Killer to be sentenced

Axel Rudakubana can expect a sentence of indefinite detention today

Axel Rudakubana can expect to receive a sentence of indefinite detention at Liverpool Crown Court today. After serving the minimum term set by the judge, he will be released only if his continued detention is no longer considered necessary for the protection of the public.

After pleading guilty on Monday to three counts of murder and 10 attempted murders — as well as possession of a knife; production of a biological toxin; and possessing a record of information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism — Rudakubana was told by Mr Justice Goose that “a life sentence equivalent” was inevitable.

Axel Rudakubana

The defendant was nine days short of his 18th birthday when he committed these offences. So the sentence he will receive for the murders is referred to, euphemistically, as detention “during His Majesty’s pleasure”.

That is defined as a “life sentence” by the sentencing code. So the court must make a minimum term order unless it is required to make a whole life order.

The judge is not required to make a whole life order in the case of a person who was under 18 when the offence was committed. So a minimum term order is inevitable.

The Sentencing Act 2020 tells judges how to set the minimum term that an offender must serve before being considered for release. In a case involving two or more murders by an offender aged 18 or more, the starting point is 30 years. If that offender was aged 17 at the time of the offence, the starting point is reduced to 27 years.

That will be increased by the judge to take account of aggravating factors, for example a significant degree of planning or premeditation and the fact that Rudakubana’s victims were children and therefore particularly vulnerable. The judge must also take into account the number of murders and attempted murders Rudakubana has admitted.

The fact that an offender suffered from any mental disorder or mental disability may be a mitigating factor. But defence lawyers said on Monday they were not submitting a psychiatric report on Rudakubana behalf, as would happen before a defendant was sent to a secure hospital.

The maximum reduction for a plea of guilty at the start of a murder trial is one-twentieth — for example, two years off a minimum term of 40 years.

Update 26 January: Mr Justice Goose sentenced Rudukabana in his absence because of the defendant’s earlier disruptive behaviour. The judge’s sentencing remarks were broadcast and a recording is available.

As far as I can see, the text of Goose’s sentencing remarks has not yet been released. I have made my own transcript which you can read here:

This is my sentence for Axel Rudakubana.

During this sentence hearing, Axel Rudakubana was determined to disrupt the proceedings so that he would not have to face the victims of his crimes and justice. I was required to have him removed from court, not because that is what he wanted but he was preventing the hearing from being held in the normal way. Accordingly, I pass sentence in his voluntary absence whilst his counsel, both leading and junior, and solicitor are present in court.

On the 29th of July last year, Rudakubana left home and travelled by taxi to the Hart Space in Hart Street, Southport, armed with a large kitchen knife which he had bought on the internet on the 13th of July, 16 days earlier.

He knew that there was to be a Taylor Swift-themed yoga and dance workshop where very young girls mostly aged between 6 and 11 were to enjoy an organised party safely in an upstairs room where the organisers were to look after them. There were 26 children in the party, all of them happy and enjoying themselves. It started at about half past nine that morning on a warm summer’s day, but he had targeted those very young children for the horrific, extreme violence he was intent upon.

At 11.45 that morning, he arrived and walked straight into the building, up the stairs to where he could hear the sound of happy children. In his mind was the intention to murder as many of them as he physically could. He wanted to try and carry out mass murder of innocent, happy young girls. And over about 15 minutes, he savagely killed three of them and attempted to kill eight more, as well as two adults who tried to stop him. It was of such extreme violence, of the utmost and exceptionally high seriousness, that it is difficult to comprehend why it was done.

I am sure that Rudakubana had a settled and determined intention to carry out these offences and that, had he been able to, he would have killed each and every child, all 26 of them, as well as any adults who got in his way. It was only because some managed to escape that prevented many more from being murdered. I’m also sure that after the other children, eight of whom he had very seriously injured, managed to escape, it left him in the upstairs room and landing where he returned to continue his sustained and brutal violence against two of the youngest of those children, stabbing them multiple times. That demonstrated how determined he was to cause the maximum suffering he could. Left alone with them where they’d fallen, he continued shocking and extreme violence.

Many who have heard the evidence summarised by the prosecution in this hearing and having seen the CCTV recordings played with a view from the outside of the building, might describe what he did as evil. Who could dispute it? But on any view, it was at least the most extreme, shocking and exceptionally serious crime.

I have read each of the victim personal statements and many have been read out to the court. They are all deeply moving. The harm that Rudakubana has caused to each family, each child, and to the community has been profound and permanent. For the families of Elsie, Bebe and Alice, they will never recover from what happened to their daughter. For those children and the adults that he attempted to murder, their lives will never be the same, nor will their families who are left to look after their exceptionally brave daughters. Also for the emergency services whose personnel had to deal with the aftermath.

