Starmer’s secrecy over Southport ‘could have put trial at risk’

Terror watchdog says withholding information from public could have been ‘far more prejudicial’ than revealing facts

The prime minister and a senior police officer walk together with bouquets — Sir Keir Starmer (right) brings flowers to the site where Axel Rudakubana murdered three young girls Credit: Christopher Furlong/Getty

Robert Mendick

The failure to disclose “basic facts” about the Southport attacker led to “dangerous fictions” that could have prejudiced his murder trial, the terror watchdog has disclosed.

In what may be seen as a sideswipe at Sir Keir Starmer, Jonathan Hall KC criticised the authorities for refusing to reveal details about Axel Rudakubana prior to the trial.

Sir Keir had insisted that disclosing information “ran the risk the trial would collapse” in defending himself from claims of a cover-up.

But writing in The Telegraph, Mr Hall, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, said withholding information could have been “far more prejudicial” than making the facts public.

His intervention will add pressure on politicians to change contempt of court rules to allow more information into the public domain.

The Law Commission, which advises ministers on new laws, has been asked by the Government to fast-track new contempt rules to prevent a repeat of the riots that followed the Southport murders.

Police stand in front of a burning vehicle in riot helmets and shields — Police hold back rioters in Southport on July 30 2024 Credit: Getty

Writing in The Telegraph, Mr Hall warned that the impact of the “chaotic online world” had been to stoke the violent reaction to Rudakubana’s brutal murder of three children at a dance class in Southport in July last year.

Mr Hall wrote: “The failure by the authorities to spell out basic and sober facts about the attacker led to contagious disinformation about a murderous Muslim asylum-seeker that stoked the ensuing riots.

“I would go further than that: it led to dangerous fictions that could have been far more prejudicial to the prosecution of Rudakubana than some of the true facts which were suppressed in the name of contempt of court.

“Had there been a trial, jurors could have entered court with the impression that Rudakubana was a Muslim asylum-seeker and, more toxically, that the authorities were determined to hush it up.”

Mr Hall said it would have been “far better” for the authorities “to provide an accurate lead than ineffectual near-silence”.

He wrote that the digital age meant that the current Contempt of Court Act, passed into law in 1981, now needed an urgent re-examination.

https://cf-particle-html.eip.telegraph.co.uk/7ad91b4d-2ef8-4a89-a4f4-5b73349e1c71.html?direct=true&id=7ad91b4d-2ef8-4a89-a4f4-5b73349e1c71&template=cls

Mr Hall also raised further and deep concerns about the lack of restraint now being shown by US tech companies, emboldened by Donald Trump’s election and a determination to protect free speech regardless of the debilitating effect that can have on national security.

In the case of Southport, the internet was allowed to run wild with conspiracy theories that fuelled public anger and in the immediate aftermath stoked the riots.

Mr Hall wrote: “This leads to a wider reflection on the national security landscape where the public’s news information, increasingly obtained from social media as the principal source, is intimately connected to the policies of US tech companies.

“The bracing approach of the new Administration is to emphasise, with some justification, the need for freedom of information from government influence or control.”

He said President Trump’s support for the tech companies would make it much harder for the UK to police the internet as it wanted to, with the new Online Safety Act.

A composite of family photos shows the three children smiling — Left to right: Bebe King, Elsie Dot Stancombe, Alice Dasilva Aguiar – the three girls killed by Rudakubana

He added: “A lesson from Southport is… more authoritative speech from trusted institutions, not enforced silence.”

He also raised concerns over the knock-on effect of the Leveson Inquiry, which exposed and was heavily critical of tabloid newspaper practices, and which prompted police forces to curtail off-the-record press briefings and interactions between officers and journalists.

He said that the “damaging consequence” of the Leveson inquiry was “a cooling of relations between the police and mainstream media” which had prevented information being put in the public domain. That had resulted in “information voids” which were then “filled by speculation and mischief”.

He added: “Accurate information is crucial for public trust and confidence, particularly in the wake of terrorist attacks and other horrors.”

