incorporating index offence analysis into forensic clinical assessment

144

Legal and Criminological Psychology (2011), 16, 144–159C© 2010 The British Psychological Society

TheBritishPsychologicalSociety

www.wileyonlinelibrary.com

Incorporating index offence analysis into forensicclinical assessment

Adrian G. West∗ and Paul V. GreenallForensic Personality Disorder Assessment and Liaison Team, Greater ManchesterWest Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, UK

Purpose. Assessment is a core skill of clinical and forensic psychology practice andforms the basis of all ongoing engagements with offender/patients. In forensic settings,assessment involves the systematic gathering of reliable data on the characteristics ofoffenders and the offences which they have committed in order to develop understandingof the dynamics of offending and relevant intervention strategies. However, whilst theassessment process is aided by various protocols, no such instrument appears to existfor the assessment of an offender/patient’s index offence. This paper presents a draft‘index offence analysis guide’ designed by the present authors for this purpose and whichhas been piloted on prisoners and patients in secure settings.

Argument. Evidence suggests that for various reasons, many clinicians do notroutinely review crime scene data while working with offenders. However, this practiceis arguably questionable, because how can decisions about admission, amenability totreatment, risk of reoffending, and discharge be made if there is limited awarenessof what the offender/patient has done? The present authors argue that knowledgeof the index offence is important to understanding the offender and suggest this canbe obtained using a guide such as the one presented here. This is illustrated with ananonymous case.

Conclusion. Index offence analysis should be a core task of any forensic clinicianengaged in the assessment of offender/patients as it can provide a better understandingof crime scene actions and offence motivations. This can help guide treatment planningand improve risk assessments.

Within forensic/clinical settings, practitioners are frequently asked to undertake indexoffence analysis work with offender/patients. However, what this actually means is notalways clear as this task does not appear to be formally defined (Towl, Farrington,Crighton, & Hughes, 2008). The focus of this paper is ‘index offence analysis’ whichthe present authors suggest can be defined as the formal and structured examinationof the events, circumstances, and behaviours that occurred before, during, and after

∗Correspondence should be addressed to Dr Adrian G. West, Forensic Personality Disorder Assessment and Liaison Team,Greater Manchester West Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Prestwich Hospital, Bury New Road, Prestwich, ManchesterM25 3BL, UK (e-mail: [email protected]).

DOI:10.1348/135532510X495124

Index offence analysis 145

the last set of criminal actions that brought an offender into contact with the criminaljustice system. The present authors suggest that if practitioners give more focus to thecircumstances of the offence, then their analyses can be used to generate more informedhypotheses about the aetiology of an individual’s offending by more clearly differentiatingits intra-personal, interpersonal, and situational determinants (West, 2000). Given that aclinician’s conclusions will ultimately be scrutinized by the legal system, it is incumbentupon them to provide accurate information (Heilbrun, 2001). Therefore, in the face ofpossible distortions of the truth, varying levels of cooperation and other incentives forproviding misinformation (Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 1997), it is essentialthat assessments incorporate diverse sources of information, including collateral andthird party sources as well as self-report. On this basis, index offence analysis should bea routine task within forensic/clinical practice. However, the evidence for its inclusionin Forensic Psychology assessments remains equivocal.

Official guidanceThe requirement that some form of index offence analysis is undertaken in foren-sic/clinical practice is underpinned by official guidance. For example, in the NHS,successive Mental Health Act Codes of Practice (Department of Health and WelshOffice, 1990, 1993, 1999; Department of Health, 2008) have required doctors assessingoffender/patients for admission to hospital to request, amongst other things ‘relevantdocumentation regarding the alleged offence’. Additionally, clinicians providing theMinistry of Justice with Annual Statutory Reports on restricted offender/patients inhospital are required to answer several questions relating to the index offence. Forexample, ‘What is the team’s current understanding of the factors underpinning theindex offence and previous dangerous behaviour?’ Such questions are asked because theMinistry of Justice want to know, ‘Why a patient has been dangerous in the past’ and‘Whether they are still dangerous’. Also, within the Criminal Justice System, variousguidelines require forensic professionals to have knowledge of an offender’s indexoffence and report upon it to relevant authorities at different stages. For example,pre-sentence reports prepared by Probation Officers ‘describe the circumstances of thecrime, factors involved and the risk the offender poses to the public’ (National ProbationService, 2005). Similarly, various Probation Circulars (National Probation Service, 2004,2007, 2008) include index offence analysis within the information required for paroleassessments because ‘analysis of the index offence is important in order to understandthe offender’s motivation, involvement in the offence and his/her potential for harm . . . ’(National Probation Service, 2007, p. 2). Finally, guidance on risk assessment requiresforensic/clinical practitioners to undertake an analysis of an individual’s past and currentoffending. This should amount to a detailed analysis of offending behaviour and covertopics like diversity of offending, motivation, triggers, and any aggravating factors (RiskManagement Authority, 2006).

