Southport stabbings: Axel Rudakubana received second longest sentence in history and UN prevents harsher punishment, says Downing Street

Published

5 months ago

January 25, 2025

admin

Southport child killer Axel Rudakubana received the second-longest life sentence in English history and the government does not ever want to see him released, Downing Street has said.

Sir Keir Starmer’s official spokesman said ministers “share the public’s disgust at [Rudakubana’s] barbaric crimes” but said imposing a whole life order (WLO) was not possible because of international law.

Politics Latest: Starmer ‘would welcome’ phone call with Trump

The 18-year-old was jailed for life with a minimum of 52 years on Thursday for the murder of Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine, Bebe King, six, and Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, in July last year at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class.

However, the sentence prompted calls for a change in the law on WLOs, which are usually only imposed on criminals aged 21 or over but can be considered for those aged 18 to 20 in exceptional circumstances.

WLOs ensure that an offender will die behind bars, whereas a life sentence imposes a minimum term that must be served in prison before they are eligible for parole, with convicts then remaining on licence if they are released.

Rudakubana was 17 when he launched the attack, and his sentence is the second-longest tariff on record after Hashem Abedi, the brother of Manchester Arena bomber Salman Abedi, Downing Street said.

Abedi was sentenced to at least 55 years in prison for his part in the bomb attack that killed 22 people – a life order not being possible at the time because he was under 21.

Reforms passed by the Tories extended WLOs to young killers aged 18 upwards at the time of the offence.

Downing Street said on Friday ministers were not looking at further changes, claiming they were prevented from doing so by UN laws.

The spokesman did not name which acts the government was bound by, but Article 37 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that people under 18 should not be imprisoned for life with no chance of ever being released.

He said the government did not want to see Rudakubana leave prison and it was “likely he will never be released”.

Baby serial killer Lucy Letby and Sarah Everad’s killer Wayne Couzens are among the 70 people currently serving WLOs.

Those calling for a change in the law include Patrick Hurley, the MP for Southport, who has asked the attorney general to review Rudakubana’s jail term under the unduly lenient sentence scheme.

Outrage over the case has also promoted calls from two Reform UK MPs, Lee Anderson and Rupert Lowe, to bring back the death sentence, which was abolished in the UK in 1969.

Number 10 said there were no plans to bring it back, citing parliamentary votes in recent history which have rejected capital punishment.

The government has launched an inquiry into the stabbings, which aims to give families “answers” about what happened in the lead-up to the attack.

The prime minister has also said he will look at changing the law to recognise the “new and dangerous threat” of lone attackers not driven by one ideology.

It has emerged that Rudakubana was referred to the government anti-extremism scheme – known as Prevent – three times before the murders due to a fixation with violence.

He was also in contact with the police, the courts, the youth justice system, social services and mental health services.

Earlier, the UK’s most senior police officer warned thousands of young men were obsessed with violence, and called for this to be looked at as part of the review.

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 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.

Judge Mr Justice Goose said he would have been given a whole life term if he had been nine days older.

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.

But he added: “His culpability for this extreme level of violence is equivalent in its seriousness to terrorist murders, whatever his purpose.”

Politics

What is a wealth tax, how would it work in the UK and where else has one?

Published

60 mins ago

July 9, 2025

admin

What is a wealth tax, how would it work in the UK and where else has one?

The idea of a wealth tax has raised its head – yet again – as the government attempts to balance its books.

Downing Street refused to rule out a wealth tax after former Labour leader Lord Kinnock told Sky News he thinks the government should introduce one.

Sir Keir Starmer’s spokesman said: “The prime minister has repeatedly said those with the broadest shoulders should carry the largest burden.”

While there has never been a wealth tax in the UK, the notion was raised under Rishi Sunak after the COVID years – and rejected – and both Harold Wilson’s and James Callaghan’s Labour governments in the 1970s seriously considered implementing one.

Sky News looks at what a wealth tax is, how it could work in the UK, and which countries already have one.

What is a wealth tax?

A wealth tax is aimed at reducing economic inequality to redistribute wealth and to raise revenue.

It is a direct levy on all, or most of, an individual’s, household’s or business’s total net wealth, rather than their income.

The tax typically includes the total market value of assets, including savings, investments, property and other forms of wealth – minus a person’s debts.

Unlike capital gains tax, which is paid when an asset is sold at a profit, a wealth tax is normally an annual charge based on the value of assets owned, even if they are not sold.

A one-off wealth tax, often used after major crises, could also be an option to raise a substantial amount of revenue in one go.

How could it work in the UK?

Advocates of a UK wealth tax, including Lord Kinnock, have proposed an annual 2% tax on wealth above £10m.

