Gap in law that prevented arrest of Southport killer ‘horrifying’ – watchdog

Police “could not arrest” the Southport killer before he carried out his attack because of a gap in the law, the UK’s terror watchdog has said, as he recommended the creation of a new offence to target loners planning mass killings.

Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said that the case of Axel Rudakubana was “horrifying” in that charges could not be brought against the then 17-year-old when he was known to be making plans for an attack.

The watchdog’s review commissioned by the Home Secretary to examine terror legislation in the wake of the Southport murders was published on Thursday, where he also warned against changing the terrorism definition.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, 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.”

Mr Hall’s review recommended creating an offence to prevent mass casualty attacks before they happen, similar to terrorism offences applying to an offender preparing for an attack.

“It has become clear to me during the preparation of this report during January and February 2025 that there is a real and not theoretical gap for lone individuals who plan mass killings,” he said.

He set out for the Government to consider a new offence where an individual with an intention of killing two or more people engages with any preparation to carry out that intention.

He recommended the maximum sentence to be life imprisonment.

On Thursday Mr Hall told the BBC the internet is driving the emergence of a new kind of mass casualty offence.

“A lot of lone young men, generally, are getting these ideas from the internet that really extreme violence is the solution, and Rudakubana seems to have been one of those people,” he said.

He also warned that under current laws it has always “gone after” people for having committed offences, but actions like preparing an attack with the help of AI would not meet the criteria for an arrest even for a conspiracy offence.

He told Today: “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.”

Rudakubana was jailed for a minimum of 52 years for the murders of three girls and attempted murders of 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.

But in his review Mr Hall said the legal definition is “already wide” and expanding the threshold would “increase the possibility of inaccurate use and, in theory, abuse”.

He also said that extending terror liability could result in “unacceptable restrictions on freedom of expression”.

The warning comes after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer questioned whether terror laws should change in the face of the “new threat” posed by violent loners such as the Southport murderer.

But Mr Hall added: “The risk of unintended consequences through rushed reform is extremely high.”

His findings come as Sir Keir said in January the Southport killer “clearly intended to terrorise” as he called for the law and framework responding to the “new threat” to be appropriate and make whatever legal changes necessary to deal with it.

Mr Hall’s report rejected the suggestion to include “violence clearly intended to terrorise” as it would be too difficult to put into a statutory definition.

His review added that the term “terrorising”, which is not in the current definition, is not a useful criteria for determining if something is terrorism.

Mr Hall said: “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.

“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, which has been “exercised capably and well”.

“Altering the threshold would not only expand the reach of terrorism legislation but would increase the possibility of inaccurate use and, in theory, abuse.”

Elsewhere Mr Hall called for prejudice in the digital age to be understood as he warned that disinformation in the aftermath of the Southport killings and allegations of a “cover-up” risked far more prejudice to any trial than undisputed facts about the attacker.

“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,” he said.

Responding to Mr Hall’s Southport review, a Government spokesperson said: “We have pledged to not only get justice for the victims and their families, but also bring about the changes needed to prevent such a horror from happening again.

“Today’s report is an important step in that search for answers, and to tackle horrific acts driven by a fixation on extreme violence.

“As the Prime Minister said at the time, if the law needs to change, we will change it and, on the back of today’s report, we will fix the legislation to close the gaps identified.

“We also agree that we must look at how social media is putting long-established principles around how we communicate after an attack like this under strain.”

They added that tackling misinformation could be looked at again, which counter-terror police are also considering, and the Government has asked the Law Commission’s review into contempt of court to conclude as soon as possible.

A wider public inquiry will also be set up soon, the spokesperson added.