Claims 'not taken seriously enough'
A chance to convict Jimmy Savile for sex offences against three victims when he was alive was missed because police and prosecutors did not take claims seriously enough, a report has found.
Details of a review of the decision not to prosecute Savile in 2009 by Alison Levitt QC, legal adviser to the director of public prosecutions (DPP), have been disclosed.
She found that "had the police and prosecutors taken a different approach" prosecutions could have been possible in relation to three victims.
Ms Levitt said there was nothing to suggest the victims had colluded in their stories, or that they were unreliable. Police and prosecutors treated their claims "with a degree of caution which was neither justified nor required", she said.
Surrey Police received an allegation in May 2007 that Savile had sexually assaulted a teenage girl at Duncroft Children's Home in the late 1970s.
In the investigation that followed, two more allegations emerged - the first that in about 1973 Savile had sexually assaulted a girl aged about 14 outside Stoke Mandeville Hospital. The second was that in the 1970s, Savile had suggested to a girl aged about 17, again at Duncroft, that she perform oral sex on him.
In March 2008, Sussex Police received a complaint that Savile had sexually assaulted a woman in her early 20s in a caravan in Sussex in about 1970.
Surrey Police consulted with the CPS about all four allegations, and in October 2009 it was decided that no prosecution could be brought because the alleged victims would not support police action.
Ms Levitt found that Surrey Police did not tell each alleged victim that other complaints had been made, Sussex told the complainant that corroboration was needed and the prosecutor did not question why victims would not support court action or seek to build a case. The victims told Ms Levitt that if they had known that other people were making complaints, they probably would have been prepared to give evidence in court.
DPP Keir Starmer said he wanted the case to be "a watershed moment", adding: "In my view, these cases do not simply reflect errors of judgment by individual officers or prosecutors on the facts before them. If that were the case, they would, in many respects, be easier to deal with. These were errors of judgment by experienced and committed police officers and a prosecuting lawyer acting in good faith and attempting to apply the correct principles. That makes the findings of Ms Levitt's report more profound and calls for a more robust response."