Ministers should be more open with the public about terror cases, the Government’s terror law reviewer has said in the wake of the Southport killings (Guardian, Standard, Telegraph).
The mass stabbing on July 29th was carried out by 18-year-old Axel Rudakubana who killed three children and injured eight more, along with two adults. Two days later, he was charged with three counts of murder, ten of attempted murder and possession of a bladed article.
Earlier this week, though, Rudakubana was charged with two additional 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 prime minister’s official spokesperson said it was “not correct” to say the Government had been withholding facts from the public.
However, to charge someone under the Biological Weapons Act, the Crown Prosecution Service has to obtain consent from the Government’s law officers – the attorney general or solicitor general.
Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said the Government should be careful about saying nothing because it could leave an “information gap”.
Hall 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 any more’, is not going to cut it these days.”
Hall’s intervention comes as the two Tory leadership hopefuls, Robert Jenrick and Kemi Badenoch, both said there are serious questions to be asked of the police, the CPS and Sir Keir – in particular, what information they’ve been aware of since the attack and why they’ve kept it from the public until now.
At the FSU we suspect some of the prosecutions of people for saying supposedly inflammatory things on social media may now be unsafe – for instance, the man in Cumbria sentenced to eight weeks in jail for reposting three allegedly ‘Islamophobic’ memes on Facebook. At the very least, it may be grounds for appealing their often draconian jail sentences.
We provided legal assistance to several of our members who did get into difficulty over the summer for saying things about the Southport attack on social media, including a Royal Marines veteran prosecuted for a Facebook video who has pleaded not guilty. His trial is forthcoming and we’re paying for a solicitor and a barrister.
If you are planning to say something on social media about this latest development in the case, we have published some FAQs on online offences related to civil disorder – if you’re an FSU member, you can access them at the link below.
We also have an arrangement in place with Luke Gittos, a criminal solicitor at the firm of Murray Hughman, allowing you to call him if the police contact you about any social media comments you made about the Southport attacks. We’re now extending the arrangement to comments about this week’s news.
Provided you’re an FSU member, we’ll pay for a telephone consultation with Luke or someone from his firm. We may also, at our discretion, pay for a solicitor to attend a police interview and for further legal work, including your entire defence.
It’s worth bearing in mind that you’re not supposed to say anything publicly about a forthcoming trial that risks prejudicing court proceedings. This is the rule of ‘sub judice’ and anyone who breaks it may be found to be in contempt of court. While it isn’t usually enforced against non-journalists for saying things on social media, it could be. The maximum sentence for contempt is an unlimited fine and/or two years in prison.
In addition, you could conceivably be prosecuted for describing the attacker as an ‘Islamist’, with Merseyside Police maintaining that the motive for the attack still hasn’t been established.
