1. Daniel said:

    The date of destruction was very close to the handover of power that was announced on 10 May and which took place on 27 June.

  2. Mischief said:

    After a bout of Googling I discovered that they should actually have been destroyed 3 years after the 1982 trial date, so that’s possibly the most interesting part to this- not necessarily that they were destroyed, but why they were destroyed so late. Since they were possibly kept because they were classified as being of “Long Term Interest”, why then were they finally destroyed in 2007? Just a CPS house keeping/clear out exercise or something more?

    The criteria determining a Long Term Interest case is interesting. It can include something like unusual charges/cases (disorderly house convictions perhaps could, at a stretch, apply there, I don’t know) but it also includes, for example, security/terrorism, secret/top secret and “famous, eminent or notorious people”.

    Unrelated FOI request letter which confirms the 3 year rule


    “Following a search of the information you requested, I can confirm the CPS does not hold the information. If a case file was held by the CPS, it would have been destroyed in accordance to our case file retention policy. Please see page 32 of the CPS Records Management Manual, which stipulates cases finalised at Crown Court (which do not fall within the category of Long Term Interest criteria) are destroyed three years following the final court date or the length of sentence or order. For ease of reference please click on the link: http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/rmmversion2.pdf.”

    CPS Records Manual (see page 36 for Long Term Interest information and criteria)

    https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/rmmversion2.pdf (page 36)

  3. Anne Wade said:

    Further questions:
    Who destroyed them?
    Who ordered their destruction?
    If anyone has the list, will the government give them immunity from the official secrets act so they can publish it?
    If not, please would they share it here anonymously anyway?

  4. Mischief said:

    Anne, what was asked for, or according to this letter, was a list of suspects “charged”, and not a list of suspects who were arrested.
    Those who were charged is already known. There were three of them, two of whom were the Kasirs.. The third was acquitted.

    • Anne Wade said:

      Sorry, thanks.

  5. undisclosed said:

    Take a look at google news. If you search google news for “leon brittan” or “leon brittan police” or “leon brittan questioned,” it appears that some (most?) of the links to news articles that discuss how Brittan was questioned by police over a rape allegation have been removed.

    I wonder what else Brittan has had removed.

    This is deeply disturbing. Why hasn’t Leon Brittan been arrested yet?
    He seems to have fallen out of the news lately.
    Pressure should be increased on the government, the crown prosecution service and the police, so that they cannot sweep the allegations against Brittan under the rug (again).
    Why hasn’t he been arrested and/or charged yet?
    Are members of the coalition government protecting him for some reason?

    (This comment also posted on the Needle Blog).

  6. undisclosed said:

    Additionally, Theresa May should be asked the following question:

    In the UK media, it has been widely reported that the names of around 10 high profile politicians and members of parliament have been named “again and again” by victims who have called telephone crisis/help lines.

    For example, see the articles below –



    In light of these politicians (including members of the House of Lords and House of Commons) being named “again and again” by victims, will Theresa May name these politicians under parliamentary privilege?

    It is important that the identity of these high profile politicians be publicly revealed, so that parents who might know these individuals can take measures to protect their children (for example, not letting their kids be alone around the politicians named “again and again” by victims).

    If Theresa May will not use parliamentary privilege to name these alleged child sex abusers, does she think that the privacy of the accused is more important than the safety of innocent children who might be abused in the future by these individuals?

    If Theresa May refuses to name these individuals, then MPs (such as Tom Watson and Simon Danczuk) who are campaigning for victims’ rights should be asked to name these politicians.

    It is entirely ridiculous that around 10 (and possibly even more) MPs and Lords are being named “again and again” by victims who call crisis hotlines, yet the identity of these alleged predators is still being concealed.

    The names of the accused should be published in the media, and they can then deny the allegations, if they wish to do so.

    It is ludicrous that various newspapers keep publishing articles about “senior Tory cabinet ministers” from the Thatcher era and “Labour peers” and “Tory MPs” who are alleged child sex abusers, yet none of these politicians are ever arrested, charged, or even identified.

    If numerous people are accusing certain specific MPs and Lords “again and again” it is time that the names of the alleged abusers be made public in the media.

    Tom Watson and Simon Danczuk, will you name these abusers under parliamentary privilege?

  7. Bluto Mactavish said:

    It makes me wonder about who is running the country now All these allegations need to be made public, justified and the men named and prosecuted.

%d bloggers like this: