Southport report lays bare the failures of authorities - and the attacker's parents

[IwantToRetire]

The words "failure", "failing" and "failed" appear more than 200 times in Monday's Southport Report

Its findings leave almost no agency, organisation or individual involved in Axel Rudakubana’s life unscathed.

The police, council, mental health services, Prevent programme – none of them took ownership of the risks that he posed.

Only The Acorn School, which the attacker attended after being expelled from Range High School, is noted as having repeatedly intervened.

But the Chair of the inquiry, Sir Adrian Fulford, also clearly believes in parental responsibility.

The attacker's father, in particular, is described as "obstructive" and "manipulative" in relation to the authorities.

It is rare to see a killer’s parents singled-out for not doing more to prevent their child’s crimes.

Together, the Southport attack was a failure of both parenting and policy – nobody, says the Chair, agreed who was responsible for the troubled teenager.

There was a "merry-go-round of referrals, assessments, case-closures and 'hand-offs'", he says.

There is even a specific moment when Sir Adrian believes the murders could have been prevented, after the attacker was caught with a knife on a bus in 2022.

But no arrest or search of his home took place, leaving the poison in his bedroom and the warped search history on his computer undetected.

The report’s recommendations include setting up an agency with overall responsibility for monitoring risk, to avoid repeat failings.
But there are searching questions too about access to online materials for children, the availability of weapons and the complexities of the attacker’s autism (the Chair is keen not to stigmatise others with condition).

Ultimately, only the attacker can account for his crimes. But for the families of the victims and survivors, today’s report contains the painful conclusion that he could – and should – have been stopped.

https://www.itv.com/news/2026-04-13/southport-report-finds-failures-by-authorities-and-at-home

The Southport Inquiry: Phase 1 report
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-southport-inquiry-phase-1-report

"Prevent not really effectively preventing.
Inadequate risk assessments
Keenness of police to help someone they perceived as vulnerable leading to not properly considering the risk that person presents to others
Many missed opportunities to intervene
Behaviours of offenders (especially online) not 'meaningfully examined'
Systemic issues."

But surely what happens when you have underfunded services with overworked staff working under narrow remits( i.e prevent deals only with radicalisation. ) due to sustained and continued efficiency drives, then spend a lot of money on a review which has plenty of time to scrutinise decisions.

Is it any surprise no agency has taken ownership / charge when the hierarchy of who is supposed to do this has not been set out and even if it were they probably do not have the resources to meaningfully examine behaviour?

I think if the government is serious about action there will be a law introduced through which AR:s parents would have been prosecuted. It was the deliberate non informing of appropriate authorities which is surely criminal along the lines of assisting an offender.

The parents probably have a life long anonymity order and state so
Port now as there will be a real threat of community vigilante action.

My issue with all this is what could actually have been done?

What are the options to ID what help might be needed and how does the process work to get the help needed? If the help needed is isolation and being held somewhere secure, where exactly is that?

If nobody knows what to do or where to refer and nobody knows what to do with these people if they are then what?

Yes I think its predictable that the reports cite all the 'failures' of various agencies and organisations and the 'failures' of the parents. These sorts of reports all say the same thing, it absolves society of responsbility, absolves successive governments of that

You only have to read thread after thread on here where someone raises a complaint, niggle, argument, concern about something that affects them or others and you get 'be kind', 'dont judge', essentially as someone said above, the individual is way more important now than the collective. And by sheer coincidence Im sure, that mentality and system is far cheaper for society to manage.

I knew when this happened what sort of boy/man this was, just like the ones I work with and there is nothing for them, nothing to protect others around them. I knew when this happened what the review would say, that the authorities had failed

And I would like to ask the report writers exactly what would have been done with him, to him, for him, what could have been different if the authorities had not 'failed' him, because they were all working within their remits.

Is it known why he attacked this particular place? Why does a 17 year old violent unstable male even know about a lovely local dance school and lovely TS dance workshop? How did he choose this particular target? Did he know any of the girls or workshop leaders? Had he attend this dance school himself previously?

It's difficult to comment on his dad but I do think he comes across as entitled, haughty and defensive of his delinquent evil offspring. That is very telling.

There are so many threads on mumsnet from parents with violent sons desperate for help, and can’t find a solution.
What is the solution? I think perhaps national service would be a good thing. At least they are out and exercising and working with strict rules in place.

But not training them in military roles using weapons or civil service working with vulnerable people, that would be unwise. Maybe if they did litter picking, working at a recycle plant, cleaning, groundskeeping, admin work but nothing where there is risk of harm to others.