Despite such guidance, both past and recent events in the NHS (Fallon, Bluglass,Edwards, & Daniels, 1999; Healthcare Inspectorate Wales, 2009; Reed, 1997; SouthWest London Strategic Health Authority, 2006) and criminal justice system (Hill,2009; HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2006) suggest some high profile failures mighthave occurred because practitioners did not have an adequate understanding of theirclients’ forensic (and self-harm) histories and their offending potential. Previously, otherinquiries after homicides committed by the mentally ill have also recommended thatprofessionals should inquire thoroughly into the past criminal events of their clients in

146 Adrian G. West and Paul V. Greenall

order to limit the downgrading or devaluation of this information and so compromisea more accurate appraisal of risk (Blom-Cooper, Grounds, Guinan, Parker, & Taylor,1996).

Index offence analysis in forensic/clinical practiceThe first author’s experience in providing advice in police investigations and interpretingcrime scenes with investigating officers and other forensic specialists (West, 2001),focused his attention on the phenomenology of violent and sexual offences. Thatexperience also demonstrated the importance of a detailed knowledge of the indexoffence for understanding the actions and motivation of an offender in ways thatcould inform investigative search strategy and subsequent police interviews. However,although he argued that a similar approach should be routine within forensic/clinicalpractice to inform clinical interviews and ongoing assessment, West reported anecdotallythat ‘many clinicians, whatever their professional background, do not routinely reviewcrime scene data or witness depositions during the course of their involvement withoffenders/patients’. Instead West continued, ‘the clinical approach, with its oftenexclusive focus on the person . . . tends to preclude consideration of more exactdetails of the offence’ (2000, p. 220). Herman, had previously, similarly argued that,‘in many psychological formulations of the motives of sex offenders, the sexual offencevirtually disappears . . . ’ (1990, p. 182) with the result that ‘in attempting to establishan empathic connection with the offender, the would be therapist runs the risk ofcredulously accepting the offender’s rationalisations for his crimes (as well as supplyinghim with new ones)’ (1990, p. 183).

The suggestion that index offence information may not receive adequate considera-tion by forensic/clinical professionals receives some support from Fallon (2007), whoexplored the level of knowledge of patients’ index offences among staff in a mediumsecure unit. Although Fallon found a greater awareness of index offence informationamong qualified and more senior staff, in support of West (2000) he reports most staffhad not seen witness depositions or crime scene photographs and many front-line staffpossessed only a limited awareness of their patients’ index offences.

West (2000) outlined reasons why clinicians may not want to consider index offenceinformation. These include notions of clinical impartiality and not wanting to be alignedto agents of social control, and believing such knowledge might compromise theirtherapeutic capacity. Likewise, Fallon (2007) found staff thought they did not needto know index offence information because it was too much to remember, it wouldimpact on the therapeutic alliance or they considered it was only relevant at the pointof discharge. Previously, when reflecting on her role as a social worker, Weist arguedthat her profession’s victim orientation ‘serves to protect us from the ugly necessity ofencountering an axe murderer or mutilating rapist in terms of the violent act’ (1981,pp. 272–273). The problem is that in the absence of serious consideration of the detail ofthe index offence, an alternative ‘consolidated narrative’ (Spence, 1982) of the offenceis often constructed by the offender/patient and colluded with by the assessing clinician.Notwithstanding the clinical task of working through an offender/patient’s level ofdenial or the fact that some cannot explain their actions, such stories often bear littlerelationship to what actually happened. Harry’s (1992) earlier research into explanationsof criminal behaviour found a wide variation in the proportion of offenders who deniedor admitted to their index offence as well as sizable variations in the proportion whominimize or mitigated their offence.


