Man who murdered MP Sir David Amess was exited from Prevent ‘too quickly’, review finds

Ali Harbi Ali killed the Conservative MP at a constituency surgery in Leigh-on-Sea in October 2021.

He was convicted of murder in April 2022 and received a whole life sentence.

A Prevent learning review, jointly-commissioned by Counter Terrorism Policing and the Home Office, has highlighted “questionable decision making and sub-optimal handling of the case” during the time Ali was engaged with Prevent and Channel.

Ali became known to Prevent in October 2014 when he was referred by his school after teachers identified a change in his demeanour, appearance and behaviour during his final two years at school.

The reviewer found that “from the material reviewed, the assessment in terms of the perpetrator’s vulnerabilities was problematic and this ultimately led to questionable decision-making and sub-optimal handling of the case during the time he was engaged with Prevent and Channel”.

It identified that the vulnerability assessment framework was not followed with the perpetrator’s symptoms being prioritised over addressing the underlying causes of his vulnerabilities.

The review noted: “The engagement of an Intervention Provider was, in hindsight, an appropriate tactic but the tasking and subsequent breakdown in communication meant that any hope of addressing Ali’s vulnerabilities were missed.

“The failure to keep in contact with the original referrer meant that the opportunities to assess whether or not any progress had been made was missed.

“Ultimately the case was closed with the issues Ali had, not being addressed.”

Head of Counter Terrorism Policing Matt Jukes said: “The murder of Sir David Amess MP in October 2021 horrified the nation and was a direct assault on our democracy. I have heard first-hand from his constituents about Sir David’s life of public service.

“I have also heard from his family about their terrible loss, and they are in my thoughts today.

“It is clear from the Prevent learning review where the management and handling of Ali Harbi Ali’s case in 2014 should have been better.

“The report also acknowledges that by the time of the attack in 2021, significant changes had been made, and more work has been done since then to act upon the review’s recommendations.

“Difficult decisions in steering people away from radicalisation continue to be made every day, and with almost 60,000 Prevent referrals in the last decade, we owe it to all those affected, including those making the decisions, to take every opportunity possible to improve the system.

“It is critical that we use reviews such as this to ensure the system works now, and in the future, so that other families are spared the pain felt by the loved ones of Sir David.”

The Prevent learning review covers the period between a referral to Prevent in 2014 and the closure of Ali’s Channel case in December 2015.

Mr Jukes said they were aware that its publication coming so soon after the review relating to Southport murderer Axel Rudakubana will lead to comparisons being drawn.

“This is understandable, but these cases are both very different and raise different questions about how Prevent manages risk.”

Over the intervening period there have been considerable changes to policy and guidance for both the police and the wider Prevent arena, including Channel.

While a number of the issues in the Ali case would most likely not be repeated today there are still a number of areas which could be considered as requiring further work in order to mitigate against future failures, the review said.

In an oral statement to Parliament, Security Minister Dan Jarvis said Ali was exited from Channel in April 2015, after his terrorism risk was assessed as ‘low’.

“A 12-month post-exit police review in 2016 also found no terrorism concerns. The case was closed to Prevent at that point,” he said.

“There were no further Prevent referrals in the five years between the case being closed and the attack.

“The Prevent learning review examined how Prevent dealt with the perpetrator’s risk, and how far the improvements made to Prevent since he was referred seven years prior, would have impacted his management.

“The reviewer found that ‘from the material reviewed, the assessment in terms of the perpetrator’s vulnerabilities was problematic and this ultimately led to questionable decision making and sub-optimal handling of the case during the time he was engaged with Prevent and Channel’.

“It identified that the vulnerability assessment framework was not followed with the perpetrator’s symptoms being prioritised over addressing the underlying causes of his vulnerabilities.

“The reviewer ultimately found that while Prevent policy and guidance at the time was mostly followed, the case was exited from Prevent too quickly.”

The reviewer identified six issues:

• The support given did not tackle all the vulnerabilities identified;
• Record keeping was problematic and the rationale for certain decisions was not explicit;
• Responsibilities between police and the local authority were blurred;
• The tool used for identifying an individual’s vulnerability to radicalisation was outdated;
• The school that made the referral to Prevent should have been involved in discussions to help determine risk and appropriate support; and
• The tasking of the intervention provider was problematic, with a miscommunication leading to only one session being provided instead of two.

The reviewer recognised the “significant changes” that had been made to Prevent since the perpetrator was managed.

In particular, the introduction of the statutory Prevent and Channel duties under the Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015.

The reviewer concluded that over the intervening period there have been considerable changes to policy and guidance for both the police and the wider Prevent arena including Channel.

Prevent engagement

Ali was adopted to Channel after one referral from his school in 2014. He had a session with an Intervention Provider before being exited from Channel due to the counter-terrorism threat being assessed as low. There was no meaningful engagement with the State in the intervening period between his Channel case being closed and the murder of Sir David Amess.

Ali had no signs of mental ill-health, neurodivergence or wider safeguarding concerns. Ali was also an adult when he committed his offence.

Ali’s short engagement with the Channel programme was focused on his suspected Islamist extremist ideology, and he was assigned an Islamist Extremism specialist mentor to explore this further. In his trial, Ali indicated that he deliberately hid his views in his interactions with counter-terrorism police and his mentor to deceive them when he was on Channel.