'Axel Rudakubana case delayed'

Understanding the preparatory hearing

The trial of Axel Rudakubana is expected to begin on 20 January 2025. The eighteen-year-old stands accused of sixteen charges, including “3 counts of murder, 10 of attempted murder, possession of a knife, production of biological toxin, ricin, and possession of information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing to commit an act of terrorism.”

This follows the hideous stabbing that took place at a children’s dance class on Hart Street in Southport on 29 July earlier this year.

The judge presiding over the case, Mr Justice Julian Goose, ordered a preparatory hearing which was due to take place on 12 December 2024 at Liverpool Crown Court. It has since been delayed a week and was reported but I can reveal the preparatory hearing is scheduled to take place today at 10:30AM (Wednesday 18 December 2024).

The delay was requested by the defence — those representing Axel Rudakubana — on account of “needing more time to prepare.”

In criminal law, a preparatory hearing is held before a judge and without a jury to determine whether or not the prosecutor has a prima facie case, meaning that the evidence is sufficient to establish a case that warrants trial before a jury or judge in the Crown Court or a higher court. This hearing is not about determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

Under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, Section 29, subsections 1A, 1B and 1C, a preparatory hearing will be commissioned where:

• indictment reveals a case of such complexity, [F1 a case of such seriousness] or a case whose trial is likely to be of such length, that substantial benefits are likely to accrue from a hearing

• at least one of the offences charged by the indictment against at least one of the persons charged is a terrorism offence

• at least one of the offences charged by the indictment against at least one of the persons charged is an offence carrying a maximum of at least 10 years' imprisonment

A preparatory hearing is used in complex cases to settle various issues before the trial. This could include, (a) “identifying issues which are likely to be material to the determinations and findings…during the trial”, (b) identifying measures to assist the jury’s comprehension of those issues, (c) “assisting the judge’s management of the trial”, and (d) “considering questions as to the severance [separating] or joinder [linking together] of charges”

The preparatory hearing allows the prosecution to outline its case along with any significant evidence.

Witness and victim statements can be presented, along with forensic evidence, or physical items related to the alleged crime. At this time, the defence — the person being accused — may challenge the evidence and argue that the case (or elements of the case) should be dismissed due to insufficient evidence or procedural issues. It is at this juncture that the judge may decide to render some evidence inadmissible, or drop some or all of the charges, should he or she deem the prosecution’s evidence insubstantial for trial.

The preparatory hearing is an opportunity for the defence to hear the prosecution’s evidence and to prepare their case in a manner which better addresses the accusations which will be levelled towards the accused during the trial.

What can be expected from the Axel Rudakubaba preparatory hearing?

First and foremost, the court can expect to hear whether Rudakubana pleads guilty or not guilty to the crimes of which he stands accused.

The prosecution — in this case, “Rex” or “The Crown” (versus Rudakubana) — will reveal the evidence they intend to bring against Rudakubana in substantiation of the crimes of which he has been accused. This might include witness statements, a weapon, items of clothing, photographs of injuries, communications, receipts, or evidence that demonstrates premeditation, such as a notebook, text messages, or a diary.

The prosecution will also sketch, in broad terms, the angle of approach they intend to take and upon what aspects of the crimes they intend to place their emphasis.

This could include:

• The degree to which the attack was intentional

• The nature of the injuries inflicted upon the victims

• Whether or not Rudakubana had been known to authorities before 29 July — such as social services or the Police

• Whether or not Rudakubana had been expelled from school

• Whether or not Rudakubana had committed previous offences

• Whether or not Rudakubana attempted to commit the same or similar offences before the stabbing on 29 July — such as an attack upon a school, or children’s club

• The exact version of the Al-Qaeda training manual Rudakubana is charged with possession

• The amount of ricin Rudakubana is alleged to have produced and the extent to which it was deadly

• Whether Rudakubana worked alone, was assisted, or facilitated in the crimes of which he is accused

It continues to remains unclear the extent to which court proceedings will be made available to the general public. If the judge presiding over Rudakubana’s case wishes to put restrictions on media reporting, he may choose to do so at the preparatory hearing.

Whilst “open justice” — the idea that justice must be seen to be done as well as being done — is considered an integral part of the justice system, restrictions can be placed upon media reporting by a judge in exceptional circumstances. This includes cases of sexual violence, cases sensitive to national security, crimes committed by or against children, and high-profile cases where public knowledge of proceedings is expected to compromise the integrity of a jury or the judicial process.

