Why there has been no 'cover-up' over the Southport murders
As with any big news story at the moment, it is almost inevitable that accusations on social media scream of a “cover up”.
That’s to be expected on sites where disinformation is rife and factcheckers are no more.
But I was particularly angered to find these claims coming from politicians and journalists who should know better, in the wake of Axel Rudakubana’s conviction for the horrific Southport murders.
It’s clear now that the killer, who was born in Cardiff, should have been stopped much earlier, and those three girls should still be alive.
The inquiry will get to the bottom of these issues, and it is right that Sir Keir Starmer has ordered a statutory investigation.
However, the idea that the Prime Minister is complicit in some sort of cover up is completely wrong, and damages the trust which a society is built on.
There’s a very clear reason why Sir Keir could not share more information about the case until after Rudakubana was convicted, he is legally prohibited to do so.
As a former court reporter, I’m well aware of the contempt of court law, as the Prime Minister would be, as a former chief prosecutor.
This is designed to grant everyone in this country a fair trial. As soon as a suspect is charged, the case becomes “active”.
That means that any information that could create a “substantial risk of serious prejudice” and influence any possible jurors cannot be published.
The risk of the Prime Minister or reporters disclosing this information could mean any potential trial might collapse.
Sir Keir knew this and said if this had happened “nobody would ever forgive me”.
Until the police chose to charge Rudakubana with terrorism offences, the Prime Minister could not call the case a terrorism incident either.
In both instances, there was no cover up, and it is shameful for politicians, who should know better, to suggest otherwise.
This is an excerpt from Ralph Blackburn’s weekly politics newsletter. You can sign up here.