A Freedom of Information Act request to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) has confirmed that Lancashire Constabulary (Lancs) has not, as of 21st February, 2025, made a referral regarding their interactions with Axel Rudakubana, prior to the Southport murders.
A notable development in light of the prevailing circumstances.
The police watchdog also confirmed that they were unaware of any Lancs officers who are (or were) the subject of internal disciplinary action over failings that, taken at their face, might amount to misconduct or gross misconduct.
Rudakubana, convicted of murdering three young girls on 29th July, 2024, and grievously injuring a significant number of others, including two adults, had multiple contacts with Lancs over the five years leading up to the crime, including incidents involving a knife on a bus, an assault with a hockey stick, and at least four calls from his home address about his concerning behaviour and tendency to violence.
These interactions resulted in vulnerable child referrals to a council-led multi-agency safeguarding hub (MASH) but no apparent resort to higher scrutiny that might have flagged his escalating risk.
The lack of a referral to the IOPC suggests Lancs has not deemed, internally, that their prior conduct in this case as not meeting the threshold for mandatory oversight – such as a direct link between their actions (or inactions) and the murders – or has not opted for a voluntary referral despite the case’s obvious severity and potential loss of public confidence in the police.
The IOPC typically requires mandatory referrals in cases of death or serious injury (DSI) following police contact, or where police conduct might have contributed to such outcomes. Here, the murders occurred without immediate police involvement on the days or weeks before (as far as is known at present), and the force may argue their earlier interactions didn’t directly enable the crime.
However, the absence of a referral could also reflect a judgement that their handling of Rudakubana’s prior incident – despite his three Prevent referrals and well-documented violent tendencies – was defensible, or that other reviews (such as the public inquiry or child safeguarding practice review (CSPR) due to commence this month will suffice.
This decision might surprise some, given the public and political spotlight on “missed opportunities” highlighted by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s inquiry announcement and a review showing Prevent referrals were closed prematurely due to administrative errors, including the mis-spelling of Rudakubana’s name on their database.
Lancashire Constabulary’s minimum of five contacts with Rudakubana between 2019 and May 2022, coupled with the gravity of the Southport outcome, could reasonably prompt scrutiny of whether they adequately assessed or shared intelligence about his risk.
Yet, without a referral, it seems they’ve concluded—or hope to maintain—that their actions don’t warrant IOPC investigation.
Public confidence in a police force, in which Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary identified a number of operational functions that are ripe for improvement, in an inspection outcome published as recently as December, 2024, are behind this Neil Wilby Media press for accountability, especially as broader inquiries unfold, but, as it stands, no formal IOPC process has been initiated by the force.
The watchdog, in its FOIA response (read in full here), also appeared surprisingly incurious, suggesting that further enquiries by the journalist should be made directly to the force.
The ‘lessons learned’ CSPR talking shop is unlikely to inform locals, or the wider United Kingdom, greatly, but the public inquiry will provide a much sterner test of Lancashire Constabulary’s actions or, more accurately, lack of appropriate actions.
To those with significant professional experience of the force (the author of this article, Neil Wilby, first dealt with them in 2013) there is likely to be significantly more revealed both by way of disclosure, and examination and cross-examination of police witnesses, than is so far in the public domain.
Of particular interest, given what was found in the Rudakubana home after the Southport massacre – materials to make ricin poison and an Al-Queda manual – is whether Lancs carried out any searches under section 18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. 1984 (or, possibly, section 32) after the murderer was apprehended following the knife on bus incident. An indictable offence which would trigger those powers.
A series of questions, including the PACE search matter, has been put to Lancs press office regarding the lack of referral to the IOPC and the rationale behind that decision.
Follow Neil Wilby on Twitter (here) for signposts to any updates.
Page last updated: Monday 24th February, 2025 at 11h35
Thank you for reading and a polite request: If you feel this article is of value and in the public interest, and wish to make a contribution to the running costs of this website, it would be very much appreciated. Donations can made securely (and anonymously if required), via Buy Me A Coffee at this link or via PayPal at this link.
Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.
Picture credit:
Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.
© Neil Wilby 2015-2025. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby Media, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
Neil Wilby Media 
Leave a comment