Volume 1 of the Southport Inquiry’s Phase 1 report (the ‘Inquiry’) identifies ‘fundamental problems’ in how agencies understood and managed the risk posed by the perpetrator (‘AR’). For youth justice, the core lesson is that escalating risk cannot be managed safely where responsibility is unclear or repeatedly ‘handed off’ between agencies.
Details
The Inquiry found a ‘fundamental failure’ by any organisation or multi-agency arrangement to take ownership of the risk AR posed, resulting in a ‘disturbing lack of clarity’ about which agency (if any) was leading. In particular, the Inquiry identified the following key failures:
- Poor information management and sharing: the Inquiry identified poor information management and sharing between agencies;
- Failure to recognise and respond to escalated risk indicators: including the repeated excusing of behaviour on the basis of perceived or diagnosed autism spectrum disorder, failures to meaningfully monitor AR’s online behaviour (where he accessed ‘a wide range of vile and disturbing imagery’), and a significant lack of parental co-operation;
- Failure to take ownership of risk that AR posed: no agency was prepared to accept that it had the lead role in managing the risk that AR posed to others (save for the Child and Youth Justice Service, which accepted responsibility for assessing the risk posed by AR between February 2020 and January 2021);
- Referrals-driven ‘handoffs’ rather than shared planning: the Inquiry identified repeated instances where agencies treated the act of making a referral to another service as the end of their involvement, rather than remaining engaged in shared risk management;
- Failure to address risk to public: concerns were not directed to any agency with responsibility for managing the risk AR posed to the public, with agencies focusing primarily on safeguarding AR (risk of harm to him), rather than treating the risk he posed to others with equal seriousness; and
- Inadequate multi-agency frameworks: existing arrangements are a poor fit for a child presenting serious violence risk, with Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements unlikely to apply in practice and Multi-Agency Safeguarding Partnerships focus on exploitation risks to the child, rather than public protection.
Commentary
A practical takeaway is that agencies must be prepared to own and manage risks appropriately not just refer it on to others. At the start of an order or disposal, record the lead professional who is responsible, what information will be shared (and how feedback will be obtained after referrals to ensure continuity and multi-agency engagement), and the escalation route to a multi-agency meeting focused on risk to others.
Youth justice practitioners are also encouraged to treat the end of youth justice supervision as a predictable risk point and plan a handover that captures the current risk formulation and the child’s unmet needs and to challenge ‘diagnostic overshadowing’ so neurodivergence is not used to explain away violent behaviour, keep the focus on support, boundaries and interventions proportionate to safeguarding and public protection.
We caution that the Southport Inquiry does not call for a return to risk-dominated practice—it highlights the consequences of failing to apply child-centred, safeguarding-led approaches in a coordinated and accountable way.