No defence to be presented by Rudakubana's lawyers
What does this mean for the imminent trial for Southport Stabbing?
EXCLUSIVE: Axel Rudakubana’s Defence Lawyers Are Offering No Defence for the Southport Stabbing
In the seaside town of Southport, at 11:45 AM on 29 July 2024, a taxi pulls up on a residential street beside an alleyway that leads to a community centre. The occupant of the taxi gets out without paying. A few minutes later, two children — girls of primary school age — are dead. Nine others suffer severe injuries, and some lie dying, their bodies strewn on the road in the street beyond.
By midday, the police have detained a teenage boy — the number one suspect in the attack. His name is Axel Rudakubana, born in Wales to Rwandan immigrants, and he stands accused of executing one of the most horrifying massacres the United Kingdom has seen in a generation. Among the victims are nine-year-old Alice da Silva Aguiar, six-year-old Bebe King, and seven-year-old Elsie Dot Stancombe, along with eight other surviving girls, a dance teacher, and a local businessman.
Whether Axel Rudakubana is guilty of the murder and attempted murder of these unsuspecting children will be decided at Liverpool Crown Court starting tomorrow.
Axel Rudakubana’s defence team offering no defence
It has taken six months for the case to come to court. A second set of (as yet) unconnected charges — the production of the bioweapon ricin and the possession of a version of an Al-Qaeda training manual — were presented to the court, which has delayed proceedings.
The plea hearing had also been delayed by a week, with the defence asking for more time to prepare. On the eve of the trial, I can reveal to the public that:
Axel Rudakubana’s defence lawyers intend to offer no defence against the sixteen crimes of which he has been accused.
The defence barrister revealed at the plea hearing that:
Axel Rudakubana is not going to provide a defence case statement.
He says he can offer no positive case on his behalf.
He is not offering evidence as a defence.
The prosecution must prove the allegations against Axel Rudakubana.
There will, however, be an application regarding the admissibility of evidence — meaning some items of evidence submitted by the prosecution are being contested by the defence.
An application to admit ‘bad character evidence’ was also entered and will be heard on Monday, 20th January 2025, before the jury is formed .
As a result, the trial is expected to take 2-4 weeks, rather than the projected 4-6 weeks. However, it could take some time for a jury to be formed.
What are the sixteen charges Axel Rudakubana is facing?
Since the attack first took place almost 6 months ago, I will recap the total number of charges which are being brought against Axel Rudakubana in this coming trial:
Murder of Elsie Dot Stancombe
Murder of Bebe King
Murder of Alice da Silva Aguiar
Attempted murder of Child (X)
Attempted murder of Child (X)
Attempted murder of Child (X)
Attempted murder of Child (X)
Attempted murder of Child (X)
Attempted murder of Child (X)
Attempted murder of Child (X)
Attempted murder of Child (X)
Attempted murder of Leanne Lucas
Attempted murder of Jonathan Hayes
Possession of a bladed article — kitchen knife
Production of a biological toxin — namely ricin, contrary to Section 1 of the Biological Weapons Act 1974.
Possessing information, namely a pdf file entitled “Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants: The Al-Qaeda Training Manual” of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism —contrary to Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
NOTE: The surviving children from the attack have their identities protected under ‘Children and Young Persons Act 1933, Section 49’
What does it mean when the defence offers no defence?
In the UK Crown Court, the defence counsel does not provide a defence for their client if they believe it is the best path forward. However, such a tactic is recognised as a risky approach for a defence team. Failure to provide a defence does not result in an automatic conviction — Axel Rudakubana will not be found guilty simply because his legal team offers no defence. Instead, it falls to the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charges with which he has been accused. The judge will instruct the jury to come to a verdict based on the evidence presented. The jury will still be required to deliberate and decide whether the prosecution has proven the defendant’s guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
However, failure to present any case on behalf of the defendant could be seen as undermining the defendant’s right to a fair trial. In such cases, the judge might intervene to ensure fairness. The judge can remind the court of the defendant’s right to remain silent, and that his right not to self-incriminate is respected.