In contrast to these observations, there are some examples of index offence typeanalysis within the literature. For example, Weist describes a process whereby offenderswalk the therapist through the crime to provide ‘a step-by-step, possibly even a blow-by-blow description of the violent act, and of all the circumstances surrounding it’ (1981,p. 273). Gresswell and Hollin (1992) have previously described a multiple sequentialfunctional analysis methodology to be applied retrospectively to an individual’s criminalbehaviours. They argued this method allowed for a coherent summary of case material,and so improved the specification of individual treatment needs by providing, ‘a moreprecise identification of the types of environmental events that could provoke furtherepisodes of violence, and may be linked with dangerousness’ (1992, p. 339). Green(2008) describes the process of conducting a functional analysis of an individual’soffending behaviour and provides a range of possible questions for practitioners toask. These include where did it occur, who was the victim, why them, what did theoffence involve and how did they ensure compliance (p. 165). Crighton and Towl(2008) discussed how clinicians might improve the specificity of their interventionsand advocated more accurate assessments which are based on the identification ofmeaningful differences between individuals. To that extent, it has similarities with whatis termed ‘offence paralleling behaviour’ (OPB) as it is concerned with offence-relatedbehaviours that ‘emerges at any point before or after an offence’ (Jones, 2004, p. 38). But,as Daffern et al. (2007) have observed, in order to reduce the impact of observer bias andthe possibility that functionally dissimilar behaviours may be classified as OPBs, cliniciansshould consider predicting OPBs at the outset of their contact with the patient. Theyrecommend that predictions, ‘could be based on a formulation derived from thoroughindex (and other) offence analysis . . . The analysis should determine the functions ofthe index offence so that these can be compared with the functions of the OPBs as theyarise’ (2007, p. 271).

It is also a central argument of this paper that those meaningful differences and thefunctions of the index offence can be revealed by a thorough index offence analysis,albeit one that is less reliant on the self-report of the offender/patient. Indeed, variousattempts at identifying those meaningful differences have been incorporated into thevarious clinical classification schemas that have been developed for crimes such assexual murder (Schlesinger, 2004), parricide (Heide, 1992), rape (Groth & Birnbaum,1979; Knight & Prentky, 1990), child molestation (Knight & Prentky, 1990), stalking(Mullen, Pathe, & Purcell, 2000), and serious violence (MacCulloch, Bailey, & Robinson,1995). Cases can be classified according to these ‘typologies’ based on, amongst otherthings, behaviours exhibited during the offence. For example, Knight and Prentky’s(1990) MTC:R3 classification schema starts from the premise that rapists constitute adiverse group of offenders. The MTC:R3 process requires detailed knowledge of theindex offence, including the type of sexual acts performed, the amount of force usedand behaviours aimed at victim humiliation. This is required in order to assign offendersto the most appropriate classification.

Nevertheless, however much such classifications provide forensic/clinical practi-tioners with a greater understanding of offence motivation and so inform treatmentplanning and clinical risk assessment (Brown & Forth, 1997; Greenall & West, 2007;Smith, 2000), they still lack the case specific detail that a more ideographically basedindex offence analysis can bring. The research literature already indicates that neithersexual assault nor homicides lend themselves to simple classifications; these are diverseand complex offences that demand a clear and systematic assessment for the offencecharacteristics to be accurately interpreted. Others have also acknowledged that optimal


treatment planning and risk assessment has to be sensitive to the facts of the individualcase (Crighton & Towl, 2008; Grubin, 1997). This paper, in attempting to encourageclinicians to improve their efforts at offence analysis, emphasizes the requirement toassimilate sources of corroborating information from those of other agencies that havealso been involved in trying to make sense of the facts of the individual case.

The results of such an improved assessment and the consequent formulation (Doyle &Dolan, 2002) should provide a more comprehensive explanation of offending behaviourin each specific case. Such improvements not only enhance clinical inference which hasbeen demonstrated to be of equivocal reliability (Turk & Salovey, 1988) but should alsolead to a greater specificity of treatment goals and the opportunity therefore for moreobjective monitoring of change and risk assessment (Clark, Fisher, & McDougall, 1994;Daffern et al., 2007; Jones, 2004).

RationaleWhilst some practitioners may include limited index offence information within theirassessments, the absence of a formal guide means the process is likely to be unstructured,which risks compromising its validity. In this vein, Fallon in his study in a medium secureunit observed that ‘no standardised, single document that collated offence informationin ward files [existed]’ and ‘if staff wished to read up on the diverse aspects of an indexoffence, they would be expected to conduct a lengthy trawl of written data’ (2007,p. 31). Fallon (2007) found this task was further complicated by the fact that indexoffence information often spanned several files and was stored in different locations withvarying degrees of access. Anecdotal evidence indicates that those clinicians carryingout assessments and reviews of previous assessments often rely on ‘the top file’, i.e. themost recent data, and so avoid the more difficult search for the original documents. Thepresent authors suggest these problems can be remedied with the aid of a structuredguide for the analysis of an offender’s index offence, such as the one developed by thepresent authors based on West (2000). Following the principles of functional analysis(Sturmey, 1996), the guide sets out a series of questions that can assist the practitionerin conducting a detailed examination of events and actions before, during, and after theindex offence (see Appendix).

