Terror watchdog Jonathan Hall KC said the disinformation could have been ‘far more’ prejudicial to Axel Rudakubana’s trial than the true facts.
The authorities’ failure to disclose fundamental details about the Southport killer led to “dangerous fictions” that could have severely prejudiced his murder trial, a leading terror watchdog has warned.
Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, criticised the “ineffectual near silence” of officials following the murders, arguing that a clearer statement would have been far preferable to the disinformation that fuelled riots.
Writing in The Daily Telegraph, Mr Hall urged the Government to reassess the balance of prejudice in the digital age, as contempt of court laws come under review following the case.
Misinformation following the murders
Last July, Axel Rudakubana, 18, launched a brutal attack at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class, killing three young girls. In the absence of official information, social media quickly became rife with false claims about the killer’s identity and motives.
These included rumours that Rudakubana was a Muslim asylum-seeker, which led to violent riots. Mr Hall suggested that the suppression of key facts left the public vulnerable to misleading narratives, which ultimately undermined trust in the authorities.
Sir Keir Starmer has defended the decision to withhold information, arguing that premature disclosure could have jeopardised a fair trial. However, Mr Hall strongly disagreed, writing:
“The failure by the authorities to spell out basic and sober facts about the attacker led to contagious disinformation about a murderous Muslim asylum-seeker that stoked the ensuing riots.”
He further warned:
“Had there been a trial, jurors could have entered court with the impression that Rudakubana was a Muslim asylum-seeker and, more toxically, that the authorities were determined to hush it up.”
Mr Hall emphasised that the misinformation spread online could have been far more damaging to the legal process than disclosing some basic, factual information about the killer at the outset.
Police chief wanted to dispel misinformation
The debate over how authorities handled the case has intensified following recent parliamentary testimony from Merseyside’s police chief, Serena Kennedy. She revealed that she had wanted to release key information about Rudakubana’s background and religion in the immediate aftermath of the murders, to counter false narratives.
However, she was blocked from doing so by local Crown prosecutors.
Instead, police only disclosed that the suspect was a 17-year-old male from Banks, Lancashire, who was born in Cardiff—a limited statement that failed to quell public speculation.
Mr Hall warned that this cautious approach left a vacuum that was quickly filled with rumour and political opportunism.
“An unintended consequence of the Leveson Inquiry into phone hacking has been a cooling of relations between the police and mainstream media,” he noted.
More Read
He argued that this lack of cooperation between law enforcement and reputable journalists has allowed social media speculation to flourish unchecked, further fuelling distrust in institutions.
Lessons for the future: Balancing free speech and public trust
The Southport case has raised broader concerns about how official silence on sensitive issues can create a breeding ground for misinformation.
Mr Hall pointed to the increasing role of social media as a primary source of news and the growing influence of US tech companies in shaping public discourse.
“The bracing approach of the new administration is to emphasise, with some justification, the need for freedom of information from government influence or control,” he observed.
However, he warned that this approach could weaken the UK’s Online Safety Act, which was designed to tackle harmful content and disinformation.
The case has reignited discussions over how to strike the right balance between press freedom, public safety, and the right to a fair trial.
With contempt of court laws now under review, legal experts and policymakers will need to grapple with the reality of an information landscape where silence can be just as dangerous as misinformation itself.
