The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation said not all large-scale attacks amount to terrorism, noting that someone possessing terrorist material does not necessarily mean they are a terrorist.
Jonathan Hall KC stressed that the difference between whether an attack was a terrorist attack was “minimal” due to the “lone actors” now involved in such incidents.
The comments came as 18-year-old Axel Rudakubana, accused of murdering three girls in Southport, was due to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday , faces new charges of possessing terrorist materials and producing the poison ricin.
Mercyside Police claimed on Tuesday that Cardiff-born Ruda Kubana was in possession of a document titled “Military Research on Jihad Against Tyrants: An Al-Qaeda Training Manual”.
The revelation of the new charges raised concerns about potential unrest, given that police investigations concluded that the attack on Monday, July 29, was not considered a terrorist incident.
Tory leadership contenders Robert Jenrick and Kemi Badenoch expressed concern over the response of police and the Labor government, with Jenrick hinting at the possible situation in Ruda Kubana Go to “Lying”.
Hall told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “I think now the difference between whether an attack is a terrorist attack or not is often very thin. It’s just because of the profile of the people who are involved in the attack now, and I mean lone actors.
“You might be saying to yourself: ‘Why on earth would anyone launch a mass-casualty attack? Surely the only reason for attacking strangers and killing people is to further the cause of terrorism?’
“But we know, don’t we, that in the United States, there have been horrific school massacres that don’t seem to be terrorist attacks at all, but are often young people trying to emulate previous attacks, maybe for fame, maybe because they Dissatisfied with the school.
“I’m afraid that doesn’t mean that because someone launches a large-scale attack, they are necessarily advancing a cause.”
He added: “There are situations, and it sounds strange but it’s absolutely true, where someone has Al Qaeda material, someone has IRA material, someone has far-right material, sometimes when you look at someone’s device When you can actually say all of this.
Jenrick said the public had a right to know when Keir Starmer knew the information about Rudakubana and what the police advice was.
He told ITV’s Good Morning Britain: “There has been speculation over the summer that people have lost trust in the police and the criminal justice process, and I think that’s wrong. Citizens lie.
Asked whether he thought the government had indeed lied, he added: “We don’t know. We don’t know why the information was withheld. Why it took police months to lay out the basic facts about the case, And is there reason to believe that these facts were known within hours or days of the incident?
The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said suggestions that the government was hiding facts from the public were “incorrect”.
However, to charge someone under the Biological Weapons Act, the Crown Prosecution Service must obtain the consent of the government’s legal officer – the Attorney General or Solicitor General.
A BBC report revealed that consent had been requested in recent weeks and granted “within days”.