Mr Hall recently visited Washington DC on a fact-finding trip, investigating whether the UK needed new laws to combat the threat posed by hostile foreign states such as Russia, China and Iran.

He warned that a failure by the UK authorities to control the “information domain” would create opportunities for Vladimir Putin, for example, to wage online campaigns to “mislead the public and degrade trust in institutions”.

A mugshot-style photo of the killer, who bites both is his upper and lower lips in a grimace — Axel Rudakubana pleaded guilty to the murders, avoiding a trial

The riots in the wake of Rudakubana’s murderous rampage were blamed in part on false claims circulating on social media, including that he was a Muslim asylum seeker who arrived in the UK on a small boat across the Channel. Other false rumours suggested the killer had been on an MI6 watchlist.

The only information released by police was that Rudakubana was a 17 year-old from Banks in Lancashire who was originally from Cardiff.

Two hours later, Merseyside police amended that to “born in Cardiff”. But the force did not divulge family background details, including that the attacker’s parents were Christians who had come to the UK from Rwanda.

It also later emerged that he had been charged with terror offences, including manufacturing the biological toxin ricin and possession of an al-Qaeda terrorist handbook.

The 18 year-old pleaded guilty to the murders of three young girls and the attempted murders of eight other children and was jailed for life in January and ordered to serve a minimum of 52 years.

How a lack of transparency led to dangerous fictions

When Shelley’s traveller surveyed the wreck of Ozymandias he saw the lone and level sands stretching far away. But breaking things is rarely followed by silence. The Move Fast and Break Things era of Big Tech set the course for the brilliant but chaotic online world whose impact on violent lonely teenagers, world leaders and society at large is far from understood. The reaction to the Southport attack is a prime exhibit. The failure by the authorities to spell out basic and sober facts about the attacker led to contagious disinformation about a murderous Muslim asylum-seeker that stoked the ensuing riots.

I would go further than that: it led to dangerous fictions that could have been far more prejudicial to the prosecution of Rudakubana than some of the true facts which were suppressed in the name of contempt of court. Had there been a trial, jurors could have entered court with the impression that Rudakubana was a Muslim asylum-seeker and, more toxically, that the authorities were determined to hush it up. Far better for the authorities to provide an accurate lead than ineffectual near-silence. Whether or not this leads to reform of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there is an urgent need to understand the balance of prejudice in the digital age.

This leads to a wider reflection on the national security landscape where the public’s news information, increasingly obtained from social media as the principal source, is intimately connected to the policies of US tech companies. The bracing approach of the new Administration is to emphasize, with some justification, the need for freedom of information from government influence or control. This will inevitably clip the wings of the UK’s Online Safety Act.

A lesson from Southport is therefore, to adapt the words of Justice Louis Brandeis in 1927, more authoritative speech from trusted institutions, not enforced silence. A damaging and unintended consequence of the Leveson Inquiry into phone-hacking has been a cooling of relations between the police and mainstream media, pinching off the flow of accurate information into the public domain. As Southport, and the disappearance of Nicola Bulley in 2023 both show, information voids will be filled by speculation and mischief. Accurate information is crucial for public trust and confidence, particularly in the wake of terrorist attacks and other horrors.

But it would be complacent to end there. More and better information is sometimes not enough. I finished a recent trip to Washington DC with a profound sense of how differently the UK and US treat disinformation. On the absolutist view, disinformation should never lead to arrest and prosecution, but the more pragmatic British approach accepts that some disinformation could be harmful to national security.

Take the UK’s desire to increase defence spending to counter an aggressive and resurgent Russia. Whilst it is important not to overstate our adversaries’ effectiveness in the information domain, it is obvious that Russia has the intent to mislead the public and degrade trust in institutions at a time when sacrifices may need to be made to achieve a stronger military. The UK’s National Security Act allows the prosecution of disinformation operations in a manner that is unthinkable in the US. Although US federal agencies have shown major creativity in the past against unregistered foreign agents, domestically, and internationally, the information domain is up for grabs.