|
25
March 2004 Mr
J F Nicholson As
you know, on 16 March our delegation handed in to you, as the Inquiry
Secretary, a letter signed by 36 organisations and prominent lawyers,
requesting a broadening of the Inquiry’s terms of reference.
You
informed us then that the terms of the Inquiry are set by the Home
Office and cannot be changed. We
later received a letter from you confirming this (dated 18 March). We
would like it noted that when we raised our concerns about the terms of
this Inquiry with the Home Office early in January, before the Inquiry
began, the Home Office written reply referred us to a list of government
initiatives, first of all the Bichard Inquiry, without answering any of
our concerns. We had
therefore to write to the Inquiry itself. In
view of the above, we now submit a new letter as Evidence to the
Inquiry, not regarding its terms of reference but regarding the handling
of the Huntley case by the criminal justice system, which we urge you to
consider and publish on the Inquiry’s website and in any other place
among the other evidence. We
look forward to hearing from you about the serious issues we are
raising. Yours
sincerely Lisa
Longstaff and Claire Glasman ---------------------------------------------------- Evidence
to the Bichard Inquiry arising from the Soham murders After
Ian Huntley was convicted of murdering Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman,
many people were shocked and appalled to find out that he had been
reported at least nine times previously for rape and sexual assaults
against young women, under-age teenagers and young girls, but was never
convicted – all the cases were dropped, some not pursued in any way by
the police. We
list here what has been reported in the press: August
1995 – admitted sex with a 15-year-old girl – no action taken The
police’s first reaction, when questioned about this after Huntley’s
conviction, was to deny any responsibility, by claiming that they had to
delete the information regarding Huntley from their computers because of
the Data Protection Act. Then,
at the Inquiry, Humberside Chief David Westwood admitted that he had
been “foolish” to blame the Data Protection Act.
But he did not take full responsibility.
Your 18 March reply to us says: “Sir Michael raised directly
whether there was '…
a culture in the force, and maybe in other forces, about underage sex
involving 15 year old girls which mitigated against the additional work
[we presume he meant the additional work of pursuing Huntley!]'.
The Chief Constable rejected this as regards Humberside.” From
our almost 30 years’ experience, only the existence of a pervasive
sexist “culture” -- not only in relation to 15-year-old girls, but
to women and children generally -- can explain why Huntley was not
previously tried and convicted. Some
of Huntley’s crimes were dealt with as an isolated incident without
any reference to the fact that there had been a number of complaints –
a problem we have raised with the police several times in relation to
other cases. Even
when PC Michael Harding put some of Huntley’s crimes together in a
1999 report, which was passed to superior intelligence officers, it was
deleted a year later from police records.
The Inquiry heard that PC Harding’s report described a pattern
of attacks on girls he knew, and stated that: ". . . Huntley is a
serial sex attacker and is at liberty to continue his activities."
DI
Peter Billam, former head of Grimsby's Child Protection Unit, was
involved in three of the cases where Huntley had been accused of sex
with underage girls, but he took no action and he claimed not to have
realised the crimes were committed by the same man.
He stated to the Inquiry that he would have handled it
differently had he Cambridgeshire
Police who did the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check before Huntley
was appointed as caretaker at the school, admitted that an earlier
report into their CRB systems found that the “[M]anagement and
supervision of both the system itself and the staff operating it was not
adequate and in reality non-existent”.
But
it is not true that “intelligence” was lacking in every case.
The youngest victim, aged 11, came forward after there was
publicity in the local Grimsby papers about an attack on a teenager
after she left a nightclub. Both
attacks ended up unprosecuted. We
have seen time and again that when questioned, the police reduce their
actions to bureaucratic “mistakes”, lack of funding, or lack of
communication between the different officers, different police forces or
different agencies such as the police, CPS and social workers. We do not
accept that it is difficult to keep a record of a serial rapist or child
abuser. We do not accept that these excuses explain what really
happened, they are merely an attempt to avoid facing and dealing with
the root cause of the refusal to prosecute serial attackers like
Huntley. If
Huntley had been prosecuted (or even cautioned) for these crimes, this
would have saved not only Holly and Jessica, but his other victims,
including ex-girlfriends who have since come forward to speak about the
severe and sometimes life-threatening injuries (including miscarriage)
they suffered. There
is a pattern with many serial murderers and rapists, where their earlier
attacks against women and girls (and boys), often by partners or other
family members, are not prosecuted at all, allowing the violence to
continue and spread. We
cite only a few well known examples of this, but in our experience there
are many others. The
Yorkshire Ripper was convicted after murdering at least 13 women over many years –
many of his victims were dismissed as ‘only prostitutes’.
Fred and Rosemary West were reported for rape by a young woman
years before the murders for which Rosemary West was eventually
convicted, and visible signs of violence on their children were reported
to school and hospital many times.
Dr Harold Shipman was also allowed to go on for years killing
hundreds of patients – while they were mainly older women, he was a
doctor respected by police, coroners and the medical establishment in
spite of previous bad practice and suspicion expressed by some medical
professionals. Anthony
Hardy, the so-called ‘Camden Ripper’ convicted of murdering two
women last year, is believed to have killed many others – he had
previously attempted to murder his wife; a dead woman with a head injury
was found in his flat; and he was known by doctors to hate women,
especially sex workers. Yet
he was not previously prosecuted or detained in a secure psychiatric
hospital. Although
rapists generally rape not one but many women and girls, it is rare for
cases to be put together for trial: an elementary policing method which
would enable the pattern of violence to emerge and could produce many
more convictions even where the victims are the only witnesses.
One example is that of Christopher Davies,
convicted after two women he had raped got together to bring a private
prosecution with the support of the English Collective of Prostitutes,
Legal Action for Women
and Women Against Rape – his victims had been discouraged first by the
police and then by the CPS. Davies
was convicted on the same evidence the CPS deemed “insufficient”;
unlike many other trials this time the evidence was properly presented
by the private prosecutor and the witnesses who confronted head on the
prejudices the defence used to undermine the witnesses.
We
believe that sexism and other prejudice are at the heart of negligent or
even reluctant investigation and prosecution.
Women’s and children’s words and actions are torn to pieces
while what men say is more likely to be believed and their actions
excused. We
do not support government proposals to disclose previous convictions to
the jury during the trial, as this would destroy the presumption of
innocence central to any fair trial, and open the door to any and all
offences being dealt with in this way.
Instead, an unbiased and thorough investigation and presentation
of evidence by police, CPS and trial judge would begin to address the
real obstacles to stopping violence against women and children.
Until
sexism and other prejudices, such as racism when the victim is a woman
or child of colour, are officially acknowledged and tackled in the
criminal justice system, and those who are responsible for perpetrating
such sexism and other discrimination which stand in the way of justice,
are disciplined, sacked and/or prosecuted for their criminal negligence,
there will be little or no change.
Instead we will see, once more, violent crime used as a
camouflage to advance political agendas which have nothing to do with
winning justice and protection for women, children and other vulnerable
people.
Women
Against Rape See
below
the names of organisations and individuals who share our concerns. Black
Women’s Rape Action Project LAWYERSBundey,
Ruth, solicitor ------------------------------------------------ |