Southport Inquiry: attack "could and should" have been prevented
The report has looked into the events which led up to the murders of three girls at a dance class in July 2024
Last updated 13th Apr 2026
The first phase of the inquiry into the Southport attack has found the deaths of three young girls "could and should" have been prevented.
The investigation examined the events leading up to the brutal murders of Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine, Elsie Stancombe, seven, and Bebe King, six, on 29 July 2024.
Delivering his findings at Liverpool Town Hall, chair Sir Adrian Fulford said: "This terrible event could have been - and should have been - prevented."
He continued: “Today is in recognition of Elsie, Bebe and Alice, of those who were physically and psychologically injured, and to the families whose lives have been irreparably changed.
"Our work has been to establish a clear, unflinching account of how such an appalling event occurred, and what must change to ensure it is never repeated.”
The inquiry has also criticised the parents of the killer, referred to as AR, for not reporting crucial information about their son to the authorities in the days before the attack.
Report identifies "five major areas of systemic failure"
The report has identified a number of failings by agencies who dealt with the killer, AR, in the months and years before he carried out his atrocity.
They include:
Absence of risk ownership: No agency or multi-agency structure accepted responsibility for assessing and managing the grave risk posed by the perpetrator.
Critical failures in information sharing: Essential information was repeatedly lost, diluted or poorly managed across agencies.
Misunderstanding of autism: AR’s conduct was wrongly attributed to his autism spectrum disorder, leading to inaction and a failure to address dangerous behaviours.
Lack of oversight of online activity: AR’s online behaviour, which provided the clearest indications of his violent preoccupations, was never meaningfully examined.
Significant parental failures: AR’s parents did not provide boundaries, permitted knives and weapons to be delivered to the home, and failed to report crucial information in the days leading up to the attack.
The Chair stated: “AR’s trajectory towards grave violence was signposted repeatedly and unambiguously. Yet the systems and agencies responsible for safeguarding the public did not act with the cohesion, urgency or clarity required.”
He added: “If the full extent of AR’s family’s concerns had been shared with authorities in late July 2024 – including on the day of the attack – it is almost certain this tragedy would have been prevented.”
Killer had "longstanding" fixation with violence
The report has also examined the personality of AR, and what may have motivated him to carry out his attack.
It found the then 17-year-old had a "longstanding fixation with violence, fuelled by unsupervised access to disturbing online material".
There were also "patterns of behaviour that were known to multiple agencies."
The Chair stated: “Agencies repeatedly passing the risk to others and closing or downgrading their own involvement is not effective, or responsible, risk management.
"If, as a society, we are to avoid repetition of what happened in AR’s case, this culture has to end.
"This is the single most important conclusion of Phase 1 of this report.
"This failure lies at the heart of why AR was able to mount the attack, despite so many warning signs of his capacity for fatal violence.”
“I have made a number of recommendations in this report. Some of these recommendations are urgent; others will require longer-term structural reform.
"But all share a single purpose: to reduce the risk of another young person following a similar path to catastrophic violence.”
A second phase of the inquiry, looking at how services deal with young people who fixate on extreme violence, will begin later this year.