In just under 15 minutes, Rudakubana murdered three children, attempted to murder eight other children and also two adults. He was prevented from murdering more only by the escape of the other children.

When the police arrived at about 12 noon, they found him standing over the body of Bebe King and still holding the knife. It was Bebe who had suffered at least 122 separate knife wounds. He was arrested, taken into custody. And whilst Rudakubana did not say anything in his police interviews, he did make unsolicited comments, which are deeply disturbing, including, “I’m glad to see those kids are dead. It makes me happy.” And “it’s a good thing those children are dead”.

In his home, the police discovered clear evidence of a settled intention to carry out mass killing. On one of his computers were files proving that he had a long-standing preoccupation with violent killing and genocide. Of particular significance were copies of an al-Qaeda training manual, which described methods of killing with a knife and where to attack the victim. Part of it referred to attacking the head and neck, just as he had done to some of the victims in this case.

Also, the manual provided instruction on how to produce ricin, a highly dangerous toxin which can cause multiple deaths and has no known antidote. I am sure that he had followed those instructions because the police found in his bedroom the materials to produce ricin and a pulp residue within a container. That was examined by an expert in chemical and biological warfare agents, Dr Martin Pierce, and confirmed it was ricin pulp and castor oil. His opinion was that there was sufficient ricin pulp that with some further purification process, it would have provided a range of up to 1,269 doses, which would cause death if inhaled. However, there was no evidence that Rudakubana had recently tried purification.

I am satisfied that for some time he had planned to kill as many people as he could: as the prosecution have called it, “a mass killing”. He bought the knife he wanted to use, which had a particularly sharp point. He had read information on how to stab people with greatest effect to kill them. He saw the publicity for a children’s party in Southport at the Hart Space dance studio and decided to kill as many as he could, targeting very young children. I’m also satisfied that if he hadn’t decided that way of killing, in time he was highly likely to use the ricin he had produced.

The prosecution have made it clear that these proceedings were not acts of terrorism within the meaning of the terrorism legislation because there is no evidence that Rudakubana’s purpose was to advance political, religious, racial or ideological cause. I must accept that conclusion. However, in my judgement, his culpability for this extreme level of violence is equivalent in its seriousness to terrorist murders, whatever his purpose.

Whether his motivation was for terrorism or not misses the point. What he did on the 29th of July last year has caused such shock and revulsion to the whole nation that it must be viewed as being at the very extreme level of crime. His culpability and the harm he caused and intended were at the highest.

I do not, however, take into account against him what happened in different parts of the country after his arrest. He did not cause that.

Axel Rudakubana was born in Cardiff on the 7th of August of 2006. He’s a UK citizen, now aged 18, but was still 17 when he committed these offences. He was only nine days short of his 18th birthday, which has a particular significance. Had he been 18, I make it clear that I would have been compelled to impose on him life imprisonment without a minimum term, otherwise known as a whole life term, meaning that he would never be released. However, the law does not permit such a sentence for those offenders who are under 18 when they offend.

Rudakubana has only one previous conviction on the 19th of February 2020, when he was aged 13, for possession of a knife on school premises, assault and possession of offensive weapon in a public place. He was made subject to a juvenile referral order. Those offences took place when he returned to the school from which he’d been excluded due to his previous behaviour. He entered the school without permission, carrying a knife and hockey stick, intent on attacking another pupil whom he said had bullied him.

For the offence of murder on counts 1, 2 and 3, the sentence must be custody for life. I required to fix the minimum term which he must serve in custody before he may apply to the Parole Board for his release. It will be for the board to decide if he is ever safe to be released into the community and if ever he is, he will remain on licence for the rest of his life subject to recall into custody if he breaches his licence terms.

The minimum term I will fix will be a very substantial one and the very least he will be detained, which will mean that he will serve almost the whole of his life in custody. I consider at this time that it is likely he will never be released and that he will be in custody for all his life.

The starting point in deciding the minimum term in custody on counts 1 to 3 must be 27 years because he was 17 years old when he murdered Elsie, Bebe and Alice. I find the following circumstances make those murders yet more serious.

Firstly, there are two exceptionally high factors that would, but for his age, require me to impose a whole life term. The murder of two or more persons where each murder involved a substantial degree of premeditation or planning. And it was in each case the murder of a child with such premeditation or planning.

Secondly, the children were particularly vulnerable because of their very young age, being seven, six and nine respectively.

Thirdly, the physical suffering that he caused as he repeatedly stabbed them.

Fourthly, there were three murders.

Fifthly, at the time he carried out these murders, he also attempted to kill 10 more, eight of whom were also very young children.

Sixthly, the severity of the injuries caused to the victims.

Seventhly, he produced highly toxic poison ricin which he was very likely to use at some time, had he not committed these offences.

