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. 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. 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.

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. Some of the worst reports had described Huntley and Carr as “neighbours from hell”, suggested that Huntley had “faked” mental illness after his arrest and that the pair used deception to get their jobs. In one newspaper there was a reference to paedophiles.Mr Justice Moses said: “The disappearance of the girls and the discovery of their bodies and the arrest of these defendants were accompanied by suggestions that the killings were sexually motivated, by reference to notorious paedophiles and by the clear implication that Ian Huntley was one of their number.” He added that when Huntley was placed in Woodhall prison, “pictures were obtained of him in a cell” and were carried in a publication with a photograph of Hannibal Lecter, “a fictional character, clearly designed to place Ian Huntley in the category of a fictional serial killer and cannibal”. Some of the articles, said Mr Justice Moses at the pre-trial hearing this year, “assume the guilt of the defendants” and were “calculated to undermine their credibility and to blacken their characters”.He concluded that anyone selected for the jury would know something about the case, but it would only be a “general recollection” and he felt they could be trusted to put out of their mind everything other than the evidence in court. The Crown believed the sufficiency of evidence and the public interest meant Huntley should be tried and convicted for murder to reflect the true nature of his crime.. The trial of Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr almost collapsed before it had started because of prejudicial reporting by the media.

At a special court hearing, in which the defence applied to have the case dropped, the trial judge was asked to examine 21 bundles of newspaper cuttings along with video of the television coverage of the early stages of the investigation.Despite persuasive legal arguments that neither Huntley nor Carr could ever receive a fair trial, the case was allowed to proceed. The relative speed of the trial has also limited the legal fees paid to the barristers and solicitors instructed in the case.And under new rules which came into force this year, the Soham trial is ranked as a high-cost criminal case, which means that barristers must justify their fees at every stage. Proposals for shortening the time taken to try serious offenders also fly in the race of natural justice.Mr Justice Moses, the Soham trial judge, has a reputation for ensuring justice is swift. Progress was assisted by the 26 admissions Huntley made to the court, which relieved the prosecution of the responsibility of having to prove that the girls where in his house or that he was present when they died. the Court of Appeal was to quash his conviction because he was not given a fair trial?”But there has never been a two-tier system of justice in this country: one for ordinary defendants and another, in cases like Huntley, where the Crown has no doubt of the defendant’s guilt. He said: “What do you think Ian Huntley is going to be doing for the rest of his life? He’s going to be spending it petitioning the Court of Appeal to try to show the trial process was flawed in some way Would justice really be served if …

Due process cannot be subverted to match the public’s expectation of what constitutes a fair trial.Courtenay Griffiths QC, the barrister in the murder trial ofDamilola Taylor, the Peckham schoolboy, argued that, in the most notorious cases, it was even more important to ensure that no legal corners were cut. There are few worse crimes than your murder of those two young girls.”. The taxpayer could have been spared the estimated £500,000 cost of prosecuting Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr if the court process had been shortened to reflect the public’s certainty of Huntley’s guilt. The children you murdered were children whose lives brought joy to the community and whose deaths brought grief.”There is no greater task for the criminal justice system than to protect the vulnerable.