The 52-year prison sentence of Axel Rudakubana is to be reviewed following complaints it was “unduly lenient”.

Southport’s MP Patrick Hurley was among those calling for a longer term on Thursday after the 18-year-old was jailed for murdering Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine, Bebe King, six, and Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, in July last year.

The Labour backbencher said: “In my view, the sentence passed is unduly lenient. The crimes he committed were horrific and natural justice demands he spends the rest of his life behind bars.

“I have therefore made a request to the attorney general to have the sentence reviewed urgently, with a view to making sure he is never released. My community deserves nothing less.”

The Attorney General’s Office later confirmed the case had been referred under the unduly lenient sentence (ULS) scheme, which requires just one request in order for punishments handed out in court to be reconsidered.

A spokesperson said: “There is a high threshold for a successful ULS reference. The sentence must be not just lenient but unduly so, for example if the sentencing judge made a gross error or imposed a sentence outside the range of sentences reasonably available in the circumstances of the offence.”

Attorney General Lord Hermer and Solicitor General Lucy Rigby now have 28 days to decide whether to refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal for further consideration.

Rudakubana was sentenced after earlier pleading guilty to the murders, along with the attempted murders of eight other children, who cannot be named for legal reasons, class instructor Leanne Lucas and businessman John Hayes.

He was also convicted of having a knife, which he had bought on Amazon, on the date of the killings, production of the deadly poison ricin, and possessing information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing to commit an act of terrorism.

His 52-year minimum term is thought to be the longest imposed on a killer of his age. Once the minimum term is reached, he would be subjected to a Parole Board review before he could ever be considered for release.

Because he carried out the crimes just nine days short of his 18th birthday, it means by law he could not be sentenced to a whole life order, which would mean he would never be released from jail.

This tariff is usually only imposed on criminals aged 21 or over but can be considered for those aged 18 to 20 in exceptional circumstances.

Read more:
Police investigation continues
The 14 minutes of terror
Victim’s parents describe horror

Describing the minimum sentence as “substantial”, Mr Justice Goose, sentencing at Liverpool Crown Court on Thursday, said he would serve “almost the whole of his life in custody”.

He added: “I consider at this time that it is likely that he will never be released and that he will be in custody for all his life.”

The judge also said he “must accept” that the prosecution had made it clear the attack did not meet the legal definition of an act of terrorism because there was no evidence of attempting to advance a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

A parent of one of the children who survived the attack, who cannot be named, told The Sun the crimes were so horrific the killer should “rot in jail” and the “law needs changing”.

Mr Hurley said he supported demands for a law change, as did Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, who said there was a “strong case” for amending the law to allow for whole life orders to be imposed on people aged under 18 in some cases.

Downing Street declined to comment when earlier asked about the proposal.

A record number of children are living in B&Bs beyond the legal limit as England’s homelessness crisis pushes councils to breaking point.

MPs said there is a “dire need” for housing reform, with the lack of affordable homes forcing cash-strapped local authorities to haemorrhage their funds on temporary accommodation.

The “crisis situation” means there is less money in the pot to focus on homelessness prevention, the cross-party Public Accounts Committee (PAC) said.

Councils are instead having to prioritise short-term solutions which can include putting families in bed and breakfasts – the fastest rising temporary accommodation type over the past decade, a Sky News analysis of government data found.

Temporary accommodation is meant to be a short-term solution for people who are homeless while they wait for more suitable and long-term housing options.

But the rising number of homeless households in England, driven by a shortage of social or otherwise affordable housing to move on to, means that increasingly this fix is anything but temporary.

A recent Sky News investigation found that children in some parts of England are spending as long as five-and-a-half years on average in temporary accommodation.

Length of stay has increased significantly in many areas since 2021, with particularly long stays in London and the South East.

B&B use was the fastest rising temporary accommodation type over the past decade, rising fourfold from 4,400 households in 2014 to a record high of 18,400 by 2024, according to government figures.

The data shows 6,000 of these households included children, of which two in three had been living there for longer than the 6-week legal limit.

