Prevent is ‘failing’, say terror experts after murderer Ali Harbi Ali deceived officials

Britain's counter-terror programme must be overhauled in the wake of the murder of a Tory MP by an extremist who was convicted in just 18 minutes, experts have urged.

Ali Harbi Ali was on Monday found guilty of murdering Sir David Amess during a constituency meeting in October 2021. 

He had been referred to the Government's beleaguered deradicalisation programme, Prevent, seven years earlier, but after only one meeting was left unchecked to carry out the attack. 

Analysis by The Telegraph showed that the scheme has failed to stop numerous terrorists in the last five years, with six of the 11 most recent significant attacks carried out by individuals who had been referred to it.

Ali, who targeted Sir David because he voted to bomb Islamic State in Syria, was referred to Prevent in 2014 and boasted in his terror trial about how he easily managed to appear compliant when forced to engage with the authorities.

“I just knew to nod my head and say yes and they would leave me alone afterwards and they did,” Ali told the court last week.

‘The programme is failing’

The case has raised fresh questions over whether Prevent is fit for purpose, with terror experts warning it has too often been fooled by “sophisticated extremists concealing their intentions from a very naive and inexperienced group of people”.

An ongoing independent review of Prevent has been delayed, but is expected to report its findings later this year. However, experts warned it will take “years and years before anything changes”.

Nazir Afzal, former chief Crown prosecutor for north-west England, said: “The Prevent programme appears to be failing, so many people are known to the authorities, they are on the programme, and the programme is failing them.

“The review is now months, years old, we are still waiting for it. Even once it is published, the recommendations will have to be implemented - it will be years and years before anything changes. The perception is that it is a toxic brand, it is not properly resourced and not properly supported.

“We haven't learned from Stephen Timms, he was stabbed at his surgery. There is a big question to be asked about the level of security around MPs, they need to be safe and secure. I don't want to bring in those big metal arches, but random bag searches - that kind of thing, and of course being intelligence-led, carrying out some inquiries and background checks.”

‘Parish council response’

Prof Ian Acheson, who led a government review of extremism in jails, warned that Prevent in its current form is a “parish council response to a national security problem”.

He said: “We have sophisticated extremists concealing their intentions from a very naive and inexperienced group of people who are supposed to be deposed but are never trained for this sort of activity. We simply don't have the right people in the right place.

“A lot of it is about skilling up people who are nice, middle class and a moral universe away from their subjects. They are being deceived and manipulated, often because there is a race disparity in it all. We don’t have the robust challenge we should have because everyone is so afraid of being racist.”

Prof Acheson, who is also a senior adviser to the Counter Extremism Project, expressed concern at Prevent’s undue amount of focus on far-Right extremism, saying it is given a “false equivalent” to Islamist extremism.

“There is a lazy and dangerous assumption between the threat that we face from the far-Right and that from Islamist extremism,” he said.

In 2020, it was reported that of the 27 late-stage terrorist attack plots disrupted by MI5 since 2017, “eight have been right-wing extremist”.

‘An example of disguised compliance’

Jurors heard how Ali, from Kentish Town, north-west London, was visited by two police officers in 2014 whilst he was at school after a teacher reported concerns that he might travel to Syria to fight for IS.

After attending one meeting with a Home Office official as part of the deradicalisation programme, Ali never heard from the authorities again.

“There were supposed to be two meetings but they were happy enough on the first one so I did not hear from them again,” he told the court.

Prof Acheson said: “It's absolutely another example of disguised compliance. Prevent is a parish council response to a national security problem.”

A spokesman from the Government said: “It is the Government’s duty to protect the public and Prevent is a vital tool to stop people from being drawn into terrorism. Channel, Prevent’s early intervention programme, is voluntary and it does not constitute a criminal sanction. Over 3,000 people have been supported via the Channel programme.

“It is right that we continue to improve our approach. That is why an independent review led by William Shawcross is in progress to assess how effectively Prevent works, its impact and what further can be done to protect people from being radicalised.”