The legal risks of sharing misinformation on the stabbings in Southport, U.K.

"When will they release some details of who this Southport attacker actually is," proclaimed one social media user in the wake of the stabbing attack on July 29, which killed three children. "Name and shame, the public deserve to know who the attacker is."

"If his name were Rodney Evans, it would have been released hours ago," alleged another.

A 17-year-old male was arrested following the incident and has since been charged with murder and attempted murder. He was later named as Axel Muganwa Rudakubana following a rare decision in Liverpool Crown Court to lift reporting restrictions on naming children under the age of 18 charged with a crime.

Until that decision, legal restrictions on identifying children involved in crime prevented police from releasing the suspect's name or any unique details that could conceivably allow him to be recognized through a process known as jigsaw identification. The information vacuum that the restriction created gave rise to rampant misinformation and speculation on social media, with a particular focus on the suspect's heritage and immigration status. 

Police did release some legally permitted details, including the fact that the suspect was born in Cardiff, Wales, making it impossible that he is an illegal immigrant. Logically Facts has debunked false claims on this here. Yet hypothesizing by members of the public, some with extremely large audiences through their social media channels, eventually reached such a crescendo that police were forced to issue a follow-up statement clarifying that a name attributed to the suspect being spread online was incorrect.

In the following days, online misinformation spilled over into real-life violence. On July 30, a group of demonstrators gathered close to a mosque in Southport and began throwing various projectiles, including bricks and fireworks, towards the religious site. At least 39 officers were injured in the ensuing violence, which also saw a police van set on fire. On July 31, protests broke out in multiple locations across the U.K., including outside Downing Street in London, where demonstrators launched flares toward the gates of the Prime Minister's residence. More than 100 people were arrested in the capital.

Although the suspect has now been named, other legal restrictions surrounding the case are still in force, most notably those regarding contempt of court. Logically Facts examines the law and the ramifications of breaching it.

What does the law say about naming children?

According to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which determines whether cases should be prosecuted in England and Wales, a child charged with a crime between the ages of 10 and 17 will not be named outside a courtroom. As 10 is the age of criminal responsibility in England, children below that age cannot be charged with a crime.

Inside a courtroom, the naming of a suspect under 18 is governed by sections 44 and 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. This legislation states: "No matter relating to any person involved in the offense shall while he is under the age of 18 be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify him as a person involved in the offense." News organizations can challenge this restriction but must demonstrate a significant public interest. 

In practice, this means that children under 18 who are charged with a crime almost always can't be named before a trial and are rarely named after a trial. There are exceptional circumstances where this has occurred, most famously in the James Bulger case, where the two 10-year-olds who kidnapped and tortured two-year-old James Bulger were named after the trial as a result of overwhelming public interest in the case. However, it is rare and dealt with on a case-by-case basis. 

"In similar cases it would be normal to challenge anonymity on conviction in the public interest," Andrew Knight, a lecturer in media law and public affairs at the Press Association Media Academy, told Logically Facts. "The legal principle is that those under 18 and charged with offenses should normally remain anonymous unless there are convincing arguments for them to be named after conviction."

In a post shared to X, formerly Twitter, on July 31, GB News journalist Darren Grimes tapped into speculation on the suspect's identity in the Southport stabbing by asking: "Surely it's in the public interest to name the sick and twisted savage that murdered three children and severely injured others?" In the post, which has garnered 312,000 views, Grimes compared this case to the killing of transgender teenager Brianna Ghey in a park near Warrington, England, in February 2023.

A screenshot of the X post by GB News journalist Darren Grimes, with a community note below explaining the context of the Brianna Ghey case. (Source: X/Screenshot)

However, no one has yet been convicted in the Southport case. The reporting restrictions in the Brianna Ghey case were lifted after the trial was over, in accordance with section 45A of the abovementioned legislation. According to reporting at the time, Ghey's killers were named after representations to the judge from the Press Association and ITN that doing so was in the public interest. The judge concurred, saying, "Continuing restrictions inhibits full and informed debate and restricts the full reporting of the case." 

In relation to the Southport case, during a preliminary hearing at Liverpool Crown Court, Judge Andrew Menary KC declined to make an anonymity order, which is usually a foregone conclusion in cases such as this. 

Justifying his decision, Menary said: "Whilst I accept it is exceptional given his age, principally because he is 18 in six days' time, I do not make an order under section 45."

"Continuing to prevent the full reporting has the disadvantage of allowing others to spread misinformation, in a vacuum," Menary added.

In comments provided before the announcement of the suspect's identity, Charlie Moloney, a media law consultant and tutor at the journalism training school News Associates, told Logically Facts: "In theory, the court could choose not to make the order in this case. One argument could be that there is a 'community need', perhaps, to know who this defendant is to quell speculation and misinformation online. But in reality, the courts routinely make the anonymity orders and I expect it would be almost unprecedented for a Crown Court judge not to do so in this case."

