Southport murder trial triggers soul-searching about the UK’s approach to terrorism and justice

When teenager Axel Rudakubana began a murderous rampage in the seaside town of Southport last July, he not only destroyed the lives of his victims and their families but sent shock waves through society. Older brother.

On Thursday, the 18-year-old girl received one Prison term is 52 years For the killing of three little girls and the imitation of 10 others, an atrocity was followed by a wave of online disinformation and anti-immigrant riots across Britain.

When full details of Rudakubana’s disturbing history finally emerged this week, they triggered a furious debate about the UK’s approach to open justice, as well as its understanding state knowledge about modern terrorism.

Rudakubana was arrested at the scene of a murder last July at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class, still standing over a child’s body with a kitchen knife in his hand.

In the days and weeks that followed, police released few details. Misinformation began spreading online, including inaccurate claims that the attacker was an illegal immigrant.

Violent race riots followed and the authorities were then accused of a cover-up, especially by those on the right of British politics.

It is a claim that police, prosecutors and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, himself a senior lawyer and former head of the Crown Prosecution Service, have repeatedly denied.

If this trial has collapsed because I or anyone else has revealed important details while the police are investigating – while the case is building, while we are waiting for a verdict, Starmer said Starmer on Tuesday.

Starmer’s position, and that of prosecutors, is based on contempt of court laws dating back to the early 1980s, which limit what information can be released before a trial to prevent a jury. The jury is affected.

However, lawyer Jonathan Hall KC, who is currently reviewing terrorism law for the government, called the state’s interpretation of contempt law in the Southport case “Ultra cautious.”

Police could, he told the Financial Times, safely release his age, ethnicity, nationality, place of birth and the fact he came from a Rwandan Christian background.

Naming him would be more complicated, since he was 17 at the time, but Hall said prosecutors could and should have applied for a court order to do so.

“Imagine if [police] issued a clear, calm, authoritative, honest, transparent statement on Twitter [now X] Early on, he said.

Some people will of course believe the worst, or in a conspiracy theory, but most people are just looking for information.

The state’s silence may have ironically backfired at trial, Hall said, because the jury may already have the information in their minds.

The justice system would now do well to refine its understanding of what “stereotyping” means in a social media era, he said, while contempt for decades for the court’s laws to be considered.

The incident has also sparked debate about the country’s understanding and response to acts of terrorism.

Within days of the Southport murders, police discovered that Rudakubana was in possession of an al-Qaeda training manual.

Prosecutors would later argue that this was used to plan the attack. He also manufactured the deadly poison Ricin in the bedroom, before storing it in a plastic box under the bed.

However, while he was charged with possessing terrorism-related material, he was not charged with committing an act of terrorism. Even police working on the investigation say they initially struggled to grasp why.

I’m saying: This is not terrorism, this is not now not terrorism, this is not terrorism? The senior investigating officer recalled Jason Pye, a detective chief inspector at Merseyside Police, about his conversations with prosecutors as the evidence unfolded.

A terrorism charge would also make his investigation simpler, he said. Under terrorism laws, Rudakubana could have been detained for seven days.

Without it, police have up to 72 hours to put their case together and collect medical evidence relating to the 13 victims.

“It absolutely meant we had time to do more,” he said of a terrorism charge.

According to prosecutors, the sheer scope of material found on Rudakubana’s 43 devices – coupled with his failure to explain his actions in interview – means he cannot be charged. under the Terrorism Act 2000.

That defines “terrorism” for the purpose of promoting a political, religious or ideological cause. It was later updated to include racial ideology.

Among the more than 164,000 documents seized were violent material related to Nazi Germany, Gaza, Grozny and Iraq, as well as footage of attack on bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel In Australia last April.

He wasn’t fighting for a cause, prosecutor Deanna Heer said Thursday. His sole purpose is to kill.

Starmer said this week that he understands why people wonder what the word ‘terrorism’ means.

And so if the law needs to change to recognize this new and dangerous threat, then we will change it – and fast, he added.

However, Hall, who is currently reviewing the legislation for Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, said he was skeptical about expanding the definition of terrorism.

Casting a wider net, he said, could bring in people like football hooligans or organized criminals.

Rudakubana’s case has also raised questions about whether Britain’s current counter-extremism agencies are equipped to deal with young people overcome by violence.

In 2022, at the age of 15, he told Lancashire police that he had thought about poisoning people and producing poison for that purpose, which he later did. The force said it would not comment further ahead of a public inquiry.

Rudakubana was also mentioned on the anti-establishment agenda three times between 2019 and 2021.

He was initially introduced at age 13, when his school noticed him researching shootings online.

He was later flagged for posting on Instagram about former Libyan dictator Colonel Gaddafi, while in April 2021 he was found to have searched for the 2017 London Bridge terror attacks in school.

Each time, stopping the case, noted that there was no coherent ideology behind his actions. He has not become a subject of concern for anti-terrorism police.

Speaking before the sentencing, Vicki Evans, senior national coordinator for counter-terrorism policy, said that at the time of its introduction, the program had not caught up with a new generation of extremists.

At the time, a collaborative response to the growing fixation with extreme violence was developing, but less developed than it is today, she said.

Although improvements to help address this challenge have been made, she added, it is right that questions are asked about what more needs to be done.