All of this is cripplingly expensive for councils. B&Bs, meant to be reserved for emergencies only, were the largest single spending category in council homelessness budgets in 2024, at £723.9m.

This is more than triple the amount spent in 2014, which was £218m adjusted for inflation.

Overall, temporary accommodation costs to local authorities have risen from more than £1.6bn in 2022-23 to around £2.1bn in 2023-24, the PAC said.

‘Crisis situation’

The PAC is calling for a clear strategy and stronger support for local authorities to address what it called “a crisis situation”.

Despite there being an overarching homelessness strategy for each of the devolved nations, England does not have one.

Committee chairman Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown said this had left local authorities “attempting to save a sinking ship with a little more than a leaky bucket”.

Read More:
Mum-of-three left homeless after reporting threats to police
National scandal’ as number of children living in temporary accommodation reaches record high

MPs also urged the government to justify its Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rates, which calculate housing benefit for tenants renting from private landlords.

The committee said 45% of households in receipt of the benefit face a shortfall between what they receive from the government and what they are being asked to pay in rent, and the issue is “exacerbated by the lack of affordable housing”.

The government has pledged to build 1.5 million homes by the end of this parliament, but it has not set a target of how many of them will be classed as affordable.

Sir Geoffrey said: “My committee is deeply concerned by the number of people currently being housed in sub-standard, overpriced and at times, wholly inappropriate accommodation, sometimes a long way from their previous home.

“A lack of affordable housing, a focus on short-term solutions and no clear strategy to tackle this issue have left us with thousands of families in deeply troubling circumstances.”

He added: “Local authorities find themselves at breaking point as they haemorrhage funds to cover the rising costs of housing families in temporary accommodation.

“We are calling for an overarching strategy that addresses the need for better connectivity across government departments to tackle the root causes of this crisis.

“Without one, we fear this will remain an issue into which money is simply poured, without effectively tackling the blight of homelessness.”

From shattering the record for most executive orders signed on a first day in office, a bishop imploring him to have mercy on immigrants and LGBTQ+ people, Melania’s hat and Mark Zuckerberg’s wandering eye – the first few days of Trump 2.0 has been not just the talk of the town in Washington DC, but in Westminster too.

President Trump himself said as he took the mantle of 47th president of the United States that he wants to make his second term “the most consequential in US history”.

What is becoming even more clear as campaigning gives way to governing is that Trump 2.0 could prove vastly consequential for us too.

👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈

Talk to those around Whitehall and in the government, and there is a quiet acknowledgement of the ill-wind that is blowing from America towards liberals like Sir Keir Starmer as President Trump pulls out of climate accords, ramps up the war on purging government workers in diversity, equity and inclusion roles, and begins to roll out an aggressive immigration crackdown from mass deportations to a broad ban on asylum.

But what you will see in the coming weeks, is a pointed effort on the part of the government to neither comment nor engage on US domestic issues. This is likely to infuriate liberals and progressives both in the Labour Party and voter base, but when it comes to Trump 2.0 pragmatism reigns.

This is partly, say those in government, because of the difference in the win this time around.

Trump not only won the Electoral College, he won the popular vote – the first time a Republican candidate has won both in 20 years – and control of the House of Representatives and Senate. That gives a legitimacy and power that he didn’t have last time around and that momentum looks set to stay, at least until the mid-terms in two years’ time.

It is also because the Labour government, and wider Europe, needs Trump onside.

On the big issues facing the government, the US looms large, be it on economic growth – tariffs and trade deals – or security – Ukraine and the Middle East.

Whether you love or loathe Donald Trump, the decisions he takes on how to handle Israel, Gaza and Iran or bring about peace in Ukraine matters to us, and that means pragmatism must reign and punches pulled when it comes to the deep ideological divisions that are so obvious between Donald Trump’s politics and that of Keir Starmer.

We are entering more turbulent times and one very senior political figure admits it is going to be “rocky”.

