Britain could face a “copycat craze” where killers inspired by horrific violence they’ve seen online go on to commit atrocities, the terror watchdog warned.
Jonathan Hall, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, rejected Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s calls for the terrorism definition to be widened to include mass killings.
And he declared a new offence should be created to cover those planning to carry out slaughters, with a maximum penalty of life behind bars.
Mr Hall warned school knife attacks could “start a copycat craze”, with particular concern mounting over “bullied teenagers with poor mental health”.
The senior lawyer admitted the internet is fuelling interest in mass casualty events, and could inspire some to commit “really extreme violence”.
Warning of the emerging threats, Mr Hall said: “It is foreseeable that other types of violent attack, perhaps use of knives in school attacks, will start a copycat craze, most likely amongst the cohort of isolated often bullied teenagers with poor mental health, neurodivergence or personality disorder for whom grudges and grievances become reasons for violence.”
Mr Hall said police « could not arrest » Southport killer Axel Rudakubana before he carried out his attack because of a gap in the law.
Referencing Axel Rudakubana, who killed three girls at a dance class in Southport, he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Thursday: « The internet is really causing problems here. A lot of lone young men, generally, are getting these ideas from the internet that really extreme violence is the solution, and Rudakubana seems to have been one of those people. »
Detailing how this could have been used in the Southport atrocity, Mr Hall said: « It’s a case where the fact that the police couldn’t arrest this person for the plans that they knew about was a real gap. They couldn’t charge them with that as an offence, which will be amazing to people. It was horrifying. »
Axel Rudakubana was jailed for a minimum of 52 years for stabbing three girls to death and attempting to murder eight other children, who cannot be named for legal reasons, class instructor Leanne Lucas and businessman John Hayes at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in July last year.
Despite contact with state agencies such as Prevent, aimed at countering terrorism, authorities failed to stop the attack which claimed the lives of Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine, Bebe King, six, and Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven.
Rudakubana’s acts of extreme violence were not considered terrorism under existing laws because there was no evidence of his purpose being to advance an ideological cause as set out in the terror definition.
He researched mass shootings and regularly carried knives. The crazed teenager also looked up information on the London bombings, the IRA, MI5, the war in Gaza, school massacres, the Libya conflict and dictator Muammar Gaddafi, a review into the Government’s counter-terrorism Prevent programme found.
But the review confirmed officers did not believe he was a terrorist threat. Officers were wrong not to escalate his case as a potential terror threat, as there was « sufficient concern » about his extreme views and obsession with violence, the scathing report said.
Mr Hall told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: « The way in which our law has worked is, we’ve always gone after people for having committed offences.
« Then in the 1980s they made it an offence to attempt, but we said it’s only an attempt if you’re right on the cusp of committing it. But if they’re sitting in their bedroom, and they are drawing up plans, perhaps even collecting weapons or precursor chemicals, it’s not an offence unless they’re doing it. »
It would not be considered a conspiracy offence either if the potential offenders are « on their own », Mr Hall said – or using artificial intelligence to draw up their plans for an attack.
He added: « And arguably, if you’re doing that with – well, not arguably, certainly – if you’re doing it with a chatbot, for example. »
Mr Hall rebuffed Keir Starmer’s plan to widen the terrorism definition to introduce killers like Rudakubana. Doing so could lead to thousands more people being labelled terrorists – even those sharing violent war footage, Mr Hall said.
He added: « Such is the functional importance of the terrorism definition, that redefinition would alter the landscape.
« It would risk major false positives – the prosecution of people who by no stretch of the imagination are terrorists – and extend terrorism liability into novel terrain.
« People swapping violent war footage would be at risk of encouraging terrorism, resulting in unacceptable restrictions on freedom of expression. »
Source link
