Why Keir Starmer didn't reveal 'terror' details of Southport attack
The prime minister has addressed the nation after the government announced an inquiry into state failings to prevent the Southport attack.
Sir Keir Starmer has insisted he could not reveal details about the Southport attack after it happened as he addressed details of what he knew when about the murders.
In an address to the nation on Tuesday, the prime minister also said a public inquiry into how the state failed to prevent the tragedy on Merseyside may lead to a change in the law that dealt with a new threat of terrorism from “extreme violence carried out by loners, misfits, young men in their bedrooms".
Axel Rudakubana, 18, who pleaded guilty on Monday to murdering three girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class last July, was referred three times to anti-extremism programme Prevent amid concerns over his fixation with violence.
But despite this and contact with other state agencies, the authorities failed to stop the attack, which claimed the lives of Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine, Bebe King, six, and Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven.
As well as the three murders, Rudakubana admitted 10 counts of attempted murder, possession of a knife, production of a biological toxin, ricin, and possession of information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing to commit acts of terrorism. He will be sentenced on Thursday.
What did Starmer say?
Starmer was pressed repeatedly about what he knew when amid suggestions that a vacuum of official updates can lead to that void being filled with false information online.
The Southport attack, and misinformation online about the attacker's identity, fuelled a wave of rioting across the country, with mosques and hotels used for asylum seekers among the locations targeted, resulting in substantial jail sentences for some offenders.
But Starmer said he was unable to reveal information about Rudakubana's case around the time of the attack as it may have led to a collapse in any subsequent trial. He also laid the blame for the riots squarely on those perpetrating the violence.
He said: "If this trial had collapsed because I or anyone else had revealed crucial details while police were investigating, while the case was being built, while we were awaiting a verdict, then the vile individual who committed these crimes would have walked away a free man.
“I would never do that and nobody would ever forgive me if I had. That is why the law of this country forbade me or anyone else from disclosing details sooner.
He confirmed he knew the details as they were emerging, adding: "But you know, and I know, that it would not have been right to disclose those details.
"The only losers, if the details have been disclosed, would be the victims and the families, because it ran the risk the trial would collapse. I’m never going to do that.”
On Tuesday, home secretary Yvette Cooper later told the House of Commons: "The government has been constrained in what we could say up to this point about Rudakabana’s past to avoid prejudicing any jury trial in line with all the normal rules of our British justice systems because nothing was more important than securing justice.
“Social media puts those long-established rules under strain, especially when partial or inaccurate information appears online, and the Law Commission is reviewing the contempt of court rules in that light."
Cooper was challenged by shadow home secretary Chris Philp, who argued further information about Rudakubana could have been made public without prejudicing the court.
He said: “On 29 October, Rudakubana was charged with possessing the ricin and the terror manual, that was then made public. So, if it can be made public in October, without risking prejudice of the murder trial, it follows that it could have been made public in August, without prejudicing that same trial."
But Cooper said: “Let me point out to him that the previous Conservative government did not publish information before the trial about the Prevent referral for the perpetrator who killed [Tory MP] Sir David Amess. None of us criticised them for that, because none of us wanted to put at risk justice for Sir David’s family."
What is contempt of court?
In October, the prime minister, the home secretary and prosecutors warned against public commentary or reporting that could prejudice the Southport case.
According to the government, contempt of court occurs when an individual risks unfairly influencing a court case which may prevent a defendant from getting a fair trial and can affect the outcome of a trial.
Contempt of court can include breaking a court order or commenting publicly on a case, such as through social media or in an online news article.
A person can be in contempt of court if they say whether they think someone is innocent or guilty; if they refer to someone's previous convictions; if they name someone the judge has allowed to remain anonymous; if they name victims, witnesses and offenders under the age of 18 or if they share any evidence or facts a judge has said cannot be made public.
Anyone found guilty of contempt of court could be sentenced to up to two years in prison.
Starmer said the sharing of information online that does not appear to be following contempt of court rules “needs to be addressed” and will be looked at by the government.
He said: “It is true that we live in a different age, in that available information is now available online as well as offline, and I understand the frustration of all, including some journalists, who observe the rules and don’t report what they know because they know that the law doesn’t permit it, and it runs the risk of collapsing a trial, only to see information online that doesn’t appear to be following the same rules, and that is not acceptable.
“That has to be addressed and will be part of what we will be looking at because that can’t be right."
New terror laws?
Starmer said the UK faces a new kind of terrorism threat following the Southport attack, and that new laws could be required to address it.
"Britain now faces a new threat. Terrorism has changed," he said.
“The predominant threat was highly organised groups with clear political intent – groups like al-Qaeda.
“That threat, of course, remains but now alongside that we also see acts of extreme violence perpetrated by loners, misfits, young men in their bedroom accessing all manner of material online – desperate for notoriety, sometimes inspired by traditional terrorist groups, but fixated on that extreme violence, seemingly for its own sake.”
He added: “If the law needs to change to recognise this new and dangerous threat, then we will change it and quickly, and we will also review our entire counter-extremist system to make sure we have what we need to defeat it.”
What have we learned about Axel Rudakubana?
On Monday, Rudakubana pleaded guilty to murdering three young girls, as well as 10 counts of attempted murder and possession of a kitchen knife.
He also admitted to producing a biological toxin, ricin, and the possession of an al-Qaeda training manual - a terror offence.
Following his guilty plea on Monday, it has emerged that Rudakubana was referred to the government's anti-extremism Prevent programme three times between 2019 and 2021 because of his obsession with violence.
It has also emerged that Rudakubana was stopped by his father from returning to his former school a week before he murdered the three girls, PA Media reported. He was said to be wearing the same outfit, a green hooded sweatshirt and a surgical mask, that he wore before carrying out the Southport attack.
It was reported that Rudakubana was excluded from the secondary school over claims he was carrying a knife and later returned to attack someone with a hockey stick. It is understood he was excluded in October 2019 after telling Childline that he was being racially bullied and was bringing a knife into school to protect himself.
Home secretary Yvette Cooper told the House of Commons on Tuesday that Rudakubana was referred three times to Prevent between December 2019 and April 2021 when he was aged 13 and 14.
The referrals took place following evidence he had expressed interest in school shootings, the London Bridge attack, the IRA, MI5 and the Middle East.
She said Lancashire Police responded to five calls at his home address between October 2019 and May 2022 about his behaviour.
Rudakubana was convicted of a violent assault against another child at school, Cooper revealed.
Cooper said Rudakubana admitted to having carried a knife more than 10 times and said he was "easily able to order a knife on Amazon" despite being 17 and having been convicted for violence, something she called a "total disgrace".
Cooper said 162 people were referred to Prevent last year for concerns relating to school massacres.
She said: “There has been a threefold increase in under-18s investigated for involvement in terrorism in just three years."