SUBJECT’S whole change of attitude towards figures of authority. He will also
spend time reflecting on his approach to different situations and acceptance of
responsibility for his own actions.

The NALTRAXONE implant has eliminated THE SUBJECTS use of opiates.


Following his release from prison, on one occasion during the first week, THE
SUBJECT tested positive for crack cocaine in drug tests. However, since those
tests, on six successive occasions, THE SUBJECT has given negative tests.

In the first four weeks after his release, there has been no notable increase in the
number of dwelling burglaries and although 16 intelligence reports on THE SUBJECT
have been received, most relate to sightings and the results of drug tests. None
relate to offences.

If THE SUBJECT continues to engage with the Prolific Offenders Unit and does not
revert to drug addiction, in time, he will be a shining example of what can be
achieved by the Unit. Without doubt, THE SUBJECT was a major problem to Bath
District in relation to dwelling burglaries. Success with him will result in a reduction in
hundreds of victims of crime, the prevention of loss of hundreds of thousands of
pounds worth of property and the redirection of police resources and funds.
Dwelling Burglaries on the Bath Sector between 1/12/2000
and 30/6/2001

120
Number of Offences

100
80
60 2000/01

40

20
0
DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
Month of Offence

Dwelling Burglaries on Bath Sector for the 4 weeks prior to Boswell's


last 2 prison releases, and the 4 weeks immediately after.

25

20
Number of Burglaries.

15
2001
2004
10

0
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Weeks before or after his release date.

Похожие интересы