Police chief appears at Soham inquiry

The Chief Constable of the British police force that failed to keep records of a string of sex allegations against Ian Huntley was appearing before the Soham inquiry today.

David Westwood, of Humberside Police, will be questioned over his force’s decision to delete files on Huntley well before he was cleared to be a school caretaker in Soham.

It was while there that he abducted and murdered 10-year-olds Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in August 2002.

Mr Westwood will also be quizzed on his force’s failings in the handling of intelligence on Huntley.

His appearance at the Bichard Inquiry in central London this afternoon follows three and a half days of evidence from his officers.

Kevin Wells, the father of Holly, was expected to be there to watch Mr Westwood.

The parents of both girls regularly attended Huntley’s trial at the Old Bailey last year but Mr Wells will be the first to attend the inquiry.

Headed by former Whitehall civil servant Sir Michael Bichard, it is investigating flaws in vetting procedures and police intelligence handling which gave Huntley the green light to work at Soham Village College, Cambridgeshire, UK.

A long list of sex allegations made against Huntley in his home town of Grimsby in the 1990s only emerged after he was convicted for the double murder.

They included four suspected rapes, an indecent assault and four allegations of underage sex but Cambridgeshire Police never learned of the details when they vetted Huntley in late 2001.

Yesterday, the inquiry heard how Humberside Police feared its flawed systems may have contributed to Huntley getting his job.

A scathing internal memo, sent just two months after the murders, raised serious concerns over the force’s main records database and said it did not “fulfil its role”.

It came after officers realised their criminal intelligence system (CIS) had been “haemorrhaging” valuable information on suspects – leaving 20,000 records with “no substance”.

The inquiry has already heard that officers had little knowledge how intelligence was extracted and inputted on to the system.

It has heard how some records on Huntley were erased as part of a “weeding” process to remove details that may leave the force open to action under Britain's Data Protection Act.

Mr Westwood has already said his force believed they were required to delete details of the previous allegations under the terms of the act.

In written evidence submitted to the inquiry, the UK Information Commissioner Richard Thomas said he found the decision to delete the records “astonishing”.

Mr Thomas, responsible for enforcement of the act, said he saw no reason why the details should have been erased in the so-called “weeding” process.

Mr Westwood has pledged a policy of openness and co-operation with the inquiry.

He has attended the hearing as an observer every day since live evidence began on Monday.