The ex-chief prosecutor and children’s charities yesterday warned of ‘injustice’ if serial sex attackers such as Rolf Harris are able to hide behind a cloak of anonymity. Keir Starmer, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, said Harris’s conviction may never have been possible if the paedophile had kept his name out of public view. The predator used draconian legal threats – citing the Leveson Inquiry into Press standards – to pressurise newspapers into keeping the fact he was being investigated by police secret for five months. Disclosure: Keir Starmer, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, (left) said Harris’s conviction may never have been possible if the paedophile had kept his name out of public view . The letters, sent by Royal solicitor Harbottle & Lewis, claimed there was ‘no public interest’ in reporting that he had been quizzed under caution in November 2012 for allegedly sexually assaulting his daughter’s best friend. The problem was compounded by the police – who Leveson had recommended to normally keep secret the fact a suspect had been arrested – refusing to identify Harris. It was only after journalists finally reported his arrest, in April the following year, that a string of other victims came forward to say they had also been indecently assaulted. Prosecutor Sasha Wass QC told the trial this evidence was crucial in proving the case against Harris by demonstrating his ‘persistent pattern of sexual offending’. Yesterday Sir Keir, who advised on the decision to charge Harris in August 2013, said the publicity of his arrest had been crucial. He said: ‘It’s very difficult for victims of sexual abuse to come forward in ordinary circumstances. It’s particularly difficult where there is a celebrity involved because very often victims feel they simply are not going to be believed against someone such as Rolf Harris. ‘It was exactly the same with Jimmy Savile – very few victims did come forward in that case, they felt they couldn’t take Jimmy Savile on, they wouldn’t be believed. That’s a critical part of this whole case.’ He told Newsnight: ‘One of the critical things that is at the heart of this is anonymity. Very often victims find it difficult to come forward but will come forward if they know there is another victim out there.’ As free speech campaigners warned of the chilling effect of Leveson, children’s charity the NSPCC said police had been wrong to not identify Harris. Historically, police forces have confirmed or denied a suspect has been arrested or interviewed under caution if asked by journalists. But this changed in the wake of Leveson, which was published only days before Harris was first questioned under caution. In his report, Lord Justice Leveson wrote: ‘I think that it should be made clear that save in exceptional and clearly identified circumstances (for example, where there may be an immediate risk to the public), the names or identifying details of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime should not be released to the press or the public. Draconian measures: The shamed star used legal threats to keep the fact he was being investigated by the police for five months secret. His legal team claimed it was not in the 'public interest' to report the probe . John Cameron, head of child protection for the NSPCC, said police should review anonymity on arrest on a case-by-case basis. He said: ‘Where the police believe there are multiple victims over a large period of time, I think there is a benefit of releasing the name of the accused because it encourages other victims to come forward. ‘When Jimmy Savile’s name was mentioned we were inundated. If the police did not say they were investigating him, would we have got any calls at all?’ After Harris was found guilty on Tuesday, there was widespread alarm that Leveson had been successfully used by the ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ entertainer to buy five months of secrecy. Author and free speech campaigner Nick Cohen said: ‘Don’t say you weren’t warned: Rolf Harris lawyers cited Leveson in an attempt to suppress news of arrest’. Bob Satchwell, of the Society of Editors, said Harris was the second case where publicity in the media had ultimately helped to secure a conviction. Upon the conviction of TV and radio presenter Stuart Hall for sex offences against children and women, it emerged ten of his 13 victims came forward only after his arrest was reported. Liz Mullinar, founder of child abuse charity Heal for Life, said: ‘Not naming suspects in cases like this is a disgrace. It means nobody else can come forward. It is protecting the perpetrators not the victims.’ Current Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders said the conviction of Harris gave other sex abuse victims the courage to come forward and report abuse. Asked if more women might have come forward if Harris’s name had been publicised earlier, she said it was a ‘difficult balance to draw’. She said: ‘There are arguments on both sides – some people feel that they have been named and then if no charges are brought their reputation has been tarnished. ‘At the same time we have seen both in Rolf Harris and in other cases that if victims know that people are reporting that someone has been arrested, they feel safer in coming forward.’
Keir Starmer said Harris may have avoided convicted if his name was hidden .
Predator used legal threats to keep five-month police investigation secret .
His legal team claimed it was not in the public interest to report the probe .
