Does the London Bridge terror attack show prison deradicalisation programmes have failed?

With more people being jailed for terror offences than ever before in the UK, the question of how to rehabilitate them has become increasingly urgent.

The terror attack in London Bridge has prompted fresh questions over the effectiveness of what officials call “intervention programmes”.

Usman Khan initially rejected such approaches after being jailed for his part in a plot to bomb the London Stock Exchange in 2012, but officials say he later participated in a range of programmes.

These included the Healthy Identity Intervention and the Desistance and Disengagement Programme – both of which aim to address the root causes of extremism.

It was during Khan’s time in prison that he came into contact with Learning Together, an educational initiative run by Cambridge University’s Institute of Criminology.

The group’s literature showed him using a laptop donated to enable him to study while complying with licence conditions.

Khan reportedly wrote a poem and thank you note to Learning Together, saying he was “grateful to be able to express myself”.

His invitation to one of the group’s events on Friday enabled him to travel to London and launch the stabbing attack that left two people dead.

Officials claim that Khan had managed to convince authorities he had reformed through his regular attendance at deradicalisation courses both inside and outside prison.

It is unclear whether he had been keeping up appearances as a cover, or had genuinely engaged with the programmes before undergoing a sudden change of heart.

A 2018 analysis commissioned by the prison service said participants “reported that the programmes helped them gain an understanding of their motivations for offending and develop strategies to facilitate desistance”.

The programmes are based on research suggesting that extremists are driven by reasons including perceived injustices and a wish to find meaning, purpose or status.

Academics suggested that, for terrorists, the “extremist aspect of their identity replaces others, and helps them to overcome inhibitions that might prevent offending behaviour”.

A study of 33 extremists, including 14 influenced by al-Qaeda, found “overwhelmingly positive” results but warned that Islamists needed separate work to address their religion and ideology.

In 2018, the government unveiled a refreshed version of the Desistance and Disengagement Programme – which Khan also underwent.

“The programme aims to address the root causes of terrorism, build resilience, and contribute towards the deradicalisation of individuals,” the Home Office said.

“Support could include mentoring, psychological support, theological and ideological advice.”

Khan’s attack will prompt questions over the effectiveness of the programmes, and monitoring processes that are supposed to guard against terror offenders slipping back into their old ways.

But advocates point to the low number of plots by more than 500 other terrorist prisoners who have been released since 2011 to show that, for the vast majority, the efforts could actually work.