Given the high profile nature of this case, and that the immediate victims of the stabbing were mostly young girls, it is expected to be subject to significant reporting restrictions.

Why has the defence asked for the preparatory hearing to be delayed?

The delay was requested by the defence — those representing Axel Rudakubana — on account of “needing more time to prepare.”

Given the preparatory hearing is held for the benefit of the defence, rather than the prosecution, it is counterintuitive that Axel Rudakubana’s defence has asked for more time to prepare. ‘To prepare what?’ it is natural to ask. Whilst the defence can present evidence at the preparatory hearing, it is an uncommon occurrence.

The defence is not expected to present a “defence” at this stage in proceedings. Nor are they required to present any evidence they intend to use in rebuttal of the charges put against the accused. The defence only needs to substantiate aspects of its case if it wishes to select evidence or charges to be omitted from the trial, or wishes the style of the trial to be amended.

It could be that the defence council have struggled to ascertain whether Rudakubana wishes to enter a guilty or not guilty plea. Up to this point, Rudakubana has remained silent at every court appearance. He has not responded when asked to confirm his identity and keeps the lower half of his face covered with his grey prison-issue sweater.

He is understood to have spoken in prison but it remains unclear whether he is cooperating with his defence council.

Since it is an uncommon occurrence, some members of the political commentary class have suggested the request for a delay does not come from the defence but from somewhere higher up — forces who for the sake of political convenience would prefer the trial (along with all of its revelations) to be kicked down the road.

This is not an irrational belief to hold. No doubt social order would be better maintained if ‘Southport’ is left to become a hazy memory in the national mind. Before a verdict is reached, the new and hideous connotations associated with that sleepy seaside town is to be rendered little more than a footnote in public news. Given the public outrage — which led to nationwide protests and riots in the United Kingdom over the summer — there is a clear motivation for delaying until the passion for justice has been sucked out of everyone but the families who have suffered as a result of the attack.

Despite the Southport Stabbing rising to the fever pitch of a national scandal, the delay to proceedings failed to be reported upon by the national news media. The BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Sky, and GB News all failed to disclose this postponement to the public with only the Liverpool Echo, Manchester Evening News and a handful of independent journalists commenting upon the news.

In light of this knowledge, it is easy to see why people are inclined to believe the delay it is a conspiracy exacted by a Government trying to conceal the truth — or at least minimise the impact of that truth.

But let it be said this plea for more time had been made in earnest by the defence, and they intend to present a case to the judge before the jury trial. What case will they present? And should the public prepare for a substantial delay to proceedings?

What are Axel Rudakubana’s defence counsel preparing to present at the preparatory hearing?

It cannot be asserted why the defence needs time to prepare until the preparatory hearing takes place. There are some dominant schools of thought among those connected to the case, including:

1. The defence will push for Rudakubana to be tried as a child

2. The defence will make a “fitness to plea” case

3. The defence will push for the first charges (stabbings) to be severed from the second charges (ricin and AQ Manual) and tried separately

4. The defence will claim it is impossible for Rudakubana to have a fair trial

Each of these scenarios have the potential to be devastating for the victims and their families for each entails severe delays to proceedings and an unsatisfactory resolution.

For example, should the defence push for Rudakubana to be tried as a child, both the proceedings and the outcome of any trial could be impacted, including sentencing (should the accused be found guilty). For a judge to rule in favour of such an appeal would cause outrage among the families of victims and the British public. Such a ruling could cause significant delays to trial as proceedings would need to be rearranged. Such delays — as with the delay to this preparatory hearing — must be agony for the victims and their families. They are presented with a timeline which continues to be pushed back. Each time proceedings are pushed back, their ability to find rest and closure is also postponed.

Should, however, the defence make the case that Rudakubana is unfit to stand trial — otherwise known as “unfit to plea” — and the judge rule in the defence’s favour, Rudakubana would not stand trial and instead a “trial by facts” would be launched. This is when a jury decides whether or not the accused committed the act upon concrete evidence — “facts” — but regardless of their conclusion, the accused cannot be found guilty. Instead, the accused can be given a hospital order, a supervision order, or an absolute discharge. This would be perhaps the most devastating outcome for the victims and their families.

But how likely are these scenarios? The best indication coming from those who has been chosen to be Rudakubana’s defence council.