Index offence analysis: Case studyThe index offence analysis begins with the offender/patient providing an account of andexplanation for, their index offence. This narrative provides a baseline against whichcollateral information can be subsequently analysed and compared. Collateral informa-tion includes all reports and documents relating to the case, e.g. reports by probation,social, psychiatric, and forensic professionals, witness statements, police interviewswith the offender, and any crime scene documentation and/or photographs/videos.In the absence of any visual crime scene data, forensic pathology reports providedetailed information about an offender/patient’s actions towards a victim and should,at a minimum, be reviewed. Using this information in conjunction with the relevantresearch, all of which must be cited in the text and fully referenced, the index offenceanalysis is divided into the following sections: pre-crime phase, crime phase, post-crimephase, and explaining the crime. The application of this guide will now be illustratedwith an anonymous case study.


During an argument, Mark killed his father with a kitchen knife. On remand, he wasassessed by a psychiatrist who found him sane and fit to plead. Mark reported that he andhis father had a poor relationship and had argued many times during his teens. Mark’sfather would shout at him for not doing domestic chores and for being unemployed,frequently telling him to get a place of his own. On remand Mark spoke negatively abouthis father, saying, ‘I still hate him’. His explanation for killing him was ‘I just snapped’.Several years later, Mark was eligible for Parole and was referred for a Forensic ClinicalPsychology assessment to provide an analysis of the index offence and an opinion on hismotivation at the time in order to help in the decision making concerning his potentialfor future harm.

Pre-crime phaseThe pre-crime phase examines the behaviour(s) exhibited by the offender/patient priorto the index offence. The aim is to examine the context from which the offenceoriginated and allows for the formulation of provisional hypotheses about any triggersor pre-meditation (see Appendix).

Analysis of the pre-crime phase, relying on Mark’s account alone, indicates that Markwas at home using a computer in a downstairs room used as the family office. Anargument developed between him and his father over his life-style and domestic chores.Mark felt he was again being ‘nagged’ by his father and the argument escalated whenMark responded by swearing at him. When the argument escalated, Mark ‘just lost it’and ‘went crazy’. Initially, therefore, the homicide appears to have been an impulsive,unplanned response to this altercation.

Crime phaseThe crime phase examines the behaviour(s) exhibited by the offender/patient duringthe execution of the crime. This phase is subdivided into three sections examiningany relevant victim characteristics, e.g. stranger versus acquaintance (Mattinson, 2001),offence behaviours, and other activities. The aim is to examine factors including choiceof victim, level of violence used, and whether the crime contained a sexual element.These factors are crucial to understanding the subjective needs (e.g. sexual, aggressive,acquisitive, etc.) that were served by this crime and help explain the motive (seeAppendix).

Analysis of the crime phase, relying on Mark’s account and forensic pathology andcrime scene reports reveals that Mark left the office, retrieved a knife from the kitchen,and then returned to the scene of the argument. This journey would have taken Markabout 15 seconds. Then, in the absence of any defence injuries and therefore apparentlywithout warning, Mark stabbed his father four times from behind. Whilst, the weaponappears to have been one of opportunity, forensic science examination indicated thatit had been recently sharpened. Thus, whilst the homicide appears to have been inresponse to a deteriorating situation that had developed between Mark and his father,and so might be understood as an act of expressive aggression, because such acts occur‘in response to anger-inducing conditions such as insults, physical attack, or personalfailures [where]. The goal is to make the victim (the person) suffer’ (Salfati, 2000, p. 266).Closer analysis, relying less on Mark’s account, reveals its more probable purposeful andinstrumental nature.


Post-crime phaseThe post-crime phase examines the behaviour(s) exhibited by the offender/patient afterthe commission of the crime. Here, we continue to consider the interpersonal focusof the assault (Canter & Heritage, 1990) and behaviours relating to the avoidance ofdetection (i.e. forensic awareness).

Analysis of the post-crime phase suggests that after killing his father, Mark washedhimself and the knife and he moved his father’s body to a cupboard under the stairs.During the assessment, his initial explanation for moving the body was to prevent itfrom being the first thing that his family would see when they returned home. However,when challenged, by the forensic evidence, Mark disclosed that he had planned to killhis father and make the scene appear as if he had been killed during a burglary.

Explaining the crimeThis section examines the index offence in relation to the research. The aim is to makesense of the crime by analysing the offender/patient’s crime scene actions and attemptto determine motivation, in the light of what is known about the offence type in theresearch literature. This part is subdivided into two sections, one considers the crime inrelation to the relevant research and the other provides a conclusion.

