The teenager who murdered three young girls at a dance class in Southport was referred three times to Prevent, the government’s scheme to stop terrorist violence, the Guardian has learned.
One of the referrals followed concerns about Axel Rudakubana’s potential interest in the killing of children in a school massacre, it is understood.
His behaviour, including his apparent interest in violence, was assessed by Prevent as potentially concerning. But he was deemed not to be motivated by a terrorist ideology or pose a terrorist danger and was therefore not considered suitable for the counter-radicalisation scheme.
Rudakubana, who was 17 at the time of the Southport attack last summer, was first referred to Prevent in 2019 when he was 13. A further two referrals were made in 2021, all when he was a schoolchild living in Lancashire.
After one of the referrals, it was recommended that Rudakubana be referred to other services. It is not known if this happened.
Prevent is the official national programme to identify those feared to be falling for terrorist ideologies and turn them away from carrying out violence. Children and adults referred to the scheme are assessed and, if they are deemed to pose sufficient risk, work is done to reduce that danger.
In July, Rudakubana attacked a dance class, killing three girls aged nine, seven and six, and wounding eight more children as well as two adults. On Monday, he pleaded guilty to murder and attempted murder.
On Monday he pleaded guilty to a terrorism offence, possessing a document called Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants – the al-Qaida Training Manual, and also to producing the biological toxin ricin.
Police say that despite extensive searches and investigation there is no evidence of a terrorist motivation for the Southport attack, carried out by Rudakubana during a Taylor Swift-themed dance class.
Multiple sources confirmed Rudakubana’s referral to Prevent.
After the stabbings and his subsequent arrest, an emergency review of how Prevent dealt with Rudakubana was ordered. It concluded that the Prevent policies at the time, covering the criteria needed to accept someone on the scheme for de-radicalisation work, were correctly followed.
Rudakubana was born in Cardiff to Rwandan parents, with his family later settling in Banks, Lancashire.
He was first referred to Prevent over concerns he was looking at material about school massacres in the US, and a fascination with violence. He used computers at the school he attended at the time to search for material on school massacres, it is understood.
By early 2020, after the first referral the previous year, it was assessed that he did not fit the criteria for the voluntary scheme but should be referred to other services.
Two years later, in 2021, he was referred again to Prevent after viewing material on Libya and past terrorist attacks, including those on London in 2017.
The material is understood to have consisted of news articles, and at the time he was assessed by Prevent, officials did not have any information that he was viewing or searching for extremist material.
On each occasion it was decided that while the behaviour might be concerning it did not meet the threshold for intervention by Prevent. He was judged three times not to pose a terrorism risk, and was thus outside the scope of the scheme.
But sources say there remains a grey area in cases where it is feared that a young person may pose a risk of violence, but where there is no sign of a terrorist ideology motivating them.
Prevent exists solely to stem the flow of recruits for terrorism and there is no similar scheme for those thought to pose a risk of violence where terrorism is not suspected.
A source said: “There is a gap for those who are volatile, who need management, who may be dangerous. There is nothing for them.”
Last month, the home secretary announced changes to Prevent. It was at least in part an attempt to deal with any criticism after the Southport killer’s trial ended and his involvement with the anti-radicalisation scheme became known.
Yvette Cooper said the threshold at which Prevent became involved with people would be reviewed. At the moment Prevent is only suitable for those with a clear extremist ideology.
Cooper said: “A lack of clarity remains over whether Prevent should be confined to cases of clear ideology or should also be picking up cases where the ideology is less clear, or where there is a fixation with violence.”
Recent Prevent statistics showed most referrals were for individuals with a vulnerability but no ideology or counter-terrorism risk.
Cooper promised changes to the Prevent programme and a new commissioner to oversee how it worked.
Some of the material held by the authorities about Rudakubana describes him as saying he hated school and his teachers, and was being bullied.
Those who assessed him believed the teenager may have had issues with neurodivergence or mental ill-health, which could be factors in the behaviours that were causing concern, a source said.
A source with close knowledge of mental health services in the Lancashire area at the time said they were in a dire state. “Many young people had to be sent out of the area, even with conditions as serious as schizophrenia, sometimes five or six hours from where their family were. Youth services have taken a hammering in the last decade.”
The threshold for referral to Prevent is low, and most cases are not adopted by the scheme.
The Guardian understands that other than his involvement with Prevent, Rudakubana is not mentioned in counter-terrorism databases held by MI5 or by counter-terrorism policing.
In a statement on Monday evening, Merseyside police said the force knew “he had researched numerous documents online” that showed an “unhealthy obsession with extreme violence”, but that “no one ideology was uncovered, and that is why this was not treated as terrorism.
“We have been accused of purposely withholding information, this is absolutely not the case. From day one we have been as open as we possibly could and have constantly been in touch with the CPS who have advised us on what information could be released.
“We have wanted to say much more to show we were being open and transparent, but we have been advised throughout that we couldn’t do so as it would risk justice being delivered.”
The head of counter-terrorism policing, Matt Jukes, said information about the three referrals to Prevent were not “withheld due to any lack of candour” but after “advice from the Crown Prosecution Service on what information could be released and when, so as not to risk justice being delivered.
“Our work with Merseyside police has uncovered a wide interest in conflict, violence, genocide, and terrorism, and that he had accessed a wide range of online material related to these topics.
“Now that Rudakubana has pleaded guilty, it is our commitment to share the details of these referrals and how they were responded to, alongside the examination of his contact with other agencies.”
In a statement, the Lancashire Child Safeguarding Partnership said Rudakubana became known by a range of services from 2019 after he “took a knife into school which he did not use” in October that year and “physically assaulted a child with a hockey stick” in December.
It said Lancashire constabulary responded to five calls from Rudakubana’s home address relating to concerns about his behaviour, and Early Help supported him and his family after children’s social care assessed social support was not required.
“Over the last two years Axel Rudakubana continued to face challenges related to his emotional and behavioural wellbeing, social interactions, and education. As a result, he received ongoing support from Camhs, Send services and Early Help.”
The partnership said it had commissioned a review into the roles of all the agencies that had interacted with Rudakubana and his family.
“The review will be a thorough process and is being led by three reviewers who have the required expertise to look at all aspects of this case.”
Counter-terrorism policing declined to comment.
