TERRORISMSouthport Attack: Changing the Definition of Terrorism Won’t Stop the Violence

By Alan Greene

Published 24 January 2025

Axel Rudakubana, who killed of three young girls in Southport in a stabbing attack in 2024, had been referred to the Prevent counter-terrorism program three times, but failed to meet the threshold for intervention. Some want to change terror laws to deal with lone, violent killers. But as a researcher of counter-terrorism laws, I argue there is little point to widening what is already a broad definition of terrorism.

Axel Rudakubana has been sentenced to a minimum 52 years in jail for the killing of three young girls in Southport in a stabbing attack in 2024. After Rudakubana pleaded guilty to the murders, Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced a public inquiry, saying the state “failed in its duty” to protect the girls.

Central to this is the revelation that Rudakubana had been referred to the Prevent counter-terrorism program three times, but failed to meet the threshold for intervention. As a result, Keir Starmer has vowed to change terror laws to deal with lone, violent killers.

But as a researcher of counter-terrorism laws, I argue there is little point to widening what is already a broad definition of terrorism.

The Terrorism Act 2000 defines an act of terrorism as including, among other factors, serious violence against a person, serious damage to property, an act which endangers a person’s life or creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public. This definition captures a range of crimes, from murder and grievous bodily harm, to destruction of property and even, controversially, some forms of disruptive protest.

Crucially, the act contains a “motive clause”. This stipulates that a terrorist act is “designed to influence the government or an international governmental organization or to intimidate the public or a section of the public” and is “for the purpose of advancing a political, religious racial or ideological cause”.

The Crown Prosecution Service described Rudakubana as “a young man with a sickening and sustained interest in death and violence”. However, the home secretary noted that he was not referred through any counter-terrorism channels because of an “absence of ideology”. A “sickening and sustained interest in death and violence” may not necessarily be an “ideological cause”.

It has now been revealed that Rudakubana was caught with a knife ten times before the attack. He was also subsequently found with an al-Qaida manual and pleaded guilty to a terrorist offence in relation to this. But this only came to light after the attack – and it took two months before the police declared a terrorist incident.

Nevertheless, this raises the question of whether we are dealing with a gap in the law, or a problem regarding the application of the law in a specific case.