Southport killer was investigated by MI5 five years before attack
The MI5 assessment deemed Rudakubana held “no apparent ideology”
Southport killer Axel Rudakubana was assessed by MI5 and counter-terror police five years before he murdered three girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance party, an inquiry has heard.
Listen to this article
Rudakubana killed Bebe King, six, Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, and Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine, and attempted to murder 10 others at a children’s dance party on July 29, 2024.
Now, it has emerged that Rudakubana was assessed by both MI5 and counter-terror police in December 2019, almost five years before his attack.
That same month, he was referred to anti-extremism programme Prevent, the Southport inquiry heard on Monday.
Read more: Southport killer Axel Rudakubana requested 'picture of a severed head'
Read more: Police feared Southport killer could be ‘terrorist’ five years before attack
The MI5 assessment deemed Rudakubana held “no apparent ideology” but said “[there] seemed to be a common theme with regards [to] weapons”.
Despite this, it concluded that “intelligence and relevant research at present does not meet any lead or police threshold for investigation”.
The report was not written directly by MI5 officers, the inquiry heard.
When asked about the MI5 report, Cathryn Ellsmore, the director of the Prevent programme at the Home Office, said: “MI5 did not think it met their statutory remits for a counter-terror investigation, so at that point their part in the case ends.”
Ms Ellsmore confirmed MI5 had “no involvement” with Rudakubana from then until he carried out his attack.
She went on to say that, despite being referred to the programme three times, Prevent concluded he did not have a fixation with violence.
Instead, they described him as having a “mixed, unstable or unclear ideology”.
Despite nearly 2,000 people, including Rudakubana, being referred to Prevent for this reason, only 12 received support.
Ms Ellsmore agreed with the inquiry that this figure was “staggeringly low.”
She said: “I think it reflected at this time uncertainty on how to handle this new type of risk which was being reported to the Prevent programme.”
When asked if Rudakubana should have been put forward for Channel support, she added: : “Yes, I believe this case should have been put in Channel and I note the findings of the three different reviews into this case.”