The role of AR’s parents

¶40. The role of AR’s parents is complex, and I address it in Chapter 12: AR’s family. However, seen in the round, AR’s parents (and particularly Alphonse R, AR’s father) created significant obstructions to constructive engagement with AR by the various agencies that were involved. AR’s parents faced significant challenges, but they were too ready to excuse and defend AR’s actions; they failed to stand up to his behaviour and set boundaries (difficult though this was given his sometimes violent response); and they ultimately failed to report the clear escalation in risk in the period 22 to 29 July 2024.

¶41. Inevitably, however, the relevant agencies must be prepared to deal with parents who – through a mixture of inability, difficulty and unwillingness – are ill-equipped to address the risks of violent children. The relevant agencies’ work in respect of AR should have taken more fully into account the fact that the level of co-operation and support from his parents was at best inconsistent and at times clearly both manipulative and harmful.

¶42. AR’s father, in particular, had fixed ideas as to what decisions ought to be taken about AR. He was in equal measure obsessive and misguided in pursuing them. Where agencies would not fall in line with those ideas, he made himself exceptionally difficult, to the point of active and outright hostility and even aggression. This was evident in, for example, his hostility to The Acorns School, and his aggression which led to the withdrawal of Dr Ramasubramanian as treating Consultant Psychiatrist.

¶43. No one should doubt how challenging such behaviour was for the agencies dealing with AR and his parents. At the same time, however, those challenges were a warning sign in and of themselves. They should have made it obvious that AR was not being effectively parented and that a child who needed firm boundaries to be set was instead being allowed to exert control over his own parents. This pattern was apparent from the earliest stages: as early as 16 December 2019, when AR was only 13 years old, he was observed by a social worker to be “quite a force in the household, appearing to dominate discussion”.⁴²⁴² LCC000234/3. Yet the significance of this was never fully appreciated by those who were in a position to act. The views of agencies which did raise concerns about it – notably The Acorns School – were not given sufficient regard or weight.

¶44. The overall effect was that a yet further significant risk factor in respect of AR (that his parents were not able or willing to challenge his conduct, impose adequate boundaries, or model appropriate behaviour) was never properly taken into account and AR’s parents were allowed on occasions to obstruct efforts to address concerns about AR.

¶45. AR’s parents’ obstructive approach (again most notable in Alphonse R as AR’s father) involved an outright refusal to take legitimate professional concerns seriously or to accept that AR’s conduct was seriously unacceptable. That included seeking to justify AR carrying a knife in October and December 2019 and even seeking to blame AR’s commission of the hockey stick attack at Range High School in December 2019 on the schooling he was receiving. Regrettably, this element of parental self-deception continued even into the parents’ oral evidence to the Inquiry.

¶46. In other cases, AR’s parents’ actions meant that relevant information was concealed from professionals, hindering their ability to make fully informed assessments. This was typically because it served the outcome that AR’s parents wanted to achieve, such as ensuring that AR was not removed from their family or was more likely to be able to take part in mainstream education. Alphonse R did not report to the agencies those weapons which he knew AR had ordered online. Alphonse R’s WhatsApp messages to Ms Andrea Fontaine of CFWS on 2 November 2020 made clear that he did not consent to CFWS sharing information with the Child and Youth Justice Service, as their role was to “punish” AR. As Ms Katherine Ashworth, Head of the Children and Family Wellbeing Service, acknowledged, “There is a propensity for this man to want to try to control the narrative”.⁴³⁴³ T/S: 31/73/15-19.

¶47. At other times, the lack of co-operation from AR’s parents was due to a dangerously short-term desire to prevent AR from having a violent outburst, which would often be directed at AR’s father. On one level this desire on the part of AR’s parents was understandable. However, when this meant indulging AR in not attending appointments with CYJS or refusing to allow professionals even to confirm that AR was safe after he had not attended school for almost a year, it should have been clear to AR’s parents that this had become harmful and counterproductive. Ultimately, the parents’ desire to minimise the number and frequency of AR’s outbursts became a factor contributing to a far worse outcome. To the extent that the agencies (particularly LCC and CAMHS) identified that AR’s parents were unable or unwilling (or both) to set boundaries and to enforce expectations on AR’s behaviour, this did not translate to an appreciation of the consequential increase in risk to others.

¶48. AR’s parents’ irresponsible and harmful attitude to sharing information and to managing the risk posed by AR to others culminated in the week prior to the attack. In that period, AR’s parents, for the reasons that are set out in detail in Chapter 12: AR’s family, bear significant responsibility for failing to alert any appropriate agency whatsoever to the full extent of the risk of a serious or fatal attack by their son. Over the period leading to 29 July 2024, they came into possession of crucial information which revealed that their son was covertly accumulating a number of deadly weapons and that he remained intent on carrying out some form of attack outside the home address. What can only be described as their misguided and irresponsible motivation for not sharing this information was to avoid AR being taken into care or custody. I have explained the basis for this conclusion and the evidence on which it is based in Chapter 12: AR’s family. If the parents had reported their true level of knowledge to the authorities prior to the 29 July 2024, AR would undoubtedly have been arrested and he would either have been taken into care or held in custody. That position would have been likely to have remained the case both during and following the inevitable criminal proceedings in which he would have faced serious charges, particularly over the production of ricin and the electronic possession of an Al-Qaeda manual (although I accept that his parents did not understand the significance of the former, and were ignorant of the latter).

¶49. I conclude that:

¶a. Relevant agencies did not sufficiently (or in some cases at all) make allowance for AR’s parents’ behaviours in their assessment of the risk that AR posed to others;

¶b. If AR’s parents had done what they morally ought to have done, AR would not have been at liberty to conduct the attack and it would not therefore have occurred.