Southport killer could ‘one day walk free amongst us', says peer

Independent

27-01-2025

Southport killer Axel Rudakubana could 'one day walk free amongst us', the House of Lords has been told as peers raised 'grave concerns' over his sentencing.
Conservative peer Lord Davies called for a review on sentencing to allow whole-life orders to be given to under-18s.
Eighteen-year-old Rudakubana was given a life sentence with a minimum term of 52 years last week – one of the highest minimum terms on record – for murdering Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine, Bebe King, six, and Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, at a dance class in Southport on July 29 last year.
Three separate referrals were made to the Government's anti-terror programme, Prevent, about Rudakubana's behaviour in the years before the attack, as well as six separate calls to police.
In the House of Lords on Monday, Lord Davies said the attack is 'one of the most despicable criminal acts' he has ever encountered.
He said: 'My previous career, 32 years as a detective policing in London, I saw some of the most violent and atrocious criminals at work, but this certainly ranks as the most heinous of crimes.'
Lord Davies said Rudakubana should 'never be released from prison'.
He said: 'His age means he has not been given a whole-life sentence, despite the countless lives he destroyed on that dreadful day and the legacy of mistrust he has sown across the country.'
Lord Davies added: 'I must express my grave concerns about the limitations of our current sentencing framework.
This is undoubtedly a question of moral clarity and public confidence in our justice system
Lord Davies
'The public will rightly question how someone capable of such monstrous crimes could one day walk free amongst us.
'This is undoubtedly a question of moral clarity and public confidence in our justice system.
'There is a strong case here for amending the law to give clear judicial discretion toward whole-life sentences to under-18s.'
Home Office minister Lord Hanson replied: 'We must remember that the individual who committed these crimes has faced a life sentence given down last week, does face a 52-year minimum sentence.
'But the issues Lord Davies has mentioned about the whole-life sentence are tendered by the fact that we do sign up to as this UK Government, to the United Nations conventions on the Rights of the Child, which means that we can't currently give a whole-life sentence to somebody under the age of 18.
'But don't let that confuse the House in relation to our commitment to the victims of this crime, we all give them our full support.'
I remind him also that the perpetrator of this crime was a British-born, British citizen, so there are multi-layer complexities to the issues that led to this appalling incident in Southport
Lord Hanson
Later, crossbench peer Lord Hope said it would be 'unwise' to change the law on whole-life orders on the basis of an incident 'as extreme and horrifying' as Rudakubana's attack.
He said: 'The problem is, if the law is changed, it is changed generally applying over a wide range of cases, it wouldn't capture without a very difficult definition a case as extreme as this. So it'd be wiser to leave the matter as it is and of course, go along with what the (UN) convention itself tells us.'
Lord Davies also asked if 'integration issues' would be included within the remit of the public inquiry, to which Lord Hanson said integration 'is key to the assessment of Prevent and how we tackle those issues generally'.
He said: 'But I remind him also that the perpetrator of this crime was a British-born, British citizen, so there are multi-layer complexities to the issues that led to this appalling incident in Southport.'
Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Suttie welcomed a public inquiry which she said is necessary because of the Government's 'duty to the families to learn the lessons from what happened'.
She said: 'An extremely violent young man was identified, and identified by many different people and organisations, and yet he was still able to carry out these abhorrent attacks.'
Baroness Suttie further stated: 'The Prime Minister's statement raised, I believe, some extremely important questions.
'Is a lone attacker, usually, unfortunately a young man, who is obsessed with terrorism and previous terrorist attacks, but who is not ideologically driven or working within a recognised terrorist organisation – is he a terrorist?
'It is important to consider what could be the consequences of changing Prevent engagement in such cases.
'Does the minister agree with Neil Basu, the Met's former head of counter-terror policy, when he said last week that a Prevent for non-terrorists is now necessary and will require a big bill if we want to be safe?
'And will the Home Office carry out an assessment of the risks of diverting counter-terrorist officers from their core task, if the definition is to be expanded to include extremely violent psychologically disturbed people who are clearly a danger to society, but are not necessarily a threat to the state?'
Lord Hanson said the independent review has been asked to 'examine terrorist legislation'.
He said: 'That, again, will be a considered process, but one which I hope will add value to the work that we need to do.
'Baroness Suttie has mentioned the question of multi-agency teams, their determinations and the range of issues there, they're all extremely important.
'I give an assurance that we will be examining all of that in relation to the response as a whole.'