What the Judge Told Southport Killer Axel Rudakubana That Left Him Heartbroken Before Sentencing
Southport killer Axel Rudakubana has been sentenced to 52 years for the chilling attacks in July last year. A court heard he will likely never be released from jail.
The 18-year-old carried out a knife attack in the Hart Space, located on a small business park in Southport. Taking place shortly before midday on July 29 last year, Rudakubana killed three young girls – Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine, Bebe King, six, and Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven.
Victims were attending a Taylor Swift-themed dance class at the start of the summer holidays when the attack took place.
Earlier this week, Rudakubana pleaded guilty to all 16 offences he faced on the first day of his trial at Liverpool Crown Court. This change in plea came on the day his trial was due to start.
The offences include the murder of Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine, Bebe King, six, and Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven and the attempted murder of eight other children, who cannot be named for legal reasons, class instructor Leanne Lucas and businessman John Hayes.
On October 30, Rudakubana appeared before magistrates in Westminster charged with two further offences – production of a biological toxin, ricin, and possession of information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing to commit an act of terrorism.
Before delivering the sentence, Mr Justice Goose said: “Had he been 18, I make it clear I would have been compelled to impose on him life imprisonment without a minimum term. However, the law does not permit such a sentence for those offenders who are under 18 when they offend.”
He said the minimum term he would fix would be “very substantial” and added: “I consider at this time it’s likely he will never be released and will be in custody for all his life.”
Mr Justice Goose also said he was satisfied that if Rudakubana had not decided on that method of killing, “in time he would be highly likely to use the ricin he had produced”.
The judge said: “The prosecution have made it clear this does not meet the definition of an act of terrorism within the meaning of the legislation as there is no evidence the purpose was to advance a particular political or ideological cause. I must accept that conclusion.
“However, his culpability is equivalent in its seriousness to terrorist murders, whatever his purpose. What he did on July 29 caused such shock and revulsion that it must be seen as the most extreme level of crime.”
