A review of the handling of the killer of MP Sir David Amess under a government counter-terrorism programme has been branded “clearly inadequate” and “a paper exercise”.
His daughter Katie Amess, and former Southend West MP Anna Firth who has supported his family, heavily criticised the review of how terrorist murderer Ali Harbi Ali was dealt with under Prevent and Channel.
Police and local authority staff working on the scheme failed to discover that he had been radicalised online to become a supporter of so-called Islamic State who was plotting to kill.
The document published on Wednesday made reference to Ali wanting to move to a Muslim country, and believing that interest rates on student loans, co-education with women and music were against the principles of his religion.
But it was revealed at his murder trial at the Old Bailey that he had been radicalised over the internet between 2014 and 2016 and was an Isis sympathiser in the same year that he was referred to counter-terrorism scheme Prevent.
By 2016, when his risk of radicalisation was deemed to be low and his case was closed, he had already bought a large knife with which to carry out a terrorist atrocity, and eventually went on to use to murder Sir David.
Asked about the review, Miss Amess told the PA news agency: “It was literally going through paper trails and email logs. It’s a paper exercise. It doesn’t mean anything.
“We need an inquiry. We need answers. We need accountability.”
Repeating calls for a public inquiry into how Ali was dealt with, Ms Firth said: “The Prevent Learning Review while welcome, failed to compare what Prevent did against what the criminal trial revealed about the extent of Ali Harbi Ali’s radicalisation – i.e. by 2014 he wanted to join Isis and by 2017 he wanted to carry out an attack in the UK. This is clearly inadequate.
“It did, however, detail six different areas in which Prevent failed, including the damming admission that the perpetrator was discharged from Prevent too early.”
She added: “Despite the millions of pounds being spent on Prevent, it does not do what it says on the tin.
“These systemic issues need to be considered as part of a national inquiry to stop these mindless, devastating killings happening again.”
Ali had been referred to Prevent seven years before he killed the veteran MP on October 15 2021, but his case was closed in 2016.
The so-called Islamic State fanatic stabbed Sir David at his constituency surgery in Essex and was sentenced to a whole-life order in 2022.
The Government promised to publish the Prevent Learning Review after the report into Southport killer Axel Rudakubana’s handling by the programme was published last week.
Security minister Dan Jarvis told MPs on Wednesday of Ali’s case: “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.
“The reviewer ultimately found that while Prevent policy and guidance at the time was mostly followed, the case was exited from Prevent too quickly.”
Ali was first referred to Prevent by his school, Riddlesdown college, in October 2014, amid concerns over a change in his behaviour.
The learning review found that he “was an engaging student who had performed well at school and appeared to have a bright future”, but then “his demeanour, appearance and behaviour changed during his final two years at school”.
A month after the Prevent referral, in November 2014, he was moved on to the next stage of the anti-radicalisation scheme, Channel, working with experts in Islamist extremism.
By April 2015 he had exited Channel, when his risk of terrorism was assessed to be low.
One year later, he was again assessed as part of a police review and again his risk was found to be low, and his case was closed.
There were no further referrals to Prevent in the five years before Sir David’s murder in October 2021.
The report did not mention an interest in Isis, but instead said Ali was clearly considered vulnerable to radicalisation, with consideration given to him expressing listening to music and interest charged on student loans as against his religion.
Asked about his drop in studies, it also referred to his interest to travel to a more Islamic state so he could no longer live among unbelievers.
But the independent reviewer said while references were made to this during Ali’s interaction with Prevent and Channel there was no evidence of them being analysed and discussed as to how to appropriately address them.
Mr Jarvis told the Commons that the learning review found six issues, including “problematic” record keeping; the rationale for certain decisions not being explained; responsibilities between police and the local authority being blurred; an outdated tool for identifying vulnerability to radicalisation being used; a failure to involve the school who made the referral; and only one intervention session being provided instead of two.
He also said a number of issues in Ali’s case would “most likely not be repeated today” as the reviewer found “significant changes” had been made since his referral, such as the introduction of statutory duties for Prevent and Channel under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015.
But Mr Jarvis added there are still a number of areas that could require further work to prevent future failures and that four recommendations made from the report have been “fully implemented” by the Home Office and counter-terrorism policing.
These included a single national referral form to encourage a consistency in referrals and training for police for the intelligence check stage.
The review publication comes amid a call for Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to extend the Southport murders inquiry to include Sir David and possibly other victims who were failed by the Prevent programme.
