Khan, who had been living in Stafford, was prosecuted seven years ago, for being part of an al-Qaeda-inspired group that plotted to bomb the London Stock Exchange. He was ordered to serve an “indeterminate public protection sentence,” with a minimum of eight years. In 2012, the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences were abolished because they could keep low-risk offenders in jail for too long. In 2013, Khan’s prison term was amended to sixteen years, and, because of a general sentencing policy introduced by Gordon Brown’s Labour government, in 2008, he was released in December 2018, halfway through his term. His conditions required him to meet with probation officers twice a week and wear an electronic tag. He took part in the government’s “Disengagement Programme” run by Cambridge University’s criminology institute, the purpose of which is the rehabilitation of those who have been involved in terrorism.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson immediately established his narrative following the attack by blaming Labour and Jeremy Corbyn for the 2008 law that meant offenders serving extended sentences were no longer reviewed by the Parole Board but automatically released halfway through their term. “Give me a majority and I’ll keep you safe from terror” was the headline on an op-ed written by Johnson for Mail two days after the attack. Appearing the same day on what The Independent called a “combative edition” of the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, the Prime Minister blamed a former “lefty” government for the sentencing policy that had led to the release of Usman Khan and vowed that if he were to win a majority, terrorists would no longer be eligible for early release. He also made the knee-jerk decision that all serious terror offenses should now carry a minimum sentence of fourteen years. But when he was challenged about what the Conservatives had done to change the law during their past 10 years in power, he repeatedly sought to distance the party. Like much of the past few weeks, the Conservative leader appears to have forgotten that his party has been in charge for a decade, campaigning on the slogan “Britain deserves better”.
One of Khan’s victims was Jack Merritt, 25, coordinator for Cambridge University’s Learning Together initiative, which brings together offenders and those in higher education “to study alongside each other.” In a powerful piece published in the Guardian, his father, Dave Merritt addressed Johnson’s response to the attack that took his son’s life, writing: “He [Jack] would be seething at his death, and his life, being used to perpetuate an agenda of hate that he gave his everything fighting against.” He added that his son “would not wish his death to be used as the pretext for more draconian sentences or for detaining people unnecessarily.”
This increased the pressure on Johnson after he was widely criticised for appearing to blame Labour for the killings by criminal justice campaigners, experts and politicians, including by a member of his own party. Conservative MP Candidate Fay Jones said criticised Johnson on Wednesday for using the London Bridge terror attack as a “political exercise”.
Johnson has denied claims he was politicising the attack, saying he had campaigned against early release for some time, having previously raised the issue during his 2012 campaign to be mayor of London. "I feel, as everybody does, a huge amount of sympathy for the loss of Jack Merritt's family, and indeed for all the relatives of Jack and Saskia, who perished at London Bridge," he said. "But be in no doubt, I've campaigned against early release and against short sentences for many years."
In the same way that Theresa May was held accountable for falling police numbers in the wake of terror attacks during the 2017 election campaign, Johnson was also challenged over cuts to police numbers, probation services and the judicial system over the past decade, with Labour blaming budget cuts for “missed chances to intervene”. Rebecca Long-Bailey, the shadow business secretary, raised the issue of police cuts this week, she said: “This was an extreme event but what we can’t ignore is that over recent years we’ve seen increases in violent crime right across the country and at the same time since 2010 we’ve seen over 20,000 police officers cut from frontline services.”
Labour's David Hanson, a former policing and counter-terrorism minister, said the police had struggled following a reduction in the number of officers and he had concerns about the probation service. "We need to have the 40 percent cut that was taken to the probation service put back in place because that's one of the issues that's led to the high risk on this particular case and others," he said.
Former chair of the Parole Board, Nick Hardwick, said that cuts and the reorganisation of the criminal justice system have made it harder for it to keep the public safe. “"We've neglected the criminal justice system, and now the chickens are coming home to roost."
Many experts have criticised politicians using the attack for political gain and cautioned against introducing knee-jerk legislation. In a letter to The Times today 50 eminent criminologists from universities across the world have told politicians not to use the incident as an excuse to end early release or to increase sentences.
Echoing these sentiments, Andrew Neilson, director of campaigns at the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: “Much of the debate since has been distorted by the fact we are in the run-up to a general election.
“It is right that there should be a full investigation into what happened. Any such investigation should consider systemic issues and not simply sentencing policy or the decisions of individuals. The answer does not lie in writing people off. The focus must be on safely fostering our human potential for change,” he wrote in a statement.
Peter Dawson, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said: “All our experience shows us that policy decisions taken in the immediate aftermath of shocking events are likely to lead to unforeseen and unintended consequences. In criminal justice, those damaging consequences have sometimes lasted for many years, and done incalculable harm.”
