As Keir Starmer’s political career reaches a dramatic turning point following his recent resignation as prime minister, attention has returned to a less examined chapter of his public life: his years as director of public prosecutions at the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Before entering frontline politics, Starmer built much of his reputation around his legal career, particularly his leadership of the CPS from 2008 to 2013, a period that later became central to his image as a cautious and institution-focused public figure.
Supporters portrayed his CPS tenure as the transformation of a radical human rights lawyer into a careful administrator who brought professionalism and restraint to Britain’s prosecution system. However, critics have continued to question decisions made under his leadership involving some of the country’s most sensitive and controversial cases, including the handling of allegations against Jimmy Savile, the prosecution battle surrounding Julian Assange, and investigations into alleged British involvement in overseas torture operations.
One of the most significant controversies involved the CPS’s handling of allegations against entertainer Jimmy Savile, who was accused after his death of sexually abusing and raping young victims over several decades.
In 2012, after the allegations became public, Starmer commissioned an internal CPS review into why Savile had not been prosecuted while he was alive. The investigation found shortcomings in the way prosecutors assessed the allegations and concluded that the cases had not been treated with the seriousness they deserved.
The inquiry found that a CPS reviewing lawyer had indicated that prosecution was unlikely because the allegations were considered “relatively minor”. The report criticised that assessment, stating that sexual assault should be regarded as serious in itself and that the allegations against Savile represented a wider pattern of abuse targeting vulnerable women and girls.
The review concluded that the allegations were “serious and credible” and that, had police and prosecutors taken a different approach, a prosecution might have been possible. It also raised concerns over missing records, after CPS files relating to Savile were deleted in 2010 following the decision not to proceed with charges.
The Savile controversy later became politically explosive in 2022 when then-prime minister Boris Johnson accused Starmer in Parliament of failing to prosecute Savile during his time as CPS director. Johnson faced widespread criticism over the statement and later withdrew the remarks. Starmer’s defenders argued that the accusation wrongly placed responsibility on him for decisions taken before the full extent of Savile’s crimes emerged publicly.
Another major controversy linked to Starmer’s CPS leadership involved Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder whose legal battle became one of the most closely followed cases involving press freedom and extradition.
The CPS was involved in advising Swedish prosecutors during their investigation into allegations against Assange. Later-released correspondence showed that CPS officials advised Swedish authorities against travelling to London to interview Assange, who had entered Ecuador’s embassy in London in 2012 to avoid extradition.
Further emails revealed disagreements over whether Sweden should continue pursuing the investigation. A CPS lawyer reportedly urged Swedish officials not to abandon the case, writing, “Don’t you dare get cold feet!!!” after concerns emerged that the investigation could be discontinued.
Sweden eventually dropped the investigation in 2017. Questions later emerged over the deletion of CPS emails connected to the case, with critics arguing that the loss of records created concerns about transparency. Starmer’s personal involvement in decisions surrounding Assange has remained a subject of political debate.
Starmer’s period leading the CPS also included decisions relating to investigations into alleged British involvement in torture programs following the September 11 attacks.
After allegations emerged that intelligence agencies had participated in extraordinary rendition and the mistreatment of terrorism suspects, British police investigated claims involving MI5 and MI6 officials. During Starmer’s leadership, prosecutors decided not to bring charges against individuals connected to those investigations.
In 2010, Starmer concluded there was insufficient evidence to prosecute an MI5 officer accused of involvement in the torture of a British citizen in Pakistan. Further investigations continued, but in 2012 the CPS again decided that prosecutions would not be pursued against intelligence officials.
Later evidence recovered from Libya after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi’s government included documents relating to alleged cooperation between British intelligence officials and Libyan authorities in the treatment of a terrorism suspect. Despite the collection of extensive evidence, prosecutors concluded that it was insufficient to proceed with criminal charges.
These decisions have remained among the most contested elements of Starmer’s legal career. Supporters maintain that prosecutors must act according to legal standards and cannot bring cases without sufficient evidence, while critics argue that the handling of these matters reflected broader concerns about accountability when powerful institutions are involved.
Following Starmer’s recent resignation as prime minister after less than two years in office, his record is now being reassessed beyond his time in Downing Street. The controversies surrounding his years at the CPS continue to form a significant part of that examination, keeping questions alive over how Britain’s justice system handled cases involving influential individuals, state agencies, and allegations of institutional failure.
