MI5 ‘was actively investigating’ London Bridge attack leader

0 Police officers help concert-goers outside Manchester Arena in the wake of the bombing MI5 was “actively” investigating the ringleader of the London Bridge atrocity at the time of the rampage, while the Manchester bombing could have been stopped “had the cards fallen differently”, an official assessment has found.

It confirms that three terrorists involved in attacks that hit Britain between March and June this year had at some point been on authorities’ radar.

The UK’S security institutions faced questions after dozens of victims were killed or injured in Westminster, Manchester, London Bridge and Finsbury Park.

An independent assessment of the findings of internal reviews by police and MI5 by David Anderson QC has emphasised there is “no cause for despair”, saying most attacks continue to be successfully disrupted.

But he noted that, other than in the case of Finsbury Park, it cannot be said agencies were “entirely blindsided”.

His report concludes: “Khalid Masood (Westminster) and Salman Abedi (Manchester) had both been subjects of interest, and Khuram Butt (London Bridge) remained under active investigation.

“Substantial and appropriate coverage was in place around key individuals, and mechanisms designed to assess risk were working as intended. MI5 and counterterrorism policing got a great deal right; particularly in the case of Manchester, they could have succeeded had the cards fallen differently.”

In response, Home Secretary Amber Rudd said the blame for the attacks “lies squarely” with the terrorists.

Abedi was not under active investigation when he detonated an explosive device at Manchester Arena in May.

But Mr Anderson’s report said MI5 came by unspecified intelligence in the months before the attack which, “had its true significance been properly understood”, would have caused an investigation into him to be opened.

It said: “It is unknowable whether such an investigation would have allowed Abedi’s plans to be pre-empted and thwarted. MI5 assesses that it would not.”

Information received on two separate occasions was assessed to relate not to terrorism but to possible “nefarious activity” or criminality on the part of Abedi.

“In retrospect, the intelligence can be seen to have been highly relevant to the planned attack,” the assessment added.

Abedi was also identified by aseparate“data-washingexercise” as falling within a small number of former subjects of interest who merited further consideration.