This guidance post explains how information obtained during polygraph examinations feeds into Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) in England and Wales. It draws on the Ministry of Justice MAPPA Guidance (version 4.6, April 2024), the HMPPS Polygraph Examinations Policy Framework (2026), the Gannon et al. evaluation of the mandatory polygraph pilot (2012; 2014), and the Keeton et al. process evaluation of counter-terrorism polygraph examinations (2023). Full references appear in the Sources section.

Key Points

  • MAPPA is the statutory multi-agency framework for managing sexual, violent, and other dangerous offenders in England and Wales, established under sections 325–327 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.[1]
  • The HMPPS Polygraph Examinations Policy Framework expressly authorises sharing of polygraph-session information with MAPPA partners, using legal gateways including section 14 of the Offender Management Act 2007.[2]
  • “Informing MAPP meeting or processes” was one of five categories of action taken by offender managers following a Clinically Significant Disclosure in the mandatory polygraph pilot.[3]
  • In the counter-terrorism polygraph programme, disclosures of risk-related information were recorded in 72% of the 88 examinations completed between June 2021 and June 2023, with three individuals recalled.[4]
  • Polygraph examination results alone cannot form the basis for recall, but disclosures indicating that a person on probation can no longer be safely managed in the community can be used for that purpose.[5]

What Is MAPPA?

The Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) are the statutory framework in England and Wales for the assessment and management of sexual, violent, and other offenders who pose a serious risk of harm to the public.[6] They were established under sections 325–327 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.[7]

The Responsible Authority for MAPPA in each area comprises the police, the prison service, and the probation service.[8] Other bodies have a statutory Duty to Co-operate with the Responsible Authority in the discharge of MAPPA functions.[9]

The Three MAPPA Management Levels

MAPPA operate at three management levels, each reflecting the degree of multi-agency involvement required to manage the risk posed by an individual:

Level Description Typical multi-agency involvement
Level 1 Ordinary agency management Cases managed by one or two agencies without active involvement of others[10]
Level 2 Active multi-agency management Cases needing active inter-agency management[11]
Level 3 Active multi-agency management — critical few Cases requiring senior representation and resource commitment[12]

Polygraph-derived information may be relevant at any level, but it most commonly enters the multi-agency discussion at Levels 2 and 3, where MAPP meetings provide a forum for sharing risk-relevant intelligence across agencies. [VERIFY: This characterisation of Levels 2 and 3 as the typical entry point for polygraph information is a reasonable inference from the structure of MAPPA but is not directly stated in the supplied sources.]

How Polygraph Fits into MAPPA

The connection between polygraph testing and MAPPA is established both in primary research and in operational policy. The Gannon et al. (2012) evaluation of the mandatory polygraph pilot identified five categories of action that offender managers took following a Clinically Significant Disclosure (CSD). One of these five categories was informing MAPP meeting or processes.[13] The peer-reviewed version of the study (Gannon et al., 2014) confirmed that offender managers in the polygraph group reported being more likely than those in the comparison group to take an action that involved informing Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements.[14]

At operational-policy level, the HMPPS Polygraph Examinations Policy Framework (2026) expressly directs practitioners to share information from the polygraph examination with partners under MAPPA or other appropriate information-sharing arrangements.[15] It further provides that information gathered from any part of the polygraph session may be passed on to the police or other relevant agencies where a legal gateway permits.[16]

Key Point for Practitioners

The Policy Framework does not limit shareable information to the test result. Pre-test interviews, post-test interviews, and any disclosures made during the session are all capable of being shared with MAPPA partners, provided a legal gateway exists.[17]

The HMPPS Policy Framework identifies specific legal gateways that authorise the sharing of polygraph-derived information. The gateway expressly cited is section 14 of the Offender Management Act 2007, which provides a power for sharing information in connection with probation purposes.[18] The Policy Framework also refers to “other appropriate information sharing arrangements,” indicating that section 14 is not the sole gateway available.[19]

Caveat

Practitioners should ensure that any sharing of polygraph-derived information complies with the applicable data-protection legislation (including the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018) and with local information-sharing protocols. The existence of a statutory gateway under the OMA 2007 or other legislation does not relieve agencies of their obligations under data-protection law. Examiners should also ensure their practice conforms to the BPS Standards of Practice.

Practical Examples from the Mandatory Polygraph Pilot

The Gannon et al. (2012) evaluation provides a typology of the actions that offender managers took following CSDs in the mandatory polygraph pilot. The five categories of action were:[20]

  1. Increasing supervision or controls (including recall) — for example, imposing additional licence conditions or increasing reporting frequency.
  2. Informing a third party — for example, notifying a partner, family member, or employer of information relevant to risk.
  3. Changing supervision focus — adjusting the offender’s supervision plan to address newly identified risk factors.
  4. Informing MAPP meeting or processes — ensuring that risk-relevant disclosures are tabled at the appropriate MAPPA forum.
  5. Issuing a warning to the offender — formally placing the individual on notice regarding their behaviour.