In mitigation for this offending, Rudakubana is still only 18 years old. However, I consider that his age has already provided him with a substantial reduction in his sentence because it means that he has avoided a whole life term. Whilst he has entered guilty pleas, saving the families and victims the pain of a trial, he cannot claim to have shown any remorse. His unsolicited comments in the police station make clear his feelings. However, lack of remorse is not an aggravating factor.

I have read evidence within a statement of an assistant headteacher which describes how Rudakubana’s early years at school developed from a normal student to one who became increasingly threatening to those he felt had wronged him, leading to his exclusion. None of this gives any indication of what he was to do on the 29th of July last year.

I have read the Intermediary Assessment Report dated the 24th of September 2024 in which its author said that he presented as having high-functioning autism and that he does not have any associated learning disabilities. The report found that he had some communication and attention difficulties. None of this offered any explanation for this offending. No further expert evidence has been provided on his behalf.

I have taken into account the overarching principles sentencing children and young people. The fact that he’s now 18 years old does not make the guideline irrelevant. However, I’m not persuaded that his emotional age is different to his chronological age. I will give him the appropriate discount to reflect the fact that, whilst he was 18, he was still young.

In sentencing, I will impose concurrent sentences, meaning they will all be served at the same time. However, I will treat the murder offences in counts 1 to 3 as the lead offences and take into account all of the total offending when fixing the minimum term of custody he must serve. Also, I have in mind the totality of the sentences, requiring me to take a step back and consider whether they’re just and proportionate. And I conclude that they are.

The guilty pleas will allow some small discount on the sentence because they were entered so late, on the first day of the trial.

I turn to the attempted murder offences in counts 4 to 13. Each of these offences requires me to impose concurrent sentences of custody for life under section 272 of the Sentencing Act 2020. Each offence is within schedule 19 of the Act. I am satisfied in the circumstances of these offences that Rudakubana is a dangerous offender and that the circumstances justify the imposition of a life sentence.

I must then fix the custodial term which he must serve.

For each of the offences where he attempted to murder a child, being counts 4 to 11, the appropriate sentence guideline is category A2 with a starting point for sentence of 30 years and a range up to 35 years. The very young age of each victim and the substantial planning by him requires me to increase that sentence to the top of the range before reducing it to reflect his age, his late guilty plea and to reach the minimum term for these offences.

Accordingly, I firstly reduce the sentence to 30 years for his age and 27 years for the guilty plea, leading to a minimum term of 18 years on each of counts 4 to 11 concurrently. On counts 12 and 13, which are attempted murder of the adults, Leanne Lucas and Jonathan Hayes, the guideline category is B2 with a starting point of 25 years and a range up to 30 years.

With the same aggravating factors of seriousness and mitigation for counts 4 to 11, I increased the sentence to 30 years before reducing it to 27 years for age and to 24 years for guilty plea, leading to a minimum term on those two counts of 16 years concurrently.

I now turn to the remaining counts. On count 14, having an article with a blade, the sentence is 18 months custody. This is a category 1A offence, for which I have reduced the sentence to reflect his age and plea.

Count 15, production of a biological toxin. There is no offence-specific sentence guideline. I’ve been assisted by reference to the case of the R v Mohammed Ammer Ali, [2016] EWCA Crim 864, in which a sentence of eight years imprisonment after conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal, a decision based upon its own facts.

I’m satisfied that his production in this case of ricin was more advanced and is associated with Rudakubana’s mindset to cause many killings. Whilst he had not used the ricin by the time of his arrest, taking into account his culpability and the harm risked, allowing for his age and guilty plea, I sentence him concurrently to 12 years custody.

Count 16, possession of a document likely to be useful to a person preparing an act of terrorism, sentence is 18 months custody after taking into account his age and plea and applying the guideline Category 3C.

I’m now going to sentence Axel Rudakubana, having explained my reasons. On counts 1 to 3, murder, I sentence him to custody for life with a minimum term which he must serve in custody of 52 years, less the time he’s served already. He’s been in custody for 175 days on remand, which will be credited. Therefore, the minimum term is 51 years and 190 days.

On counts 4 to 11, I sentence him concurrently to custody for life with a minimum term of 18 years, less 175 days served, on each count concurrently with each other. Allowing for his time served on remand, the minimum term on those counts is 17 years and 190 days.

On counts 12 and 13, I sentence him concurrently to custody for life with a minimum term of 16 years, less his time served on remand, on each count concurrently with each other, leading to a minimum term on those counts of 15 years and 190 days.

On counts 14 and 16, I sentence him to 18 months custody concurrently with each other and all other offences. He will pay the appropriate amount under-18 statutory charge, which will be entered on the court record.

Accordingly, in total, I sentence Rudakubana to 13 sentences of custody for life and a minimum term to be served in custody of 51 years and 190 days.

It is highly likely that he will never be released.

Update 5 February: the judge has corrected his published sentencing remarks. I explained how this came about in a piece published on 4 February.