The ex-chief prosecutor and children’s charities yesterday warned of ‘injustice’ if serial sex attackers such as Rolf Harris are able to hide behind a cloak of anonymity. Keir Starmer, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, said Harris’s conviction may never have been possible if the paedophile had kept his name out of public view. The predator used draconian legal threats – citing the Leveson Inquiry into Press standards – to pressurise newspapers into keeping the fact he was being investigated by police secret for five months. Disclosure: Keir Starmer, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, (left) said Harris’s conviction may never have been possible if the paedophile had kept his name out of public view . The letters, sent by Royal solicitor Harbottle & Lewis, claimed there was ‘no public interest’ in reporting that he had been quizzed under caution in November 2012 for allegedly sexually assaulting his daughter’s best friend. The problem was compounded by the police – who Leveson had recommended to normally keep secret the fact a suspect had been arrested – refusing to identify Harris. It was only after journalists finally reported his arrest, in April the following year, that a string of other victims came forward to say they had also been indecently assaulted. Prosecutor Sasha Wass QC told the trial this evidence was crucial in proving the case against Harris by demonstrating his ‘persistent pattern of sexual offending’. Yesterday Sir Keir, who advised on the decision to charge Harris in August 2013, said the publicity of his arrest had been crucial. He said: ‘It’s very difficult for victims of sexual abuse to come forward in ordinary circumstances. It’s particularly difficult where there is a celebrity involved because very often victims feel they simply are not going to be believed against someone such as Rolf Harris. ‘It was exactly the same with Jimmy Savile – very few victims did come forward in that case, they felt they couldn’t take Jimmy Savile on, they wouldn’t be believed. That’s a critical part of this whole case.’ He told Newsnight: ‘One of the critical things that is at the heart of this is anonymity. Very often victims find it difficult to come forward but will come forward if they know there is another victim out there.’ As free speech campaigners warned of the chilling effect of Leveson, children’s charity the NSPCC said police had been wrong to not identify Harris. Historically, police forces have confirmed or denied a suspect has been arrested or interviewed under caution if asked by journalists. But this changed in the wake of Leveson, which was published only days before Harris was first questioned under caution. In his report, Lord Justice Leveson wrote: ‘I think that it should be made clear that save in exceptional and clearly identified circumstances (for example, where there may be an immediate risk to the public), the names or identifying details of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime should not be released to the press or the public. Draconian measures: The shamed star used legal threats to keep the fact he was being investigated by the police for five months secret. His legal team claimed it was not in the 'public interest' to report the probe . John Cameron, head of child protection for the NSPCC, said police should review anonymity on arrest on a case-by-case basis. He said: ‘Where the police believe there are multiple victims over a large period of time, I think there is a benefit of releasing the name of the accused because it encourages other victims to come forward. ‘When Jimmy Savile’s name was mentioned we were inundated. If the police did not say they were investigating him, would we have got any calls at all?’ After Harris was found guilty on Tuesday, there was widespread alarm that Leveson had been successfully used by the ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ entertainer to buy five months of secrecy. Author and free speech campaigner Nick Cohen said: ‘Don’t say you weren’t warned: Rolf Harris lawyers cited Leveson in an attempt to suppress news of arrest’. Bob Satchwell, of the Society of Editors, said Harris was the second case where publicity in the media had ultimately helped to secure a conviction. Upon the conviction of TV and radio presenter Stuart Hall for sex offences against children and women, it emerged ten of his 13 victims came forward only after his arrest was reported. Liz Mullinar, founder of child abuse charity Heal for Life, said: ‘Not naming suspects in cases like this is a disgrace. It means nobody else can come forward. It is protecting the perpetrators not the victims.’ Current Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders said the conviction of Harris gave other sex abuse victims the courage to come forward and report abuse. Asked if more women might have come forward if Harris’s name had been publicised earlier, she said it was a ‘difficult balance to draw’. She said: ‘There are arguments on both sides – some people feel that they have been named and then if no charges are brought their reputation has been tarnished. ‘At the same time we have seen both in Rolf Harris and in other cases that if victims know that people are reporting that someone has been arrested, they feel safer in coming forward.’
months. Disclosure: Keir Starmer, the former measures: The shamed star used legal threats to police for five months secret. His legal team claimed it was not in the 'public interest' to report the probe . John Cameron, head of child