Inadequate information released after Southport attack by authorities, says terror law reviewer

The worst riots in the UK in the past decade stemmed from a shocking attack. The knife attack in Southport, which saw three girls killed during summer holiday dance and yoga classes, inflicted a deep wound on the nation. Seven-year-old Elsie Dot Stankom, six-year-old Bebe Kin, and nine-year-old Alice Ajial tragically lost their lives, and eight other children suffered serious injuries.

Anger and disbelief followed, with the public eager to know the attacker's identity, background, and possible motives, and suspicious that the authorities seemed to be withholding information. Despite strong public demand for transparency, the police provided few details about the attacker and even less about his background. His name was not even released, as he was only 17 at the time of the attack. However, it was made clear early on that the authorities did not consider the incident to be terrorism-related.

The UK's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation told BBC Panorama that he thought the quality and quantity of information released by authorities in the hours after the July 29, 2024, attack was "inadequate." Jonathan Hall KC said: "There was a feeling that something was being concealed or massaged, and that allowed the social media types who want to spread disinformation to peddle their narrative."

The day after the attack, a mob attacked a mosque in Southport. Online rumors identified the attacker as a Muslim asylum seeker who had been on MI5's watchlist. This information was completely false, but it fueled four days of riots and violence, the worst seen in Britain in over a decade. While condemnation of the violence and rioting was swift and widespread, questioning of whether the authorities were withholding information from the public was also criticized, with some arguing that it fanned the flames of the unrest.

At a press conference on the night of the attack, Merseyside Police Chief Constable Serena Kennedy stated that "a 17-year-old male from Banks, Lancashire, originally from Cardiff" had been arrested on suspicion of the stabbing incident. This was factual, but the police did not reveal details of his family background, including that the attacker's parents were Christians from Rwanda. As the attacker was a week away from his 18th birthday, his name was not released. The police said in their initial statement that the motive was "unclear," but at that time, the incident was "not being treated as terrorism-related."

Jonathan Hall KC told BBC Panorama that the authorities could and should have released more information after the attack. "The public could have been told immediately that this was an attack by a 17-year-old black male, born in Wales, brought up in the UK, from a Rwandan background, from a Christian background as far as the police knew. It was not possible to say at that stage whether he had some kind of ideology or whether he was a terrorist. But the police were rapidly investigating all the material they found."

Ultimately, the Southport attack was never classified as terrorism by the authorities because that required evidence of an ideological motive, which the police said they did not find. Chief Constable Serena Kennedy told Panorama: "We were very clear that there was no evidence, information or intelligence to suggest that this was linked to terrorism. We were very clear that we would keep that under constant review, and we did from the outset. But our colleagues in counter-terrorism policing were working with us and were assured that this was not a terrorist-related incident, and that remains the case." Jonathan Hall agreed with this assessment, but he said that in the immediate aftermath of the attack, the police should have stated that it was not yet possible to determine whether the attacker was a terrorist.

Counter-extremism expert Ian Acheson also agreed with this point. "I don't think they could have reached that conclusion on the evidence available," he said. "I think the communications decision was 'say as little as possible and calm community sentiment by saying 'no, there's nothing to see here',' and that of course created a narrative that was exploited by disinformation and misinformation."

The day after the attack, Merseyside Police issued a press release reiterating that the incident was "not currently being treated as terrorism-related." However, on the same day, police stopped searching the attacker's house after finding a substance under his bed that they suspected might be poison. The substance was sent to the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down to be examined by chemical and biological warfare agents experts. Three days later, the lab confirmed that the suspicious substance was ricin, but the public was not informed. The following day, police found excerpts from an al-Qaeda training manual on one of the attacker's computers, but the public was also not told about this. Ministers were aware of these developments, but it was another three months before the police publicly announced the discovery of the ricin and the al-Qaeda manual.

On August 1, the suspect was formally identified as Axel Rudakubana after a judge lifted restrictions on reporting his name. But even so, the authorities' withholding of other information led to claims of a "cover-up" in some quarters. However, there was another explanation. Chief Constable Serena Kennedy told Panorama: "My priority was making sure that we got justice for the families of the victims. As much as I would have liked to have said more, I wasn't going to risk bringing Rudakubana to justice."

Legally, there are restrictions on what can be said before a trial to prevent a jury from being influenced. Saying too much or saying the wrong thing could have allowed Rudakubana's defense lawyers to argue that a fair trial was impossible. After Rudakubana pleaded guilty, Prime Minister Keir Starmer reiterated the reason for this caution: "Yes, I am aware of the details that are emerging. This is the usual practice in these cases. But you and I both know that it would have been wrong to disclose those details. If those details had been disclosed, the only losers would have been the victims and the families because it would have had the potential to collapse the trial."

But in the aftermath of the Southport incident, there is a growing recognition that the authorities may need to be more open in how they communicate with the public. Assistant Commissioner Matt Jukes, the head of counter-terrorism policing in the UK, told Panorama: "We are operating a criminal justice system which, in order to protect the court, does lock down information about ongoing investigations. But I should also be clear that it seems to me that this is a system that was built for a different age, and I absolutely believe that we need to find more ways of getting information out about these investigations."

One lingering question is how much Rudakubana's parents knew about their son. Police searched the house and found weapons in his bedroom, a knife in the living room, and materials for making ricin. Between 2021 and 2022, Rudakubana's parents had called the police four times because they were concerned about their son. A week before the Southport attack, Rudakubana's father stopped him from getting in a taxi to go to his former school. His son was wearing the same green hoodie he wore on the day of the Southport attack. Police now believe Rudakubana intended to launch an attack, but on that occasion, his parents did not call the police.

Merseyside Police told us that they were unable to discuss questions about what Rudakubana's parents knew, citing "ongoing investigations." The Home Office also declined to comment on the circumstances of his parents' arrival in the UK. Last month, Rudakubana, who admitted three counts of murder and ten counts of attempted murder, was sentenced to a minimum of 52 years in prison. The judge said he would have been sentenced to life imprisonment if he had been an adult at the time of the attack. Following Rudakubana's conviction, Merseyside Police released more footage of his arrest.

The government has announced a public inquiry into the numerous missed opportunities by multiple agencies to stop Rudakubana. A wealth of detail about these failures has already been released, posing serious questions for several agencies, including Lancashire Police and the Prevent counter-extremism program. In March 2022, Lancashire Police found Rudakubana carrying knives on a bus. This was one of several interactions the force had with the teenager, but he was not prosecuted. He was also referred to the Prevent program three times, but each time the case was closed. Assistant Commissioner Matt Jukes told Panorama: "I am the police lead for the Prevent strategy. So if the system could have acted more decisively at certain moments, that sense absolutely sits with me." Lancashire Police told us that they are "ready to fully participate" and that the public inquiry is "the right place for the interactions of agencies to be scrutinised and considered." They said they are "fully committed to ensuring any lessons are identified."