Allegations of police withholding information

Another prominent far-right figure, David Atherton, shared a post on X on July 30 claiming that Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is "managing" the release of information on the Southport stabbing to avoid inflaming social tensions. The post, which 871,000 people have seen, includes an alleged testimony from an unnamed police officer recalling a briefing on the Rotherham child sex abuse gangs, in which officers were purportedly told not to discuss that the perpetrators were Muslim. 

While the content of that alleged briefing is outside the scope of fact-checkers, given the source's anonymity, the comparison is not applicable in this case, regardless. Police were initially limited by the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 on how much information they were legally allowed to release in the Southport case. Subsequently, the release of the suspect's name was based on a legal determination by a Crown Court judge. There's no evidence of a political diktat behind the release or lack of information.

A similar allegation was made by Reform Party leader Nigel Farage, who released a video statement on X on July 30 insinuating information was being withheld. In the video, which has been viewed more than six million times, Farage states: "I just wonder whether the truth is being withheld from us." Multiple politicians immediately condemned his statement, including Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, who told LBC radio that as an MP, Farage has a responsibility "not to stoke up… conspiracy theories." Former counter-terrorism police chief Neil Basu also told the Guardian: ​"Nigel Farage is giving the EDL [English Defence League] succor, undermining the police, creating conspiracy theories, and giving a false basis for the attacks on the police."

Contempt of court concerns

Alongside restrictions on identifying children involved in crime, separate legislation prevents anyone from publishing information that could influence a jury's decision on whether to find a suspect guilty in an upcoming trial. These provisions are set out in the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and are designed to protect an individual's right to a fair trial. 

The legislation comes into force when a person is charged and typically restricts the publication of details of the alleged crime which may or may not be shared as part of a trial. This could also include details of the suspect's character or previous convictions, which might lead a jury to believe they are guilty of this crime, having been guilty of others. 

According to the CPS, the Act operates under a strict liability rule, which means it is illegal to publish information that carries a "substantial risk of serious prejudice" to legal proceedings, whether you mean to affect the outcome of the case or not. 

"The legislation applies in exactly the same way to individuals online as it does to publications," Moloney said. "It appears that it would not be realistic to expect prosecutions to be launched against all the various anonymous troll accounts online which are spewing out misinformation and prejudicial material. Many of these people are domiciled abroad, and it would realistically not be possible to hold them to account."

However, this should not lull users into believing they can post online with impunity.

"High-profile accounts of celebrities, journalists, influencers and the like who are based in the U.K. should be aware that the same rules apply to them as to legacy mainstream publications," Moloney said. "Just because you have not been prosecuted yet should not lull you into thinking that you are somehow immune."

This was the case with far-right influencer Tommy Robinson, who fled the U.K. on July 29 after failing to appear in court concerning a contempt charge over the showing of a film at a protest that repeated libelous allegations about a Syrian refugee. Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, has 803,000 followers on X.

Penalties and education

According to the CPS, the penalty for breaching reporting restrictions on identifying a child under 18 is summary conviction and an unlimited fine. Being found guilty of contempt of court carries a maximum prison sentence of two years, a fine of up to £2,500, or both.  

These are substantial penalties given that there's no compulsory education on the legislation in schools. 

Logically Facts contacted the Department for Education to establish whether teaching on contempt of court was included in the national curriculum in England. A spokesperson said: "In Relationships, Sex and Health Education, schools can tailor their teaching to suit the issues that their pupils face, including focusing on online misinformation." However, this is not a nationwide obligation.

Logically Facts is awaiting a comment from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and it will be incorporated here once received.

In 2021, then-Attorney General Michael Ellis QC launched a campaign on the legal ramifications of publishing information on social media that could prejudice a trial. However, the campaign, which ran with the hashtag #ThinkBeforeYouPost, only ran for a one-week period between June 28 and July 2, 2021, and has not been repeated since.

The Law Commission, an independent body that reviews legislation in England and Wales, is currently holding a consultation on contempt of court legislation that ends on November 8. One area they are examining, in particular, is whether a politician has potentially committed contempt by publishing material that might prejudice active proceedings. 

The best approach

In situations such as this, when they are developing, the most reliable source of information is the local police. In the case of the Southport stabbing, the appropriate police force is Merseyside. Police will only release information where they are legally permitted to do so, but are also obliged to share details sensitively - for example, by only identifying victims once family members have been notified, to prevent them from learning about the death of their loved ones from social media.

Additionally, people should avoid speculating about active criminal cases, lest they risk prejudicing any upcoming trial and being held in contempt of court. 

"Be aware that if you post anything which identifies a young person who has been given anonymity by the court, you can be prosecuted for a criminal offense," Moloney said. "Members of the public are free to observe this troubling behavior online, but do not participate."

Logically Facts has published other fact-checks on false claims circulating around the Southport stabbings, including images claiming to depict the attacker, which were shared out of context.