'Southport killer pleads GUILTY'
What does this shocking change in direction mean for the trial and the truth?
Axel Rudakubana — the teenager charged with the executing the Southport Massacre — changed his plea to “guilty” of all charges, including the murder of three young girls. There will no-longer be a trial and he will face sentencing at Liverpool Crown Court TODAY at 11 o’clock.
Axel Rudakubana originally plead “not guilty” to the sixteen charges laid against him in Liverpool Crown Court; which is to say a “not guilty” had been entered in on his behalf by the Judge — Mr Justice Goose — on his behalf after he failed to speak at his own plea hearing on 18 December last year.
The charges included the murder of Bebe King, Alice Dasilva Aguiar, and Elsie Dot Stancombe, the attempted murder of eight other children and two adults — a dance teacher and a local business men who put themselves in harms way to protect children that day.
Journalists arrived at Liverpool Crown Court expecting a long and gruelling trial. Proceedings had been projected to take 4-6 weeks before the defence counsel indicated they would not be presenting a defence. This curtailed expectations with the trial due to last 2-4 weeks.
The first day, Monday 20 January was expected to be uneventful as the schedule would be dominated by the jury selection process. In high profile and emotive cases it can take hours or even days to form a jury which is sufficiently ignorant of the facts of the crime and the accused — in the Lucy Letby trial it took two days.
Rudakubana was expected to appear in-person at Liverpool Crown Court which had been the main fascination for the Press.
For those following the case in detail, the 'Bad character evidence' hearing is why they had attended court. Teacher from Rudakubana’s old school — Range High School — had been granted anonymity to give accounts as to how Rudakubana had been violent and disruptive as a pupil. This would have been the first official glimpse into the teenager’s temperament and would have shattered the pretence of his being a “quiet choir-boy”.
The opening session on Monday morning began 60 minutes late. The public gallery overflowed with Press who were either seated or hovering in a crush in the corridor outside Court 51.
When Rudakubana finally entered the room, he was flanked by four police of officers. He wore his grey prison-issue tracksuit, as before, but this time he covered his mouth with a blue, paper face mask — the kind worn during the COVID years.
His demeanour is far more sedated than his previous fidgety and distracted appearances.
Rudakubana is asked to stand but he does not stand.
He is asked to give his name but he remains silent.
Rudakubana is asked to give his name again but he does not speak.
The defence confirmed the man in the dock is Axel Rudakubana — “beyond dispute.” The judge then asked if Rudakubana is choosing not to speak. The defence confirms this is the case.
To this point, Rudakubana had never made a sound, even when it put him at risk of contempt of court.
The defence then opened proceedings by asking the incitements (i.e. charges) to be read to court again. Onlookers assumed he wanted to remind the court of the matter at hand before making a statement about the approach the defence council intended to take in substantiating Rudakubana’s “not guilty” plea.
The Judge then asks, “Guilty or not guilty?”
A gasp goes up from the gallery.
He had muttered but, yes! Rudakubana had spoken for the first time and he had said “Guilty.”
The clerk then began reading each of the 16 counts of the indictment, with the defendant replying with the single word "guilty" each time and the clerk repeating back: "You wish to change your plea to guilty."
The defence declares this is their new position and the Judge pronounces that Rudakubana is to be sentence on Thursday 23 January at 11 o’clock.
He then asked if there is any other material the defence wishes to place before the court. Rudakubana’s representative replies that says he does not have a psychiatrists report — which attests to Rudakubana’s mental health in the present and at the time of the attack — but wished to submit Rudakubana's "considerable" mental health record which existed before the events in Southport on 29 July.
The Judge then asked, "Are there previous incidents that may be relevant?"
The defence says "Yes, my lord."
At this point, Rudakubana had hunched over in the dock and was unable to be seen by those in the gallery. The Judge addresses Rudakubana and says, "You will understand it's inevitable that a life sentence will be imposed upon you." Rudakubana makes no response and he is dismissed and escorted out of the dock to the cells.
What does this guilty plea mean for the trial?
There will be no trial.
Axel Rudakubana has plead guilty to all charges which means he no longer has to be judged by a court of his peers.
The hammer has come down and he is to be convicted. It is for the Judge — Mr Justice Goose — to now decide what sentence Rudakubana should be given for his crimes.
The Judge will be in possession of the full facts of the case, and have heard the argument of both the defence and the prosecution. He will take into account the mental health file and his “previous incidents” before deciding to what Rudakubana should be sentenced.
Rudakubana is not expected to be given a ‘child’s’ sentence. Despite committing the crime at seventeen years-of-age, it had been less the two weeks until his eighteenth birthday and, throughout, the judge has handled the case as an adult trial.
However, there are different sentencing limits for the under-twenty-one in the United Kingdom which prohibit a ‘life sentence’ from being issued. It is as yet unclear whether an exception will be made to ensure Rudakubana will never be free to walk the streets again.
The maximum prison sentence the families can expect is thirty-five years and ‘concessions’ could be made, reducing the sentence, if the judge rules in that Rudakubana’s past mental instability contributed to his future mentality and actions.
Following the sentencing, Rudakubana is expected to be returned to Belmarsh Prison, where he has been incarcerated since carrying out the Southport attack.
What does this guilty plea mean for the truth?
A guilty plea means there is no jury to protect from bias. The Contempt of Court laws before unappreciable on most details and the Press are free to report and commentate upon the attack.
A great number of families will be relieved that they do not have to relive the trauma of those days in midsummer: they will not have to take to the stand to give witness statements, nor will they have to endure listening to the screams of their children on Police body-camera footage or revisit those open wounds on their children’s backs, arms, and faces in photographs.
But those same families may be frustrated.
They will not hear the full extent of the evidence against Axel Rudakubana.
They will not know the details of how and why it is was their girls who were targeted. They will not be able to built up a distinct image in their mind of the course of events — and be that much closer to understanding and reconnecting with their traumatised daughters. They will not get to watch as Rudakubana is himself forced to relive his attack.
The absence of a trial an issue for the public as well. That which is not mentioned in court before a jury will often fail to be mentioned after the fact. There is no hard and fast rule about this. Rather, the Police are reluctant to share information, and the news cycle moves onto the next sensation.
It is hard to ignore the fact that a “guilty” plea is convenient for the Government as well as Rudakubana. UK officials, including the Prime Minister, have been accused of mobilising a “cover-up” in the aftermath of the attack. To describe the Southport stabber as a “Welsh choir boy” felt like an intentional deflection from his Rwandan background and violent nature. When riots broke out up and down the country of the murders, accusations of corruption only intensified as Keir Starmer took to a national staged and denounced the public as “far-right” for harbouring concern about the influence of terrorism in the attack — influences he insisted did not exist.
Without a trial there are no indisputable facts which the public might use ot challenge politicians on their previous speeches about Axel Rudakubana and the Southport stabbing. Without the evidence, the public will never have a definitive explanation as to why this attack took the shape that it did.
This is to say that proving a cover-up has taken place and holding any guilty parties to account has become that much harder.
