UK police face double attack over Soham probe
The British police force that investigated the Soham murders faces a double barrage of criticism for its handling of Ian Huntley in two scathing reports expected out next week.
Cambridgeshire Police is likely to be attacked for flaws in both the vetting of Huntley and its investigation of the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman nine months later, sources said.
Sir Michael Bichard’s report into how Huntley slipped through vetting nets to become a Soham school caretaker despite a string of previous sex allegations is already in the hands of the Home Office.
The former Whitehall mandarin is expected to pull no punches and is likely to attack Cambridgeshire for errors in its vetting before giving Huntley the all clear to work at Soham Village College.
Humberside Police will also almost certainly be criticised for deleting records of Huntley’s murky past.
The Bichard report is expected to be published early next week and is likely to coincide with the release of a separate review in to the murder investigation itself.
Sir Ronnie Flanagan has reviewed how Cambridgeshire conducted the early stages of the investigation for HM Inspectorate of Constabulary.
He is expected to conclude mistakes were made by the force and may also raise concerns over the vetting of Huntley.
It emerged after Huntley was convicted for the double murder that Operation Fincham – the biggest manhunt in British history – had been dogged with problems.
A series of false leads wasted hundreds of hours of police time and Huntley’s alibi was not checked for two weeks.
Chief Constable Tom Lloyd was criticised for being on holiday during the manhunt and the man initially heading the investigation was sidelined after a desperate gamble on a man-to-man appeal for the abductor to get in touch.
However, a Cambridgeshire Police source said: “We need to remember that within 13 days the man responsible for killing Holly and Jessica was in custody and there was a hugely successful investigation leading to his prosecution.
“I am sure Sir Ronnie will reflect that.”
Sir Michael Bichard is expected to criticise all those organisations who had close contact with Huntley but failed to spot the danger signs.
He is also likely to single individuals out.
His report is understood to be around 200 pages long and will focus on both national issues and those specific to the Soham case.
His recommendations could include calls for a child safety “passport” scheme where applicants applying for working with young people would be “positively vetted” on their suitability as opposed to just checks on their past.
Standards of the police service intelligence systems in general and sharing of information nationally is also likely to be called in to question.
Sir Michael may well point to the effectiveness of police intelligence handling in Scotland where forces share information on a national database while a similar system south of the border has still not materialised.
It was only after Huntley’s trial that it was revealed he had been at the centre of nine sex allegations while living in Grimsby in the 1990s.
They were four suspected rapes and an indecent assault and four alleged incidents of underage sex.
The inquiry heard evidence from a number of high profile witnesses including Humberside Chief Constable David Westwood and his Cambridgeshire counterpart Mr Lloyd.
HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary Sir Keith Povey, Information Commissioner Richard Thomas, Soham Village College headteacher Howard Gilbert and representatives from government departments, education bodies and civil rights groups also appeared.
Serious flaws in Humberside’s intelligence handling meant no records of Huntley’s past were retained.
Mr Westwood admitted “long term collective failure” on intelligence handling within his force and that he had been wrong to blame the Data Protection Act for records being deleted.
Cambridgeshire Chief Constable Tom Lloyd, whose force gave Huntley the all clear, admitted it was “more likely than not” that Humberside was never asked for a vetting check.
His force was also accused of having failings at every basic stage of the vetting process.
Mr Gilbert admitted he never checked Huntley job references despite them being addressed “To Whom It May Concern” although they were eventually verified by police after the murders.
North East Lincolnshire social services failed to link the early underage sex allegations, despite them all centring on Huntley.
