The prosecution of MP Jo Cox’s killer helped bring a “strong case” when tragedy struck for a second time, Max Hill QC has said.
The Director of Public Prosecutions reflected on the murders of two MPs in five years as veteran Conservative Sir David Amess’s killer was brought to justice.
Mr Hill said: “I think it’s inevitable that, today of all days, we think back to the tragic murder of Jo Cox.
“And we reflect on the fact that this is the second time in five years that we’ve seen such an attack at the heart of our democracy, although I do want to emphasise these cases are extremely rare.”
The experience of prosecuting Thomas Mair for Ms Cox’s murder in November 2016 proved useful in preparing the case against Ali Harbi Ali six years later.
Batley and Spen Labour MP Ms Cox was stabbed and shot by far-right extremist Mair in Birstall, West Yorkshire, just days before the Brexit referendum in June 2016.
Southend MP Sir David was stabbed by Islamic State fanatic Ali at a constituency surgery in Leigh-on-Sea, Essex, last October in twisted revenge for a vote on Syrian air strikes.
Even though the ideology was different, there were some striking similarities between the two defendants.
Both were home-grown terrorists who chose to strike at the heart of British democracy.
Both were found guilty following Old Bailey trials in which the vast majority of the evidence against them went unchallenged.
Mr Hill said: “I think it’s very rare that we see crimes committed exactly in these circumstances.
“By definition, any previous experience of a similar case is going to help both investigators and prosecutors when building a strong case in court.”
In his first court appearance, Mair’s extremist views were clear when he stated: “My name is death to traitors, freedom for Britain.”
And, on his arrest, Ali calmly described to police his long-running plot to kill Government minister Michael Gove before launching his frenzied attack on Sir David, whom he regarded as an easier target.
As in Mair’s case, the lack of a positive defence nevertheless meant the prosecution had to prove Ali’s guilt “without question”.
Mr Hill said: “In this country, we afford everybody who wants it the guarantee of a fair trial and this individual, just like anybody else, was entitled by his own choice to plead not guilty.
“Our job was to prove without question that he was guilty, not only of this murder, but of the preparation for terrorism, which went on for many months before this atrocity.
“We can never control what a defendant may say, at the start, middle or end of the investigation process.”
Ms Cox’s killer was simply charged with her murder, but in Ali’s case a terrorism offence was included to reflect his long-running plot to target an MP.
Mr Hill confirmed that whatever the charge, both atrocities were clearly acts of terrorism.
He said: “Here we were in no hesitation that this was an act of terrorism, just as was the case in the tragic murder of Jo Cox.”
After the Mair trial, there was speculation over his mental health – in the absence of any evidence either way – as the public struggled to come to terms with the horrific event.
Prosecutor Tom Little QC categorically dismissed any mental health issue when he opened the case against Ali on the first day of his trial.
Mr Hill declined to say if it was a conscious decision but stressed that mental health was “no true issue” in either case.
“The question of the mental health of the suspect… is one that has to be considered over a period of time in every case.
“And, of course, it’s the right of those who defend individuals such as this man and the murderer of Jo Cox to consider whether there’s any information that the court should know about mental health issues.
“But it did rapidly become clear, actually in both cases, that there was no true issue, no true limitation on the ability of both of these individuals to commit the most serious criminal activity.”
Mair was handed a whole life order for the murder of Ms Cox.
Mr Hill said Ali’s was an “exceptionally serious case” but refused to be drawn on whether he should receive the same sentence.
“In every case, and this is no exception, it is a matter for the trial judge to decide the appropriate oucome now that the jury has done its work. In this case, we are in the hands of a distinguished and extremely experienced judge, and I have no doubt that this individual will receive his true desserts for the consequences of what he done,” he said.
“And it is beyond question that he will receive a sentence of life imprisonment.”
Both trials were relatively short, but Ali’s case was delayed as three jurors and the judge tested positive for Covid-19 just as Ali was about to give evidence in his defence.
Mr Hill added: “The message here is one of perseverance and diligence, and getting the job done as quickly as possible.”
