New offence over planning mass killings recommended in wake of Southport murders

The terrorism definition should not be changed in the wake of the Southport murders but a new offence to address the gap for lone individuals planning mass killings should be considered, the UK’s terror watchdog has said.

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

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.

Mr Hall’s review commissioned by the Home Secretary in January to examine terror legislation “in light of modern threats we face” also warns that extending terror liability could result in “unacceptable restrictions on freedom of expression”.

Risk

He said: “The risk of unintended consequences through rushed reform is extremely high.”

The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation’s findings come as Sir Keir said Britain faces a new threat from “extreme violence carried out by loners, misfits, young men in their bedrooms” in January.

He said 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.

But 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.

Axel 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.

Terrorism

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 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.

“It has been my experience that this discretion has been exercised capably and well, so that individuals are not exposed to irrationality, heavy-handedness or bias.

“But this is a product of a mature and defined system operating with a familiar threshold. Altering the threshold would not only expand the reach of terrorism legislation but would increase the possibility of inaccurate use and, in theory, abuse.”

Personal motives

He said for some cases it will be clear to investigators the attack was for “purely personal motives” and saying it is not treated as terrorism makes “good sense to do so”.

He referenced the case of Nicholas Prosper, 19, who murdered his mother and two siblings and was on his was to carry out a mass shooting at his old primary school when he was stopped by police.

A loaded shotgun was found hidden in bushes nearby, with a bag of more than 30 cartridges, when officers spotted him in Bramingham Road, Luton.

There is not a specific offence that he could be charged with for planning the school shooting because his plot would not be defined as terrorism.

“The key point to make is that terrorism legislation is not the UK’s main protection against this sort of attacker: what counts is gun control,” he said.

He added of school shootings and young copycats that it is “foreseeable” that other types of violent attacks will start a copycat craze, “most likely amongst the cohort of isolated often bullied teenagers with poor mental health, neurodivergence or personality disorder for whom grudges and grievances become reasons for violence.

“Few will be terrorists applying the definition.”

Mass casualty attacks

Instead, the watchdog 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.

Elsewhere Mr Hall 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.

“In the digital era, if the police do not take the lead in providing clear, accurate and sober details about an attack like Southport, others will,” he said.

“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.

“Whether or not the Contempt of Court Act 1981 needs reform, the nature of prejudice in the digital age needs to be understood.”