Keir Starmer has rightly been under fire since Labour last week exploited abused children by publishing a Twitter post claiming Rishi Sunak doesn’t care about protecting children from paedophiles. Sunak is abysmal, but he has no role in the sentencing of offenders – and Starmer himself, as then-Director of Public Prosecutions, played a key role in creating the sentencing guidelines that courts still follow, including specific recommendations on sentencing sex offenders.
Starmer’s anonymity request was not his only controversy regarding sex offenders
And further hypocrisy in Labour’s current stance has come to light thanks to Gil O’Teane, who pointed out that – as a barrister acting on behalf of a convicted paedophile – Starmer asked a judge to keep secret both the offender’s identity and the leniency of the sentence he had received:
There is no suggestion that Starmer was acting improperly in representing his client in 2002 – but there is every suggestion that a man who understood the nuances of sentencing in 2002 is profoundly hypocritical and reckless to disregard his own history in order to make a vile, misleading and inflammatory smear against a political opponent. Especially one who was running the CPS when it chose not to prosecute Jimmy Savile.