Examining this killing in relation to the research literature allowed our team to presentan evidence-based hypothesis about the rationale behind it. Patricide (killing one’s father)is a rare type of homicide (Coleman, 2008; Francis et al., 2004). However, Mark’s caseappears fairly typical as the victim was a white middle-aged man, killed in a singlevictim–offender encounter, in the context of an argument, by a youthful son (Heide &Petee, 2007). Brookman suggests some male-on-male homicides are confrontational innature as they are ‘often the result of a spontaneous confrontation that quickly escalates,resulting in the death of one of the combatants’ (2005, p. 124). Heide suggests ‘unlikeadults who kill their parents, teenagers become parricide offenders when conditions inthe home are intolerable but their alternatives are limited. Unlike adults, kids cannotsimply leave’ (1992, p. 63). Heide (1992) categorizes parricide offenders into threetypes according to their motive: severely abused children kill parents because they areterrified and/or desperate, seeing no other way to end the abuse; severely mentally illchildren kill parents because of an underlying serious mental illness that compromisestheir contact with reality; dangerously antisocial children kill parents to serve a selfishinstrumental need, such as getting more freedom or access to an inheritance (Boots &Heide, 2006). Heide (1992) suggests most parricide offenders are abused children whokill because they could no longer tolerate conditions at home. These children werepsychologically abused by one or both parents and often suffered physical, sexual, orverbal abuse. They did not typically have histories of severe mental illness or seriousdelinquency and the killings were an act of desperation, the only way out of a familysituation they could no longer tolerate. By contrast, there are a few children who killwithout any remorse, even though their parents were loving and kind. These individualstypically exhibit conduct disorder and kill parents for some sort of instrumental, selfishend. Heide (1992) interviewed seven parricide offenders and found that collectively,they were not violent; they were abused; they were isolated; they killed only whenthey felt there was no-one to help them; they blocked out the killing and saw no otherchoice. Like any thematic typology, some individuals may not fit into one type andmay straddle more than one. Comparing Mark’s actions at the crime scene and usingHeide’s typology, our hypothesis is that Mark can be viewed as an antisocial child at the


time of the homicide. Although the homicide initially appeared to be expressive, it alsoappears to have been calmly executed and purposefully goal directed. At the assessmentinterview, we were also aware of his lack of remorse which suggested more worryingantisocial traits. Subsequently, our assessment revealed that Mark had a much longerinterest in weapons collecting. Relying on his account alone, it was anticipated thatclinicians might accept that in the context of a heated argument with his father and afteryears of perceived personal criticism by him and resentment towards him, Mark stabbedhis father. However, closer analysis of crime scene data revealed that his description of anescalating argument during which he then lost his temper and impulsively decided to stabhim, belied his interest in weapons, his increasing preoccupation with the idea of killinghis father and his subsequent planning. Although he has no other significant historyof interpersonal violence, the apparently purposeful nature of the murder indicates adifferent appraisal of his risk. Although our assessment found Mark did not meet thecriteria for psychopathy using the Hare Psychopathy Checklist – Revised (Hare, 2003)a high factor one score supported our concerns about Mark’s apparent lack of remorserelating to the killing. Additionally, an assessment using the International PersonalityDisorder Examination (Loranger, 1999) suggested Mark has antisocial and narcissisticpersonality disorders. Subsequently, our review of previous assessments revealed thatwhilst he had been considered a reliable informant in providing details of his historyand index offence, he had also been reluctant to explore any underlying psychologicalissues. It was as if he hoped the homicide could be forgotten. Consequently, he did notsee himself as presenting any risk in future because according to him, the same familialcircumstances will never re-occur. Interventions that focused on the way he might copewith relationship instability in future were recommended as a basic component of hisfuture risk management.

DiscussionMacCulloch et al. argued ‘to proceed with clinical management in the absence of anassessment which takes into account all explanatory factors renders treatment outcomesubject to the vagaries of chance. A complete assessment is essential for accurateformulation and appropriate treatment’ (1995, p. 55). The present authors consider indexoffence information and analysis to be a fundamental aspect of the ‘complete assessment’.Given that index offence analysis is essentially a development of functional analysis,an approach that has been widely used in forensic (Gresswell & Hollin, 1992) andclinical practice (Sturmey, 1996), incorporating it into forensic/clinical practice shouldnot be viewed as a radical suggestion. Despite the existence of various guidelines onthe consideration of index offence information, the absence of a formal protocol meansthis may not be as widespread and/or as thorough as it should be. The guide presentedhere addresses this by ensuring index offence information is collected, analysed, andincorporated into the assessment process and made available as a single document toother practitioners.

