Had we known

THERE are many unanswered questions in the wake of Ian Huntley's conviction for the appalling murder of Soham schoolgirls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman. For thousands of parents up and down the country today, perhaps the most worrying is this: how was a man with Huntley's record ever allowed to get near a job as caretaker at Soham Village College?

Since the trial ended it has emerged that long before he took up his job in Soham, Huntley had faced a rape charge, allegations of indecently assaulting an 11-year-old girl and also having sex with underage schoolgirls.

He had been brought to the attention of Humberside Police ten times and North East Lincolnshire Social Services on five occasions.

Yet the checks designed to prevent such people being employed in schools raised no alarms.

The headteacher who employed Huntley said he felt "physically sick" when he discovered his disturbing history.

"Everything we had to do we did," said Soham Village College principal Howard Gilbert. "It's a police check form. A straightforward form. One we look at many times a year.

"When I learned of his background I was angry. I was dismayed. To be honest, I felt sick. Physically sick. To think he had been walking around school.

"The police checks are set up to stop somebody such as Huntley getting near a school.

"In this case they failed and the reasons need to be looked at to find out why they didn't work. There needs to be some sort of review."

That is precisely what is going to happen. In the wake of the Huntley verdict - and the conviction of Maxine Carr for perverting the course of justice - Home Secretary David Blunket immediately announced an independent inquiry into the way in which Ian Huntley's background was kept and used by the police.

That may be little consolation to the parents of the two murdered girls. But surely it indicates that such a thing could never happen again. Or does it?

The failure to identify Huntley as the kind of person who should never have been allowed to work in a school seems to have resulted from a combination of incompetence, lack of communication between different police forces, and the fact that on his application form he gave the name Ian Nixon rather than Ian Huntley.

There also seems to have been a civil liberties issue - in particular, a concern on the part of police in disclosing potentially damaging information about someone when that person had never been convicted of anything. (See panel right).

The Home Office points out that since Huntley was appointed caretaker at the Soham school, vetting procedures have been tightened.

A new Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) was set up last year to ensure a "more effective and consistent system for checking criminal records," Home Secretary David Blunkett said in the wake of the trial.

The CRB can undertake 2.5 million checks every year, compared with around one million under the police checking system, said Mr Blunkett.

"It embraces many more posts working with children and deals directly with all police forces in which an applicant had lived in the past five years."

The system still does not appear to be foolproof, however.

Under the CRB, there are two levels of check which can be carried out - standard and enhanced. Under a standard check, all prior convictions are identified. This would not have been enough to block Huntley's appointment, since he had never been convicted of anything.

Under an enhanced check, not only convictions, but also cautions, reprimands, warnings and dropped charges would be picked up.

This would certainly have identified Huntley as a risk - but only if he had been given such a check. Under Home Office rules, all teachers - and other professionals such as nurses and doctors - who could work with children must undergo enhanced checks. But it is left up to the discretion of individual local authorities whether a caretaker would have an enhanced check run on them.

So how confident are the police and authorities in North Yorkshire that somebody like Huntley could not, even now, slip through the net?

Patrick Scott, director of education at City of York Council, says an enhanced check will be requested on anyone wanting to work with children at any school in York - whether they are a teacher, a classroom assistant, a dinner lady or a caretaker. School governors and volunteers, meanwhile, are subjected to a standard check, he says.

Even in the case of an extended check being carried out, however, there still seems to be a question mark over how much information, over and above previous convictions, police will disclose.

The police essentially act as an agent for the Criminal Records Bureau when carrying out such checks, says Supt Colin Taylor of North Yorkshire police.

If a request comes in for a check, they will gather all the information they have on the individual named - not only past convictions, but also other intelligence about complaints, or allegations that were not considered serious enough or for which there was not sufficient evidence to merit prosecution.

Police will also make sure to check all records under alternative names - a procedure which, if applied to 'Ian Nixon', might well have led to warning bells sounding.

Anything the police uncover that might be a possible cause for concern will be fully investigated, Supt Taylor says. Once all the information has been gathered, however, it is then up to the force's Assistant Chief Constable to decide what - over and above information about previous convictions - is relevant, and what exactly should be passed on to the CRB.

Mr Scott points out that there is a genuine civil liberties issue - it would be wrong for someone's job prospects to be blighted simply because of unfounded and possibly malicious allegations against them.

No system can ever be 100 per cent infallible, says the director of education. "There could always be somebody out there who has never come to the attention of the police in any way, who has never committed any kind of offence, whether found out or not, and who could nevertheless, as a result of stress or for any other reason, commit an offence," he says.

But that is no reason for us to live in a climate of fear, he insists.

What happened at Soham was appalling. "It attracted huge attention from the media, as these sort of cases do," he says. "But there is no serious evidence that children are any more at risk now than they have ever been. I genuinely believe that there is a danger that we could become so frightened that we don't allow children to take any risks and their education and development becomes constrained as a result. We must not allow cases such as this to create a climate of fear."

Howard Gilbert, the principal of Holly and Jessica's school, agrees with that.

"It would be wrong to start a witch-hunt in all staff rooms of all schools," he admits. Nevertheless, he says, the vetting system does need to be tightened.

"When they Huntley and Carr were arrested I was shocked to the core," he says. "As shocked as I have ever been in my life.

"If I had known even about the rape allegation, he Huntley would have been straight out. Probably even the burglary, because the first line of his job talked of his responsibility for security."

Bungled vetting gave Huntley his chance

What happened in the case of Ian Huntley seems almost to defy belief.

Both Huntley and Carr were subjected to standard police checks before being employed at schools in Soham by Cambridgeshire County Council.

Huntley was using the name Ian Nixon when he applied for the caretaker's job at Soham Village College two years ago.

The secondary school gave both names - Huntley and Nixon - to Cambridgeshire police. But there was no cross-reference on the police national computer (PNC) identifying Ian Nixon and Huntley as the same person. It led to what seems like a tragic blunder.

"Our operator checked the name Nixon on the PNC. The operator failed to check the name Huntley on the PNC," admits Temporary Detective Chief Superintendent Chris Stevenson of Cambridgeshire Police, who led the Soham inquiry.

Incredibly, Humberside Police also returned check forms marked "no trace" even though their officers had investigated Huntley on several occasions - some following allegations of sexual offences.

As a result, neither the school's governors, the principal Mr Gilbert nor his deputy Margaret Bryden were warned of Huntley's murky past.

As well as the sex allegations, Huntley had appeared in court in Grimsby accused of burgling a house - but the matter was allowed to lie on file, and was not disclosed to the education authority during the checks. Had it been, that in itself might have been enough for the school to reject Huntley's job application, the school's principal, Mr Howard, said. "Because the first line of his job talked of his responsibility form security."

But Det Ch Supt Stevenson admits that he himself would probably have taken the same decision not to disclose that information.

"I have asked myself 'if that file had landed on my desk, would I have disclosed that information?'" he said after the trial. "I have to admit I would not."

Incredibly, Cambridgeshire detectives only learned of the rape allegation against Huntley more than a week after the girls vanished, after a call from a member of the public who had seen Huntley interviewed on television.

The true picture of Huntley's past was not revealed until officers from Cambridgeshire visited Humberside Police and rechecked files the day before Huntley was arrested.

Updated: 09:51 Thursday, December 18, 2003