Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.

Claim: Keir Starmer stopped Jimmy Savile being charged in 2009.

Q1: Why didn't Keir Starmer prosecute Jimmy Savile ?
A1: On the request of Starmer, Alison Levitt, his then Principal Legal Adviser, released a report in 2013 on the 2009 decision not to prosecute Savile. It found that if prosecutors had taken a different approach then prosecution may indeed have been possible. Levitt found that Surrey Police did not tell the victims that other complaints had been made against Savile also, and that had they known this, victims would have been more likely to press charges.

The report also discovered a ‘lack of understanding’ by officers concerning the law and practice, concerning sexual offences. It was found that outdated regulations and training were partially to blame in the failure to prosecute Savile, indicating structural issues in the way officers were trained, rather than being a matter of personal responsibility.

Q2: Was there blunders by the  police and lawyers during the prosecution of Jimmy Savile ?
A2: Britain’s chief prosecutor apologised for the failure to pursue four separate allegations against the BBC star, one made as recently as four years ago.

Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer said there were failures by police in Sussex and Surrey and by the principal lawyer in dealing with the allegations. He issued a personal apology for the mistakes by the Crown Prosecution Service and announced a series of changes to improve the investigation of allegations by child victims.

Q3: Did Keir Starmer helped Jimmy Savile to escape justice?
A3: In 2008 (a few months before Starmer became director of public prosecutions [DPP] at the CPS) Sussex Police launched an investigation into a possible sexual assault, but took no further action as the complainant did not wish to give evidence.  In 2009 the CPS reviewed four sexual assault claims against Savile and felt there was insufficient evidence with which to proceed - again, because none of Savile's accusers were prepared to support police action. Frankly, the CPS makes a lot of decisions like this and it would be strange for the director himself to make the decision personally - that's the responsibility of the reviewing lawyer. We may well question that decision, but asking whether there was in fact sufficient evidence is one thing; to assume that such evidence would have resulted in a conviction is quite another. Have any of us seen the evidence the CPS was presented with?  Have those spinning these accusations - or spreading them - actually spoken with any of those who brought the initial complaints against Savile? Starmer took over a CPS under fire on various fronts and, after 2011, especially on the Savile issue. While he had no personal involvement in the decision not to proceed, Starmer did commission a review, headed by Alison Levitt QC, in which he revealed failures at the heart of the CPS and in 2013 issued an apology. He acknowledged those failures, pledging to change the culture of the CPS and its internal mechanisms. A "fundamental shift" was required, he argued, as "we cannot afford another Savile moment in five or ten years. While "no improper motives" were found, the Evening Standard reported that one of the review's major criticisms was that "the CPS lawyer (my italics) should have challenged the police conclusions and sought to build a prosecution against Savile". It also suggested the complainants should have been informed that there had been other complaints about Savile, as this would potentially have encouraged them to give evidence. This
user
justification: The QAs show that there were a series of "blunders" in which allegations against Savile were not followed through. Therefore Keir Starmer cannot be held responsible.

verdict: 'Refuted'
assistant