Southport murders — Inquiry process, legal duties and policy implications explained

The Southport Inquiry was launched in response to one of the most harrowing incidents in recent UK history — the murder of three young girls during a children’s dance class in July 2024. The attack exposed potential failings in the UK’s safeguarding and counter-extremism systems. 

In January 2025, the perpetrator was sentenced to a minimum of 52 years in prison after pleading guilty to multiple charges including murder, attempted murder and terrorism offences.

In the aftermath, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper commissioned a statutory public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. The Inquiry aims to uncover the facts, identify any institutional failings and recommend reforms to prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the future.

Here, Georgina Rothwell from our specialist public inquiries team explains how the Southport Inquiry is structured, the questions it’s expected to answer and the likely legal and policy implications it may have.

Structure & process

The Inquiry is being conducted in two phases. The first — which began in April 2025 — focuses on the immediate circumstances of the attack. This includes the actions of the Police, emergency services and other public bodies that had prior contact with the perpetrator. The second phase — expected to commence in autumn 2025 — will examine broader systemic issues such as youth radicalisation, the effectiveness of the Prevent programme and inter-agency safeguarding protocols.

The process for the Inquiry follows a structured legal framework that began with preliminary hearings to establish procedural rules and designate core participants. Evidence is currently being gathered through document disclosure, witness statements and expert reports. Public hearings are also being held to allow witnesses to give oral evidence under oath, with legal representatives permitted to cross-examine. The Inquiry will conclude with a final report — expected in early 2026 — which will include findings of fact and recommendations for reform. 

Participants & roles

Several key institutions and individuals have been designated as core participants. These include the families of the victims, Merseyside Police, Lancashire Constabulary, the Home Office, Prevent programme officials and local safeguarding boards. Each participant is expected to provide evidence and respond to questions relevant to their role in the events leading up to the attack.

In addition to the designated core participants, the Southport Inquiry is drawing on evidence from a wider network of public bodies and institutions that had contact with the perpetrator prior to the attack. These non-core participants include organisations such as MI5, Counter-Terrorism Policing, NHS England, local education providers, youth offending teams and mental health services. While not formally granted core participant status at this time, these bodies will be expected to provide documents, internal communications and witness statements. In some cases, individuals from these organisations may also be called to give oral testimony. 

The Inquiry’s ability to compel evidence ensures that even non-core participants are subject to rigorous scrutiny and held to the same standards of transparency and accountability as core participants.

Lines of inquiry & anticipated questions

Each core participant will face detailed scrutiny tailored to their responsibilities. While the Inquiry hasn’t yet confirmed the full scope of its questioning, it’s expected that both core participants and relevant non-core institutions will be subject to detailed scrutiny aligned with their statutory responsibilities and operational involvement. 

The potential lines of inquiry and thematic areas that may be explored — based on the Inquiry’s stated remit and the public interest concerns raised to date — include:

Police operational response

The Police may be asked to account for their operational response to the incident, any prior intelligence on the perpetrator and whether any opportunities for intervention were missed. The Inquiry will likely examine how information was shared between Merseyside Police and Lancashire Constabulary and whether protocols were followed.

Prevent referral handling

Prevent Programme Officials are likely to face questions regarding the handling of multiple referrals concerning the perpetrator. The Inquiry may explore the adequacy of risk assessments, the decision-making process behind non-escalation and the governance and oversight structures in place at the time. It’s also possible that the Inquiry will consider whether Prevent officers were sufficiently trained and resourced to manage emerging threats.

Safeguarding arrangements

Local Authorities and Safeguarding Boards may be required to explain their role in multi-agency safeguarding arrangements. The Inquiry could investigate whether concerns were raised by social care or youth services, how those concerns were managed and whether statutory duties under the Children Act 1989 and associated safeguarding guidance were met.

National safeguarding and counter-extremism policies

The Home Office and Ministry of Justice are expected to be examined in relation to their oversight of national safeguarding and counter-extremism policy. Potential areas of focus include funding allocations, the effectiveness of interdepartmental coordination and whether lessons from previous incidents or inquiries were adequately implemented.

Teacher concerns

Schools and education providers — although not designated as core participants — may be examined on whether any safeguarding concerns were identified by staff, whether referrals were made to Prevent or social services and how those referrals were handled. It may also consider the adequacy of training provided to staff on identifying radicalisation risks and the effectiveness of communication between schools and external safeguarding bodies.

Victim testimony

The families of the victims will have the opportunity to provide testimony regarding their experiences and their views on institutional responses. Their evidence is expected to be central to the Inquiry’s understanding of the human impact of systemic failings and will likely inform its recommendations for reform.

Legal & policy implications

The Inquiry is expected to examine whether public bodies failed in their legal obligations under Article 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to take reasonable steps to prevent the attack. This may involve assessing whether there were sufficient warning signs, whether those signs were appropriately escalated and whether inter-agency communication and safeguarding mechanisms were fit for purpose. If the Inquiry concludes that the state failed to discharge its duty to protect life, it could amount to a finding of a substantive breach of Article 2.

Beyond human rights considerations, the Inquiry will likely explore compliance with statutory duties under the Children Act 1989, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 and associated safeguarding frameworks. It may also assess the adequacy of training, oversight and governance structures within the Prevent programme and related safeguarding bodies.

Without wishing to pre-judge the outcome of the Inquiry, its final report is likely to recommend reforms to the Prevent programme, enhanced safeguarding duties, improved inter-agency communication and strengthened accountability mechanisms for public bodies. Whatever the findings, they may have far-reaching implications for public authorities, legal practitioners and policymakers.

Critical moment for legal reform

The Southport Inquiry represents a critical moment for public accountability and legal reform in the UK. As the Inquiry progresses, it’ll provide valuable insights into the strengths and weaknesses of the current safeguarding and counter-extremism frameworks and offer a path forward to ensure that such a tragedy is never repeated. 

For individuals, families and organisations involved in public inquiries — whether as core participants, witnesses or affected parties — the process can be complex, sensitive and mentally and legally demanding. 

Our specialist public inquiries team is comprised of highly specialist lawyers with decades of experience in advising clients on all aspects of statutory inquiries, including representation, disclosure obligations and reputational risk. 

If you need advice or representation in connection with a public inquiry or related legal matter, get in touch with us today for a confidential consultation.