A political debate is brewing over the handling of public information surrounding the Southport murders, particularly when the government and police should have disclosed key details about the case before Axel Radukabana’s trial. The Conservatives are calling for a public inquiry to investigate the decisions made by the police, prosecutors, and government, questioning why they did not release more information sooner, especially regarding the discovery of ricin and an al-Qaeda training manual in Radukabana’s home.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer have defended their actions, saying they were acting on legal advice to avoid jeopardizing the trial. Both leaders stressed that publishing information before the trial could have led to Radukabana being acquitted, putting public safety at risk. The two are under fire, however, for potentially allowing misinformation to spread in the meantime, particularly with false claims circulating about Radukabana’s background.
Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp is highly critical of the approach taken by authorities, claiming that the delay in releasing critical information resulted in an “information vacuum” that fueled false rumors, including one suggesting that Radukabana was an immigrant. Philp believes that these unfounded rumors contributed to the riots that followed the Southport attack. One of the most pressing questions raised by critics is why the police didn’t immediately make the discovery of ricin and the al-Qaeda manual public after it was found in Radukabana’s home.
Cooper explained that while the government wanted to make public the fact that Radukabana had been referred to the counter-extremism program Prevent, they were legally advised to withhold this information to protect the integrity of the investigation. Radukabana was charged with three counts of murder and 10 counts of attempted murder after launching an attack on July 31, which left three children dead: Bebe King, six, Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, and Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine. Shortly after the attack, officers discovered ricin and an al-Qaeda training manual in Radukabana’s home. Despite this alarming find, the police and prosecutors did not reveal this information to the public until months later.
The investigation was complicated by the need for special protective measures when searching Radukabana’s home, as the ricin and manual posed serious risks. Hazmat suits were required, and teams could only work for brief periods to ensure their safety. During this time, rumors about Radukabana’s identity and background spread quickly online, including false reports that he had migrated to the UK. Police felt the pressure to correct these inaccuracies, emphasizing that Radukabana was British. However, they did not immediately disclose the discovery of the ricin and manual, which was later revealed after an extended delay.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) found itself at odds with police over what could be publicly disclosed. The CPS urged caution, and police officers became frustrated with the slow pace of communication. On October 29, 2024, Radukabana was finally charged with additional offences, including possession of ricin and possessing information likely to be useful for terrorism. It was at this point, more than three months after the Southport attack, that the public learned of the ricin and the training manual.
Despite the charges, Radukabana was not charged with preparing for acts of terrorism because no political or ideological motive was found. The Prime Minister has suggested that current laws around terrorism might need to be revised to address lone attackers without clear political motivations. Radukabana later pleaded guilty to all the charges, and his sentencing is set for Thursday.
Although the case seemed resolved once Radukabana’s guilty plea was entered, the CPS decided to withhold further details about the investigation until after sentencing, prompting complaints from the media. The Crime Reporters Association, which represents senior crime and home affairs journalists, has criticized the CPS for violating a long-standing principle that material about a case can be made public after a guilty plea but before sentencing. The association has urged the CPS to reconsider its position and release the information.
The CPS, however, maintains that it is necessary to respect the judge’s independence and that the full details will be revealed during sentencing. They argue that the judge must determine how to weigh the evidence before handing down a sentence, and that releasing information prematurely could interfere with this process.
As the sentencing date approaches, there is still tension between the need for transparency and the legal considerations surrounding the case. The situation has raised important questions about how much information should be made public during high-profile investigations and trials, and how authorities can balance the interests of justice with the public’s right to be informed.