I feel like this has a lot in common with child neglect/a child being killed at the hands of their parent or step parent, Sara Shariff being a recent case that comes to mind ...but there have been dozens. That when a time line is bullet pointed in black and white , all the cumulative evidence is there, for an incident waiting to happen. But there never seems to be a sharing of information between various authorities, or agencies - which in the age of email and digital storing of information, shouldn't be that much of a leap...?

However even shared information and knowledge is limited if there isnt facility or resource to actually implement any further action, or detain someone.

Since the 1990s weve had "lessons will be learned" statements after children have died and yet (from successive governments) we rarely actually hear what those lessons are or any new legislation, initiatives , or funding being brought in to prevent further tragedy. In fact what we generally hear are reduced budgets or reduced staffing levels in social services, mH services, prisons police etc....

Let's stop this victim stuff. The people who should have been protected were those murdered and injured by this horrific attack. They are the victims.

the issue with interventions, therapies and anger management classes is that a child has to want to engage at some level. It’s not a passive process. You can’t do therapy to someone. You can’t make them attend and you can’t force them to listen. You can encourage, you can use creative interventions to help build relationships, you can create a safe space, build trust, but if they don’t want to make changes and don’t want to engage or talk, they just won’t.

They were having meetings and talking about it. But nothing was actually done.

Headteacher Joanne Hodson told the public inquiry that, from his first day, she realised the teenager was 'very high risk', with a manner 'devoid of any remorse'.
But when she tried to raise the risk he posed to others, Mrs Hodson said she was accused by children's mental health worker Samantha Steed of 'racially stereotyping [Rudakubana] as 'a black boy with a knife''.
Mrs Hodson told the inquiry that the accusation of 'racial profiling' had 'effectively shut me up'.
The warning about the risk Rudakubana posed – which featured in a draft of his education, health and care plan – remained in the document.

But parts were rewritten, such as a reference to his 'sinister' internet use being replaced with the word 'inappropriate'.
Inquiry chairman Sir Adrian Fulford concluded that it was 'unwise' for Ms Steed 'to raise issues of racial stereotyping'.

While there was no suggestion she made a 'direct accusation of racial stereotyping against Mrs Hodson, the fact that such a contentious topic was raised nevertheless served to 'close down' Mrs Hodson,' Sir Adrian wrote.
He added that 'Mrs Hodson was raising a valid point about the need for a risk assessment', and this was 'another example of insufficient emphasis being placed on the risks that child may present to others.'

The inquiry into the 2024 murders concluded yesterday that it was the 'catastrophic' failures of Rudakubana's parents and other agencies which meant that chances to prevent the attack were missed.
Sir Adrian said if his parents had done 'what they morally ought to have' and reported his suspicious behaviour, he would not have been free on the day of the attack.
The inquiry at Liverpool Town Hall heard that the killer's autism had been used as an excuse for his past behaviour while a 'merry-go-round' of referrals and assessments meant no agency understood how dangerous the teenager was.
At the conclusion of his 760-page report into the attack, Sir Adrian called for the end of a 'culture' of agencies passing responsibility between each other.

Those he criticised included Lancashire Police, the government's counter-extremism service Prevent, various NHS mental health services, and the County Council among other services. He said: 'This failure lies at the heart of why [Rudakubana] was able to mount the attack, despite so many warning signs of his capacity for fatal violence.'
Now, Sir Adrian has called for urgent reforms adding that he hopes this will mark a 'genuine turning point'.
He described Rudakubana as a 'aggressive, near-total recluse, who bullied and threatened his family and unashamedly lied to officials'.

The inquiry revealed a pattern of mental health services and social care treating the teenager's autism spectrum disorder as an 'excuse' for his behaviour rather than seeing that in Rudakubana's case this 'significantly increased the risk that he posed'.
Sir Adrian said different agencies showed a 'scant regard' and a 'lack of curiosity' over Rudakubana's internet usage.
'I have no hesitation in concluding that the degrading, violent and misogynistic material that [Rudakubana] was viewing online contributed to and 'fed' his already unhealthy fascination with violence,' he wrote.

What I mean is, he had done those things and they had been dealt with so no one in authority was going to lock him up "just in case". They simply don't do that. Parents who do ask for help are turned away and told to go on a parenting course. That's it.

Like I said, I am an adopter. I know many families with really, really challenging adolescent boys/young men. The parents are supposed to fix everything.

I guess the parents in this case were completely stumped as to what to do. If they reported him, he might kill them - they would have learned that social services/police etc weren't going to offer any practical help.

Fact is, there are no services for what is basically internment for young people. Secure units are hard to come by and are mainly for those at risk of self harm, who have a mental health diagnosis, or seen at great risk, again to themselves, through being out of parental control.

