The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has said not all mass attacks equate to terrorism, noting that the fact someone has terrorist material does not necessarily mean they are a terrorist.
Jonathan Hall KC highlighted the “wafer-thin” difference between whether an attack is a terrorist attack or not because of the “lone actors” who are now involved in such incidents.
The comments came as Axel Rudakubana, 18, who has been accused of murdering three girls in Southport, was due to appear at Westminster magistrates court on Wednesday, facing new charges of possessing terrorist material and producing the poison ricin.
Meseyside police alleged on Tuesday that Rudakubana, who was born in Cardiff, had possessed a document entitled Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants: The Al Qaeda Training Manual.
The disclosure of the new charges, in light of the police investigation that concluded the attack on Monday 29 July was not a terrorist incident, has prompted fears of potential unrest.
The Tory leadership contenders Robert Jenrick and Kemi Badenoch raised their concerns about the police and Labour government’s response, with Jenrick suggesting the government may have been “lying” about what was known about Rudakubana.
Hall told the BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “I think these days the difference between whether an attack is a terrorist attack or not a terrorist attack is often wafer-thin. That’s just because of the profile of people who are now involved in attacks, by which I mean lone actors.
“You might say to yourself: ‘Why on earth would someone carry out a mass casualty attack; surely the only reason for doing an attack on strangers and killing people is to advance a terrorist cause?’
“But we know, don’t we, from the US where there are these terrible school massacres the whole time, those don’t seem to be terrorist attacks at all. These are often quite young people who are trying to emulate previous attacks, maybe to get notoriety, maybe because they have got a grievance against their school.
“It doesn’t follow, I’m afraid, that because someone has carried out a big attack that they therefore must be advancing a cause.”
He added: “There are cases, it sounds bizarre but it’s absolutely true, where someone has got al-Qaida material, someone has got IRA material, someone’s got extreme right material and sometimes all that you can really say when you look at someone’s devices is: ‘This individual is fascinated with violence.’”
Jenrick said the public had a right to know when Keir Starmer was aware of the information about Rudakubana, and what the police advice had been.
Speaking to ITV’s Good Morning Britain, he said: “The effect of this has been that there has been speculation over the summer, there has been a loss of trust in the police and the criminal justice process and I think that’s wrong. The state should not be lying to its own citizens.”
When asked if he thought the government had indeed lied, he added: “We don’t know. We don’t know the reason why this information has been concealed. Why has it taken months for the police to set out basic facts about this case that it is reasonable to believe were known within hours or days of this incident occurring?”
The prime minister’s official spokesperson said it was “not correct” to say the government had been withholding facts from the public.
However, to charge someone under the Biological Weapons Act, the Crown Prosecution Service has to obtain consent from the government’s law officers – the attorney general or solicitor general.
A Whitehall source confirmed that government officials knew several weeks ago about possible further charges against Southport terror suspect. However, the source added that the decision to charge was only granted “days ago”.
