Oversight of AR’s online activity by Lancashire County Council

¶25. As set out above, there were also concerns raised with LCC at various stages about AR’s online activity, in particular in December 2019, October 2021 and March 2022. AR’s online safety was explored by LCC on a number of subsequent occasions.

¶26. In December 2019, the multi-agency strategy process identified serious concerns about AR’s online behaviour based on the information from The Acorns School described above. However, once the Prevent Referral was closed, this was not carried forward into any form of work with AR by Children’s Social Care, the Child and Youth Justice Services (while AR was on the referral order) or CFWS. As an example, the child in need plan developed on 20 February 2020, following a detailed Child and Family Assessment by Ms Anna Jameson, a social worker, that recorded a precis of the information from The Acorns School, did not identify any issues, concerns or needs relating to AR’s online behaviour.⁶⁰⁴⁶⁰⁴ LCC000032.,⁶⁰⁵⁶⁰⁵ LCC000027. Nor did Child and Youth Justice Services conduct any work with AR in relation to online behaviour or safety. This was an example of inadequate exploration or response even when significant concerns about online harms have been identified. While it is right that online activity was not relevant to the charges which gave rise to the referral order and Prevent did not put AR’s case forward for consideration for adoption by Channel, the fact that AR’s internet use was concerning was known to LCC from the early concerns raised by The Acorns School.

249

¶28. Ms Barrett’s evidence was that she became aware that AR was making money “doing something with family trees or something like that”, which is consistent with evidence from AR’s family that he made some money from online genealogical research.⁶⁰⁷⁶⁰⁷ T/S: 30/97/11-20. Ms Barrett was adamant that she had learned this prior to the attack, but there were no contemporaneous reports to that effect. The other steps she described to investigate AR’s online activity were to speak with him and his parents about whether his access to devices was supervised – they told her it was – and, on one occasion, Ms Barrett looked at something on AR’s tablet while he was using it. These kinds of steps might perhaps be just adequate or sufficient where no particular concern has been raised, but in the context of real issues about online behaviour having been raised both recently and historically, they were naïve and insufficient. That was particularly so given the history of both AR and his parents being less than candid with professionals, which Ms Barrett and Ms L Lewis ought to have been aware of from the records. This is another example of inadequate exploration or response even when significant concerns about online harms had been identified.

¶29. In February 2022, Mr Carl Coughlan of the Targeted Youth Support team within LCC conducted a ‘radar’ assessment with AR that, among other matters, considered his online safety.⁶⁰⁸⁶⁰⁸ LCC000151. AR said that he “rarely use[s] Instagram, to look at people I know Stories. Don’t speak to people at all online, just watch YouTube, would know what to do if something went wrong”. Mr Coughlan accepted that AR was deceiving him. He had not made himself aware of AR’s history of concerning online behaviour. Had he done so, he might have pushed back on this assessment.⁶⁰⁹⁶⁰⁹ T/S: 29/223/22-225/8. Given that in March 2022 AR was making very different disclosures about his social media use to the police, it is possible that this would have revealed more information. Again, this approach was naïve. It is an example of inadequate exploration of the issue of online safety and harm.

¶30. A third instance was when Ms Ashleigh Williams, a family support worker within CFWS, worked with AR from April to September 2023. Again, she explored ‘My Online World’ as part of a radar assessment with AR on one of the few occasions that he was prepared to engage with her, identifying no concerns. Again, AR stated that “he is safe online and he only uses YouTube”.⁶¹⁰⁶¹⁰ LCC000357. Her evidence, which I accept, is that she “would have had a full conversation” about AR’s online activity, and that this would have been informed by her general knowledge of previous concerns around AR’s extreme thoughts or views, although she was not aware of the detail of AR’s previous online behaviour.⁶¹¹⁶¹¹ T/S: 30/129/8-10, T/S: 30/138/9-139/15. Given the very limited engagement between AR and Ms Williams, I do not think that she could realistically have done more than she did, but it was striking that by this point, there was very little institutional knowledge of the very serious concerns that had previously been apparent.

250

¶31. Overall, LCC’s approach to AR’s online activity appears to have been relatively cursory. Even when concerns were identified over AR’s behaviour online, these were not effectively followed up. On other occasions, the dilution or loss of important earlier information meant that there was not sufficient understanding or rigour in pressing AR as to his online activity, which might have led to further concerns being raised. There was also, from at least 2021 onwards, a marked lack of professional curiosity as to how AR was spending his time, in circumstances where he was neither in education, nor had any other form of constructive activity, and was barely leaving the house. LCC does not have any statutory powers that would have enabled them to investigate AR’s online behaviour. However, it would have been possible for them to discuss it with AR’s parents and make appropriate suggestions and recommendations – such as ensuring that parental controls were applied (although I accept that it is questionable whether AR’s parents would have adopted any such suggestions). Given how far short LCC fell in this area, across a number of teams and a significant period of time, I have made a recommendation that they review the approach to be taken in the future in my recommendations below.