The controversy over Axel Rudakubana's Sentencing
Axel Rudakubana was sentenced to life with a minimum of 52 years for a number of criminal offences. These include the murder of three girls in Southport on 29 July 2024: Bebe King, Elsie Dot Stancombe, and Alice da Silva Aguiar and the attempted murder of 10 others. (1) Furthermore, he was also sentenced for possession of a knife in a public place, production of a biological toxin and possession of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing, or preparing, an act of terrorism, contrary to Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000. (1)
Rudakubana’s crimes are some of the most heinous acts of mass murder in recent British history. Understandably, there has been significant anger on social media and in the press about his sentence. Many believe he should have been given a full life term, a life sentence without the possibility of parole. The effect of such a sentence is he would never be released from prison. This is despite the judge Mr Justice Goose stating he does not expect Rudakubana to ever be released. (2) This has led to some politicians suggesting the law should be changed to permit full life terms to be given to children.
The Attorney General’s office has received request to review his sentence under the unduly lenient sentencing scheme (ULS). (3) Unduly lenient in this context means a gross error in the sentencing decision. (4) This can be an error in applying sentencing guidance, applying or interpreting the law or in assessment of dangerousness. If the Attorney General’s Office agrees and the offences in the case are subject to the scheme, they request leave (permission) to refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal. If leave is granted, the Court of Appeal will review the sentence and may choose to exercise its powers to alter the sentence. This is despite the Mr Justice Goose, handing down one of the longest minimum sentences in British history.
Many people who have criticised the sentence have highlighted the following comment made by the judge during sentencing:
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. (5)
The law does not permit such a sentence because the UK ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991. Article 37 of the UNCRC states:
No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment. Neither Capital Punishment nor life imprisonment without the possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age. (6)
Downing street stated that they would not consider changing the law to permit full life terms for those who commit offences under the age of 18 however Defence Secretary John Healey however, refused to rule out a change to the law. (7)
During sentencing a judge must consider the offender, victim and the public and balancing their interests is complex and difficult. It appears Mr Justice Goose took applied the law and the sentencing guidance correctly and into account the significant danger he poses to the public when deciding upon a sentence. The Attorney General’s Office will respond to the request under the ULS by the end of February.
What is clear, is a change in the law would violate the UNCRC. The UNCRC seeks to protect the rights of children in all circumstances. If the UK government choose to change the law, it erodes the protection treaty provides in all circumstances. It would undermine a longstanding principle that has guided the legal system when sentencing children for criminal offences: children are less psychologically developed than adults and as a result sentencing them the same was as adults would be unjust. (8) The former Attorney General Dominic Grieve pointed out that a full life term is unlikely to be a deterrent for those intent on committing similar crimes, and it is not clear how the government would set the new minimum age at which a full life term can be given to an offender. (9)
Many people rightly feel no sentence is severe enough for his crimes: the murder of three young girls who were denied the right to grow into adults, the pain of their families and the life altering injuries of inflicted on 10 other victims of his attack, 8 of whom were children. The question is can changing the law be justified, if it does not serve a purpose beyond it standing as a marker of our societies condemnation of the offences committed by Rudakubana?
Edit as of 17/02/2025: The Attorney General’s office responded to the requests under the ULS and confirmed that he would not be seeking to refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal because there was no legal basis for a referal. (10)