What is terrorism? The Southport murders, Axel Rudakubana and an Al-Qaeda Manual
The Asian Crime Century briefing 104
The confused understanding of what is terrorism in the UK has been exposed following the conviction of Axel Rudakubana for the ghastly murder of three small girls in Southport on 29 July 2024. Rudakubana was also convicted of the attempted murder of 10 others (eight children and two adults), for possession of a knife in a public place, production of a biological toxin (ricin) contrary to the Biological Weapons Act 1974, and possession of the ‘Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants: The Al-Qaeda Training Manual’ which is 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.
Despite the single charge and conviction under the Terrorism Act, Rudakubana was not charged with any other offences under the Act and his crimes were not classified as ‘terrorism’ by the police investigators or the prosecutors. This decision is contentious and has led to a national discussion regarding whether it was appropriate and if the existing laws are fit to cover the acts committed by Axel Rudakubana.
The lead police investigator, Detective Chief Inspector Jason Pye has said that after officers found the Al Qaeda Manual on one of Rudakubana’s devices six days after the attack he had immediately asked “Is this not now terrorism? Is this not now terrorism? Is this not now terrorism?”
Barrister Deanna Heer, KC, who prosecuted the case, has said that “It is not possible to identify any particular terrorist cause…Rather, the evidence suggests that the defendant's purpose was the commission of mass murder as an end in itself.” Ms. Heer went on to say that “He wasn’t fighting for a cause…his only purpose was to kill.”
Despite the police and legal comments that this case was not terrorism, the UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, said in a statement on 21 January 2025 that:
“Britain now faces a new threat. Terrorism has changed. In the past, the predominant threat was highly organised groups with clear political intent. Groups like Al-Qaeda. That threat of course remains. But now, alongside that we also see acts of extreme violence perpetrated by loners, misfits, young men in their bedroom, accessing all manner of material online, desperate for notoriety. Sometimes inspired by traditional terrorist groups. But fixated on that extreme violence, seemingly for its own sake. When I look at the details of this case. The extreme nature of the violence. The meticulous plan to attack young children in a place of joy and safety. Violence clearly intended to terrorise. Then I understand why people wonder what the word ‘terrorism’ means. And so, if the law needs to change to recognise this new and dangerous threat, then we will change it – and quickly.”
Changing the law to make certain actions fit the elements of terrorism is a contentious course. This approach raises the possibility of constantly adjusting offences in law to fit new tactics employed by those who commit crimes. Clearly a full review of this case and the wider legal implications are necessary, and the UK Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, has announced that the government will establish a public inquiry into the case.
The findings of a public inquiry cannot be pre-judged as this is likely to take many months or several years, but there are already credible questions regarding the approach taken in the prosecution of this case as well as the rationality of the Prime Minister suggesting that the law may need to be changed. Jonathan Hall, KC, a barrister who is the government appointed Independent Reviewer of Terrorism, has stated that:
“I think these days the difference between whether an attack is a terrorist attack or not a terrorist attack is often wafer-thin. That’s just because of the profile of people who are now involved in attacks, by which I mean lone actors…You might say to yourself: ‘Why on earth would someone carry out a mass casualty attack; surely the only reason for doing an attack on strangers and killing people is to advance a terrorist cause?’…But we know, don’t we, from the US where there are these terrible school massacres the whole time, those don’t seem to be terrorist attacks at all. These are often quite young people who are trying to emulate previous attacks, maybe to get notoriety, maybe because they have got a grievance against their school…It doesn’t follow, I’m afraid, that because someone has carried out a big attack that they therefore must be advancing a cause…There are cases, it sounds bizarre but it’s absolutely true, where someone has got al-Qaida material, someone has got IRA material, someone’s got extreme right material and sometimes all that you can really say when you look at someone’s devices is: ‘This individual is fascinated with violence.”
The comments from Mr. Hall are eminently sensible, although they make life harder for police investigating officers who may find evidence of a suspect studying a terrorist cause (e.g. in an Al Qaeda manual) and then face having to prove that possession of this material is in fact the motive for carrying out or planning an act of violence. The simple question can be asked, is it terrorism when someone reads terrorist manuals and carries out violence with the aim of causing the greatest level of fear? On the basis of the Axel Rudakubana case it is not.