A crucial benefit of our guide is it requires practitioners to do what Fallon (2007) andWest (2000) suggest many do not do, namely consult primary data sources about theindex offence. Doing this not only provides a more accurate description of the indexoffence, but it avoids the practice that many practitioners appear to repeat, namelythe copying of critical sections of reports without any effort to check their accuracy.Although the present authors have only piloted the guide on serious crimes like homicide,


sexual homicide, and rape, we recommend that the same methodology be applied toother crime types where an explanatory research literature exists, for example, Alison,Rockett, Deprez, and Watts’ (2000) empirically based descriptive typology of armedrobbers. In this way ultimately, an offender/patient’s account of the index offence,collateral sources, and the research literature can be compared and contrasted in order tobetter specify treatment needs and so enhance clinical risk assessment and management.

ConclusionIn the absence of clear empirical evidence, is it difficult to know how many foren-sic/clinical practitioners actually review collateral sources in their attempts to understandthe motivations and actions of the offender in the index offence. We have argued thatover reliance on the self-report of the offender jeopardizes the accuracy of assessmentsand we have offered an index offence assessment methodology as a useful adjunct.

AcknowledgementsThe present authors are grateful to Mark for allowing us to publish important details from hiscase and to Dr Caroline Logan and the editors of this journal, for their useful comments onearlier drafts of this paper.

ReferencesAlison, L., Rockett, W., Deprez, S., & Watts, S. (2000). Bandits, cowboys and Robin’s men: The

facets of armed robbery. In D. Canter & L. Alison (Eds.), Profiling property crimes, (Vol. IV,pp. 75–106. Offender Profiling Series. Dartmouth: Ashgate.

Blom-Cooper, L., Grounds, A., Guinan, P., Parker, A., & Taylor, P. (1996). The case of

Jason Mitchell: Report of the independent panel of inquiry. London: Duckworth.doi:10.1177/0306624X05285103

Boots, D. P., & Heide, K. M. (2006). Parricides in the media: A content analysis of available reportsacross cultures. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,50(4), 418–445. doi:10.1177/0306624X05285103

Brookman, F. (2005). Understanding homicide. London: Sage Publications.Brown, S. L., & Forth, A. E. (1997). Psychopathy and sexual assault: Static risk factors, motional

precursors, and rapists subtypes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 848–857.doi:10.1037/0022-006X.65.5.848

Canter, D., & Heritage, R. (1990). A multivariate model of sexual offence behaviour:Developments in ‘Offender Profiling’. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 1, 185–212.doi:10.1080/09585189008408469

Clark, D., Fisher, M. J., & McDougall, C. (1994). A new methodology for assessing the level of riskin incarcerated offenders. British Journal of Criminology, 33, 436–448.

Coleman, K. (2008). Homicide. In D. Povey (Ed.) Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate

Violence 2006/07 (3rd ed.) (Supplementary Volume 2 to Crime in England and Wales 2006/07).London: Home Office Statistical Bulletin 03/08. Retrieved from www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds

Crighton, D. A., & Towl, G. J. (2008). Psychology in prisons (2nd ed.). Oxford: BlackwellPublishing.

Daffern, M., Jones, L., Howells, K., Shine, J., Mikton, C., & Tunbridge, V. (2007). Editorial: Refiningthe definition of offence paralleling behaviour. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 17,265–273. doi:10.1002/cbm.671


Department of Health (2008). Code of Practice: Mental Health Act 1983. London: The StationaryOffice. Retrieved from www.dh.gov.uk

Department of Health and Welsh Office (1990). Code of Practice: Mental health Act 1983. London:Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.

Department of Health and Welsh Office (1993). Code of Practice: Mental health Act 1983. London:Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.

Department of Health and Welsh Office (1999). Code of Practice: Mental Health Act 1983. London:The Stationary Office. Retrieved from www.dh.gov.uk.

Doyle, M., & Dolan, M. (2002). Violence risk assessment: Combining actuarial and clinical informa-tion to structure clinical judgements for the formulation and management of risk. Journal of

Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 9, 649–657. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2850.2002.00535.xErikson, M., & Friendship, C. (2002). A typology of child abduction events. Legal and Criminal

Psychology, 7(1), 115–120. doi:10.1348/135532502168423Fallon, A. C. (2007). Index Offence Awareness amongst Forensic Staff working in a Medium

Secure Psychiatric Service. Unpublished Master of Science Dissertation, Manchester Metropoli-tan University, UK.

Fallon, P., Bluglass, R., Edwards, B., & Daniels, G. (1999). Report of the Committee of Inquiry into

the Personality Disorder Unit, Ashworth Special Hospital (Vol. 1). London: The StationaryOffice. Retrieved from www.doh.gov.uk

Francis, B., Barry, J., Bowater, R., Miller, N., Soothill, K., & Ackerley, E. (2004). Using homicide

data to assist murder investigations. London: Home Office Online Report 26/04. Retrievedfrom www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds

Fritzon, K. (2000). The Contribution of Psychological Research to Arson Investigation. In D. Canter& L. Alison (Eds.), Profiling property crimes (Vol. IV, pp. 147–184). Offender profiling series,Ashgate: Dartmouth.

