UK

Keir Starmer holds fast as he insists ‘law forbade’ him from saying more about the Southport stabbings

Britain’s prime minister tries to get ahead of criticism of handling of the shocking case that sparked the UK’s summer riots

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer holds a press conference on the Southport attacks in the Downing Street Briefing Room in London. Photograph: Tolga Akmen/EPA
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer holds a press conference on the Southport attacks in the Downing Street Briefing Room in London. Photograph: Tolga Akmen/EPA
Mark Paul's picture
Mark Paul in Downing Street
Tue Jan 21 2025 - 12:22

Keir Starmer appeared to grind his teeth slightly as his line of defence on the Southport stabbings strained under pressure at a face-off with reporters in Downing Street on Tuesday morning.

Despite his repeated assertions to the contrary, the prime minister did not appear to have perfect answers to some of the questions, such as: why did you withhold so many details of the case from the public? So, there in the oak-panelled briefing room on Britain’s most famous street, he stuck to his line of defence, deficient as it seemed to be.

The case, in which Axel Rudakubana has pleaded guilty to stabbing three children to death, jolted Britain last July and sparked 10 days of riots. It also precipitated a huge outpouring of grief for Bebe King (6), Elsie Dot Stancombe (7), and Alice da Silva Aguiar (9), the young girls whose lives were so violently taken by Rudakubana at a Taylor Swift dance class. Eleven more people were injured.

The pall of emotion hung low in the air above Starmer’s Downing Street briefing, as the prime minister faced tough questions over his handling of what the government had told people about the state’s apparent mishandling of the attacker, and when.

READ MORE

On Monday when Rudakubana pleaded guilty, it was revealed he had slipped through the fingers of authorities on several occasions. He had been referred to counter-terrorism investigators three times between 2019 and 2021 over his interest in gore and violence. But each time he was allowed go free.

The prime minister said the attack was “a devastating moment in our history” for Britain.

“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, [and] violence clearly intended to terrorise – then I understand why people wonder what the word ‘terrorism’ means.”

He also admitted there had been a “failure” of the state – the UK government has ordered an independent inquiry. Yet he stuck rigidly to his line that, as riots had gripped Britain, he wasn’t able to tell the public that the attacker had already been on the system’s counter-terrorism radar.

“Yes, I knew the details as they were emerging,” said Starmer. “[But] the law forbade me from divulging details sooner.” He insisted repeatedly that he could have collapsed the prosecution if he had said more, due to contempt of court rules.

Yet that line was clearly open to question. An ITV reporter – one of those handpicked from the bigger UK media organisations to ask a question – put to Starmer the obvious query about why he didn’t tell the public more of what he knew in the period before Rudakubana was charged, which is when contempt of court rules usually kick in.

That was when Starmer’s jaw began to clench, his molars grinding, as he eyeballed his inquisitor and reverted to his mantra that contempt rules gave him no leeway. Then the prime minister quickly moved the discussion on.

If a follow-up question had been allowed, it could have been pointed out to Starmer that Rudakubana carried out his attack just before noon on the 29th of July. Yet he was not charged until almost midnight on the 31st – a nearly 60 hour window in which he may have had a freer hand to suggest to the public that the attacker had been known to counter-terrorism investigators.

During that same window, anti-immigration riots had already flared up across Britain as protesters incorrectly believed the attacker was an asylum seeker. Perhaps Starmer hadn’t wanted to inflame the situation, and that was why he kept quiet.

Yet if that was the case, he wasn’t saying so on Tuesday.