In October 2021, Ali Harbi Ali assassinated David Amess, the MP for Southend West. The aftermath of this killing was marked by a debate in which MPs called for ‘love not hate’ and insisted that this showed the need for an Online Hate Bill. Now, almost three years after the murderer was sentenced to a whole life order, meaning he can never be released, the government has published the official report on failings by Prevent. As is often the case in such reports, appalling failures are hidden in mountains of text.
The report tells us that in 2014 the ‘Somali heritage’ Ali was living at home with his family and resitting his A Levels. Previously Ali had been a good pupil, but in his final year of school ‘his attitude began to change’, his ‘attendance became sporadic’ and ‘his form of dress changed… to what has been described as Islamic’. As a result, in October 2014, Ali was referred to Prevent for the first time.
This referral led to him being referred to ‘Channel’, the next stage of the process, in which an ‘Intervention Provider’ (IP) met with Ali on 17 January 2015.
The did not recall receiving any written briefing about Ali, but were merely asked by phone to ‘deal with the issues around Ali’s perception of what was “haram”’. The IP did this, wrote a report, and never met with Ali again. Despite this, both Channel and the police believed that multiple sessions took place. On 12 March 2015, Channel noted that ‘he is still ongoing with his IP and should be exited soon’. They also made reference to a forthcoming ‘final visit’. Similarly the police believed that further meetings took place, sending an email in April asking ‘how many sessions’ remained.
We have to ask: what is the point of all these organisations and acronyms if the most basic matters can’t be communicated between the people involved? Perhaps because of this confusion, by late April 2015, Channel concluded that Ali posed a ‘very low’ risk, his ‘family issues’ had been ‘sorted out’ and that the ‘intervention provider’ had dealt with Ali’s belief that interest rates and music were ‘haram’. Shortly afterwards the Channel case was closed.
Prevent should have conducted follow-up reviews at six and 12 months. ‘There is no evidence’ that the six month review took place. The 12-month review, logged late (‘due to an IT issue’) on 4 December 2016, notes ‘nothing of [counter terrorism] concern’.
The report lists numerous other failures, although it does seek to reassure us that ‘the relevant policy and guidance was mostly followed and complied with’. We learn that ‘record keeping is problematic’, ‘the interactions with the IP are problematic’ and there was a ‘blurring of responsibilities’.
Stripped of the civil service speak, here’s what happened. The person who should have built a relationship with Ali to steer him away from his path to Islamism and murder in fact just met with him once, had a brief chat and decided things were fine. Instead of multiple meetings where they should have worked with Ali, building enough trust so that the real issues could be resolved, this person seems to have assumed things were fine, and despite multiple queries from police, and other Prevent staff, did not make it clear that they only conducted a single meeting. Thus, three months later, Prevent believed that Ali had been having an ongoing intervention, which had now successfully concluded.
The person who was supposed to follow-up after six months did not do that job. Then the 12 month review was conducted six months later than it should have been.
The general impression is of slackness, poor communication and people who did not do their job with diligence and care.
Could Prevent have saved David Amess, if they’d continued to work with Ali? Of course we will never know, but we can say that the decision to pay such cursory attention to him may well mean that officials did not fully understand the nature of his beliefs, and that had they continued to observe and work with Ali, it’s possible he could have been stopped.
Yet again, all this bureaucracy, all these committees and all these policies seem unable to ensure that people do the basics, and do them right. It’s just not good enough.
Comments