Threaten to kill your parents for example or even harm them, nothing much will happen. In this case, there was no mental health condition to get him admitted, so that was the end of that.

We need proper services for this kind of situation.

My previous post has a typo. Should be "are now told to make allowances for those under the age of 25."

Services to help possible young offenders are staffed by people who are impossibly naive, in my experience.

SACRO wanted me to hold a restorative conversation with the 15 yr old who punched me in the stomach. They accepted hook line and sinker his story that he was the 'victim of a homophobic attack' and that I'd 'got in the way' whilst he was defending himself. I refused.

I was [barely] pregnant at the time and trying to keep well away whilst I phoned for back-up.

I was smeared as a homophobe by the boys' friends. Years later, the now grown man was boasting about the time he punched Mrs Weary.

www.sacro.org.uk/

The parents are absolutely to blame. The weapons were stored in the living room, the father was a Judo instructor (but apparently scared of his son), and his history in Rwanda (particularly around involvement in the civil war) is ambiguous.

I simply don't buy the "they were scared" excuse.

Those he criticised included Lancashire Police, the government's counter-extremism service Prevent, various NHS mental health services, and the County Council among other services.

Will any of those who Sir Adrian Fulford criticised, face any consequences such as losing their jobs?

I think we match this sort of stuff up with our own exeriences as parents possibly?

And there is no match.

I don't care how traumatised the parents were....how did they think thimgs would progress?

Arran2024, i totally agree that there needs to be better services. We need more and far sturdier punishment for such young adults, anyone caught with a knife is a potential murderer and needs removing from society and quite frankly we need to stop worrying what colour they are, how poor they are or whether their mummy bought them a play station or not. One look at that lad and you could tell he was evil. The Head of the special school was right yet she was shut down because of some left wing hand wringer. We need harder firmer people staffing these services.

One look at that lad and you could tell he was evil. The Head of the special school was right yet she was shut down because of some left wing hand wringer

That's not really going to work is it? Looking at people and telling they are evil?
Refering to left wing hand wringers.

So many parts of this coming together to allow what happened.

So awful to see how easy it was made.

The parents experience of their son being found on a bus with a knife by police and stating that he wanted to stab someone and had had thoughts about using poison was that the police brought him home and advised then to hide their household knives.

That doesn't to me suggest encouragement to them to take his risks seriously, because the police certainly did not do so.

The parents experience of professionals was that there were endless referrals, discussions and meetings, and that said professionals could be persuaded to change wording in certain documents with a little pressure.

That doesn't to me suggest encouragement to them that if they did honestly share information about their son's risks, the professional response would be robust.

I think it is very easy, and comforting, to sit back and state this is mostly parental failure. I don't think there is a single person or agency to blame, but I do blame the systems and agencies with knowledge of the family more than the family themselves. Various practitioners had witnessed the level of control AR exerted over his parents and would have known these were not parents who could recognise and appropriately respond to AR's risks. Yes, their parenting was inadequate, with appalling consequences. But that their parenting was inadequate was known already and the system did not act.

I agree the whole system failed on this. At every point people dismissed or were asked to remove stereotyping that highlighted any issues.

I've also been thinking about what it does to us to live with the level of fear AR's parents were experiencing. Many of us have lived with an abusive, dangerous male. Many of us know what it does to your way of thinking, your ability to assess risk, your perspective, your thresholds (to an outsider a particular event is a notable, awful traumatic thing and to you it is just another fucking Tuesday, it barely registers). Many of us know the one rule that is always followed, has to be followed, is unthinkable not to follow, is that you don't tell anyone anything and you don't let outsiders see in and you keep up the pretence. He was their child: he was also a violent, controlling, disturbing, dangerous male on the edge of adulthood. They are frightening people.

With all my heart I wish either AR's mother or father or brother had had the moment of terrifying clarity it takes to pick up the phone and admit how utterly terrible things are and how badly help is needed, but I can honestly understand why by the time he committed those foul crimes they were past being able to.

As a society I think there's a massive problem in how we deal with violent, mentally unstable individuals. (When I say "individuals", we're mostly talking about men.) We no longer lock them up in mental institutions. We let them live in the community and ask them to take their medication - but, apparently, in the Valdo Calocane case, where he refused to take his medication, it was felt that nothing could be done.

If they commit violent offences that don't result in someone's death, then they might spend a few months in prison - though then again, if they are deemed insane, they might not even do that.

In the Rudakubana case, lots of people knew he was dangerous, but nobody did anything about it. And the tools we do have for addressing men or boys like this are pitifully inadequate. I agree with the kiopsd's comment that the "issue with interventions, therapies and anger management classes is that a child has to want to engage at some level." What do you do with someone who doesn't engage?