Child killer Axel Rudakubana couldn’t be arrested before the atrocity (Image: CPS)
Police “could not arrest” Southport killer Axel Rudakubana before he carried out his attack because of a gap in the law, the UK’s terror watchdog has said. Jonathan Hall, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, said it is “horrifying” officers couldn’t intervene despite knowing Rudakubana planned mass killings.
Mr Hall rejected Prime Minister Sir ’s calls for the terrorism definition to be widened to include such atrocities, warning it could hit free speech and create a new “landscape” where thousands more people are labelled terrorist offenders. He declared a new offence should be created to cover those planning to carry out slaughters, with a maximum penalty of life behind bars.
:
The Southport atrocity shocked the nation (Image: PA)
Detailing how this could have been used in the Southport atrocity, Mr Hall said: “It’s a case where the fact that the police couldn’t arrest this person for the plans that they knew about was a real gap.
“They couldn’t charge them with that as an offence, which will be amazing to people. It was horrifying.”
Axel Rudakubana was jailed for a minimum of 52 years for stabbing three girls to death and attempting to murder eight other children, who cannot be named for legal reasons, class instructor Leanne Lucas and businessman John Hayes at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in July last year.
Despite contact with state agencies such as Prevent, aimed at countering terrorism, authorities failed to stop the attack which claimed the lives of Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine, Bebe King, six, and Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven.
Rudakubana’s acts of extreme violence were not considered terrorism under existing laws because there was no evidence of his purpose being to advance an ideological cause as set out in the terror definition.
He researched mass shootings and regularly carried knives. The crazed teenager also looked up information on the London bombings, the IRA, MI5, the war in Gaza, school massacres, the Libya conflict and dictator Muammar Gaddafi, a review into the Government’s counter-terrorism Prevent programme found.
But the review confirmed officers did not believe he was a terrorist threat. Officers were wrong not to escalate his case as a potential terror threat, as there was “sufficient concern” about his extreme views and obsession with violence, the scathing report said.
Mr Hall told Radio 4’s Today programme: “The way in which our law has worked is, we’ve always gone after people for having committed offences.
“Then in the 1980s they made it an offence to attempt, but we said it’s only an attempt if you’re right on the cusp of committing it. But if they’re sitting in their bedroom, and they are drawing up plans, perhaps even collecting weapons or precursor chemicals, it’s not an offence unless they’re doing it.”
It would not be considered a conspiracy offence either if the potential offenders are “on their own”, Mr Hall said – or using artificial intelligence to draw up their plans for an attack.
He added: “And arguably, if you’re doing that with – well, not arguably, certainly – if you’re doing it with a chatbot, for example.”
Mr Hall rebuffed ’s plan to widen the terrorism definition to introduce killers like Rudakubana. Doing so could lead to thousands more people being labelled terrorists – even those sharing violent war footage, Mr Hall said.
He added: “Such is the functional importance of the terrorism definition, that redefinition would alter the landscape.
“It would risk major false positives – the prosecution of people who by no stretch of the imagination are terrorists – and extend terrorism liability into novel terrain.
Ministers are facing calls for urgent action after the Southport atrocity (Image: MERSEYSIDE POLICE/AFP via Getty)
“People swapping violent war footage would be at risk of encouraging terrorism, resulting in unacceptable restrictions on freedom of expression.”
He added that the current “very wide” definition depends on the discretion of the police and authorities on deciding who to arrest and prosecute.
Mr Hall said: “It has been my experience that this discretion has been exercised capably and well, so that individuals are not exposed to irrationality, heavy-handedness or bias.
“But this is a product of a mature and defined system operating with a familiar threshold. Altering the threshold would not only expand the reach of terrorism legislation but would increase the possibility of inaccurate use and, in theory, abuse.”
He said for some cases it will be clear to investigators the attack was for “purely personal motives” and saying it is not treated as terrorism makes “good sense to do so”.
Speaking about whether acts of extreme violence, where multiple people are killed, should be declared terrorism, Mr Hall said: “In unclear cases, especially if the attacker has been killed or makes no comment in police, police may be dependent on the outcome of searches of electronic devices.
“A clear and honest explanation to the public would go something like this: ‘Because of the nature of the attack, Counter Terrorism Police are involved in this investigation alongside the local force. Investigators are keeping an open mind, but there is insufficient evidence at the moment to state why the attack was carried out and whether terrorism was involved’.
“In the digital era, if the police do not take the lead in providing clear, accurate and sober details about an attack like Southport, others will. Social media is a source of news for many people and near-silence in the face of horrific events of major public interest is no longer an option.
“Following Southport, the disinformation generated on social media, combined with widespread allegations of a ‘cover-up’, risked far more prejudice to any trial than the placement of undisputed facts about the attacker in the public domain.”