Who is defending Axel Rudakubana?

The defence counsel for Axel Rudakubana includes Stan Reiz KC and Carmel Wilde.

Stan Reiz KC specialises in fraud law and various aspects of crime. He “defends clients accused of all varieties of homicide-related offences, including allegations of murder committed with firearms, bladed articles and fire. He is experienced in analysing crime scene and pathology evidence, as well psychiatric evidence in cases in which the defence of diminished responsibility needs to be considered.”

Reiz is known to represent “clients who are in the public eye” such as substantial companies, athletes and musicians.

His recent cases include representing: the alleged organiser of the highly publicised murder in Liverpool of a young woman shot in her own home with a Skorpion sub-machine gun, and a man acquitted of murder following a group attack in a city centre internet café.

Reiz has a history of representing young men and teenage boys facing murder and manslaughter charges, including:

• R v J: 18-year-old with autism spectrum disorder accused of the attempted murder of a man and 15-year-old girl following a shooting at a bus stop. He was acquitted of the attempted murder of the girl following a ruling by the judge that the principle of transferred malice did not apply to inchoate offences.

• R v M: 15-year-old boy captured on CCTV stabbing an 18-year-old in the chest and killing him. The prosecution relied upon drill music lyrics written by the defendant in custody.

• R v T: Defendant accused of participating in a ‘ride out’ during which a group of 8 males attended three properties with ‘Zombie’ knives allegedly looking for rival gang members to attack. A 16-year-old boy was stabbed to death in his home. The prosecution relied upon gang evidence to explain what they contended was relevant behaviour by the defendants. The Defendant was acquitted of murder and two counts of conspiracy to cause GBH. He was convicted of manslaughter.

Carmel Wilde specialises in “all aspects of criminal law” and is also “instructed in family cases involving public and private child law matters.” She is a Youth Court registrant, meaning she is recognised as being able to represent minors in legal proceedings.

Wilde has represented men accused of extreme violence, and paedophiles who have been accused of sexually assaulting children or hoarding child sexual abuse material.

What do the barristers chosen to represent Rudakubana tell us about the potential shape of the trial?

The accused’s diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder had been raised as a point of order in the reading of the first charges, giving an initial indication as to the direction the case could be taken.

The defence counsel is thought to have ordered an extensive range of cognitive tests and mental health assessments, in the hope (rather than expectation) Rudakubana might be deemed irresponsible for his actions and unfit to stand trial.

To emphasise the impressionability of young men is a defence strategy Stan Reiz KC has routinely employed in the past with clients either being acquitted or having their charges of murder reduced to manslaughter.

The inclusion of Carmel Wilde could indicate that the defence, if not pursuing a children’s trial, will be placing an emphasis on Axel Rudakubana youth and character. She has been known to argue diminish culpability as a result of a client’s upbringing or impressionability.

It is also understood that the defence have been pursuing, as a line of enquiry, the motion that a fair trial cannot be secured for Rudakubana. This is on the grounds that public commentary, misinformation, and outrage will have been sufficient to bias any jury which can be summoned. Given that managing high profile cases is something with which Stan Reiz KC specialises, he should have no problem navigating the landscape of what constitutes a fair and unfair trial, and the impression is that to pursuit this line of attack would make Reiz appear foolish and defeatist.

Whilst a great concerns have voiced about prejudicing the trial in the direction of Rudakubana’s guilt, there has been a subtle absence of concern about the trial being prejudiced in the direction of Rudakubana’s innocence. National newspapers have been free to assert that Southport Stabbings are the result of an unmanaged mental health condition, regardless of the impact such unconfirmed narratives may shape the impressions of a jury member before the trial.

Should Axel Rudakubana be pronounced unfit to plea, there will be wide spread acceptance of this ruling because, well, it makes a great number of uncomfortable questions disappear. The story of a vulnerable and fragile choir boy turned rogue. It is a common and tragic story, the seed of which was planted in the nation’s consciousness in the height of summer: a great number of people come the winter are ready and willing to believe it, and repeat it, and let the matter pass over, into the memory hole.

It is incumbent upon each and everyone to remain vigilant, and unwilling to forget.

DISCLAIMER

The author takes only a professional interest in law. She has not studied or practised law in any official capacity. Her qualifications are a Bachelor of Arts with Honours in English from the University of Cambridge (2019-23).