What is terrorism in the law?
Terrorism is defined differently in law in every country, for obvious reasons that legal systems differ as do the circumstances of each country. A global legal definition is not possible. Terrorism is defined in the UK Terrorism Act (2000) and means:
“The use or threat of action which (a) involves serious violence against a person, (b)involves serious damage to property, (c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system”,[and]
the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, [and]
the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [racial] or ideological cause.” (Terrorism Act, section one)
In the Terrorism Act, a “terrorist” means a person who “(a) has committed an offence under any of sections 11, 12, 15 to 18, 54 and 56 to 63, or (b) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.”
This is confusing in the case of Axel Rudakubana as he has been charged with an offence under section 58 of the Terrorism Act (Collection of Information), and hence under the terms of the Act in Section One he is defined as a “terrorist”. The UK prosecutors have not explained this contradiction between the law in the Terrorism Act and their approach to charging Rudakubana.
What is terrorism about?
Definitions of ‘terrorism’ are as numerous but there is no globally agreed definition. Reaching widely agreed definitions of terrorism has been impossible to achieve because of competing interests between states, political differences with those involved in terrorism, and widely varying social, economic and cultural situations around the world. It is not possible to reach a ‘correct’ definition of terrorism because there is no ‘wrong’, but we should seek definitions that accord a degree of acceptance in each national context.
A legal definition of terrorism, such as the Terrorism Act (2000) in the UK, may be different from academic definitions and explanations. Academic explanations of terrorism are essential to provide the context for legal definitions that define a crime. Both are necessary and complimentary. The late Professor Paul Wilkinson, co-founder of the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at the University of St. Andrews, explained terrorism as follows:
“Terrorism the systematic use of coercive intimidation, usually to service political ends. It is used to create and exploit a climate of fear amongst a wider target group than the immediate victims of the violence, and to publicise a cause as well as to coerce a target to acceding to the terrorists’ aims.” (Wilkinson, Terrorism versus Democracy, page 17, 2011).
Professor Wilkinson did not much consider “lone wolf” terrorists, who have been less common in the UK where the nation’s experience has involved organisations and ideologies, such as violent Irish Republicanism, violent Islamism, and violent extreme right-wing groups. In the US there has been far longer study of ‘lone wolf’ terrorism and political violence, partly due to the more frequent occurrence of such attacks. The FBI has published “A Study of Lone Offender Terrorism in the United States” covering the period from 1972 to 2015 and the report explains the difficulty of definitions:
“Operationally defining the lone offender terrorist is challenging, as the nature of terrorism is both highly political and contextually dependent. Over the years, there has been disagreement over the classification of violent acts under the label of “terrorism.” While an argument can be made that the infliction of fear upon a targeted group or the public is sufficient to classify an act as terrorism, the FBI definition of terrorism requires a purported motivation that goes beyond exclusively personal motivations and attempts to influence change in furtherance of extremist ideologies of a social, political, religious, racial or environmental nature.” (FBI, 2019)
The US approach is similar to the UK, with definitions of ‘terrorism’ requiring not only personal motivations of an attacker but also the involvement of extremist ideologies. The FBI analysis includes conclusions that are strikingly relevant to the debate in the UK:
“Violent action is rarely taken for a single reason and is more often the result of a combination of psychological and social issues impacting a subject. Instead of focusing solely on ideology as the driving force behind a trajectory toward targeted violence, threat assessors should examine all potential warning signs, risk factors, and triggers that indicate a subject may engage in violence. As such, threat assessors should work to gather and document available information concerning all aspects of a subject’s life, allowing for a thorough and structured analysis by a team trained in disciplines beyond just law enforcement.”
The FBI review of historical “lone offender” cases found that most, 70 percent, had involved the culprits consuming “radical ideological material or propaganda”. It is rarely the case that an offender consumes such material from a single source (e.g. Al Qaeda), and many would read or view information from multiple sources. Because of this it may in most cases be difficult or impossible to, in the words of Ms. Heer KC, “identify any particular terrorist cause.” The most common circumstances in which a ‘lone wolf’ terrorist may be linked to a particular cause are consequently when he or she claims to support that cause. Once again, this makes the work of the police investigator extremely difficult if such claims do not exist and they need to determine the motive of an attacker.
