The UK’s recent public inquiry into the Southport tragedy has brought to light a number of safeguarding failures with potentially far‑reaching implications for schools, mental health services, social care, and the Prevent Duty. As a safeguarding consultant, I believe there are critical lessons for education settings and local authorities. Here’s my take on what you need to know — and what you should do next.
What the Inquiry Revealed
On 29 July 2024, Axel Rudakubana, then 17, carried out a horrific attack at a dance‑class event, killing three young girls and harming many others. Prior to the attack, Rudakubana had been referred to ‘Prevent’ three separate times, showed escalating violent or disturbing behaviour, was expelled from school, diagnosed with autism, and engaged with CAMHS. Yet six days before the tragedy, CAMHS discharged him. Key agencies missed opportunities to intervene. Communication between schools, mental health services, social services and families was inadequate. The inquiry is examining how and why these systems failed.
Why This Hits the Heart of Prevent & Safeguarding
The Prevent Duty emphasises early identification of people vulnerable to radicalisation or violence. But when behaviour is concerning yet doesn’t clearly map to ideological extremism, systems may default to non‑intervention. This case shows that ideologically‑neutral but violently fixated individuals can pose grave risks. Systems must adapt to ensure that the focus does not narrowly rest on terrorism ideology alone, but also on violent extremism, pre‑criminal risk and neurodiversity.
For schools and safeguarding leads, this is a prompt: reviewing how your policies and staff training recognise early warning signs, how risk assessments are updated, how referrals to Prevent, CAMHS or social services are handled, and how multidisciplinary information is shared.
What Schools, Colleges & Safeguarding Leads Should Do
Strengthen inter‑agency communication: Ensure formal, documented pathways exist for sharing concerns from schools, mental health, social care and policing.
Review risk‑assessment tools: Make sure they capture behavioural risk even where ideology is not clear; include obsessive violence interests, weapon fixation, escalating behaviour, family environment, neurodiversity. The behaviour barometer from the DfE is a great tool and I am sure it will be added to in the coming months.
Train staff on indicators beyond ideology: Schools often see worrying patterns long before preventive services or CAMHS referrals. Teachers, DSLs and senior leaders need to look further than the usual signs and measures, and be open to new risks.
Ensure consistent Prevent referral & escalation mechanisms: When Prevent referrals don’t proceed, escalate and in the event they are still not accepted then ensure that other support and monitoring continues. Don’t treat “no ideological attachment” as “no concern”.
Support for neurodivergent young people: Diagnoses like autism are not risk in themselves but behaviour that causes vulnerability must be recognised, with tailored support. Consider consulting with specialists in this area at your next staff training or briefing.
Next Steps
If you lead a school or trust now is the time to examine your policies and practice in light of the Southport inquiry. Audit the cases in your area where risk was raised but discounted; test your communication flows between education, CAMHS, social care, and Prevent channels; review staff training; and ensure your Prevent and safeguarding risk assessments are broad enough.
You can download our expanded checklist below to get you started.
For more tailored support visit www.bcssafeguarding.co.uk. We help settings get ahead of risk, build stronger systems, and protect children proactively.
Together we can change lives.
Leave a Reply