New Offence to Target Violence-Obsessed Suspects – What It Means for Justice

A new criminal offence is being proposed that could see individuals imprisoned for life—not for what they’ve done, but for what they’re accused of planning. This major shift in criminal justice is raising serious questions, particularly for those of us committed to defending fair trial rights and due process.

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has announced a proposed law that would allow police to prosecute individuals who are fixated on violence, even if they aren’t motivated by a recognised ideology such as religious or political extremism. The move follows last year’s horrific Southport attack, where Axel Rudakubana killed three young girls and injured ten others at a dance class.

What’s Changing in the Law?

At present, the law allows suspects to be charged with ‘preparation of terrorist acts’ if they’re found to be researching or planning an attack—but only if that planning is ideologically motivated. The proposed new offence would eliminate that requirement. Planning violence alone could now be grounds for prosecution, even without links to terrorism or extremist ideology.

This legislation is reportedly modelled on the existing terrorism laws introduced after the 7/7 London bombings. Those laws have been instrumental in disrupting terrorist plots—but they come with broad powers and serious implications for liberty. Extending similar powers to cases with no ideological element raises real concerns about overreach.

Why This Matters to Defence Lawyers—and the Public

Criminal defence solicitors must always be wary of legislation that allows punishment for thought or intention, rather than action. This law could see people prosecuted based on ambiguous behaviour—online searches, personal writings, or speculative planning—without any actual steps toward committing a crime.

Consider the case of Nicholas Prosper, mentioned by Cooper. He was jailed for murdering his family, but was also reportedly researching a school shooting. Under the proposed new offence, someone like him could face charges much earlier in the process—even if no other crime had taken place.

But how do we draw the line between a thought and a criminal act? Could a teenager browsing violent content online be considered a suspect? What if they’re mentally ill or simply curious? We risk criminalising behaviour that, while troubling, may not equate to criminal intent.

The Balancing Act: Safety vs Liberty

The government says the aim is to prevent atrocities before they happen. That’s a goal we all share. But laws must be precise and proportionate. Broad powers can lead to miscarriages of justice and discriminatory policing, particularly when applied to marginalised communities or vulnerable individuals.

In short, this proposed offence may represent a seismic shift in how we treat non-ideological violent threats—but it also raises serious legal and ethical questions that can’t be ignored.

As defence lawyers, we must remain vigilant. Preventing violence is critical—but so is protecting the rights of individuals not to be criminalised for mere suspicion, speculation, or mental health struggles.

Final Thoughts

Legislation must not trade away liberty for the illusion of security. We need clear, enforceable limits on these new powers and rigorous scrutiny of how they’re applied. Justice must remain balanced—even when public fear is high.

How We Can Help

If you have any questions or concerns regarding these changes then our team of experts are on-hand to answer your questions. Call us 0161 477 1121 or Message Us to speak to one of our team.