British police 'will acknowledge mistakes' in Huntley Inquiry

A British police force at the centre of the inquiry into how Ian Huntley was able to get a job as a school caretaker today said it would be willing to acknowledge mistakes.

At the opening of the inquiry by former Whitehall mandarin Sir Michael Bichard, Humberside Police said it would pursue a “policy of openness”.

Jeremy Gompertz QC, representing the force’s Chief Constable David Westwood, said: “He wishes me to state at the outset that he and the Humberside Police force will co-operate fully.

“Witnesses and documents will be made available to the inquiry as requested, the Chief Constable will pursue a policy of openness, all relevant material will be disclosed, mistakes will be acknowledged.”

After Huntley was convicted of murdering Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman and given two life sentences at the Old Bailey on December 17 last year, Mr Westwood said the Data Protection Act, as his force then understood it, had prevented officers from keeping details of a string of sex allegations against Huntley in the Grimsby area.

They included four allegations of rape and one of indecent assault on an 11-year-old girl, yet he was still able to get a job as the Soham Village College caretaker when he moved to Cambridgeshire.

Senior Humberside officers said they had adopted a policy of “weeding” out or deleting Huntley’s records because they thought they were required to do so by the Act, a misunderstanding described by one MP as “catastrophic”.

Mr Westwood later walked out of an interview on BBC2’s Newsnight programme when he was challenged over the issue by presenter Jeremy Paxman.

Both he and Cambridgeshire Police Chief Constable Tom Lloyd, who was criticised for not returning immediately from holiday when the girls went missing on August 4, 2002, are expected to be publicly grilled at the inquiry next month.

A member of Mr Lloyd’s force failed to run both Huntley’s names – he was using the names Huntley and Nixon – through the Police National Computer when checks were being carried out on his suitability to work as a school caretaker.

Simon Freeland QC, for Cambridgeshire Constabulary, said today: “We intend to co-operate in an open and frank manner through the disclosure of documents and the provision of evidence and to assist the inquiry in any way we can.”

Like the Macpherson inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the Bichard inquiry will not have statutory powers to force witnesses to give evidence.

But Sir Michael said: “If I find that this hinders me in my investigation or if I believe that an individual or organisation is not co-operating fully, I will return to the Home Secretary and ask for such powers which he has made clear will be made available.”

Sir Michael began today’s inquiry in an office block in Holborn, central London, by asking the assembled officials, journalists and members of the public to stand and observe a moment’s silence for Holly and Jessica, which lasted around 30 seconds.

He then vowed that the inquiry would be a “search for the truth“.

The former civil servant is expected to deliver his final report in the summer, possibly as early as May.

He has written to all relevant parties to provide information to the inquiry and they have until January 23.

These include Humberside Police, Cambridgeshire Police, the UK Association of Chief Police Officers, Britain's Home Office, Soham Village College, Britain's Department for Education and Skills and the UK Office of the Data Protection Commissioner.

It is understood Holly and Jessica’s families have been contacted but have not been requested to provide any information.

If they want to make any representations, or to appear before the inquiry personally, they will be allowed to do so.

They have not yet indicated that they want to or that they will be attending the proceedings.

The families were not present for Sir Michael’s opening statement today.

Live evidence will be heard during three weeks of public hearings starting at the end of February.

Sir Michael said: “Although this inquiry is inquisitorial in nature it is not a trial or a disciplinary hearing, nor are the issues those of a law suit in which one party wins and another loses.

“Inevitably, my task will involve asking some tough questions and perhaps criticising individuals and organisations.

“You can be sure that I will not shirk from that if I consider it to be justified and necessary.”

He said those he criticised would be made aware before he publishes his report and would have 21 days to respond.

Asked if anyone could lose their jobs as a result of the inquiry, Sir Michael said that would be a matter for their employers.

But he added: “I do not foresee that people’s careers will be blighted in an unjustifiable way.”