Jenrick suggests state may have been ‘lying’ about Southport attack suspect

Tory leadership contender Robert Jenrick suggested the State may have been “lying” about what was known about the Southport attack suspect.

He demanded to know what Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer was told about Axel Rudakubana.

Rudakubana, the teenager accused of the fatal stabbing of three girls at a dance class in Southport, has been charged with production of deadly poison ricin and a terror offence relating to possession of a document entitled Military Studies In The Jihad Against The Tyrants, The Al Qaeda Training Manual.

Mr Jenrick told ITV’s Good Morning Britain: “I want to know when the Prime Minister knew: we don’t know that information, we don’t know what the advice of the police was in this case, and we don’t know why the police has chosen not to say this.

“The effect of this has been that there has been speculation over the summer, there has been a loss of trust in the police and the criminal justice process and I think that’s wrong.

“The State should not be lying to its own citizens.”

Asked if he thought the State had indeed lied, he said: “We don’t know. We don’t know the reason why this information has been concealed. Why has it taken months for the police to set out basic facts about this case that it is reasonable to believe were known within hours or days of this incident occurring?”

Open

Terror law watchdog Jonathan Hall KC said the authorities should be more open about information in cases generally.

The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “The police and the CPS are operationally independent, and it’s important that they are, and it’s right that the Government trusts the prosecuting and the police authorities as to what might damage potential future proceedings. So I think there has to be a relationship of trust.

“And if the police and CPS are saying ‘we really don’t think that you can put any more in the public domain’, I think that the Government ought to be affected by that.

“On the other hand, I also think that the Government has to be aware, and will be aware, that if there is an information gap, particularly in the mainstream media, then there are other voices, particularly in social media, who will try and fill it.

“I would always say to the Government – and do say to the Government, as I say to the police – if there is information that 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 of information that can be put into the public domain, and I think I detect that the police are trying to do that.

“They realise now that just saying ‘there’s a charge, we can’t say anymore’, is not going to cut it these days.”

Mr Hall also set out the difficulties facing prosecutors in deciding on charges.

He told the BBC: “I think these days, the difference between whether an attack is a terrorist attack or not a terrorist attack is often wafer-thin. That’s just because of the profile of people who are now involved in attacks, by which I mean lone actors.”

He said the key test was whether an attack was intended to advance an ideological, political, religious or racial cause.

“You might say to yourself ‘why on earth would someone carry out a mass casualty attack, surely the only reason for doing an attack on strangers and killing people is to advance a terrorist cause?’

“But we know, don’t we, from the USA where there are these terrible school massacres the whole time, those don’t seem to be terrorist attacks at all, these are often quite young people who are trying to emulate previous attacks, maybe to get notoriety, maybe because they have got a grievance against their school.

“It doesn’t follow, I’m afraid, that because someone has carried out a big attack that they therefore must be advancing a cause.”

He added: “There are cases, it sounds bizarre but it’s absolutely true, where someone has got al Qaida material, someone has got IRA material, someone’s got extreme right material and sometimes all that you can really say when you look at someone’s devices is ‘this individual is fascinated with violence’.”