The Inquiry process
|
|
1
|
On 17 December 2003, Ian Huntley was convicted of the murders of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells.
|
|
2
|
Huntley had come to the attention of Humberside Police in relation to allegations of eight separate sexual offences from 1995 to 1999 (and had been investigated in yet another). This information had not emerged in the vetting check, requested by his employer at the time of his appointment to Soham Village College late in 2001, carried out by Cambridgeshire Constabulary.
|
|
3
|
Against this background, I was appointed by the Home Secretary to head an Inquiry with the following terms of reference:
|
|
| ‘Urgently to enquire into child protection procedures in Humberside Police and Cambridgeshire Constabulary in the light of the recent trial and conviction of Ian Huntley for the murder of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells. In particular to assess the effectiveness of the relevant intelligence-based record keeping, the vetting practices in those forces since 1995 and information sharing with other agencies, and to report to the Home Secretary on matters of local and national relevance and make recommendations
as appropriate.’
|
|
|
4
|
In addition to my Inquiry, there are two other related investigations: Sir Keith Povey, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, has been asked to consider the findings of the contemporary review by the Metropolitan Police into how Cambridgeshire Constabulary carried out the early part of the criminal investigation; and North East Lincolnshire Area Child Protection Committee has commissioned a Serious Case Review, chaired by Sir Christopher Kelly, to look at the way in which agencies in that area fulfilled their duties to protect children.
|
The Inquiry’s procedures
|
|
5
|
Letters were sent to a variety of organisations and individuals on 7 January 2004 requesting information and documentation relevant to the terms of reference. Attached to these letters was a series of questions which formed the basis of the majority of the documentary material submitted by the participants. The questions are in Appendix 1.
|
|
6
|
Notices were published in the national and regional press inviting anyone who wished to submit information relevant to the Inquiry to do so.
|
|
7
|
On 13 January, at a pre-Inquiry hearing, I explained how I intended to conduct the Inquiry; gave likely participants the opportunity to raise questions; and made myself available to speak to members of the media.
|
|
8
|
The majority of written submissions and evidence was received by the end of January 2004, although throughout the Inquiry further written material has been received.
|
|
9
|
There were 16 days of public hearings between 26 February 2004 and 30 March.
|
Appreciation to those who submitted evidence
|
|
10
|
I place on record my appreciation to all those who submitted information and evidence to the Inquiry. Humberside Police and Cambridgeshire Constabulary in particular submitted detailed written evidence that clearly required considerable effort on their part, and in a tight timescale. I would also like to thank all those who were invited by the Inquiry to give oral evidence, sometimes at very short notice. No one declined. In some cases, witnesses had to address events that had happened several years previously or describe processes that had changed. Without such hard work and co-operation, the task of the Inquiry would have been much more difficult.
|
Counsel’s opening statement
|
|
11
|
Counsel to the Inquiry made an opening statement on 26 February, which lasted a day. This set out:
|
|
|
- the detailed chronology of Huntley’s contacts with Humberside Police and Social Services, and the process of his recruitment to Soham Village College, which involved Cambridgeshire Constabulary;
- the relevant national and local systems of record creation and retention; and
- the past and present systems of conducting police checks on applicants for jobs involving contact with children and other vulnerable persons, known as vetting.
|
|
The focus of the Inquiry
|
|
12
|
Counsel’s opening statement also made clear that:
|
|
|
|
12.1
|
the main focus, as far as the past was concerned, would be on the contacts that the police and Social Services had with Huntley;
|
|
|
|
|
12.2
|
I did not intend to conduct a detailed examination of general information-recording systems in Cambridgeshire Constabulary; and
|
|
|
|
|
12.3
|
I would focus as much on the future as on the past.
|
|
The witnesses
|
|
13
|
Oral evidence was received from 64 witnesses, who are listed in Appendix 2. They included: Humberside Police and Humberside Police Authority; North East Lincolnshire Social Services; Cambridgeshire Constabulary; Soham Village College; Education Personnel Management Ltd (EPM); government departments and relevant agencies; HM Inspectorate of Constabulary; the Association of Chief Police Officers; the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland); other professional bodies, including teaching and social services associations; and the voluntary sector.
|
|
14
|
Draft extracts of my report were sent to relevant individuals and organisations for comment at the end of April 2004. Responses were received and considered in mid to late May 2004.
|
|
15
|
The Inquiry made use of a website to publish written and oral evidence and to provide information about the Inquiry’s procedures. During the hearings the media were provided with extensive facilities.
|
The Report
|
|
16
|
This report was delivered to the Secretary of State six months after the Inquiry was launched.
|
|
17
|
In the report, I focus first on all the contacts which the various agencies had with Huntley, and how the systems that were used to record these contacts were managed. I also look at how he was recruited for the caretaker’s job at Soham Village College and how he was vetted for that position.
|
|
18
|
Second, I explain my findings with regard to those contacts.
|
|
19
|
I then go on to describe and comment upon the national picture with regard to the collection, reviewing and retention of records; and the different information technology and vetting systems.
|
|
20
|
As a result, this report is broadly divided into four sections:
|
|
|
- 1 Contacts, recruitment and vetting – the facts (pages 23–75);
- 2 Contacts, recruitment and vetting – the findings (pages 77–108);
- 3 National systems and structure – the facts (pages 109–125); and
- 4 National systems and structure – the findings (pages 127–155). My recommendations are listed throughout this section – and together on pages 13–17.
|
|
|
|
Please note that the Glossary on pages 157–162 explains acronyms and various terms mentioned in the report.
|
Thanks to the Inquiry team
|
|
21
|
I would like to express my gratitude to the Inquiry team, each of whom has played their part to the full. They have been unfailing in the help and support they have given me. It has been a real team effort and everyone has worked incredibly hard. Thanks therefore to James Eadie and Kate Gallafent, Counsel to the Inquiry; Jim Nicholson, Secretary; Kim Brudenell, Solicitor; Joyti Manjdadria, Deputy Solicitor; Bill Taylor, Police Adviser to Counsel; Nadine Smith, Press Officer; and to Adele Hopkins, Shifra Marikar and Wendy Clarke – all key members of the team.
|
