The announcement of two separate terror charges against the Southport suspect was delayed by up to a fortnight, with 18-year-old Axel Rudakubana eventually appearing in court on the day of the budget, amid growing fears of a fresh wave of public disorder (GB News, Mail, Times).
The delay occurred after government officials raised concerns that the high-profile Chris Kaba murder case was winding up, and that firearms police officers across the country could put down their weapons in protest at the prospect of a colleague being convicted. Kaba, a 24-year-old gang member with a string of convictions for offences including stabbing with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, was shot and killed by an officer in Streatham, south London, during a “hard stop” in September 2022.
On July 29th, 18-year-old Axel Rudakubana carried out the mass stabbing in Southport, killing three children and injuring eight more, along with two adults at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class. Two days later, he was charged with three counts of murder, ten of attempted murder and possession of a bladed article. The atrocity sparked widespread violent disorder across Britain.
Three months later, however, in late October, Rudakubana was charged with two additional terror offences: possessing a PDF of an Al-Qaeda training manual “likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism”; and the manufacture of the lethal toxin ricin.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) first sought permission from the Attorney-General’s office to charge Rudakubana with possession of a biological weapon on October 15th, 14 days before the charge was eventually announced.
While the CPS normally makes decisions to charge suspects independently, there are a small number of serious offences that require consent from the government’s two law officers, the attorney-general and solicitor-general. This meant the CPS needed consent on the biological weapons offence but not the separate terrorism charge.
Extensive plans were then put in place for a public charging announcement, with the CPS intending to notify the families of Southport victims on October 18th. On that day, sources say that as many as 1,000 riot police had been placed on standby in anticipation that the news could trigger another series of violent demonstrations.
In the end, the Attorney-General’s office did not grant consent until a week later, on October 22nd. It took a further seven days for the CPS to announce the charges, on October 29th, the day before the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, delivered her first budget.
The Home Office, CPS and Attorney-General’s office have all refused to comment on why this delay occurred.
Sources close to the matter told The Times that the delay was at least partially linked to significant concerns among ministers, the CPS and police that the announcement could spark public disorder.
They pointed out that by Friday, October 18th, it had become clear the high-profile murder trial of Sergeant Martyn Blake, the Metropolitan Police marksman accused of fatally shooting Kaba, had been close to winding up.
During that week, it is claimed, ministers had been making preparations for a scenario in which Mr Blake was found guilty and hundreds of firearms officers went on strike in protest.
When he was charged last year, dozens of firearms officers returned their weapons in protest, with soldiers placed on standby to help with counterterrorism duties.
According to another anonymous source quoted in The Times, this led senior government officials to raise concerns about the implications of announcing the new Rudakubana charges ahead of the Kaba verdict.
Four days later, on Monday, October 21st, the jury took only three hours to acquit Blake.
Yet it took another seven days before the CPS announced the charges against Rudakubana, with the suspect appearing in court on the same day that Rachel Reeves delivered her first budget.
It has been suggested that the Attorney General’s Office acted within days of the request being made, and all decisions on timing, including when charges are announced, are for the CPS. However, prosecution sources claim the CPS acted as swiftly as possible on the basis of information available.
Talking about the latest developments in this case is fraught with legal difficulty, as the trial process is protected by contempt-of-court laws. The rule of ‘sub judice’, in particular, means you’re not supposed to say anything publicly about a forthcoming trial that risks prejudicing court proceedings, and could face an unlimited fine and/or two years in prison if you do.
But that doesn’t mean, as Labour MP Thangam Debbonaire appeared to suggest on BBC Two’s Newsnight last week, that even asking questions about the case should be forbidden until the end of the trial. On the contrary, there are various aspects to this case – not least the information vacuum that the government has allowed to develop in the wake of the stabbings – that we can and should be able to talk about as openly as possible.
For anyone planning to post something online about last week’s news, we’ve published some FAQs about online offences relating to civil disorder. FSU members can access them here.
