Southport: why the public must not be silenced

It has emerged that the teenager accused of murdering three young girls in a knife attack in Southport this summer is to face new charges. Axel Rudakubana has been charged with the production of a biological toxin, Ricin, contrary to the Biological Weapons Act 1974. He’s also been charged with possessing a PDF document – alleged to be a ‘study of an al-Qaeda training manual’ – likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, contrary to the Terrorism Act 2000.

Talking about these developments is legally perilous. This is because the trial process is protected by contempt-of-court laws, which mean that no one can say anything that could prejudice a jury and affect the outcome of the criminal trial. These rules must be observed if we want any justice for the families of the murdered girls.

But these rules haven’t stopped an outpouring of hasty speculation – and indeed full-blown conspiracy theories – since news of the terror charges emerged. Many online seem to be suggesting that these charges show that the authorities attempted to purposefully ‘cover up’ the true, terroristic nature of the incident.

There’s no evidence of such a cover-up. Certainly not yet. Criminal investigations take a long time. Investigating electronic devices can take months, as can testing suspicious substances. There is nothing unusual about charging someone with further offences following initial murder charges when more evidence comes to light. There is a big difference between a cover-up and a thorough criminal investigation.

It also makes sense that the police have not yet classified the murders as a terrorist incident. There are specific legal conditions that must be met before that can happen. And even then, classifying what happened on that dreadful day as a terrorist incident might still not be appropriate, depending on what is uncovered.

Thus far, government law officers have said that they only knew about the new charges three weeks ago. Senior police officers have suggested it would be extraordinary if the Home Office were not alerted before then about the possible discovery of Ricin. But while the sequence of events needs to be explained, until we know more there is little to suggest that the public were actively misled about the nature of the Southport attack.

Moreover, the terror charges certainly do not vindicate the false rumours and wild speculation that circulated in the aftermath of Southport, as some online are currently claiming. These included a fabricated name for the attacker, and the false claim he was an asylum seeker.

But the government should be held to account for the information vacuum in which all the speculation and conspiracy theories in the wake of Southport flourished. The state was of course absolutely right to clamp down hard on the racist, bigoted violence – including the despicable attacks on mosques and migrant hotels – that followed the killings. But the state also went beyond that, actively trying to chill speech and discussion.

‘Think before you post’, declared government social-media accounts at the time, warning that ‘content that incites violence or hatred isn’t just harmful – it can be illegal’. This wasn’t just about reminding people of the limits imposed by law. It undoubtedly had a chilling effect even on legitimate discussion. Given the efforts the government made to stop people from talking about the killings and the potential motives behind them, it’s not hard to see why some people now smell a cover-up.

This is why we ought to be allowed to talk as openly as possible about cases like the Southport stabbings – it’s the best way to get at the truth, dispel falsehoods and ensure that no one has reason to believe they’re being silenced. But sadly MPs seem to want to do the opposite. On an episode of BBC Two’s Newsnight this week, Labour MP Thangam Debbonaire seemed to suggest that even raising questions about Southport should be verboten until the end of the trial. Reform MPs have reportedly been told that the case could not be discussed in the Commons at all, because of the risk that doing so could prejudice the trial. The calls to restrict debate around Southport seem to go way beyond what is legally necessary.

This undermines open justice and creates the space for falsehoods to circulate. Of course, the integrity of criminal proceedings must be protected. The presumption of innocence is sacred. But it is dangerous to use criminal proceedings and contempt-of-court laws as an excuse to crack down on the legitimate expression of opinion about such a horrifying incident.

The justice system often has a tough job to do in ensuring fair trials. This is particularly important in high-profile cases like this. But we should remember that criminal justice is undertaken on behalf of the public. The public therefore has a right to an opinion on what the courts do in its name. There is a strong public interest in sharing as much information about cases as possible – not to fuel speculation, but to halt the spread of lies.

Luke Gittos is a spiked columnist and author. His most recent book is Human Rights – Illusory Freedom: Why We Should Repeal the Human Rights Act, which is published by Zero Books. Order it here.