By Michael Holden
LONDON (Reuters) – Britain should not redefine terrorism in the wake of last summer’s murders at a Taylor Swift-themed dance event but the government should consider a new law to tackle those bent on mass killings, the UK’s terrorism watchdog said.
Axel Radukabana, 18, stabbed to death three young girls and wounded 10 others last July in the northern English town of Southport, an act of violence Prime Minister Keir Starmer called one of the most harrowing moments in Britain’s history.
However, his crime was not classed as terrorism as there was no evidence that he was inspired by any particular political or religious ideology, a necessary requirement, something which drew criticism from government opponents as he was also convicted of possessing the deadly poison ricin and an al Qaeda training manual.
After Radukabana’s jailing, Starmer himself said terrorism had changed, with some individuals fixated on extreme violence, seemingly for its own sake, and police and security services have warned of a growth in the number of would-be terrorists whose motivation was hard to determine.
Classing an action as terrorism allows the authorities to use extra powers and gives judges the ability to impose harsher sentences.
In a report into the Southport murders published on Thursday, Jonathan Hall, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, rejected changing the existing definition, saying “treating every violent eccentric as a potential terrorist would skew the threat level and divert resources”.
He said it would risk the prosecution of those who were “by no stretch of the imagination” terrorists and lead to unacceptable restrictions on freedom of expression.
“The risk of unintended consequences through rushed reform is extremely high,” his report said.
However Hall said there should be a new offence to address loners who planned to kill two or more people, with a penalty of life in prison, allowing the authorities to target those intent on mass killings, like Radukabana.
Days of nationwide rioting followed the Southport attacks, fuelled by disinformation on social media, and later there were accusations from government critics of a cover-up because police had released few details about the suspect to prevent prejudicing a later trial.
Hall said “near silence” was no longer an option and if the police did not take the lead with accurate information, others would fill the gap.
“The disinformation generated on social media, combined with widespread allegations of a ‘cover-up’, risked far more prejudice to any trial than the placement of undisputed facts about the attacker in the public domain,” he said.
(Reporting by Michael Holden; Editing by Alison Williams)
Comments