Axel Rudakubana has been sentenced to a minimal 52 years in jail for the killing of three younger ladies in Southport in a stabbing assault in 2024. After Rudakubana pleaded responsible to the murders, Prime Minister Keir Starmer introduced a public inquiry, saying the state “failed in its responsibility” to guard the ladies.
Central to that is the revelation that Rudakubana had been referred to the Forestall counter-terrorism programme thrice, however failed to fulfill the edge for intervention. In consequence, Keir Starmer has vowed to vary terror legal guidelines to cope with lone, violent killers.
However as a researcher of counter-terrorism legal guidelines, I argue there’s little level to widening what’s already a broad definition of terrorism.
The Terrorism Act 2000 defines an act of terrorism as together with, amongst different components, severe violence towards an individual, severe injury to property, an act which endangers an individual’s life or creates a severe threat to the well being or security of the general public or a piece of the general public. This definition captures a variety of crimes, from homicide and grievous bodily hurt, to destruction of property and even, controversially, some types of disruptive protest.
Crucially, the act incorporates a “motive clause”. This stipulates {that a} terrorist act is “designed to affect the federal government or a global governmental organisation or to intimidate the general public or a piece of the general public” and is “for the aim of advancing a political, non secular racial or ideological trigger”.
The Crown Prosecution Service described Rudakubana as “a younger man with a sickening and sustained curiosity in loss of life and violence”. Nonetheless, the house secretary famous that he was not referred by way of any counter-terrorism channels due to an “absence of ideology”. A “sickening and sustained curiosity in loss of life and violence” could not essentially be an “ideological trigger”.
It has now been revealed that Rudakubana was caught with a knife ten occasions earlier than the assault. He was additionally subsequently discovered with an al-Qaida guide and pleaded responsible to a terrorist offence in relation to this. However this solely got here to gentle after the assault – and it took two months earlier than the police declared a terrorist incident.
However, this raises the query of whether or not we’re coping with a spot within the legislation, or an issue relating to the appliance of the legislation in a particular case.
Need extra politics protection from tutorial specialists? Each week, we carry you knowledgeable evaluation of developments in authorities and truth examine the claims being made.
Join our weekly politics publication, delivered each Friday.
It is very important word that it’s actually solely the motive clause which prevents any homicide or assault from satisfying the definition of terrorism. And even then, motive is outlined so broadly as to confer huge discretion on the police, prosecution and authorities to select and select which instances to use it to.
Loads of acts might doubtlessly fulfill the present definition of terrorism – together with a lot of the rioting exercise following the Southport assault. However they don’t seem to be essentially framed as such by the police or authorities.
Legal guidelines must be as clear as doable to assist us act accordingly. Any try and broaden the definition within the wake of 1 particular incident would solely enhance the already heavy reliance on discretion and doubtlessly trigger additional confusion as to the readability of the legislation.
The worth of a terrorism declaration
Uncertainty over the definition of terrorism and motive could have led to the delay in police declaring the Southport assault a terrorist incident. They did so solely after Rudakubana was charged with additional terrorist offences.
Right here we should additionally ask what’s the function of fixing the terrorism definition. Is it the necessity for police to shortly declare a terrorist incident? There could also be a case for this if the declaration of a terrorist incident triggers a particular emergency response to an ongoing scenario. The case is far weaker when describing an assault that has already occurred.
And if you’re going to change the definition of terrorism for the aim of declaring a terrorist incident, then why not change it for that particular function solely?
My analysis contends that there doesn’t should be a single “one measurement matches all” definition of terrorism. As an alternative, if the state is to have counter-terrorist powers, it ought to use bespoke definitions of terrorism in numerous eventualities to try to restrict decision-maker discretion as a lot as doable.
As an illustration, a broader definition could possibly be thought of for the needs of police declaring a terrorist incident. However a narrower definition could possibly be employed for extra intrusive counter-terrorist powers or charging somebody with legal offences.
A altering risk
Saying the inquiry, Starmer claimed that the UK’s terrorist risk has modified, highlighting drawback of younger folks being radicalised on-line.
Nonetheless, not all instances of youth radicalisation are just like the Southport attacker, along with his lack of overt political motive. From Shamima Begum, who travelled to Syria to affix Islamic State when she was solely 15 years outdated, to Rhianan Rudd who was additionally solely 15 when charged with terror offences, many of those younger folks can clearly be proven to fulfill the prevailing motive requirement.
Quantity 10 Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND
These two instances additionally level to a deeper problem in hurt prevention. Prices towards Rudd had been dropped when proof proved that she had been groomed on-line by right-wing extremists. She took her personal life in Might 2022 and her mom argued that she ought to have been seen as a sufferer reasonably than as a legal.
Likewise, a particular immigration tribunal discovered that there was “credible suspicion” that Begum had additionally been groomed. Regardless of this, the tribunal upheld the house secretary’s resolution to strip her of her British citizenship.
These instances reveal that we have to rethink how we view the problem of radicalisation. A key drawback with the present Forestall technique is that it’s seen with suspicion by many communities as a result of it’s seen as working as a type of surveillance, reasonably than help. Maybe as a substitute we must be enhancing the prevailing safeguarding and baby security mechanisms, earlier than making sweeping adjustments to terrorism legislation.
If counter-terrorism legislation is finally about intervening as quickly as doable to forestall hurt from taking place, there are higher methods to realize this drawback than by way of the draconian framework of nationwide safety.
And whereas we could discover some satisfaction in signalling our ethical outrage by including the extra label of “terrorism” to an assault, typically the repugnancy of an act must be allowed to talk for itself.
