Legal UK definition of terrorism (my bold):
The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism, both in and outside of the UK, as the use or threat of one or more of the actions listed below, and where they are designed to influence the government, or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public. The use or threat must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
The specific actions included are:
-
serious violence against a person;
- serious damage to property;
-
endangering a person's life (other than that of the person committing the action);
-
creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; and
- action designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
The use or threat of action, as set out above, which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism regardless of whether or not the action is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public.
Action includes action outside the United Kingdom.
It is important to note that in order to be convicted of a terrorism offence a person doesn't actually have to commit what could be considered a terrorist attack. Planning, assisting and even collecting information on how to commit terrorist acts are all crimes under British terrorism legislation.
Rudakubana collected weapons - physical and biological - and had mentioned on more than one occasion that he wanted to carry out a school massacre. Was that a threat designed to instil fear or just a statement of intent? The CPS (above) specifically mention the threat to use explosives or firearms being terrorism, but no mention of biological agents. That may just be an oversight because it doesn’t make sense they’d be excluded - they’re hardly less dangerous!
If Rudakubana’s statement that he wanted to commit a school massacre was seen as a factual statement and not a threat, then maybe it wouldn’t reach the standard for being terrorism-by-threat because he wasn’t trying to instil fear, he was just reporting what he hoped to do. Mad if that’s the case, but there you go.
Supposedly he hasn’t given a reason (not reported in the MSM anyway) for the attack that mentions doing it for/because of X, Y or Z, where those are religious, political or ideological aims. So doesn’t fit that definition of terrorism.
Rudakubana DID commit serious violence against persons, he DID endanger a person’s life and he DID create a serious risk to the safety of the public when he produced ricin. But - if he didn’t do those things with an ideological, religious or political motive, then it doesn’t fit the given definition of terrorism.
HOWEVER if producing ricin and intending to use it on the public is in the same bracket as firearms and explosives, then the intention to use it is terrorism even if he didn’t go through with it.
I think that this case has shown we have gaping holes in our definition of terrorism. This case may lead to a broadening of the definitions to include the intention to or act of, harming the public for an unspecified reason or aim, where the act is clearly not personal or retributional.
NOTE: I’m not a lawyer and have no legal training, so the above is my personal interpretation and may not be how it would be viewed by the legal profession.