Teen Killer Linked to Ricin, Terror Manuals – Why Did Authorities Delay Telling the Public?

Hi and welcome to this Video Production News Op-Ed.

In today’s Friday Editorial , we examine the evolving complexities in the Stockport stabbing case, a tragedy that claimed the lives of three innocent girls and has left a community in mourning and, now, a nation searching for answers. Beyond the devastating facts of the crime, recent disclosures around the accused, Axel Rudakubana—revealed that he was found with both the deadly poison ricin and an al-Qaeda-linked terrorist manual—which raise profound questions about the actions taken by counterterrorism units, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), and the government in the crucial weeks that followed.

Delayed Disclosure: Examining the Actions of Counterterrorism Units

When assessing the timeline, it is critical to acknowledge the reasons why counterterrorism agencies initially held back from publicly disclosing Axcel’s possession of terrorist materials. Under both theTerrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-terrorism, Crime, and Security Act 2001, authorities are empowered—and indeed required—to evaluate whether a suspect has potential ties to larger terrorist networks, especially when extremist materials and lethal substances such as ricin are involved.

In the first seven to ten days after a crime of this magnitude, counterterrorism agencies are legally justified in withholding sensitive details to determine whether the suspect has been radicalised by external factions or connected to a broader UK-based terrorist network. This period allows for a close, behind-the-scenes investigation into possible co-conspirators, radicalisation sources, and any external threats posed by accomplices or similar cells.

Had this information been prematurely released, any connected individuals could have been tipped off, accelerating plans for attacks or going underground. In that context, the delayed release, while disappointing to those eager for immediate transparency, aligns with national security obligations.

However, in cases where there is substantial prima facie evidence for terrorism-related charges, the law permits public disclosure following an initial assessment period. In this case, given the clear presence of the terrorist manual and a confirmed possession of ricin—both of which provide grounds for terrorism charges under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and Terrorism Act 2006—it would have been reasonable to expect charges to be filed within seven to ten days. This timeline would typically enable counterterrorism units to ascertain any immediate threats while still bringing essential facts into the public domain without undue delay. That this timeline stretched into months raises difficult questions about decision-making and, potentially, motivations for withholding the information for as long as they did.

CPS Decisions and the Role of the Speaker of the House

Once counterterrorism units concluded their initial investigation, the responsibility to charge Axcel and bring the case to the public domain shifted to the Crown Prosecution Service. Under the guidelines of the CPS, a charging decision, especially with such tangible evidence, should be issued promptly if it meets the standards of both a “realistic prospect of conviction” and public interest. This case undeniably meets both criteria. Therefore, the three-month delay by the CPS in filing these additional terrorism charges is problematic, not only for its length but also because it coincides with other politically significant events.

Axel’s terrorism charges were only brought forward on October 29th—one day after Tommy Robinson’s sentencing . The timing is, at best, highly convenient and, at worst, looks suspiciously orchestrated. The public’s understandable question is: were these terrorism charges delayed to avoid fueling unrest surrounding Robinson’s legal proceedings and to distance the case from politically charged discussions about national security? If so, this delay represents a potential infringement on the public’s right to know, especially as unrest followed the initial stabbings in July, with many vocal in their suspicion that the crime was terror-related.

Adding another layer to the question of public access to information, Speaker of the House Lindsay Hoyle recently made a rare intervention by barring any discussion of the case in Parliament. Hoyle’s justification was clear: he wishesld to prevent prejudicingAxel’aAxel’atrial, set for January 2024, by limiting commentary that might unduly influence judicial outcomes. In the UK legal framework, there is precedent for restricting parliamentary discussion on active cases. However, the Speaker’s action, while lawful, effectively shields the government and CPS from being questioned about the timing and transparency of their decisions. His order curtails MPs’ ability to raise critical questions, such as when the Prime Minister and Home Secretary were informed of the terrorist materials inAxel’sAxel’spossession and why these findings were withheld from the public for such a prolonged period. Taking into into account that due to the main facts and evidence now being in the public domain, any question as regards when the PM and the Home Secretary where made aware of these facts would not in legal terms influence the trial in anyway?

Assessing the Optics and Maintaining Focus on Justice for the Victim's

This entire timeline—the months-long delay in releasing terrorism-related details, the subsequent charges just one day after Robinson’s imprisonment, and the Speaker’s prohibition of parliamentary discussion—casts a shadow over the handling of the case. For a grieving community, this delay in the truth coming to light is troubling; for the wider public, it raises questions of transparency and accountability from those entrusted to deliver justice.

And yet, amid these disturbing revelations and procedural questions, we must not lose sight of the most tragic fact here: the senseless, horrific loss of three young lives. These were children with dreams and futures ahead of them, cruelly taken by a horrifying act of violence. In the pursuit of answers and justice, we owe it to these innocent victims to ensure that the case is treated with the utmost integrity, both in legal proceedings and in the transparency afforded to the public. This nation deserves a judicial process that honours those lost by holding every actor in this tragedy accountable—not only the accused but all involved in safeguarding justice, transparency, and trust in our institutions.

ACCESS TO THE LAW: Understanding the Crime and Sentencing

As part of our campaign to improve citizens’ access and understanding of UK Criminal law, we will be explaining the relevant UK legislation surrounding any case law relevant to our articles:

In the UK, the legal principle of sub judice restricts commentary on active court cases to prevent undue influence on legal proceedings. This principle ensures that suspects receive a fair trial by safeguarding juries from external information that could sway their judgment.

Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 publishing potentially prejudicial information on ongoing cases is a criminal offence, with penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment. In high-profile cases, authorities can withhold certain details to maintain impartiality in the judicial process, aiming to prevent the media and public figures from unintentionally biasing jurors or distorting facts before the court.

While this legal framework is critical to upholding justice, it must balance transparency with fairness. Delays in releasing crucial information may lead to public distrust, especially if the timing appears influenced by political concerns. In cases like this, the public’s right to timely information about serious criminal acts must be weighed carefully against ensuring an impartial trial, with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the courts tasked with striking this delicate balance.

Well, that’s all for now. But until our next article, please stay tuned, stay informed, but most of all, stay safe, and I’ll see you then.