There are two issues that arise from the grotesque murder of children at a dance class in Southport. The first is how Axel Rudakubana, being well known to the authorities and thrice referred to the anti- terrorist ‘Prevent’ programme, avoided surveillance. The Home Secretary has made it clear that this is properly to be subject to an inquiry.
The second concerns whether the riots, which followed the murders, might have been prevented had the authorities been more candid with the public. The Home secretary avoided answering whether this too would be subject to the inquiry.
The riots were inexcusable and should not be blamed on anyone but the rioters. Nevertheless, it is not unreasonable to ask if they might have been prevented.
The Home Secretary’s statement on Tuesday was immediately preceded by that of the Parliamentary Under- Secretary for Communities entitled ‘a statement on community engagement principles and extremism’. I put it to him that “when a crime has the attributes of a terrorist outrage, but the police, in their engagement with the community, proactively announce that it is not initially being treated as such, is that not bound to give rise to public suspicion that the truth is being covered up?”
The Minister replied “I do not know what in particular the right hon. Gentleman is referring to”, which is absurd given that his statement had been prompted by the Prime Minister’s words in Downing Street that morning on the Southport murders. The minister’s response is exactly the sort of obfuscation that may have been a contributory factor in the rioting that followed the murders.
The authorities were aware that Rudakubana had been referred to the Prevent programme. That he possessed an al-Qaeda manual and the poison Ricin (themselves offences under the Terrorism Act 2006).
These facts were not disclosed to the public in case a fair trial was subsequently prejudiced. But was it necessary for the public to have been told, as they were, that there was no evidence that the carnage was motivated by terrorism and that it was not being investigated as such?
It was into this void that suspicion of a cover-up and misinformation spilled online, some of it, apparently, originating from hostile states, and fuelling the riots.
Would being more open with the public have prevented riots?
I don’t know, but it is a fair question to ask.
Would being more open really have prejudiced Rudakubana’s trial?
I doubt it. After all, the authorities released this information in October before the trial began. If it wasn’t prejudicial in October, why would it have been prejudicial last August?
Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said this “The Government has to be aware…that if there is an information gap…then there are other voices, particularly in social media, who will try and fill it….If there is any information you can give, put it in the public domain, and be really careful that you don’t fall into the trap of saying ‘we can only say zilch, because there are criminal proceedings….Quite often, there’s a fair amount…that can be put into the public domain…. just saying ‘there’s a charge, we can’t say any more’, is not going to cut it these days.”
I think he’s right and the authorities got it wrong last August. The Inquiry should examine it.