SOHAM killer Ian Huntley was employed by a college as a caretaker despite allegations of under age sex having been made against him.

As he begins a double life sentence for the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, reporter IAN SINGLETON looks at the Data Protection Act and the dilemmas in balancing an individual's rights with the protection of the public. . .

WITH hindsight, it seems astonishing that Ian Huntley was able to secure employment as a caretaker at Soham Village College.

Jessica's dad Leslie Chapman has said that Huntley was a "time bomb just ready to go off" and that "both our girls were in the wrong place at the wrong time."

But the difficulty for the authorities was that on the seven occasions Huntley was accused of rape or sexual offences, no charges arose.

As a result, Humberside Police deleted the contact it had with Huntley from its systems to comply, it said, with the Data Protection Act.

Therefore when Soham Village College contacted the authorities to get Huntley vetted, the future child killer was given the all clear.

It seems that, in this instance, the balance had swung in favour of protecting the individual, rather than the public, which, given the knowledge we know have, seems outrageous.

Dr Carole Easton, chief executive of the charity ChildLine, said the failures to pinpoint Huntley's history of sex crime allegations "beggared belief".

She added: "It is incomprehensible that this man, who was known to the Crown Prosecution Service, police and local authorities, should have ended up working in a school, in a position of trust."

But the danger of keeping and then disclosing allegations against someone could mean, for example, teachers who have done nothing wrong failing to secure employment because of a false, unsubstantiated and malicious claim.

To complicate the situation further, different police forces strike the balance differently with their own interpretation of the Data Protection Act.

Steve Edwards, chair of the Lancashire Police Federation, representing rank and file officers, said: "I believe there is a need for guidance, not just the police, but for other organisations.

"We have had isolated incidents in Lancashire, for instance, where officers have requested the disclosure of information the force has about them but have not been able to get hold of the whole information, and I don't think it covers those circumstances.

"In my opinion, if something is a fact it should be held -- if someone has been questioned that is a fact.

"If it is rumours from people out on the street that is uncorroborated. The difficult issue is then disclosure."

Lancashire's Assistant Chief Constable Adrian McAllister, explained how the force held data and indicated that protecting vulnerable members of the public was always the priority, seemingly contrary to Humberside's policies.

He said: "Within the Constabulary, the systems searched for vetting purposes contain current and historic information held about convictions, court proceedings, intelligence, arrest data and other details held as a result of inquiries conducted by our officers.

"Lancashire Constabulary is determined to ensure that vetting procedures are operated fairly, with due consideration being applied in respect of the privacy of individuals applying for positions involving regular, often unsupervised access to children and other vulnerable people.

"When, however, the results of a search produce information that may give cause for concern as to the suitability of the individual, the overriding duty to protect vulnerable members of society will take precedence.

"That way any information considered to be relevant to the post will be disclosed."

The fact that Lancashire and other forces are allowed to interpret the act differently was criticised by David Hart, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers.

He said: "It is clear that the current system of vetting school staff needs a radical overhaul.

"The current practice of allowing each individual police force to decide what information, beyond a criminal conviction, should be disclosed must be brought to an end.

"It is a lottery that throws up totally different sets of information, depending entirely upon the discretion of the chief constable.

"This must be dealt with as a matter of extreme urgency because heads must not be misled, however inadvertently, into employing staff who are a danger to children."

Home Secretary David Blunkett has launched an inquiry into vetting procedures which may result in clearer guidance for organisations -- and prevent "ticking timebombs" like Huntley having access to children.