They say this is because we find ourselves in a period where the organising principle for western foreign policy – the rules-based international order – is in quick retreat, as the US and Europe struggle to contain territorial and political ambitions of authoritarian countries like Russia and China.

Tricky terrain to navigate, the four priorities Starmer will want to try to land with President Trump when he gets an audience in the coming weeks are – Ukraine, the Middle East, tariffs and trade.

On the first, the contours of a plan are being discussed but the challenge is to get Putin to the negotiating table.

Russia, aware that President Trump is unwilling to keep pouring military aid into Ukraine, will want to carry on for as long as possible.

The task for allies is to persuade President Trump to go in hard on Putin so he is forced to the table in a position of discomfort.

We saw some of this from President Trump this week as he warned Putin of punishing sanctions on Russia should Moscow refuse to negotiate.

But there will be demands for Ukraine too, not least an expectation from President Trump that in return for US military support, President Zelenskyy must send younger Ukrainian men to the battlefield and lower the conscription age from 25 to perhaps as young as 18.

This will be incredibly difficult for President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people who have already sacrificed so much in a war they did not ask for and didn’t want.

As part of any ceasefire deal, expect the UK to be involved in a European peacekeeping force.

Expect too for Trump to ramp up pressure on NATO countries to boost defence spending from 2% of GDP to 3% or more (Trump called for the defence spend baseline of NATO members to be 5% in recent weeks).

Needless to say, the US’s handling of the Ukraine war and our role in that will be critical to not just our foreign policy, but national conversation in the coming months.

When it comes to the Middle East, the situation is trickier still.

I’m told there is some concern with the Foreign Office that Israel could make the case to Trump that the depletion of Iran’s proxies – Hezbollah and Hamas – make this a moment to target Iran.

There is nervousness that Trump, who has long made his acute dislike of Iran clear (last time around he abandoned the Obama nuclear deal with Tehran), buys into that and escalates a wider conflict in the region.

Even the risk of the US green-lighting a direct attack from Israel on Iran will only serve to accelerate Tehran’s nuclear programme.

Where Starmer is hoping to make some progress is on trade.

President Trump, a big Brexit and Boris Johnson backer, talked up a US-UK trade deal in his first term, only for President Biden to put it on the backburner.

Now, the UK government is hoping there will be some sectoral deals in which our two countries can improve trading relations in return for the UK offering President Trump perhaps assurances around his security concerns regarding China (you might remember back in 2020, pressure from the US prompted the the government to U-turn on allowing Huawei to have a role in its new generation of 5G networks).

How this plays out, even as the Labour government looks to build trading ties with Beijing, will be something to watch.

One obvious question will be – can the UK benefit from renewed UK-China trade ties without annoying Trump?

The final big issue for the UK is tariffs, but for now it doesn’t look like Trump is taking aim at the UK.

Instead, he has this week announced he’s considering imposing a 10% tariff on Chinese-made imports as soon as 1 February.

Starmer needs it to stay that way, given his plan for “national renewal” hinges on economic growth – which is looking precarious even without the prospect of tariffs on exports to the US.

Analysts had warned that a blanket 10% tariff could cost British industry $3bn (£2.5bn) a year, with cars, aerospace, pharmaceuticals and machinery among the sectors to be hardest hit.

One area where the government is more quietly confident is on the matter of its pick for ambassador, Lord Mandelson.

While rumours have been flying around that the architect of New Labour and former EU trade commissioner might get vetoed by President Trump, sources in government expect him to be appointed, and believe his nous as a political operator, coupled with his expertise in trade negotiations, make him a good choice.

But the bigger question is whether he can become a Trump whisperer in replacing current ambassador, Karen Pierce, who is well-regarded and liked by the Trump team.

How to handle Trump will undoubtedly be a test for Starmer, not just in his direct dealing but in the ripple effects of the Trump White House on British politics and his own supporters.

What goes in his favour is that he deals in facts not emotions, so is unlikely to be ruffled with whatever Trump and his allies throw at him.

His bigger challenge will perhaps be keeping the rest of his party in line when he wants pragmatism rather than principle to rule the special relationship.