The murders of three girls and physical attacks on ten other children and adults in Southport in July 2024 was one of the worst crimes perpetrated by a child in our history. Sir Adrian Fulford, a former high court judge, was asked to inquire why it happened and how it could have been prevented. I had heard news reports about his findings but was drawn to read the whole report in preparation for our podcast episode on the topic with guests Selena Wallis and Professor Lynn Davies.

It’s a depressing read. There were so many red flags about Axel Rudakubana (referred to as AR in the report) and so many agencies were involved with him. Yet none were reaching him effectively, particularly in the last 18 months before the morning of 29th July when he left home in a taxi intent on violence. He lived with his parents, who had come to England to escape the Rwandan genocide, and his disabled brother.

The news reports focussed on Sir Adrian’s criticism of Axel’s father, Alphonse, and mother, Laetitia. Sir Adrian is critical of all the agencies involved with Axel but he also attributes blame to Axel’s parents, concluding that if they had “done what they morally ought to have done, AR would not have been at liberty to conduct the attack and it would not therefore have occurred.” He accuses Alphonse of being in denial about his son’s violence, of being obstructive with practitioners (such as challenging his son’s exclusion from school for attacking a fellow pupil with a hockey stick) and of failing to prevent Axel ordering weapons on the internet, or of curbing his use of the internet at all.

“AR’s parents (and particularly Alphonse R, AR’s father) created significant obstructions to constructive engagement with AR by the various agencies that were involved. AR’s parents faced significant challenges, but they were too ready to excuse and defend AR’s actions; they failed to stand up to his behaviour and set boundaries (difficult though this was given his sometimes violent response); and they ultimately failed to report the clear escalation in risk in the period 22 to 29 July 2024.” (Southport Inquiry Report volume 1)

Throughout his teenage years Axel spent a lot of time accessing totally inappropriate websites glorifying violence. His use of the internet got completely out of control after he was excluded from school and retreated into his bedroom at home for months on end. Presumably he was surfing the web all day. His parents did not curb his time online and he had no digital controls. His unfettered access to internet violence undoubtedly contributed to his fixation with violence, but could his parents have done more?

Our podcast guest, Selina Wallis, said there was little any parent could do to stop a very determined child from accessing the internet. She said the provisions of the Online Safety Act made no difference. Clever teenagers could override controls and, if necessary, use VPNs. “The only real way to stop children from looking at things on the Internet is to have no devices in the home.”

Alphonse and Laetitia were incapable emotionally and in every other way from curbing their child’s obsession. He terrorised and paralysed them such that they did not dare try to stop him staring at a screen. He was a violent and intimidating child who verbally and physically threatened his parents, particularly his father. Axel’s brother Dion told the inquiry: “The fights are scary because of the danger of someone dying. My brother doesn’t really show mercy so my dad just has to try not to die.” His parents did not dare cross or annoy Axel for fear he would turn his anger against them. In the 18 months running up to July 2024, all Axel’s violence was directed against his family. And they got no help in managing him and their own fear.

The family was not averse to seeking and accepting help. They paid for family counselling and sought assessments for autism and ADHD. But like many families with challenging children, they seemed terrified of having their child taken into care or detained in some way. So they defended him (as many parents instinctively would) when authorities accused him of bad behaviour or of committing crime.

In Axel’s case he needed far more intervention by the state, particularly by children’s services. But despite his and his parents’ needs, he never got anywhere near being put on the child protection register or taken into care. When parents cannot cope, others need to protect their children from harming themselves or others. In the case of Axel and his family, they needed consistent, intensive support as soon as Axel started showing signs of violence. They didn’t get that.

Of course his parents should probably have cried louder for help, and they definitely should have reported that Axel had weapons. Above all, Alphonse should have rung the police when Axel left in a taxi that last fateful morning. They were terrorised and paralysed, maybe more so due to their own traumatic history in Rwanda. 

Parents can definitely influence the trajectory of a challenging and potentially harmful child. But only a very few parents (those who coerce their children into committing crime) are responsible for their children’s crimes. Parents of children at risk of harming others often seek help in vain for years. In the end it is the state’s responsibility to support those parents and, if the risk of violence has got too great, to deprive children of their liberty through health, child welfare or criminal justice legislation. The police, Prevent, children’s services, youth justice services and mental health services all let down Axel and his parents. And then set the scene for that dreadful July day when Axel murdered three children and injured so many more.