Veteran MP's killer had Prevent case closed ‘too quickly'

Yahoo

12-02-2025

A review into the handling of MP Sir David Amess's murderer under the Government's counter-terror programme Prevent found assessments were 'problematic' and his case was closed too early, security minister Dan Jarvis has told MPs.
Ali Harbi 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 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.
Mr 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 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.
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for certain decisions not being explained; responsibilities between police and the local authority being blurred; an outdated tool for identifying vulnerability to radicalisation being used; a failure to involve the school who made the referral; and only one intervention session being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.