Britain’s terror watchdog wants new law to cover loners planning mass killings

Britain needs a new law to prevent young men radicalised on social media from planning mass killings but does not need a wider definition of terrorism, the UK’s terrorism reviewer has said. After the outrage and subsequent riots over the stabbing to death of three young girls at a Taylor Swift dance class in Southport last summer, Jonathan Hall KC led an investigation into whether new terror laws or an updated definition was required. The attack, in which another eight girls were injured, was carried out by Axel Rudakubana, 19, who was found with Al Qaeda and other radical literature. Police “could not arrest” the Southport killer before he carried out his attack because of a gap in the law, Mr Hall said. It was “horrifying” that charges could not be brought against the then 17-year-old when he was known to be making plans for an attack, he said. The riots that followed the Southport killings, fuelled largely by far-right misinformation on social media claiming Rudakubana was an Islamist extremist, led the government to consider new legislation. Mr Hall considered whether the definition of terrorism should be changed to include mass violence without a political, religious, racial or other ideological motivation. It would potentially have had severe ramifications for the insurance sector, which would have had to deal with numerous acts of violence being considered terrorism. The adviser concluded the law should not be changed and on Thursday recommended creating a new law, making it easier to prevent planned mass attacks before they happen. It was clear “that there is a real and not theoretical gap for lone individuals who plan mass killings”, he said. He suggested creating a new offence where someone intent on killing two or more people and was preparing to carry out that attack can receive a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. A government spokesman said to tackle “horrific acts driven by a fixation on extreme violence”, the law would be changed to “fix the legislation to close the gaps identified”. The independent reviewer of terrorism’s report was commissioned after Prime Minister Keir Starmer questioned whether terror laws should change in the face of the “new threat” that came from “extreme violence carried out by loners, misfits, young men in their bedrooms”. But Mr Hall argued that the legal definition was “already wide” and expanding the threshold would lead to “unacceptable restrictions on freedom of expression”. “The risk of unintended consequences through rushed reform is extremely high,” he added. Robert Jenrick, shadow justice minister, welcomed the findings, calling them an “important intervention”. “When it comes to disclosing information about crime, sunlight is the best disinfectant,” he wrote on X. Rudakubana had been referred to the Prevent organisation, aimed at countering terrorism, on three occasions but it was never taken further as he was deemed outside of its remit. Under current legislation, prosecutors could not charge him under terror laws as there was no evidence he had an ideological cause. Mr Hall said it was down to police discretion to decide who to arrest and under which laws, but that broadening the terrorism definition would “risk major false positives” and the prosecution of people “who by no stretch of the imagination are terrorists”. “People swapping violent war footage would be at risk of encouraging terrorism, resulting in unacceptable restrictions on freedom of expression,” he added. Britain’s main protection against lone attacks by people radicalised online was not terrorism legislation but “what counts is gun control”, Mr Hall said, referring to the UK’s strict firearms laws. But he warned that future school killings were “foreseeable” and could start a copycat craze, “most likely amongst the cohort of isolated, often bullied teenagers with poor mental health ... for whom grudges and grievances become reasons for violence". However, he said “few will be terrorists applying the definition”. With social media the main news outlet for most people, and with significant disinformation spread after the Southport killing, Mr Hall recommended a change to contempt of court laws to allow police to publicise accurate information in highly sensitive cases. “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." Rudakubana was sentenced to a minimum of 52 years in prison for the murders of Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine, Bebe King, six, and Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, and the attempted murders of eight other children.

Britain’s terror watchdog wants new law to cover loners planning mass killings

Government adviser calls for tighter legislation after inquiry into Southport murders