Letters sent to the director of public prosecutions by Labour deputy leader Tom Watson MP calling for an immediate review of the case against Leon Brittan been seen by Channel 4 News.
In letters from Tom Watson MP to Alison Saunders sent in April of 2014 Watson suggested the CPS had not taken action against Leon Brittan because of his background.
“There has been a sea change in the climate surrounding rape, historic cases in particular. Why is it that the tide has not reached this case?” Watson wrote.
“I am driven to the unpalatable conclusion that the identity of the alleged perpetrator – Leon Brittan -may in some way have influenced treatment of the case.”
“I hope I am wrong. But in my view the case demands your personal attention and an immediate review by the CPS Area Head of Sexual Offences.”
In the letter Watson complains that the investigation was dropped “before the suspect wast interviewed.”
He outlines his work with the Metropolitan police around sexual abuse cliams – stating he has received “a considerable amount of information from victims directly”.
“You will know that some of this information has already led to arrests. I anticipate that, under your leadership, more work will follow,” the MP warns.
In an interview the Channel 4 News Watson responded to calls for an apology to the family of Lord Brittan; “There were multiple allegations of sexual crimes made against Leon Brittan and in those circumstances I don’t think it was unreasonable to ask that the guidelines were adhered to.”
“And I think most reasonable people would think that when there are multiple allegations from people independent of each other, never met, that the first thing the police want to do was to find out what the alleged suspect had to say.”
When asked if he would now contact Lord Brittan’s family he stated; “I believe I was helping victims have their voice heard and I don’t want to cause more distress than has already been caused.”
The newly appointed deputy Labour leader says he will not be stepping down.
“There is far more to this case than meets the eye and I think that should be a concern for the Goddard Inquiry but I don’t think it requires public comment now.”