Mass Surveillance
Prevent Duty: Redefining terrorism in the wake of Southport attacks
On 23 January 2025, 18 year old Axel Rudakubana was sentenced to a minimum of 52 years in prison for the horrific murder of three young girls and the attempted murder of eight other children, as well as two adults who tried to save them.
Now that the facts of the case are public, the question being asked is: What could have been done to avert the teenager from committing such a heinous crime? So far, the government’s response has focused almost exclusively on missed opportunities through the lens of counter-terrorism – specifically, the harmful Prevent Duty.
0
Prevent: A deeply flawed intervention
0
Between 2019 – 2021, when Rudakubana was 13 and 14 years old, he was reported to Prevent three times. Yet, because he lacked a clear ideological motive, he was not flagged as a serious terrorist threat. Prevent has since come under increased scrutiny.
0
Last week, the government published a Prevent Learning Review to identify what must be learnt from Rudakubana’s engagement with Prevent, while Prime Minister, Keir Starmer announced that he will look at changing the law to recognise the “new and dangerous threat” posed by lone attackers who are not driven by a single ideology. But is Prevent even the right tool to address these evolving threats of violence?
0
In expanding the scope of the Prevent Duty, Starmer not only risks casting an increasingly wide net that could lead to the surveillance of thousands more innocent people, but it is also likely to mean diverting resources away from the services, community support and infrastructure that could genuinely keep our communities safe.
Turning teachers and social workers into spies
0
We all want to live in a world in which people feel free and safe to be ourselves. But, the reality is, many Prevent referrals are based on gut instinct, rather than concrete evidence.
0
People are not typically referred to the Prevent Duty because they have committed a crime, but because a public sector worker thinks that something they have said or done could mean that they are at risk of so-called ‘radicalisation’.
0
A Guardian article revealed that a Prevent document listed “believing in socialism, communism, anti-fascism and anti-abortion as potential signs of ideologies leading to terrorism”. In this sense, it’s no surprise that the vast majority of those reported to the Prevent Duty do not progress to a Channel panel, the multi-agency body involving police and local authorities responsible for assessing cases.
0
Ultimately, children need safe spaces to express their thoughts and feelings – where they can be challenged and supported by trusting adults. Instead, the Prevent Duty forces teachers and other public sector workers into the role of surveillance spies, undermining trust and eroding the very relationships that could help prevent violence.
The risk of criminalising free expression
0
The Prevent Duty already uses dangerously broad definitions of ‘radicalisation’ and ‘extremism’, which risk criminalising legitimate free speech. In Rudakubana’s case, his interest in Israel-Palestine, MI5, and terrorist groups was cited in the government’s Prevent Learning Review as a potential warning sign.
0
However, with the Southport murders now being framed as a “new terror threat”, the government must resist using this one case to justify further expansion of the Prevent Duty. Such an approach risks further targeting surveillance at Muslims and neurodivergent people – who are already disproportionately referred under Prevent, often simply for religious expression; or behaviours that may be misinterpreted as signs of radicalisation – as well as students, activists, and those perceived to have grievances against the government.
The problem with ‘pre-crime’ policies
0
Unlike most children reported to the Prevent Duty, Rudakubana had carried out crimes prior to the Southport murders. In 2019, at just 13 years old, he called Childline asking: “What should I do if I want to kill somebody?” He had also carried a knife to school because he believed he may need to protect himself as he was experiencing racist bullying. He was later permanently expelled for repeatedly bringing a weapon onto school grounds.
0
In the years that followed, Rudakubana encountered various arms of the legal system, including youth justice services and Lancashire Constabulary, Children’s Social Care services, MASH (Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hubs) and local mental health services.
0
Yet, despite these interventions, he still went on to commit the Southport murders.
0
Rather than focusing on the Prevent Duty, the government must ask why, despite extensive contact with multiple agencies, Rudakubana still went on to commit such a devastating attack. If the goal is to prevent violence, resources should be directed towards strengthening public services, community based support and safeguarding interventions based on trust – not expanding a failing programme that criminalises people based on speculation.
0
When ‘safeguarding’ becomes surveillance
There is a common misconception that the Prevent Duty is a safeguarding programme. In reality, many referrals come from public sector workers who believe a child might receive additional support and care, that is otherwise not available to them. But, surely children should not have to be considered at risk of becoming a terrorist in order to access help?
Redefining terrorism will mean more people are referred to the Prevent Duty, but that won’t necessarily make anyone any safer. It risks branding more children – most of whom will never engage in serious violence – as threats, exposing them to long-term surveillance and stigma.
Open Rights Group’s report, ‘Prevent and the Pre-Crime State’ highlighted that the overwhelming majority of Prevent referrals do not meet the threshold for a Channel intervention (a multi-agency ‘deradicalisation’ programme). Despite this, the data of Prevent referees is retained and shared across multiple databases for years, meaning more people can experience life long harms as a consequence of being referred.
Speaking to The Times, Neil Basu, the former National Head of Counter-terrorism, warned that Starmer could be making a “colossal mistake” if he changed terror definitions to include anyone with violent intent. He warned it might have the opposite effect and inspire more “very violent people” who would relish the terrorist label. He said the focus should be on how to divert the thousands of young people with an interest in violence and on putting funding into “completely broken” state institutions, including mental health trusts.
The Prevent Duty already sweeps thousands of innocent people into its scope. By doubling down on Prevent, while neglecting to address the ongoing cuts to essential public services, Starmer risks criminalising and stigmatising even more children, who pose no real threat – undermining efforts to tackle the root causes of violence, social alienation and mental health struggles.
Moving forward: Addressing violence at the root
So, the question remains: What lessons must be learnt from the Southport murders? The attack serves as a tragic reminder that violence does not exist in a vacuum – it must be understood in context. If the government is serious about tackling this violence, it must address its root causes – poverty, under-resourced health and social care, youth programmes and community based support – interventions that truly makes a difference to people’s lives. Expanding Prevent will not create safety – it will only deepen division and fear.
Speaking in court, a 14 year old survivor of the attack said, “Physically I’ve healed but my scares remain as a reminder of what you did to me, to us all. No sane person could do that.” We owe it to her – and to all the families left grieving – not to double down on failed ‘deradicalisation’ programmes, but to meaningfully address the defunding of public infrastructure and community support which allow this kind of unthinkable violence to manifest.
Prevent and the pre-crime state
ORG’s report into how unaccountable data sharing under the Prevent programme is harming a generation.
Find out more