What is Axel Rudakubana?
Axel Rudakubana was a ‘lone wolf’ who committed murder, but whether his actions were ‘terrorism’ and whether he could be described as a ‘terrorist’ is complex. Was Rudakubana influenced and motivated after reading ‘Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants: The Al-Qaeda Training Manual’? If this experience provided part of the motivation for his attack and murder of three small girls, then this was terrorism.
It is striking that the prosecutors of Axel Rudakubana did not attempt to prove this point. Despite the fact that the Al Qaeda manual was found by the police in his home quickly after his arrest, this was not used to invoke powers under the Terrorism Act that would have enabled the police to hold Rudakubana for longer before charging him and also to eventually lay more charges under the Terrorism Act against him.
This decision taken by prosecutors is even more questionable as Rudakubana was charged with ‘Possession for terrorist purposes’ (of the Al Qaeda manual) under section 58 of the Terrorism Act, which states that “A person commits an offence if he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.” It is difficult to understand how Rudakubana could be found guilty of possessing the Al Qaeda Manual for the purpose of preparing or carrying out a terrorist attack, but the murders that he committed are not charged as terrorism. The UK Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has some explaining to do in regard to how they arrived at this decision, as clearly the approach will affect the prosecution of other ‘lone wolf’ cases in the future.
The Chief Crown Prosecutor of CPS Mersey-Cheshire said after the conviction that “Axel Rudakubana is a murderer, and displayed unrelenting savagery as he carried out a meticulously planned rampage of murder and violence. His purpose was to kill and he targeted the youngest, most vulnerable, no doubt in order to spread the greatest level of fear and outrage, which he did.” If Rudakubana’s purpose (and hence his intent) was to cause the greatest level of fear then this is terror. If he did so for a political or ideological purpose, then this is terrorism. The only question for prosecutors is whether they can prove this in a trial. If the prosecutors decided to not pursue further charges under the Terrorism Act against Rudakubana with the aim of more easily securing a conviction for murder (i.e. with Rudakubana pleading guilty), then this decision should be explained publicly.
After the trial of Axel Rudakubana the is situation is that he has been convicted of an offence under the Terrorism Act and consequently under that Act is technically a “terrorist”. The prosecutors in the case have stated that his actions were not terrorism. The Prime Minister of the UK has said that “Terrorism has changed.” It is clear that the state is confused about the meaning of terrorism and how to combat the problem. That Axel Rudakubana was referred to the Prevent Program, which “works to ensure that people who are susceptible to radicalisation are offered appropriate interventions, and communities are protected against radicalising influences”, shows that the system for preventing radicalisation has failed. The case also shows that the state and its agencies continue to be confused about what is terrorism.
I agree, the possession of the al-Qaida manual per se could have triggered a terrorism prosecution. The questions is whether it should have. There is a recent example of a far-right activist, Mason Reynolds, being successfully charged with terrorism offences after the same manual was found in his possession. Clearly, for Reynolds, the techniques were of interest not the ideology. I don't know Rudabukana's motives and I suppose the CPS doesn't really either. He clearly had a personal history of violence, and he should have been flagged as a danger to himself and others. In that sense the system failed and the public inquiry the Prime Minister has announced is the appropriate way of investigating those failures.
Ahead of the public inquiry, it seems the CPS' decision that this was not a terrorism was based on the absence of any signs Rudabukana was influenced by extremist Islamist views. He is from what by all accounts is a very respectable family of Christian heritage who themselves raised concerns about his behaviour to the authorities. He had no record of online Islamist radicalisation. He may well have been a deeply disturbed man with a callous disregard for human life who deserves every day of his 52 year jail sentence.
What we need to guard against here - rather like in the case of the grooming gangs - is the deliberate manipulation of a tragic situation, and the injection of misinformation disguised as "legitimate questions", by far-right grifters who want to use these cases to justify their views on immigration and multiculturalism. The fact that Rudabukana's parents are Rwandan migrants, albeit ones of completely clean records since they've been in the UK and that Rudabukana is British by birth and upbringing appears to be no deterrent to their bile.