The British laws that limit what the police can say about criminal cases “is not suitable for the era of social media,” said a government committee in a report published on Monday in Great Britain which highlighted how much the uncontrolled disinformation fueled the disorders last summer.
The violent disorder, fed by the far right, hit several cities for days after a teenager killed three girls on July 29 in a SWIFT themed dance lesson in Southport, England. In the hours following the stabs, false statements that the striker was a Muslim immigrant without documents spread rapidly online.
In a relationship that examines the unrest, a parliamentary committee stated that the lack of information from the authorities after the attack “created a void in which the disinformation was able to grow”. The report has blamed the ten -year British laws, aimed at preventing prejudices of the jury, who prevented the police from correcting false statements.
When the police announced that the suspicion was of British origin, those false statements had reached millions.
The internal business committee, which brings together legislators of all the political spectrum, has published its report after questioning the police heads, government officials and emergency operators for four months of auditions.
Axel Rudakubana, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for the attack, was born and raised in Great Britain by a Christian family from Rwanda. A judge later discovered that there were no evidence that he was led by a single political or religious ideology, but was obsessed with violence.
Karen Bradley, the conservative party legislator who guides the internal business committee, said that “actors in bad faith” exploited the attack. But he added that a lack of accurate information allowed the lies to proliferate.
“He could not disclose information to the public,” he said, “false statements filled the gap and flower online, further undermining trust in the police and public authorities”.
The Committee report identified two false statements that were shared on X. One, published about two hours after the attack, said that the suspicion was a “Muslim immigrant”. Has received over 3.8 million views.
The second, published about five hours later, falsely suggested that the suspect was an asylum seeker called “Ali-Ali-Shakati” who was in a “guard list”. The post received around 27 million views on X within one day. The Merseyside police, the local force investigating the attack, did not announce that the name was wrong until noon of July 30th.
Hours later, the first revolt broke out in Southport. The disorder has continued in several cities and many protests have targeted mosques and hotels that host asylum seekers. Two buildings were set on fire while people were inside. More than 300 police officers were injured during the riots and the response cost about 28 million pounds to the police, or about $ 36 million, says the report.
He added that the Merseyside police “was put in a very difficult position” because it was legally prohibited to reveal the identity of the suspicion and received “inconsistent advice” from ministries public on the fact that they could confirm that it was not Muslim.
The committee report recognized that it was impossible to determine “if the disorder could have been prevented if more information had been published”.
But he concluded that the lack of information after the stab “created a void in which the disinformation was able to grow, further undermining the trust of the public” and that the law on contempt was not “suitable for the era of social media”.
In Great Britain, a law prohibits the name of suspicions under 18 years unless a judge makes an exception. Mr. Rudakubana was 17 years old at the time of the attack. Another law, designed to protect the right to a fair process, prohibits the publication of information that could influence a jury. This rule, part of the contempt of the 1981 court, is revoked once an accused is declared guilty or innocent.
Serena Kennedy, the main Merseyside agent, told the committee that the police revealed on the evening of July 29 that the striker was born in Wales, but the disinformation was already proliferated.
Mrs. Kennedy said she had planned to announce two days after clarifying that Mr. Rudakubana was not Muslim and that his parents were Christians. After informing the crown judicial service, the body that brings criminal accusations to England, an official told her that the information should not be made public, he said.
“This case highlights the reason why we must examine how we manage the public to the public, assuming us at the same time that we do not have an impact on the process for criminal justice,” said Kennedy, adding that the laws of contempt does not “take into account where we are in terms of impact of social media”.
In a declaration, the Crown ProsCuical Service said that although an official expressed “different opinions” on the dissemination of the religion of Mr. Rudakubana did not tell the police that he would distort a jury.
The declaration added: “We support the proposals for the reform of the law that will make the application of the law of contempt clearer and simpler, especially if connected to high issues of general public interest such as public security or national security”.
From the attack of Southport, the legal commission of England and Wales has conducted a revision of the contempt of the court.