This story emerged last year, but it quickly died, as the govt did not carry out it's plan.

Basically, the idea was to have a new super-register, for serial DA (domestic abuse) and stalkers, as well as SO. There was huge support for the idea, particularly from female MPs and feminist groups, and the Home Secretary appeared to be backing it, before changing her mind.

The key differences were, that a person had to commit two or more offences, in order to go on the DA or stalkers register. One was not enough. This offers some hope for future reform of the SO register. The current size of the SO register is around 65,000 and growing every year. It is unlikely that the SO register will ever be abolished, because that would be too controversial and attract too many negative headlines, in the media. But, if the SO register were to be quietly reformed, there would be much less press attention. If first time offenders were removed, and only serial SO had to register, that would take about 90% of SO off the register straight away, leaving a far more manageable number for the police to deal with.

Regardless of what the tabloids and the public may think, about the need to register all SO, monitoring all those people, takes a huge amount of police resources. This is an issue of money, not morality, which is why it matters to the politicians, more than you might think. That is the real reason why the Super Register was not set up. The number of stalkers and DA offenders is huge and monitoring them all, or even just the multiple offenders, would have meant the govt would have to put more money into the system, or else the super register would end up being a massive drain on the police. As the SO register continues to grow every year, there will eventually come a point where it is costing too much as well. That will be the tipping point, when change is most likely to be considered.

Officially, the govt stated that there was no need for a super register, because the existing MAPPA arrangements, already allow the police to monitor those who are considered dangerous. Again, this points to a possible avenue for reform of the SO register, as well. We all know, that the police currently have to visit thousands of low risk offenders every year. Many of these, will be first time, and one time only, offenders. They will not reoffend and the police know it, but they have no choice, about whether to monitor them or not.

When it comes to deciding, whether to make somebody subject to MAPPA monitoring, the existing rules force police to use MAPPA for all SO, irrespective of what the offence is, or what their risk level is. But at the same time they give police an option to make someone MAPPA, when they are not an SO. This is entirely down to the police to decide. One of the criticisms of MAPPA, made by supporters of a super register, was that the police do not use these powers consistently. Some forces have a lot of MAPPA offenders, but others do not. It all depends on how dangerous the police judge somebody to be. But at least it means they have to prioritise the riskiest individuals and target resources, at those offenders who really need to be monitored.

If the MAPPA regime for non-SO, was extended to SO as well, then the police would be able to choose which SO they considered to be worth monitoring and which SO did not have to be monitored. It still allows for the most dangerous people to be monitored, so it cannot be portrayed as being soft on crime, by the tabloids. Again, this kind of reform could be pushed through quietly, without attracting any media attention. There was relatively little coverage of the super register proposal in the press at the time. It is not a big issue, unless a headline grabbing crime is committed by an SO. Even after the Wayne Couzens trial, when the issue of violence against women was in the news, the media was not demanding a super register for all DA and stalkers.