The Axel Rudakubana Southport Murder ‘Cover Up’ Conspiracy Theories Debunked

The trial of Axel Rudakubana ended abruptly on its first morning this week, when the defendant decided that rather than face a jury, he would change his pleas from not guilty to guilty of murder.

I can say with some confidence that his change of heart was a surprise to all of those involved in the trial, from the judge to the lawyers, as up until then, seemingly, he had wanted to be found guilty by a jury rather than accept that he had brutally, and without any excuse, murdered three innocent little girls.

What his change of plea most definitely did not do, was demonstrate that there is some kind of conspiracy to assist in a state-led plot to hide the truth about his crimes from the public or that we are seeing a system of ‘two tier justice’ in the UK.

In fact, the tragic case of Rudakubana does the opposite, it shows that our criminal justice system is as fair, objective and robust as it ever was. 

Of course, there are those on social media and indeed some quarters of the mainstream print media who appear to have little knowledge of even the most basic principles of our criminal justice system who continue to suggest that this desperately tragic event can be used to bolster arguments that there is some kind of plot by the liberal left to protect certain types of people and not others. 

Indeed, one line of thinking went as far as to assert that the trial date had been deliberately set to coincide with the inauguration of US President Donald Trump so as to ‘bury’ it — which, given that the trial date was set in August, some months before Trump’s election triumph is ludicrous. 

So, let’s move away from the ludicrous and consider what actually happened in the case of Rudakubana and let’s start with the two conflicting, yet equally profound and fundamental principles that sit at the very heart of our justice system.

First, is that as we all sign up to abide by the laws of the land, we can all expect justice if we or those who we love are the victims of crime, regardless of the seriousness of that offence. We never lose that right.

Second, and equally important, is that if we are the person accused of a crime we have the right to mount a defence and to due process of law — and in the UK, due process means the chance of a trial by judge and jury. The judge is there to ensure that the law is upheld, and the jury are there to determine the facts of the case based upon the evidence. 

We all have that right and we never lose it regardless of our background, our race, our gender, our class or the horrendous nature of the alleged offence. Each of us has the right to a fair trial, each of us is innocent until we are proven to be guilty. 

And it will be a jury who deliver that verdict. 

Juries are central to our criminal justice system; ordinary people, not lawyers or judges, but our peers.

They take an oath at the start of every trial to reach a true verdict according to the evidence, not according to speculation, or prejudice or hunch, but the evidence. And that is vital. It is the reason why in criminal cases, some details, often important ones, are kept out of the public domain.

This has nothing to do with politics or culture wars, it is to ensure that when a jury of 12 people eventually hear the evidence, they are not prejudiced by the rumour and speculation that can happen if information or misinformation is dripped into the public consciousness.

And this is far more important than the slavering desire for a scapegoat being demanded by the warriors on social media or right-wing politicians. 

Rudakubana had the same right to due process and a fair trial as anyone else. 

And, just as important, indeed some might say, even more important in this case, the families of his victims will rightly have expected justice and the process to be conducted properly in the same way as anyone else. 

Which is exactly what has happened. 

The suggestion that the police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) wrongly or suspiciously covered up elements of the details of Rudakabuna’s past and the crime itself is just plain wrong. 

Again, let’s go back to basics — the police are under a duty to investigate every crime and maintain law and order.

When these little girls were murdered, it was absolutely imperative that the incident was investigated thoroughly and all the evidence was presented to the CPS in order for the them to draft an indictment setting out the allegations before complying with the Criminal Procedure Rules which means serving on the defence the evidence they rely upon plus anything else they might have which undermines their own case or assists the defence.

A failure to abide by these rules would give rise to an automatic right of appeal following any conviction — because you can’t withhold evidence.

I have no doubt that the police and the CPS will have explained this to the family of the victims — because, for them, I’m sure, the thought of seeing a conviction quashed because of a failure to comply with the rules, would have been heartbreaking. 

The police put together their file and sent it to the CPS, who drafted the indictment — which, as we know contained counts of murder and attempted murder as well as offences against the terrorism act.

Initially, as we also know, the defendant pleaded not guilty to all of these counts. That, as we’ve established, is his right. 

And at this point, the role of CPS and the legal team representing the Crown was to strive towards obtaining a conviction whilst also upholding the law to make sure that the trial process was conducted fairly. 

Politics, or culture wars, or a desire to pursue a particular agenda, would have been the very last thing on the mind of anyone involved in this case. 

And, as part of their case the Crown would have wanted to adduce aspects of the defendant’s character before the jury. By that, I mean any previous convictions or examples of reprehensible behaviour that would have made it more likely that he was the type of person who could commit these offences. As we now know, he had a history of violence and interest in terror organisations and extreme violence. 

Getting that before a jury is not straightforward. It can involve complex principles of law — for example, if an individual is charged with burglary would it be right for a jury to hear that 20 years ago when he was barely out of his teens he stole sweets from a newsagent, or should a person charged with rape, have a similar allegation that was never pursued to trial put before a jury? 

These areas of law are not for the jury, they are for the trial judge to decide. 

In this case, the trial judge will have been asked to adjudicate upon whether the defendant’s previous violent behaviour at his old school and his interest in violent terrorist organisations be put before a jury — I can imagine what the judge’s decision would have been to allow it go before the jury, but, the CPS could not have taken that for granted. And that is important, because that would have potentially impacted upon a trial and the ability of a jury to hear a trial fairly and objectively. 

In this case it would have been hard enough to find a jury who would be prepared to listen to the case dispassionately, but, if the defendants past behaviour and interest in extreme terrorist organisation had been in the public domain, the task of finding 12 objective jurors would have been nigh on impossible and the risk of a mistrial or abuse of process more likely.

The desire to ensure that this didn’t happen for the sake of the little girls killed by this defendant would have been absolutely paramount to all of those involved.

And, in fairness to Keir Starmer, who knows more about prosecuting serious crime than most people, he will have been aware of this risk as well, hence the decision not to make public all the details that were known by the police of this man and his past. 

The important thing for the Crown (and by definition the state who brought the charge) was that when the trial was about to start, the prosecution was in a position to put before a jury a case that was so forceful and overwhelming that the jury would have no doubt that he was guilty.

And this is exactly what happened, because, although the jury were never asked to reach a verdict, this defendant realised that his time was up and that he had little option but to enter guilty pleas. 

I do not know about this man’s ideological interest in terror groups or extreme political organisations, I do not know about his mental health (though seemingly, he was deemed not to have a defence under the law of diminished responsibility or insanity), I do know that the moment he committed those despicable crimes, it was absolutely vital that the criminal justice system did right by his victims, but, also by him, because without the due process of law, without a robust and fair criminal justice system, tragedies like that which befell the innocent children of Southport are more, not less likely to happen.