Watchdog calls for creation of new offence in wake of Southport murders

Jonathan Hall KC said the definition of terrorism should not be changed

The definition of terrorism should not be changed in the wake of the Southport murders but a new offence created to address the gap for lone individuals planning mass killings should be considered, the UK’s terror watchdog has said.

Jonathan Hall KC said the current legal definition is "already wide" and broadening it could "increase the possibility of inaccurate use and, in theory, abuse".

This comes after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer questioned if terror laws should change to counter the "new threat" posed by violent loners like murderer Axel Rudakubana. However, Mr Hall's review, commissioned by the Home Secretary in January to scrutinise terror legislation "in light of modern threats we face", cautioned that extending terror liability might lead to "unacceptable restrictions on freedom of expression".

He said: "The risk of unintended consequences through rushed reform is extremely high."

These findings from the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation come as Sir Keir highlighted a new threat from "extreme violence carried out by loners, misfits, young men in their bedrooms" in January. He argued Rudakubana "clearly intended to terrorise" and called for the law and framework responding to this "new threat" to be appropriate and make any necessary legal changes to tackle it.

However, Mr Hall's report dismissed the idea of including "violence clearly intended to terrorise" as it would be too challenging to codify into a statutory definition.

The review by Mr Hall has raised concerns about the term "terrorising" being included in the definition of terrorism, arguing that it is not a helpful criterion for identifying acts of terrorism.

Rudakubana was sentenced to at least 52 years behind bars for the murder of three young girls and the attempted murder of eight other children, whose identities are protected, as well as dance instructor Leanne Lucas and businessman John Hayes during a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in July 2024.

Despite interactions with state programmes like Prevent, which aims to thwart terrorism, the authorities were unable to stop the tragedy that took the lives of Alice da Silva Aguiar, aged nine, Bebe King, aged six, and Elsie Dot Stancombe, aged seven.

Under current legislation, Rudakubana's horrific actions were not classified as terrorism because there was no proof that his intent was to further an ideological goal, as required by the existing definition of terrorism.

However, Mr Hall commented on the significance of the definition, stating: "Such is the functional importance of the terrorism definition, that redefinition would alter the landscape."

He warned of potential consequences, saying: "It would risk major false positives – the prosecution of people who by no stretch of the imagination are terrorists – and extend terrorism liability into novel terrain."

Mr Hall also highlighted the dangers to civil liberties, noting: "People swapping violent war footage would be at risk of encouraging terrorism, resulting in unacceptable restrictions on freedom of expression."

Furthermore, he pointed out that the present "very wide" definition relies heavily on the judgement of police and authorities when deciding who to arrest and charge.

He continued: "It has been my experience that this discretion has been exercised capably and well, so that individuals are not exposed to irrationality, heavy-handedness or bias. But this is a product of a mature and defined system operating with a familiar threshold. Altering the threshold would not only expand the reach of terrorism legislation but would increase the possibility of inaccurate use and, in theory, abuse."

He noted that in certain instances, investigators can readily determine if an attack was driven by "purely personal motives" and choosing not to label it as terrorism is "good sense to do so". He brought up the case of 19 year old Nicholas Prosper, who killed his mum and two siblings and was enr oute to execute a mass shooting at his former primary school when intercepted by police.

A loaded shotgun, along with over 30 cartridges, was discovered concealed in bushes on Bramingham Road, Luton, just as officers apprehended him. Prosper could not be charged with a specific offence related to planning the school shooting because his intentions wouldn't fall under the definition of terrorism.

Mr Hall continued: "The key point to make is that terrorism legislation is not the UK's main protection against this sort of attacker: what counts is gun control.".

He added of school shootings and young copycats that it is “foreseeable” that other types of violent attacks will start a copycat craze, “most likely amongst the cohort of isolated often bullied teenagers with poor mental health, neurodivergence or personality disorder for whom grudges and grievances become reasons for violence. Few will be terrorists applying the definition."

The watchdog suggested the creation of a new offence aimed at preventing mass casualty attacks before they occur, akin to existing terrorism offences that target individuals preparing for an attack.

He said: "It has become clear to me during the preparation of this report during January and February 2025 that there is a real and not theoretical gap for lone individuals who plan mass killings."

He proposed that the Government should consider a new law where someone intending to kill two or more people and undertaking any preparations for such an act could face life imprisonment as the maximum penalty.

Additionally, Mr Hall cautioned that misinformation following the Southport tragedy and claims of a "cover-up" could do more harm to a fair trial than the established facts about the perpetrator.

He said: "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. 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.

"Whether or not the Contempt of Court Act 1981 needs reform, the nature of prejudice in the digital age needs to be understood."

A Government spokesperson said: "The horrific attack in Southport last July cost the lives of three young girls and left others with lifelong physical and emotional damage. We have pledged to not only get justice for the victims and their families, but also bring about the changes needed to prevent such a horror from happening again.

"Today's report is an important step in that search for answers, and to tackle horrific acts driven by a fixation on extreme violence. As the Prime Minister said at the time, if the law needs to change, we will change it and, on the back of today's report, we will fix the legislation to close the gaps identified.

"We also agree that we must look at how social media is putting long-established principles around how we communicate after an attack like this under strain.

"We must look again at this to be able to tackle misinformation head on. Counter terror police are already considering this issue, and we have asked the Law Commission to conclude its own review into the rules around contempt of court as soon as possible. The wider public inquiry into the Southport tragedy will soon be set up to get the country the answers we need."