'Why has the Southport Stabbing not been declared a terror attack?'
Axel Rudakubana's on going silence
One of the single most causes of grief and bafflement in the management of the Southport stabbing is why the attack has not been declared a terror attack.
The argument of the public and the affected families is simple enough. Axel Rudakubana — the man accused of the stabbing — caused enough terror in the victims, their families, emergency workers, Southport, and the nation to warrant the label ‘terror attack’ being attached to the massacre.
Terror attacks tend to be declared the same day as an attack, or, at a push, one-to-two days after the event. Some have asserted that the delay or reluctance in calling the Southport stabbing a terror attack is because it is could to be motivated by Islam, and the authorities are afraid of the backlash this will create in between the native population and Muslims. Whilst this is not impossible and could even be likely, the Southport Stabbing is reminiscent in the magnitude of its horror to the beheading of Fusilier Lee Rigby. His murder, committed in broad daylight on a London street, had been declared an Islamic terror attack that night.
There is no historical record of the political motive of the attacker dictating the time frame in which a terror attack is declared by public officials. The murder of British MP Jo Cox was declared as a ‘neo-Nazi’ terror attack the same day, whilst murder of Sir David Amess, also a British MP, was declared an Islamic terror attack the following day. The Manchester Area Bombing (2017) and the London Bridge attack — both Islamic in motivation — were terror incidents morning after the attack.
What is the definition of a terror attack?
Before advancing an argument as to why the Southport Stabbing has not been declared a terror attack, it might be propitious to define what an act of terrorism is according to the Terrorism Act 2000:
“…the use or threat of one or more of the actions listed below, and where they are designed to influence the government, or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public. The use or threat must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
“The specific actions included are:
serious violence against a person;
serious damage to property;
endangering a person's life (other than that of the person committing the action);
creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; and
action designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
The use or threat of action, as set out above, which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism regardless of whether or not the action is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public.”
The Southport Stabbing certainly ticks some of these boxes, but, crucially, not all of them.
Why has Southport not been declared a terror attack
The Southport stabbing meets some of the legal criteria for a terror attack:
☑️ Serious violence has been exacted against 13 people resulting in the death of three young girls and the maiming of 10 others.
☑️ The public have been intimidated, fearing for the wellbeing of themselves and their children
☑️ The attack had been ideologically motivated, if the accounts of police officers attending the scene are true
However, a crucial detail is missing, preventing the attack being declared as terror-related:
❌ No direct confession to political, religious, racial or ideological motivation, if the accounts of police offices attending the scene of arrest are false
Unless an attack is carried out by a gun man or a bomber, an attack has to have a motive declared by the killer or accomplices.
In the past, attackers have declared that they commit this attack in the name of a religion or a political cause, such as Islam, immigration, voting rights, or a country’s independence, before then carrying out the attack. In instances where the attacker makes no such statement, is killed, or gets away, the group from which the attacker emerged sometimes claims responsibility, as when ISIS claimed responsibility for the 7/7 Bombings or the IRA claimed responsibility for the assassination attempt on sitting Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, during the bombing of the Grand Hotel in Brighton.
In the instance of the Southport Stabbing, Chief Constable Serena Kennedy has declared that no such motive has been able to be ascertained.
“At this time, Counter Terrorism Policing has not declared the attack on Monday 29 July a terrorist incident. I recognise that the new charges, may lead to speculation...For a matter to be declared a terrorist incident, motivation would need to be established.”
If, therefore, the Southport Stabbing has not been declared a terror incident it will be for one of three reasons:
The Police have been able to establish what they believe to be the motive for the attack on 29 July 2024 and the motive does not match or meet the threshold of an act of terrorism.
The Police have established a motive that meets the threshold of an act of terrorism but have declined to make this information public at this time.
The Police have been unable to establish a court-worthy motive for the Southport Stabbing because Axel Rudakubana remains silent, and there exists no written testimony (such as a text message, voice note, or diary entry) articulating a clear motive.
I have my own suspicions as to which of the possibilities is the more likely, and whilst I am not informed enough to state the true reason for there being no terror charge entered for the Southport Stabbing, the third of these three options is the more rational, especially given Rudakubana’s ongoing silence and apparent reluctance to cooperate with his defence counsel.
This, too, is the stance of the prosecution.
Mr Justice Goose, who presided over the reading of the second charges — the ricin and the Al-Qaeda manual — to Axel Rudakubana at Liverpool Crown Court (13 November 2024) ruled that all charges, including murder, attempted murder, and terror offences, would be combined into a single trial.
In doing so, he asked for confirmation from the prosecution that joining of the first fourteen counts — murder, attempted murder, and possession of a bladed article — are “not asserted to be in furtherance of terrorism.”
The prosecution replied, “That is correct.”
This means that whilst the murder charges and the terror charges are being joined for the purpose of holding one trial (rather than two), the Southport Stabbing is not to be interpret as being motivated by terrorism and the murder charges are not being tried under the Terrorism Act 2000.
This also means that if Rudakubana is found guilty, the sentencing for the Southport murders will be guided by the penalties for murder, and not be for the penalties terrorism.
Why has Rudakubana been able to charged with terrorism for other counts?
If the prosecution have been able to secure a terrorism charge against Rudakubana for possessing an Al-Qaeda training, why have they been unable to do the same for the Southport Stabbing?
It is because to be in possession of this title, “Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants: The Al-Qaeda Training Manual” carries an automatic terror offence in UK law. Possessing the manual is illegal under the Terrorism Act 2000. Unlike a physical attack, a motive does not need to be established for a terror charge to be issued.
This is the rationale Chief Constable Serena Kennedy herself gives for the terrorism charge levelled at Rudakubana:
“The matter for which Axel Rudakubana has been charged with under the Terrorism Act [possessing a useful copy of an Al-Qaeda training manual] does not require motive to be established.”
As some people have pointed out, however, the Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants: The Al-Qaeda Training Manual at the time of the attack was available — it has since ceased to be available — in UK from High Street bookstores like Blackwell’s and Waterstones, and could be downloaded online from the United States Military ‘Air University’.
How could it be legal to buy and download the book in the UK if the mere possessing of the book is a terrorism offence?
It is simple. The books you are able to buy and download are a reacted version of the original prohibited document.
Chief Constable Serena Kennedy hinted that Rudakubana had been found in possession of an illegal copy in her statement about the second charges laid against Rudakubana.
“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.”
The pertinent phrase here is “of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism” — which is to say, a uncensored manual or a censored manual but with prohibited annotations. A manual, in other words, with the dangerous instructions.
The question is, then, “How did Rudakubana come to possess this document, as is alleged, and at 15-years-of-age?”
Author’s note — option to support my work
I embarked upon this investigation last year because I am of the sincere belief that this case, whilst being handled in a manner which serves the best interests of the accused, is failing to be handled in a manner which serves the best interests of the public and the victims.
As a writer, I knew my standard publishers would not dare to publish the things that I was discovering. I resolved therefore to quit my day job and take the risk to research independently, and make my essays free to read and share in the public domain.
If you would like to support me through my research until such a time I can deem the case closed and return to normal life, the best way to do this is to subscribe to this Substack.
This help is never expected but is forever appreciated.
You can also donate to the ‘Southport Strong Together’ appeal which are supporting the victims of the Southport massacre.