Wealth tax campaign group Tax Justice UK has calculated this would affect about 20,000 people – fewer than 0.04% of the population – and raise £24bn a year.

Because of how few people would pay it, Tax Justice says that would make it easy for HMRC to collect the tax.

The group proposes people self-declare asset values, backed up by a compliance team at HMRC who could have a register of assets.

Which countries have or have had a wealth tax?

In 1990, 12 OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries had a net wealth tax, but just four have one now: Colombia, Norway, Spain and Switzerland.

France and Italy levy wealth taxes on selected assets.

Colombia

Since 2023, residents in the South American country are subject to tax on their worldwide wealth, but can exclude the value of their household up to 509m pesos (£92,500).

The tax is progressive, ranging from a 0.5% rate to 1.5% for the most wealthy until next year, then 1% for the wealthiest from 2027.

Norway

There is a 0.525% municipal wealth tax for individuals with net wealth exceeding 1.7m kroner (about £125,000) or 3.52m kroner (£256,000) for spouses.

Norway also has a state wealth tax of 0.475% based on assets exceeding a net capital tax basis of 1.7m kroner (£125,000) or 3.52m kroner (£256,000) for spouses, and 0.575% for net wealth in excess of 20.7m kroner (£1.5m).

The maximum combined wealth tax rate is 1.1%.

The Norwegian Labour coalition government also increased dividend tax to 20% in 2023, and with the wealth tax, it prompted about 80 affluent business owners, with an estimated net worth of £40bn, to leave Norway.

Spain

Residents in Spain have to pay a progressive wealth tax on worldwide assets, with a €700,000 (£600,000) tax free allowance per person in most areas and homes up to €300,000 (£250,000) tax exempt.

The progressive rate goes from 0.2% for taxable income for assets of €167,129 (£144,000) up to 3.5% for taxable income of €10.6m (£9.146m) and above.

It has been reported that more than 12,000 multimillionaires have left Spain since the government introduced the higher levy at the end of 2022.

Switzerland

All of the country’s cantons (districts) have a net wealth tax based on a person’s taxable net worth – different to total net worth.

It takes into account the balance of an individual’s worldwide gross assets, including bank account balances, bonds, shares, life insurances, cars, boats, properties, paintings, jewellery – minus debts.

Switzerland also works on a progressive rate, ranging from 0.3% to 0.5%, with a relatively low starting point at which people are taxed on their wealth, such as 50,000 CHF (£46,200) in several cantons.

Politics

Jingye and Whitehall officials hold talks over British Steel future

Published

4 hours ago

July 9, 2025

admin

Jingye and Whitehall officials hold talks over British Steel future

The Chinese owner of British Steel has held fresh talks with government officials in a bid to break the impasse over ministers’ determination not to compensate it for seizing control of the company.

Sky News has learnt that executives from Jingye Group met senior civil servants from the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) late last week to discuss ways to resolve the standoff.

Whitehall sources said the talks had been cordial, but that no meaningful progress had been made towards a resolution.

Money blog: €1 home goes on sale – but there are T&Cs

Jingye wants the government to agree to pay it hundreds of millions of pounds for taking control of British Steel in April – a move triggered by the Chinese group’s preparations for the permanent closure of its blast furnaces in Scunthorpe.

Such a move would have cost thousands of jobs and ended Britain’s centuries-old ability to produce virgin steel.

Jingye had been in talks for months to seek £1bn in state aid to facilitate the Scunthorpe plant’s transition to greener steelmaking, but was offered just half that sum by ministers.

British Steel has not yet been formally nationalised, although that remains a probable outcome.

Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, has previously dismissed the idea of compensating Jingye, saying British Steel’s equity was essentially worthless.

Last month, he met his Chinese counterpart, where the issue of British Steel was discussed between the two governments in person for the first time.

Jingye has hired the leading City law firm Linklaters to explore the recovery of hundreds of millions of pounds it invested in the Scunthorpe-based company before the government seized control of it.

News of last week’s meeting comes as British steelmakers face an anxious wait to learn whether their exports to the US face swingeing tariffs as part of US President Donald Trump’s trade war.

Sky News’s economics and data editor, Ed Conway, revealed this week that the UK would miss a White House-imposed deadline to agree a trade deal on steel and aluminium this week.

Jingye declined to comment, while a spokesman for the Department for Business and Trade said: “We acted quickly to ensure the continued operations of the blast furnaces but recognise that securing British Steel’s long-term future requires private sector investment.

“We have not nationalised British Steel and are working closely with Jingye on options for the future, and we will continue work on determining the best long-term sustainable future for the site.”