Starmer denies ‘cover up’ over Southport killings
Share:
PM defends decision to keep Axel Rudakubana’s violent background secret, insisting it was vital to ensure he faced justice. Sir Keir Starmer has denied being part of a “cover up” over the Southport knife attack in which three young girls were murdered, insisting he kept secret the killer’s violent background to ensure he faced justice.
![[Axel Rudakubana pleaded guilty on Monday (Merseyside Police/PA)]](https://static.independent.co.uk/2025/01/21/09/65033c14276812cf3530e736c0dc2919Y29udGVudHNlYXJjaGFwaSwxNzM3NTM1OTE1-2.78748434.jpg)
The prime minister faced questions at a press conference on Tuesday about what he knew about attacker Axel Rudakubana after the stabbings, which also included the attempted murders of eight more children and two adults at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class.
![[Bebe King, Elsie Dot Stancombe and Alice da Silva Aguiar (Merseyside Police/PA)]](https://static.independent.co.uk/2025/01/20/21/cb3535f05619255b57e7d6e88e6bcb1cY29udGVudHNlYXJjaGFwaSwxNzM3NDkzMDc4-2.78745096.jpg)
After announcing an inquiry into how the state failed to identify the risk posed by Rudakubana, Sir Keir took head on claims that he had concealed information in the wake of the killings last July. The PM admitted that he knew in the wake of the attack that Rudakubana was known to the authorities and that the 18-year-old had produced biological toxin ricin and possessed an Al Qaeda training manual for three years titled Military Studies In The Jihad Against The Tyrants.
But he said he could not disclose the information without collapsing Rudakubana’s trial due to contempt of court laws, which would have seen the killer walk away “a free man”. He has faced claims of a cover up from Nigel Farage’s Reform UK and the Conservatives, who accused the PM of “withholding information about the perpetrator”.
Speaking to Times Radio on Tuesday, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: “I think it’s just important the inquiry looks at all of this, gets to the truth both about what happened beforehand, but critically also the Government’s response afterwards, and what they knew when and whether they should have put more information into the public domain.
