Surrey Police admits "more could have been done" in Savile investigation

A SENIOR Surrey Police officer has admitted more could have been done by the constabulary to help victims of historic sexual abuse by Jimmy Savile.

Savile was interviewed under caution by Surrey Police in 2007 following reports by girls at the now defunct Duncroft approved school in Staines that he had abused them. 

Assistant chief constable Jerry Kirkby said in a statement, issued today, that Surrey Police had apologised to victims for not encouraging them to support police action against the disgraced late DJ.

Kirkby also said, in hindsight, its initial investigation into Savile's actions should have focused on a broader timeframe than just a specific period in the 1970s.

He said reports by former residents at Duncroft of Savile's abuse were taken seriously by police.

But advice from the Crown Prosecution Service was that they thought it unlikely the matters would result in a prosecution, he said.

His comments come as a Surrey Police internal review into its actions in the 2007 investigation are published today (January 11).

In a statement, chief constable Kirkby said: "The individual who reported witnessing an incident of sexual abuse at Duncroft Children's Home in the 1970s was taken seriously by Surrey Police, as were all victims subsequently identified by the investigation. Contact was made with West Yorkshire Police, where Savile was residing, and with Surrey Children's Services as part of the investigation strategy.

"The initial allegation prompted a series of enquiries both to former residents of Duncroft and to Barnardo's who managed the children's home during that period. Two further reports from the 1970s came to light as a result. One related to Savile asking a Duncroft resident to perform oral sex which she declined. The other was an allegation he kissed a teenage girl who was attending a concert at Stoke Mandeville Hospital. The girl was unconnected to the hospital and was not a patient."

He continued: "As the investigation continued it was escalated to a senior level in the Force for oversight. At the time, the action taken was considered proportionate to the information being received. In hindsight, the focus of the investigation on a specific time period in the 1970s was too restrictive.

"The decision not to share accounts between victims has also been examined by the review. This decision was initially taken to ensure the integrity of evidence so there could be no suggestion of collusion, contamination or prompting between accounts - a factor which has led previous cases involving multiple victims to be dismissed in court.

"This was seen as best practice at the start of the investigation and it is noteworthy that current national police guidance continues to highlight disclosure of information between victims in such cases as a risk. However, it is right to question whether this was later balanced against the confidence of victims to support further legal action.

"It is not possible to know how this would have influenced individuals at the time but decisions around disclosure and victim care should have been reviewed at a later stage in the enquiry. The Force accepts more could have been done to encourage victims to support police action and we have apologised to each of the victims involved."