- Mobile site
- E-Newsletters
-
- News feed
- Find us on Twitter
@brightonargus
All the latest news and view from the Argus
@theargusoffers
The latest offers and competitions from the Argus
@theargusguide
The best events in Brighton, Hove and Sussex
@ArgusMagazine
Features, interviews, TV, travel and lifestyle from the Argus
- Find us on Facebook
The Argus
The Argus - news, sport and leisure for Brighton, Hove and Sussex
The Argus Offers and Competitions
Keep up to date with all the offers, events and competitions from the Argus
Sussex Police under fire for handling of Jimmy Savile abuse case (From The Argus)
Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.
Sussex Police under fire for handling of Jimmy Savile abuse case
12:16pm Friday 11th January 2013 in News By Emily Walker, Chief Reporter
Sussex Police are under fire in a report about Jimmy Savile for the Director of Public Prosecutions (Anna Gowthorpe/PA Wire)
Sussex Police have been criticised for the way they handled an allegation of sexual abuse against Jimmy Savile while the disgraced TV presenter was still alive.
The director for public prosecution’s Principal Legal Advisor, Alison Levitt QC, examined complaints made to the police about the former Top of the Pop presenter.
Ms Levitt concluded prosecutions might have been possible if prosecutors and police had acted differently.
Ms Levitt said she found Sussex Police detectives had dissuaded a young woman form Worthing from supporting a prosecution.
In her report Ms Levitt said the Sussex Police detective constable investigating her case in 2008 “left her in no doubt as to how difficult it would be for a prosecution to take place because Jimmy Savile was a “big celebrity”; she said to me the police had told her no one would believe her.
She remembered DC T telling her that because he had plenty of money, Jimmy Savile would have the best lawyers, it would all take place in a “big court in London” and his lawyers would make “mincemeat” of her.
“She also got the clear impression from the police that she would be publicly branded a liar and that her name would be all over the newspapers, particularly if she 'lost the case'".
Ms Levitt’s report also found the Worthing victim also said she had not been informed about other victims who had come forward in Surrey, that had she gone ahead with a prosecution she would have been entitled to anonymity and had she known that information she might have been prepared to cooperate in a prosecution.
'Difficult circumstances'
Sussex Police said they acknowledged the findings of the DPP’s report and accepted their officers may have inadvertently dissuaded the victim from supporting any prosecution.
But added “it can be difficult in such circumstances to achieve the balance between supporting and reassuring a victim, whilst providing honest advice about the prosecution process and standard of evidence needed.”
Deputy Chief Constable Giles York said: “Our priority is to be both professional and compassionate, with a focus on achieving the best outcome for victims and respecting their wishes.
“We welcome the DPP’s statement including the finding that the Sussex Police case was handled by experienced and committed officers, who acted in good faith, seeking to apply the correct principles.
"We also recognise that we could have done better and are committed to honest reflection and learning lessons for the future.
Reviewed information
“As soon as publicity about Jimmy Savile developed in October 2012 - before the DPP initiated his review - we started our own detailed Internal Management Review; including reviewing all of the available material, revisiting the victim in Sussex and speaking to the officers involved. A summary of that Review is available.
‘The DPP’s Statement today will help both police and prosecutors further improve how we respond to cases of sexual assault, whether current or historic.
‘We put victim care first and reflect on our actions and we note that the DPP’s Full Report is based on partial information.
Considering report
"We would have welcomed the opportunity to engage with the review and provide full access to our people and information, as we are doing with a similar review being conducted by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary’.
‘We will now carefully consider the full content of the DPP’s Full Report, with a view to updating our own policies where appropriate.
"We also pledge to work closely with the CPS and ACPO to take forward the broader ideas and proposals made in the DPP’s Statement today.
‘Meanwhile, I must reassure victims that they should continue to have the confidence to come forward and report this horrendous type of crime.
"We will always attempt to seek justice, even if many years have passed. We carry out many such investigations which often result in substantial sentences.
Read the full report to the Director of Public prosecutions here: www.theargus.co.uk/news/special/dppsavilereport
Details from a second report released today by Scotland Yard and the NSPCC can be found in The Argus report: Extent of Jimmy Savile's abuse revealed in new reports.
See the latest news headlines from The Argus:
- David Cameron rejects Caroline Lucas' Page 3 ban call
- Looking Back: Littlehampton fishermen's fight for livelihoods
- New report reveals Brighton seafront is the city's most pressing concern
- Speakers to debate gay marriage proposal
- Jeremy Forrest's 'caring nature' led to his troubles, his sister claims
Add us to your circles on Google+
Comments(17)
lordenglandofsussex
says...
2:05pm Fri 11 Jan 13
The cover up continues and the peadophile rings at the highest level continues.
Tom V
says...
2:05pm Fri 11 Jan 13
The success rates in prosecutions are distressingly low because genuine victims are rarely believed. That's why they're not always encouraged to go to court.
wewe83
says...
2:05pm Fri 11 Jan 13
wewe83
says...
2:16pm Fri 11 Jan 13
MuammarQaddafi
says...
2:31pm Fri 11 Jan 13
Spx
says...
5:55pm Fri 11 Jan 13
hubby
says...
8:01pm Fri 11 Jan 13
This pervert had people at the very highest level watching his back.
They are the ones we need to know about.We have heard just about enough about Saville.
D360
says...
9:55pm Fri 11 Jan 13
Spx wrote:What?!
It's difficult to investigate stuff from inside a nice warm police car
AmboGuy
says...
