Police blunders that allowed Huntley to pass vetting tests

For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails

Sign up to our free breaking news emails

Please enter a valid email address

Please enter a valid email address

SIGN UP

I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our privacy policy

Ian Huntley had been accused of at least nine sex attacks, including four rapes and indecently assaulting an 11-year-old girl, yet because of a series of police blunders he was given a job at Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells' school.

The police's failure to record or check details of the suspected child abuser also probably meant that Huntley evaded capture for weeks.

The failures highlighted in the Soham case have prompted David Blunkett to set up an independent inquiry into the police vetting system that could result in major changes and thousands of files and job applications being re-examined.

While living in Grimsby, Huntley was accused of variousoffences against women and young girls. Although never convicted, his record should have rung alarm bells for any police inquiry and ruled him out of working with children. But, despite coming under regular investigation by Humberside police and social services, no one apparently linked his behaviour, kept proper records, or followed police and Home Office guidelines.

Between 1995 and 1999 Huntley was accused of four rapes, four counts of having unlawful sexual intercourse with girls under 16, and indecently assaulting a 11-year-old girl. He also faced a burglary charge, a vehicle offence from 1983 and non-payment of a TV licence.

Information on serious charges should have been retained by Humberside police. Under the Data Protection Act and the Association of Chief Police Officers' code of practice, such information should have been on file at least 10 years and reviewed every five. Since 2002 these records must be kept. But among Humberside police's files the information about Huntley was mislaid and, according to one officer, "left in the bottom of drawers".

When Huntley applied for the job as caretaker at Soham Village College in November 2001, Cambridgeshire police were asked to check his criminal history - defined as convictions, cautions, bindovers and, crucially, intelligence. At the time he was using his mother's surname, Nixon, but gave his other name of Huntley.

Cambridgeshire police admits that although it was asked by Cambridgeshire County Council on behalf of Soham Village College to check both names, it only checked Nixon on the police national computer - which only retains information about convictions. Officers are uncertain whether a fax sent to Humberside on 23 December 2001 as part of the vetting process asked for both names to be checked. Either way, the checks were returned on 4 January 2002 giving Huntley a clean bill of health.

Humberside County Council has also admitted that it had no central record of the allegations against Huntley, leaving the matter to individual social workers. In a statement, the authority said: "The five cases were from different areas, involved different circumstances and were handled by different people, who had no reason to cross-refer with one another."

The local authority, which also only investigated its files for mentions of Huntley after his arrest for the murders of Holly and Jessica, said it had done all that could be expected. The statement added: "Even with the benefit of hindsight, when we have reviewed the cases where Huntley was mentioned, there is nothing that would suggest he would go on to commit these crimes."

Checks by the Department of Education on its "list 99" of people considered unsuitable for working with children also failed to flag up any problems.

The entire system was changed in March 2002 with the establishment of the Criminal Records Bureau, which has introduced a more rigorous vetting procedure.

The second police blunder also involved the checking of Huntley's criminal past, once he had become a suspect in the disappearance of Holly and Jessica. Again Cambridgeshire police asked their colleagues in Humberside whether he had anything suspicious in his past. Again he was given the all-clear.

It was only after the evidence began mounting against Huntley that Cambridgeshire police sent officers to check his record with their Lincolnshire counterparts. And there, hidden in the "bottom of drawers", were the details of a man with a history of alleged sex abuse, suspected violence, and an obsession with underage girls.