Green, T. (2008). Clinical assessment and formulation. In J. Houston & S. Galloway (Eds.), Sexual

offending and mental health: Multidisciplinary management in the community (pp. 152–173). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Greenall, p. V., & West, A. G. (2007). A study of stranger rapists from the English high securityhospitals.. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 13(2), 151–167. doi:10.1080/13552600701661540

Gresswell, D. M., & Hollin, C. R. (1992). Towards a new methodology for making sense of casematerial: An illustrative case involving attempted multiple murder. Criminal Behaviour and

Mental Health, 2, 329–341.Groth, A. N., & Birnbaum, H. J. (1979). Men who rape: The psychology of the offender. New York:

Plenum Press.Grubin, D. (1997). Predictors of risk in serious sex offenders. British Journal of Psychiatry, 170,

s17–s21.Hare, R. D. (2003). Hare Psychopathy Checklist – Revised (2nd ed.). Toronto: Multi-Health

Systems.Harry, B. (1992). Criminals’ explanations of their criminal behaviour, Part 1: The contribution of

criminogenic variables. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 37, 1327–1333.Healthcare Inspectorate Wales (2009). Report of a Review in Respect of: Mr D and the Provision

of Mental Health Services, Following the Homicide of Father Paul Committed in March

2007 and the Ambulance Response and Care Provided to Father Paul’s Family and Local

Community. Caerphilly: Healthcare Inspectorate Wales. Retrieved from www.hiw.org.ukHeide, K. M. (1992 September/October). Why kids kill parents. Psychology Today, 62–77.Heide, K. M., & Petee, T. A. (2007). Parricide: An empirical analysis of 24 years of U.S. data. Journal

of Interpersonal Violence, 22(11), 1382–1399. doi:10.1177/0886260507305526Heilbrun, K. (2001). Principles of forensic mental health assessment. New York: Kluwer

Academic/Plenum Publishers.Herman, J. L. (1990). Sex offenders: A feminist perspective. In W. L. Marshal, D. R. Laws & H. E.

Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories, and treatment of the offender

(pp. 177–193). New York: Plenum Press.


Hill, L. (2009). Investigation into the issues arising from the Serious Further Offence Review:

Dano Sonnex [DS] (d.o.b. 07.07.85, age 23). London: National Offender Management Service.Retrieved from www.justice.gov.uk

HM Inspectorate of Probation (2006). An Independent Review of a Serious Further Offence case:

Anthony Rice. London: HM Inspectorate of Probation. Retrieved from www.inspectorates.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmiprobation/

Jones, L. F. (2004). Offence paralleling behaviour (OPB) as a framework for assessment andinterventions with offenders. In A. Needs & G. Towl (Eds.), Applying psychology to forensic

practice (pp. 34–63). Oxford: Blackwell/British Psychological Society.Knight, R. A., & Prentky, R. A. (1990). Classifying sexual offenders: The development and

corroboration of taxonomic models. In W. L. Marshal, D. R. Laws & H. E. Barbaree (Eds.),Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories, and treatment of the offender (pp. 23–52).New York: Plenum Press.

Loranger, A. W. (1999). International personality disorder examination: DSM-IV and ICD-10

interviews. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.MacCulloch, M. J., Bailey, J., & Robinson, C. (1995). Mentally disordered attackers and

killers: Towards a taxonomy. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 6(1), 41–61. doi:10.1080/09585189508409875

Mattinson, J. (2001). Stranger and acquaintance violence: Practice messages from the British

Crime Survey. Home Office Policing and Reducing Crime Unit. Briefing Note 7/01. Retrievedfrom www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds

Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C. (1997). Psychological evaluations for

the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (2nd ed.). New York:The Guilford Press.

Mullen, P. E., Pathe, M., & Purcell, R. (2000). Stalkers and their victims. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

National Probation Service (2004). PC34/2004 – Parole Assessment Reports. London: Author.Retrieved from www.probation.justice.gov.uk

National Probation Service (2005). The National Probation Service for England and Wales.London: Author. Retrieved from www.probation.justice.gov.uk

National Probation Service (2007). PC04/2007 – Parole Assessment Reports. London: Author.Retrieved from www.probation.justice.gov.uk

National Probation Service (2008). PC07/2008 – Parole Processes. London: Author. Retrievedfrom www.probation.justice.gov.uk

Reed, J. (1997). Risk assessment and clinical risk management: The lessons from recent inquiries.British Journal of Psychiatry, 170(Suppl. 32), 4–7.

Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W., & Douglas, J. E. (1988). Sexual homicide: Patterns and motives.New York: Lexington Books.

Risk Management Authority (2006). Standards and Guidelines for Risk Assessment, Version 1.Paisley: Author. Retrieved from www.rmascotland.gov.uk

Salfati, C. G. (2000). The nature of expressiveness and instrumentality in homicide: Implicationsfor offender profiling. Homicide Studies, 4(3), 265–293. doi:10.1177/1088767900004003004

Schlesinger, L. B. (2004). Sexual murder: Catathymic and compulsive homicides. Boca Raton,FL: CRC Press.

Smith, A. D. (2000). Motivation and psychosis in schizophrenic men who sexually assault women.Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 11, 62–73. doi:10.1080/095851800362364

South West London Strategic Health Authority (2006). Report of the independent inquiry into

the care and treatment of John Barrett. London: NHS London.Spence, D. P. (1982). Narrative truth and historical truth: Meaning and interpretation in

psychoanalysis. New York: Free Press.Sturmey, P. (1996). Functional analysis in clinical psychology. Chichester: Wiley.Towl, G. J., Farrington, D. P., Crighton, D. A., & Hughes, G. (2008). Dictionary of forensic

psychology. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.


Turk, D. C., & Salovey, P. (Eds.), (1988). Reasoning, inference and judgement in clinical

psychology. New York: Free Press.Weist, J. (1981). Treatment of violent offenders. Clinical Social Work Journal, 9(4), 271–281.

doi:10.1007/BF00758209West, A. G. (2000). Clinical assessment of homicide offenders: The significance of

crime scene in offense and offender analysis. Homicide Studies, 4(3), 219–233.doi:10.1177/1088767900004003002

West, A. G. (2001). From offender profiler to behavioural investigative advisor: The effectiveapplication of behavioural science to the investigation of major crime. Police Research and

Management, 5(1), 95–108.

Received 2 September 2009; revised version received 11 February 2010

AppendixIndex offence analysis tool (Draft)Please complete as many sections of this form as possible and list all sources ofinformation.

First Author: Dr Adrian G. West ([email protected])

Second Author: Paul V. Greenall ([email protected])

Address for both: Forensic Personality Disorder Assessment and Liaison Team,Greater Manchester West Mental Health NHS FoundationTrust, Prestwich Hospital, Bury New Road, Prestwich,Manchester, M25 3BL, UK.

Note. Please do not amend without the permission of the authors.

Section 1: Demographics

Section 2: Index Offence DetailsThis section is concerned with obtaining the offender/patient’s own account of andexplanation for, their index offence.


Please list all of the external documentation that have been obtained and used in thesubsequent analysis. This information is critical in allowing a comparison between theoffender/patient’s self report and other collateral sources.

Section 3: Pre-Crime PhaseThis section examines the offender/patient’s behaviour(s) prior to the index offencebeing committed. It examines the situational context of the offence.

Section 4: Crime PhaseThis section examines the actions and behaviours exhibited by the offender/patientduring the commission of the crime. This includes the choice of victim, the level ofviolence used and whether or not the crime contained a sexual element.


Section 5: Post-Crime PhaseThis section examines the actions and behaviours exhibited by the offender/patient afterthe crime was committed.

Section 6: Explaining the CrimeThis section examines the index offence in relation to the research literature. The aimhere is to try and make sense of the crime by determining the offence motivation, i.e.why did the offender/patient commit this offence in this particular way?


ReferencesBrookman, F. (2005). Understanding homicide. London: Sage Publications.Erikson, M., & Friendship, C. (2002). A typology of child abduction events. Legal and Criminal

Psychology, 7(1), 115–120.Fritzon, K. (2000). The Contribution of Psychological Research to Arson Investigation. In D. Canter

& L. Alison (Eds.), Profiling property crimes (Vol. IV, pp. 147–184). Offender Profiling Series,Ashgate: Dartmouth.

Knight, R. A., & Prentky, R. A. (1990). Classifying sexual offenders: The development and

corroboration of taxonomic models. In W. L. Marshal, D. R. Laws, & H. E. Barbaree (Eds.),Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories, and treatment of the offender (pp. 23–52).New York: Plenum Press.

Mullen, P. E., Pathe, M., & Purcell, R. (2000). Stalkers and their Victims. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W., & Douglas, J. E. (1988). Sexual homicide: Patterns and motives.

New York: Lexington Books.Schlesinger, L. B. (2004). Sexual murder: Catathymic and compulsive homicides. Boca Raton,

FL: CRC Press.

incorporating index offence analysis into forensic clinical assessment

Documents