Lousia Ovington independent investigation report ... - NHS North East

and social care agencies. The panel’s view is that the extent and at times, notably in
2004, intensity of Louisa Ovington’s involvement with the police, should have alerted
the police to the need for information sharing with health, social care and probation,
not simply reporting incidents as they occurred, but in a more structured way. It is
acknowledged by the police and by probation that MAPPA would have been the right
forum for information sharing and could have resulted in a coherent approach to
minimising Louisa Ovington’s risk.
Although the police was not the only agency that could have referred Louisa Ovington
to MAPPA, the panel’s view is that the police, who constituted the ‘Responsible
Authority’ along with probation and the prison service, should in any event have done
so: this would have enabled those caring for Louisa Ovington both to receive more
information about Louisa Ovington’s behaviour, which would have informed their own
risk assessments and (in the interests of public protection) to share information which
they would otherwise regard as confidential, which would have informed the risk
assessments of others.
Probation
CHAPTER 5 – INVOLVEMENT WITH POLICE AND PROBATION
There were ten occasions in which County Durham Probation Service was involved
with Louisa Ovington, namely:
i. In the preparation of a pre-sentence report (PSR) in June 1998;
ii. In the planning for Louisa Ovington’s care after discharge from Kneesworth
House in January 2000;
iii. In the preparation of a PSR in February 2000;
iv. In the preparation of a PSR in February 2001;
v. In the supervision of an eighteen month CRO imposed on 7 June 2001;
vi. In the preparation of a PSR in June 2004;
vii. In the preparation of a PSR in September 2004;
viii. In the supervision of a two year CRO imposed on 10 September 2004;
ix. In the preparation of a PSR in November 2005;
x. In the supervision of an 18 month CO imposed on 22 November 2005.
105