‘Deeply Sorry’: Simon Levy Failings Exposed as CPS Apology Raises a Chilling Question — Could Two Women’s Deaths Have Been Prevented?
A senior Crown Prosecution Service figure has finally apologised over failures surrounding Simon Levy, after prosecutors were accused of missing crucial opportunities to keep the dangerous offender in custody. Now, as more women reportedly come forward with allegations, a devastating question is demanding an answer: what might have happened if the warning signs had been acted on sooner?
For the families of Carmenza Valencia-Trujillo and Sheryl Wilkins, the apology comes far too late.
Both women lost their lives after Levy remained at liberty despite serious concerns surrounding his behaviour.
Now, revelations about decisions made in the crucial period before Sheryl was killed have triggered fresh scrutiny of the justice system — and whether opportunities to intervene were missed.
The CPS has acknowledged failures and expressed its deep regret.
But for grieving relatives, regret cannot turn back the clock.
The warning signs were already there
According to the account surrounding the case, Levy was already under investigation for serious allegations when prosecutors were making decisions about his custody.
That should have made the situation urgent.
Instead, prosecutors allegedly failed to seek an arrest warrant at a critical moment.
Even more troublingly, a judge was reportedly not informed about the full extent of the allegations and investigations involving Levy.
The consequences would prove devastating.
Then another woman was killed
Sheryl Wilkins was a mother of four.
She was killed after the justice system had already had opportunities to examine allegations against Levy.
That sequence of events has become central to the growing controversy.
The question is not simply whether prosecutors made an error.
It is whether the error removed an opportunity to protect another woman.
That distinction matters enormously.
A rare apology from the CPS
The head of the Crown Prosecution Service has now apologised for the failings.
The language used was striking: “deeply sorry.”
But apologies from institutions are often easier to issue than answers are to provide.
Why was an arrest warrant not sought?
Why was a judge allegedly not given the complete picture?
Who knew what — and when?
And could a different decision have prevented Levy from remaining in the community?
Those are the questions now demanding scrutiny.
The missing information that could have changed everything
One of the most serious concerns is the allegation that the judge was not told Levy was already being investigated in connection with another murder and an alleged rape.
If accurate, that raises fundamental questions about how information was shared between prosecutors, police and the courts.
A judge can only make an informed decision based on the information placed before them.
If crucial information is missing, the entire decision-making process can be compromised.
Sir Mark Rowley adds pressure
The controversy has also intensified after Sir Mark Rowley criticised wider problems within the justice system.
His concerns reportedly extend beyond one individual case.
The broader argument is that dangerous offenders must be properly assessed before they are allowed back into communities.
For police leaders, the Levy case provides a particularly painful example of what can happen when warning signs are not connected quickly enough.
How many women may have been affected?
Perhaps the most disturbing development is the number of women reportedly coming forward.
Some have claimed they may have been victims of Levy.
Their allegations will need to be investigated individually and tested through the proper legal process.
But every new account raises another question.
Was Levy’s history much larger than authorities initially understood?
And could earlier intervention have stopped some of the alleged offending?
Those questions may take years to answer.
The chain of decisions under the microscope
Serious criminal cases are rarely determined by one decision.
They are built from a chain of actions.
Police investigate.
Prosecutors assess evidence.
Courts make decisions.
Information is shared.
Warrants are requested.
Bail or custody decisions are made.
When something goes wrong, investigators must determine precisely where the chain broke.
In Levy’s case, that process is now under intense scrutiny.
An apology cannot answer the biggest question
For the families, the most painful issue is not necessarily who made the mistake.
It is whether the tragedy could have been avoided.
If prosecutors had sought the warrant earlier, would Levy have remained in custody?
If the judge had received all the relevant information, would the decision have been different?
If agencies had connected the allegations more effectively, could another woman have been protected?
There is no guarantee that different decisions would have prevented the killings.
But those questions must still be examined.
The danger of hindsight
There is also an important warning.
Criminal investigations cannot be judged solely by what happened afterward.
Authorities make decisions based on the evidence available to them at the time.
An allegation is not automatically proof.
An investigation is not a conviction.
And hindsight can make warning signs appear more obvious than they actually were.
That is why any review must establish exactly what information existed at each stage.
A justice system facing uncomfortable questions
The Levy case has now become about more than one alleged offender.
It has raised broader concerns about communication between police, prosecutors and courts.
It has also reignited the debate over how authorities should deal with people facing multiple serious allegations.
For women potentially at risk, the consequences of getting that balance wrong can be catastrophic.
What happens next?
The CPS apology is unlikely to be the final word.
Reviews of the decisions surrounding Levy could reveal more about how the case was handled and whether procedures were followed correctly.
Further allegations may also require investigation.
And for the families of Carmenza and Sheryl, every new revelation will inevitably reopen painful memories.
The public wants accountability.
Police leaders want answers.
And prosecutors now face the difficult task of explaining how the system failed at a moment when every decision mattered.
The question that will not go away
Simon Levy’s case has left behind a devastating trail of unanswered questions.
There was an investigation.
There were allegations.
There were opportunities to intervene.
And yet another woman lost her life.
The CPS has said it is “deeply sorry.”
But for those left grieving, the apology can never be enough on its own.
Because one question will continue to haunt the case:
If the warning signs were already there, how many attacks might have been prevented if the justice system had acted differently — and how many women could still be asking that question today?
