A public inquiry has heard that ambitious government responses to tackling extreme violence in the wake of the Southport attack were not taken forward because of cost. The Southport Inquiry, established after Axel Rudakubana murdered three girls at a dance class in July 2024, is examining how the risk posed by "violent-fixated individuals" can be managed.
Home Office report identified key issues
The hearing was told on Monday that a Home Office unit had identified key issues with the challenge of non-ideological extreme violence ahead of a meeting with the cabinet secretary in June last year. The issues, set out in a report, included limited evidence on the scale and scope of the problem, inadequate multi-agency frameworks for managing cases, uncertainty about effective interventions and no clear ownership across law enforcement.
The unit also reported that the online environment was "increasingly acting as an accelerant and enabler" of non-ideological extreme violence. Jonathan Emmett, from the Home Office, told the inquiry: "The intent behind putting any note of that type together, and that note specifically, is absolutely to get at the strategic issues and not to shy away from them in any sense."
Four high-ambition responses proposed
The Home Office unit set out four "high ambition responses" to the issues, the inquiry heard. It proposed a "serious and sustained effort" to reduce the risk in the online environment, prevention partnerships to reduce the pool of extreme violence risk, a national prevention gateway backed by effective multi-agency systems, and strengthening the anti-terror programme Prevent to handle the "sustained surge and broader range of referrals".
According to the report, all of the responses would require more money to be delivered. Details of what the responses would involve were redacted in the copy of the report shown to the inquiry.
Funding limitations cited
The inquiry was told the Home Office, in anticipation of the spending review, recognised that work would instead need to focus on "cost-neutral improvements" in the short term. Counsel to the inquiry, Nicholas Moss KC, said: "It does seem on the face of the record that what were described as 'high ambition responses' were deliberately not taken forward at this time because of the limitations of funding in the then cycle of the spending review?"
Mr Emmett replied: "Yes, that's correct." Mr Moss quoted former prime minister Sir Keir Starmer's statement following the conviction of Rudakubana, in which he said there were questions about the accountability of the Whitehall and Westminster system and said: "Southport must be a line in the sand." He said: "It might be said by some outside observers that sentiment doesn't sit entirely comfortably with an acceptance that the spending review meant that high ambition responses would need to be, at least for the moment, put on hold?"
Mr Emmett said part of the context for the decision-making was that it was understood the inquiry would be making its own strategic recommendations in due course.
Review found "confused picture"
The inquiry also heard a Home Office review, in May last year, which looked at how violence-fixated individuals were managed found a "confused picture" with inconsistencies in implementation and a lack of understanding of the behaviours and profile of the cohort. The report found the system ran the risk of "allowing cases to fall between the cracks".
Mr Moss said it was a "somewhat bleak but candid assessment of the scale of the problem". Mr Emmett agreed. The first phase of the Southport Inquiry found the attack, in which Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine, Bebe King, six, and Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, were killed, "could and should have been prevented".
