UK Terror Watchdog Calls for New Offence to Address Lone Mass Killing Threats
A comprehensive review of terror legislation following the Southport murders highlights potential gaps in the legal framework regarding lone attackers.
The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, has recommended the consideration of a new legal offence specifically targeting lone individuals planning mass killings, while asserting that the existing definition of terrorism should remain unchanged.
The review, prompted by the Southport murders in July 2022, articulates concerns regarding the adequacy of current laws in addressing the emerging threat posed by violent loners.
Hall stated that the current legal definition of terrorism is 'already wide,' cautioning that broadening the criteria could lead to 'inaccurate use' and possible 'abuse' of the law.
This perspective aligns with recent comments by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who indicated that new threats necessitate a reassessment of existing terror laws, highlighting the case of the Southport attacker as emblematic of a 'new threat' to public safety.
In his review, commissioned by the Home Secretary earlier this year, Hall emphasized that any expansion of terrorism liability risks creating 'unacceptable restrictions on freedom of expression.' He pointed out that extending the definition to include 'violence clearly intended to terrorise' would pose challenges in crafting a precise statutory definition.
The Southport incident, in which Axel Rudakubana was sentenced to a minimum of 52 years for the murders of three young girls and the attempted murder of eight others, has underscored the limitations of current terror legislation.
Rudakubana's violent actions, despite being premeditated, were not categorized as terrorism since no ideological motive was established in accordance with existing definitions.
Hall's assessment highlighted the potential for 'false positives' in the redefinition of terrorism, cautioning against the possibility of prosecuting individuals who do not fit the traditional profile of a terrorist.
He noted that such a redefinition could inadvertently criminalize individuals engaged in non-terroristic violent acts, thereby inflating the application of terror laws and impacting legitimate freedom of expression.
Referring to other instances, such as the case of Nicholas Prosper, who plotted a school shooting, Hall pointed out that current legislation does not encompass certain acts of violence intended for personal motives, which often remain exempt from terror charges.
He identified a crucial gap for individuals planning mass casualty attacks and has suggested creating a distinct offence to address this issue, recommending that individuals preparing for such attacks could face life imprisonment.
Furthermore, Hall remarked on the pervasive issue of disinformation following violent incidents, asserting that the absence of accurate information from authorities could exacerbate public misunderstandings and prejudices.
In the wake of the Southport attacks, he urged law enforcement to take the lead in disseminating clear and factual updates, especially in the digital age where misinformation can quickly spread.
A spokesperson for the government acknowledged the gravity of the Southport attacks and reiterated the commitment to ensuring justice for victims and their families, while pursuing necessary legal reforms to mitigate similar future incidents.
The government is also engaging with the Law Commission on matters relating to contempt of court and misinformation on social media as part of a broader inquiry into the responses and legal frameworks surrounding such tragedies.
The review, prompted by the Southport murders in July 2022, articulates concerns regarding the adequacy of current laws in addressing the emerging threat posed by violent loners.
Hall stated that the current legal definition of terrorism is 'already wide,' cautioning that broadening the criteria could lead to 'inaccurate use' and possible 'abuse' of the law.
This perspective aligns with recent comments by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who indicated that new threats necessitate a reassessment of existing terror laws, highlighting the case of the Southport attacker as emblematic of a 'new threat' to public safety.
In his review, commissioned by the Home Secretary earlier this year, Hall emphasized that any expansion of terrorism liability risks creating 'unacceptable restrictions on freedom of expression.' He pointed out that extending the definition to include 'violence clearly intended to terrorise' would pose challenges in crafting a precise statutory definition.
The Southport incident, in which Axel Rudakubana was sentenced to a minimum of 52 years for the murders of three young girls and the attempted murder of eight others, has underscored the limitations of current terror legislation.
Rudakubana's violent actions, despite being premeditated, were not categorized as terrorism since no ideological motive was established in accordance with existing definitions.
Hall's assessment highlighted the potential for 'false positives' in the redefinition of terrorism, cautioning against the possibility of prosecuting individuals who do not fit the traditional profile of a terrorist.
He noted that such a redefinition could inadvertently criminalize individuals engaged in non-terroristic violent acts, thereby inflating the application of terror laws and impacting legitimate freedom of expression.
Referring to other instances, such as the case of Nicholas Prosper, who plotted a school shooting, Hall pointed out that current legislation does not encompass certain acts of violence intended for personal motives, which often remain exempt from terror charges.
He identified a crucial gap for individuals planning mass casualty attacks and has suggested creating a distinct offence to address this issue, recommending that individuals preparing for such attacks could face life imprisonment.
Furthermore, Hall remarked on the pervasive issue of disinformation following violent incidents, asserting that the absence of accurate information from authorities could exacerbate public misunderstandings and prejudices.
In the wake of the Southport attacks, he urged law enforcement to take the lead in disseminating clear and factual updates, especially in the digital age where misinformation can quickly spread.
A spokesperson for the government acknowledged the gravity of the Southport attacks and reiterated the commitment to ensuring justice for victims and their families, while pursuing necessary legal reforms to mitigate similar future incidents.
The government is also engaging with the Law Commission on matters relating to contempt of court and misinformation on social media as part of a broader inquiry into the responses and legal frameworks surrounding such tragedies.
