Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has ordered an independent public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the murders of three young girls in Southport last July, amid growing concerns over the handling of the case and why key information was withheld from the public.
This decision followed the guilty plea of 18-year-old Axel Rudakubana at Liverpool Crown Court. Rudakubana admitted to murdering six-year-old Bebe King, seven-year-old Elsie Dot Stancombe, and nine-year-old Alice Da Silva Aguiar during a Taylor Swift-themed dance class. He also pleaded guilty to attempting to murder eight other children and two adults, Leanne Lucas and Jonathan Hayes, as well as possessing an al-Qaeda training manual and producing the deadly toxin ricin.
Further details were outlined by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper in a statement to the House of Commons. Cooper stressed that the inquiry would examine not only the immediate events leading up to the attack but also systemic issues, including the handling of Rudakubana’s multiple referrals to Prevent, the Government’s scheme to stop terrorist violence. She informed MPs that the inquiry would initially begin on a non-statutory basis “so that it can quickly move into action”, with statutory powers to be added later “as required”.
Announcing the inquiry, Sir Keir described it as a necessary step to restore public confidence. “The law of this country forbade me or anyone else from disclosing details sooner,” he told reporters, defending the decision to withhold key details during the trial.
Nevertheless, many have accused the Government of using contempt laws to obscure terror links in the case. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp called for the inquiry to examine “what the Government knew and when” and “why it wasn’t disclosed”. In an interview with BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Philp said: “There is quite a lot you can put into the public domain without prejudicing judicial proceedings. It undermines trust in justice when this doesn’t happen.”
Philp also cited Jonathan Hall KC, the UK’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, who warned in the context of the Southport case that withholding information creates a vacuum quickly filled by rumours and public mistrust. This, he suggested, exacerbates tensions and damages confidence in the justice system.
Speaking in Parliament, Nick Timothy, formerly joint chief of staff to Theresa May when she was prime minister, and now the Conservative MP for West Suffolk, accused Starmer of “a cynical masterclass in obfuscation”. Timothy questioned why the Government did not disclose the terror connections, asking “whether it thought the public might assume something about [Rudakubana’s] ideology if they used the word terror”. He also criticised the Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner’s decision to summarily dismiss such links as “fake news”, arguing this only deepened mistrust.
Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, echoed these criticisms, accusing the Government of hiding behind legal arguments. “The country needed to know the truth about this murderer and that he was known to the authorities,” he said.
The tragedy unfolded on July 29, when Rudakubana launched a knife attack at the nursery dance class. While authorities quickly gathered evidence of extremist links and were aware of his history of violent behaviour, withholding this information fuelled public frustration and accusations of a two-tier justice system that prioritises ‘community relations’ over the truth.
Public suspicion was further heightened by the messaging from Merseyside Police. The force initially emphasised that Rudakubana was born in Cardiff, but given the nature of the crime, confirmation of his British nationality did little to quell rumours that the massacre was an Islamist-inspired terrorist attack.
Similarly, during a press conference on the evening of the attack, Serena Kennedy, Chief Constable of Merseyside Police, stated that while the incident was not being treated as terror-related, counter-terror police were assisting with the investigation. Yet the discovery of ricin and a terrorist manual at Rudakubana’s home shortly after the attack remained undisclosed for three months.
Was this an operational decision to allow detectives more time to gather evidence of a motive, or a deliberate ploy to avoid inflaming tensions? Either way, the silence eroded public trust. Riots erupted across Southport and beyond, leading to over 1,200 arrests and dozens of convictions. Social media quickly became a focal point for public discussion, with users speculating about the case and sharing their views. While some posts crossed the line into illegality and led to prosecutions, the Free Speech Union saw many cases where lawful commentary was also unfairly targeted.
The Prime Minister has also ordered a review of the counter-extremism system after it was revealed that Rudakubana had been referred to the Prevent programme three times between 2019 and 2021 without effective intervention. Lord Anderson will lead the review to ensure the system is “fit for purpose” and to “shine a light into its darkest corners”.
There are no corners darker than those left unexamined, unspoken, and concealed. As The Telegraph observed in a strong editorial, the unthinkable events in Southport highlight the critical importance of integrity and openness in the public square. Drawing comparisons to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, where Salman Abedi killed 22 people, the paper noted that withholding information “played into the hands of political groups trying to foment trouble”.
What happened in Southport serves as a sobering reminder that suppressing information, even with good intentions, undermines belief in technocratic expertise and creates fertile ground for rumours, conspiracy theories, and unrest. Transparency, by contrast, is not just a legal obligation but a crucial safeguard against the growing political polarisation that progressives so often claim to oppose.
When the inquiry begins, it must address not only what the Government knew and when, but also how clearer public communication could have prevented many of the arrests for online offences that followed. In times of crisis, the freedom to ask questions, speak openly, and challenge political shibboleths – even at the risk of causing offence – is more essential than ever.
