Keir Starmer faces serious questions on why he did not explain the terror links to the Southport attack sooner. The PM claims he could not tell the truth about the attacker last summer because it would endanger the trial. Yet this is untrue. We were told the facts when Rudakubana was charged in October. And the same disclosures did not risk other trials. Nick Timothy MP challenged the Home Secretary on this point in the House of Commons on Tuesday 21 January 2025. See the question and answer here.
See the Hansard transcript below or, to view the full debate, click here (see Mr Timothy’s question at Column 888).
Nick Timothy, MP for West Suffolk: The Prime Minister’s denial in August that Rudakubana was being investigated for offences under the Terrorism Act 2006 did not protect the trial, because we found out the facts anyway when Rudakubana was charged in October. The same disclosure did not cause other trials, such as that of the Parsons Green tube bomber, to fail. I am not talking about the detail of Prevent referrals, which the Home Secretary has mentioned in answers to similar questions, but about the information that was disclosed in October. If a jury knew that before the trial, why could the Prime Minister not have told the country the truth in August?
Yvette Cooper MP (The Home Secretary): The hon. Member will know that investigation is carried out by the police. The Crown Prosecution Service decides what charges to bring, and how and when to bring them, based on the evidence it has gathered. That is the British justice system. Decisions are made by the police and prosecutors, who are rightly independent of Ministers. I strongly believe that this independence, which is part of our British judicial tradition, must continue.