10:25pm Fri 11 Jan 13
D360 wrote:Don't worry it's just his usual drivel!!
Spx wrote:What?!
It's difficult to investigate stuff from inside a nice warm police car
trystero
says...
12:33am Sat 12 Jan 13
hubby wrote:Apparently Savile spent every single New Year's Eve at Chequers during the regime of one particular Prime Minister. They were often photographed together, and the PM in question also made three appearances on 'Jim'll Fix It'. The same PM also ensured that Savile was knighted in the 1990 honours list. "People at the very highest level watching his back" indeed.
I am worried that the Police are trying to insinuate that he did his dirty deeds completely unilaterally.
This pervert had people at the very highest level watching his back.
They are the ones we need to know about.We have heard just about enough about Saville.
I wonder who this PM (clearly one of "the ones we need to know about") might have been, and which political party they might have been leading during their time at the head of HM Government?
D360
says...
3:43pm Sat 12 Jan 13
wewe83 wrote:Have you finished ranting?
And no wonder victims never come foward for years with police going around victims house and in so many words saying shut it he's a sir and he's got money how many how many more sex offenders will sussex police cover up for the officer who delt with this case should be delt with by the court and lose their jobs sickos
The detective is quite right. Going to the police in 2008 to report that decades ago you were touched by Jimmy Saville, who until recently was considered a " butter wouldn't melt" children's hero. First I would be surprised if the claim would be enough to justify an arrest let alone get to court.
And have you ever had to go to court as a victim or witness of crime? The defence barrister is paid to make you look like you're lying, mistaken, making it up, confused, anything to discredit you. It's only right people are told this, would you rather the " sickos" tell victims it will be an easy ride?
On a personal note if you'd paid more attention in school you'd know how to use punctuation.
D360
says...
3:46pm Sat 12 Jan 13
AmboGuy wrote:I think he's trying to make a point but his brain won't let him
D360 wrote:Don't worry it's just his usual drivel!!
Spx wrote:What?!
It's difficult to investigate stuff from inside a nice warm police car
D360
says...
3:46pm Sat 12 Jan 13
AmboGuy wrote:I think he's trying to make a point but his brain won't let him
D360 wrote:Don't worry it's just his usual drivel!!
Spx wrote:What?!
It's difficult to investigate stuff from inside a nice warm police car
wewe83
says...
9:49pm Sat 12 Jan 13
D360 wrote:You must support sex offenders then or some thing or maybe you're a police officer
wewe83 wrote:Have you finished ranting?
And no wonder victims never come foward for years with police going around victims house and in so many words saying shut it he's a sir and he's got money how many how many more sex offenders will sussex police cover up for the officer who delt with this case should be delt with by the court and lose their jobs sickos
The detective is quite right. Going to the police in 2008 to report that decades ago you were touched by Jimmy Saville, who until recently was considered a " butter wouldn't melt" children's hero. First I would be surprised if the claim would be enough to justify an arrest let alone get to court.
And have you ever had to go to court as a victim or witness of crime? The defence barrister is paid to make you look like you're lying, mistaken, making it up, confused, anything to discredit you. It's only right people are told this, would you rather the " sickos" tell victims it will be an easy ride?
On a personal note if you'd paid more attention in school you'd know how to use punctuation.
Roundbill
says...
10:50am Sun 13 Jan 13
wewe83 wrote:And thus the debate degenerates into "if you don't want to help me lynch the dodgy bloke down the road, YOU must be a peedo!"
D360 wrote:You must support sex offenders then or some thing or maybe you're a police officer
wewe83 wrote:Have you finished ranting?
And no wonder victims never come foward for years with police going around victims house and in so many words saying shut it he's a sir and he's got money how many how many more sex offenders will sussex police cover up for the officer who delt with this case should be delt with by the court and lose their jobs sickos
The detective is quite right. Going to the police in 2008 to report that decades ago you were touched by Jimmy Saville, who until recently was considered a " butter wouldn't melt" children's hero. First I would be surprised if the claim would be enough to justify an arrest let alone get to court.
And have you ever had to go to court as a victim or witness of crime? The defence barrister is paid to make you look like you're lying, mistaken, making it up, confused, anything to discredit you. It's only right people are told this, would you rather the " sickos" tell victims it will be an easy ride?
On a personal note if you'd paid more attention in school you'd know how to use punctuation.
Ooh, it's like the McCarthy witch-hunt all over again, innit?
D360
says...
11:56am Sun 13 Jan 13
wewe83 wrote:Yes well done, you certainly blew my reasoned point of view out of the water and that intelligent response.
D360 wrote:You must support sex offenders then or some thing or maybe you're a police officer
wewe83 wrote:Have you finished ranting?
And no wonder victims never come foward for years with police going around victims house and in so many words saying shut it he's a sir and he's got money how many how many more sex offenders will sussex police cover up for the officer who delt with this case should be delt with by the court and lose their jobs sickos
The detective is quite right. Going to the police in 2008 to report that decades ago you were touched by Jimmy Saville, who until recently was considered a " butter wouldn't melt" children's hero. First I would be surprised if the claim would be enough to justify an arrest let alone get to court.
And have you ever had to go to court as a victim or witness of crime? The defence barrister is paid to make you look like you're lying, mistaken, making it up, confused, anything to discredit you. It's only right people are told this, would you rather the " sickos" tell victims it will be an easy ride?
On a personal note if you'd paid more attention in school you'd know how to use punctuation.
gusset snatcher says...
1:46pm Fri 11 Jan 13