The 2014 peer-reviewed study confirmed that offender managers in the polygraph group reported being more likely to take each of these actions than those in the comparison group, indicating that the polygraph process generated information that practitioners considered actionable within the multi-agency risk-management context.[21]

Counter-Terrorism Polygraph: A Distinct Regime

Counter-terrorism (CT) polygraph testing operates under a separate legislative basis and presents distinct challenges for multi-agency information sharing. The Keeton et al. (2023) process evaluation reported that between 29 June 2021 and 30 June 2023, a total of 46 individuals were made subject to the polygraph licence condition, with 88 examinations completed by 39 of those individuals.[22]

CT Polygraph in Numbers (June 2021 – June 2023)

  • 46 individuals subject to the polygraph licence condition[23]
  • 88 examinations completed by 39 individuals[24]
  • 35% of examinations classified as a significant response[25]
  • 72% of examinations produced disclosures of risk-related information[26]
  • 3 recall cases arising from disclosures; a fourth recall contributed to by non-compliance with the polygraph condition[27]

The high rate of risk-related disclosures (72%) underscores the volume of intelligence that CT polygraph examinations can generate for multi-agency sharing, though the specific information-sharing protocols for CT cases may differ from those applying to sexual-offence PCSOT cases. [VERIFY: The specific information-sharing protocols for CT polygraph cases and whether they differ materially from PCSOT information-sharing arrangements are not detailed in the supplied sources.]

The Recall Boundary

A critical distinction for practitioners concerns the use of polygraph information in recall decisions. The HMPPS Policy Framework establishes two clear rules:

  1. The result of a polygraph examination (i.e., the chart outcome — significant response, no significant response, or inconclusive) cannot be used as the basis of recall.[28]
  2. However, disclosures made by the person on probation during the polygraph process that suggest the individual can no longer be safely managed in the community can be used as the basis for recall.[29]

Finding

This distinction matters for MAPPA practice. When polygraph-derived information is presented at a MAPP meeting, participants must understand that an adverse chart result alone does not constitute grounds for recall. It is the substantive content of disclosures — particularly those revealing that the individual poses an unmanageable risk in the community — that may trigger enforcement action.

Glossary

MAPPA
Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements. The statutory framework in England and Wales for assessing and managing sexual, violent, and other offenders who pose a serious risk of harm, established under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
MAPP (meeting)
Multi-Agency Public Protection meeting. A meeting convened under MAPPA at Level 2 or Level 3, attended by representatives of the Responsible Authority and Duty to Co-operate agencies, to share information and co-ordinate risk-management plans.
CSD
Clinically Significant Disclosure. A disclosure made by a person on probation during a polygraph session that is considered clinically or risk-relevant, prompting the offender manager to take specified actions.
OMA 2007
Offender Management Act 2007. The legislation that provides, among other things, statutory powers for polygraph testing as a licence condition (sections 28–30) and a legal gateway for information sharing (section 14).
HMPPS
His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. The executive agency of the Ministry of Justice responsible for the management of prisons and probation services in England and Wales, and the body that administers the statutory polygraph regime.
Level 1 (MAPPA)
Ordinary agency management. The lowest level of MAPPA management, used for cases that can be handled by one or two agencies without active multi-agency involvement.
Level 2 (MAPPA)
Active multi-agency management. Used for cases that require co-ordinated involvement of multiple agencies.
Level 3 (MAPPA)
Active multi-agency management for the “critical few.” Used for the most serious or complex cases requiring senior representation and dedicated resources.
Responsible Authority
The three agencies that together bear statutory responsibility for MAPPA in each area: the police, the prison service, and the probation service.
Duty to Co-operate
A statutory obligation placed on certain bodies (such as health authorities, local authorities, and others) to co-operate with the Responsible Authority in the operation of MAPPA.
PCSOT
Post-Conviction Sex Offender Testing. The use of polygraph testing with individuals convicted of sexual offences, typically as a condition of licence following release from custody.
CT polygraph
Counter-terrorism polygraph. Polygraph testing applied to individuals convicted of terrorism-related offences or subject to terrorism-related licence conditions.
UK GDPR
The United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation. The retained version of the EU’s GDPR as it applies in UK law, governing the processing of personal data.
CJA 2003
Criminal Justice Act 2003. The statute that, among many other provisions, establishes MAPPA under sections 325–327.

This post is intended as general guidance for polygraph examiners, probation practitioners, and multi-agency partners. It does not constitute legal advice. Practitioners should consult the current MAPPA Guidance, the HMPPS Polygraph Examinations Policy Framework, and applicable local protocols for definitive procedural requirements. For further information on polygraph standards and ethics, see the BPS Standards of Practice.

Sources

  1. Ministry of Justice, HM Prison and Probation Service, National Police Chiefs’ Council. Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) Guidance (version 4.6). April 2024. Available at: gov.uk.
  2. HM Prison and Probation Service. Polygraph Examinations Policy Framework. Re-issue date 8 January 2026. Available at: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk.
  3. Gannon TA, Wood JL, Pina A, Vasquez E, Fraser I. The evaluation of the mandatory polygraph pilot. MoJ Research Series 14/12. 2012. Available at: gov.uk.
  4. Gannon TA, Wood JL, Pina A, Tyler N, Barnoux MFL, Vasquez EA. An evaluation of mandatory polygraph testing for sexual offenders in the United Kingdom. Sexual Abuse. 2014;26(2):178–203. Available at: kar.kent.ac.uk.
  5. Keeton S, Gerasimov W, Pearce L. The use and operation of counter-terrorism polygraph examinations: Process evaluation findings. Ministry of Justice Analytical Series. October 2023. Available at: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk.
Tags hmpps legislation oma-2007 pcsot
← All News