Southport stabbings - sentencing

Would you agree to the mental health act being rewritten to protect young children from evil Louisa1523?

Yes the parents were alarmed but ignored as far as events would indicate eazybee. I don’t believe that the parents tried to evade responsibility but the way mental health services are structured in the UK needs very careful examination and improvement. My reading is that the parents had their concerns ignored.

Oreo

What I don’t understand is tho is why he won’t be sent to Broadmoor . He’s clearly not right mentally.
People like Ian Brady were sent there as mentally ill for what he did ( and was he or simply an unspeakable sadist?)
This was an attack with no motive really other than a desire to kill.

Because he's not mentally ill ...just evil

Do you know that the parents were alarmed but ignored?
You must be aware of parents who raise concerns but refuse to accept their child's problems, refusing to follow professional advice and blaming other adults for the problems. I was involved in a case where a disruptive 11 year old threatened to knife another child, who reported it to staff; his bag was searched and a knife was found; the father then insisted the school had planted it because they had a down on him. Two years later, arrested for an attempted break-in with violence at a post office. Father then threw him out.

ronib

It’s time to reassess the delivery of mental health care. The system needs to change so that ill people are treated in a better way to protect both themselves and the public. Something isn’t right here.

Who is mentally ill?

My latest reading suggests that Alder Hey Children’s Hospital were seeing AR from 2019 until 2023 at which point he was discharged from the service because of disengagement. This feels very wrong but as Iam64 best wait for the inquiry. So far I have been very surprised and disappointed by comments from both Badenoch and Cooper who seem poorly informed.

Thank you Iam for adding that important information.

ronib

nightowl how exactly do you assess a young person when even parents were alarmed but ignored? Parents will understand what a young person is suffering and need to be heard when talking to psychiatrists. A person under the age of 18 is still under parental supervision and doctors are required to communicate with them.

All the agencies were required to communicate with his parents. It’s seems as nightowl states, that despite concerns, neither parents or agencies requested a MHAct assessment to consider a Section. I’ve seen no reference either to him being considered for a Secure Accommodation Order which is the other route to deprive a young person of their liberty in the absence of criminal conviction. As with MHAct, SAO can onky be made if the young person is considered a risk to themselves or others. In the case of Secure, a judge or magistrate makes the decision. Parents / guardians and the young person have to be advised of the application and their views considered.
Hopefully the inquiry will answer the questions

You’re right, if a MHA assessment is triggered, the professionals have to communicate with the person’s ’nearest relative’ (strictly defined in the Act) which in his case would be the older of his parents.

It’s a good question ronib but without knowing exactly what happened when the parents raised concerns no one can say. He appears to have been known to CAMHS but stopped engaging in 2023. They could have requested a MH Act assessment (to consider a section) - or one could have been arranged in response to the parents’ concerns. I can’t see it reported anywhere that a MHAct assessment took place - perhaps one did but it seems not, as far as we know. That could be a startling error, or it could be that there was no evidence he had a mental disorder driving his behaviour at that point.

The fact that he will have been assessed multiple times following the murders and still gone firmly down the criminal justice route seems to indicate that the experts do not consider he has a serious mental disorder - hard to believe maybe but only the Inquiry can tell us more.

I think this is a good article

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/23/southport-attack-violence-axel-rudakubana-social-care-justice

To communicate with parents

nightowl how exactly do you assess a young person when even parents were alarmed but ignored? Parents will understand what a young person is suffering and need to be heard when talking to psychiatrists. A person under the age of 18 is still under parental supervision and doctors are required to communicate with them.

Of course it is ronib but only if they have a mental disorder or need assessment for such. You can’t section someone you suspect might be dangerous without this pre-requisite. I was an AMHP (Approved Mental Health Professional) until 2012 so I do know the Mental Heath Act (although rusty).

It is perfectly possible to section someone without their consent or engagement if it’s likely that they are a danger to others or themselves. Didn’t parents raise concerns and were ignored?

Prior to this truly horrific crime, he hadn’t done anything to justify locking him up for life or even a long period. He hadn’t engaged with mental health services - many young men don’t.

As someone pointed out earlier, he will have been assessed by numerous doctors, including forensic psychiatrists throughout this whole process and mental disorder has not been given as a mitigating factor. He could only have gone to Broadmoor or similar under a Section 37 hospital order; instead he was given a life sentence in prison. He could go to hospital at any point if he is assessed as mentally unwell but this has not happened at this stage.

It appears that this person was obsessed with genocide, in particular the genocide that took place in his parents home country, Rwanda. My own grandmother regularly spoke of how WW1 affected her family with two of her brothers killed, and so I think it likely that the genocide in Rwanda would have been mentioned as this boy grew up, and any family left in Rwanda would have been spoken of. Assuming that this is the case, and it would be in most families, how might this have affected him. Apparently he also showed obsessive interest in Somalian massacres and groups such as Al Qaeda.

It’s all speculation off course, with some correct information thrown into the mix, because we find his behaviour inexplicable, especially I suppose from the child of asylum seekers, who would be relieved and happy to be living here. The parents appear to have assimilated successfully, as has the brother, so what went wrong with him?

Oh I agree it seems there were massive failures from what we are hearing, I think for some people the only intervention that will keep other people safe is incarceration, wherever that may be.

There was no treatment plan. I don’t agree with you Galaxy. In any case the basics of the Mental Health Act were not applied.

I am not arguing for non intervention I am saying in some cases it will make zero difference, it is naive to believe otherwise.

Galaxy try thinking about the consequences of non intervention!

I am not sure it as straightforward as that. Some people are very dangerous, all the intervention in the world wont change that.

nanna8 according to your logic then it’s cheaper to deliver effective mental healthcare than deliver life imprisonment. It’s a pity we don’t make it easier for young people in particular to get medical treatment.

It was an attack that was planned and he was likely planning to do something even worse with ricin production. He should be locked up and they should throw away the key. I doubt he gives a toss about the cruelty of his actions, he is inhuman. The only regret is that his stay in prison will be paid for by taxpayers, that just doesn’t sit right.

It’s time to reassess the delivery of mental health care. The system needs to change so that ill people are treated in a better way to protect both themselves and the public. Something isn’t right here.