What are the benefits of this approach?
There are a few key benefits in allowing a defence counsel not to present a formal or substantive defence in certain circumstances:
Increasing the burden of proof — As the prosecution bears the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not providing material to the prosecution in the form of ‘no defence’ can sometimes work in the defendant’s favour.
Not helping the prosecution — The defence is not obligated to disprove the allegations. As well as not offering any ‘counter evidence’ — such as an alibi for the time in which the offence is said to have taken place — the defence counsel can decide not to challenge the evidence. By not confirming or denying the evidence, it makes the burden of proof higher for the prosecution, as they do not have the opportunity to ‘poke holes’ in the defence’s ‘challenges.’
The facts of a defence would undermine the defence — As the defendant has the option to remain silent and not testify, the defence counsel may decide not to put the defendant at risk by allowing them to take the stand, especially if there is a chance that cross-examination could undermine their case. In this sense, not presenting a defence could be part of a strategy to avoid further incriminating the defendant. If the prosecution's case is already strong, the defence may not see the benefit of making unnecessary arguments or presenting a defence that might only serve to complicate matters. In some instances, it may be in the defendant’s best interest to focus on procedural issues, such as challenging the lawfulness of evidence, rather than attempting to refute every point in the prosecution’s case.
The prosecution’s case is weak — In some cases, defence counsel may decide that the prosecution's case is weak enough that it does not need to be countered. The absence of a defence can be a way to underscore weaknesses in the prosecution’s argument. The evidence presented by the prosecution may not be sufficient to establish guilt, and a defence may not be necessary to highlight flaws in their case. While there might have been enough evidence to bring charges against someone and bring the matter to trial, the evidence, without a defence, may not be enough to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. In such instances, a jury is unlikely to find in favour of a conviction. This is often the approach in cases of rape, but would, in this case, be unlikely to yield fruitful results.
Saving court time — More likely, if the defence counsel has assessed the evidence and determined that it is unlikely to result in a successful defence, they may choose to avoid an exhaustive trial process, helping to avoid wasting the court's time and resources.
Mistrial — In extreme cases, if the defence fails to provide a meaningful defence and it appears that the defendant is not receiving a fair trial, the judge may stop the trial and declare a mistrial. This would be a disaster for the families, and a career-damaging outcome for the defence lawyers themselves. However, such a result could work in the defendant’s favour long-term by further complicating proceedings.
What are the side effects of this approach?
Every defendant, no matter what they are accused of, has the right to present a defence. This includes legal representation. The defence counsel has a professional duty to provide effective representation to their client. This includes giving advice, challenging the prosecution’s case (where pertinent), and presenting a defence strategy. If a barrister fails to do this, it could be considered inadequate representation, which might give rise to an appeal on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel.
If the defence counsel chooses not to present a defence, the defendant may still choose to give evidence or make submissions. For the defendant to choose to speak without a structure provided by his counsel can have a severe impact upon the impression left by a “rogue” client. This particular eventuality is improbable — Axel Rudakubana has, up until this point, failed to speak when requested to even confirm his identity.
What are the possible outcomes of providing no defence?
Conviction — If no effective defence is presented, the jury may convict the defendant if they believe the prosecution has proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Acquittal — If the prosecution fails to convince the jury of the accused's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, the jury can deliver a “not guilty” verdict.
Hung jury — If the prosecution convinces some members of the jury and not others, and they reject the judge’s recommendation, a ‘hung jury’ could be declared and the trial recommenced.
Appeal — If a defendant is convicted, they may appeal on the grounds that they did not receive a fair trial due to the failure of their counsel to provide a defence.
In the interest of maintaining a fair trial, I shall not adjudicate or declare which of the outcomes I consider to be the more likely.
DISCLAIMER
The author takes only a professional interest in law. Whilst doing her due diligence, 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).