One particular cannard from this week’s news of Axel Rudabukana’s (AR) transfer from Belmarsh to Broadmoor is the question of whether he’s entitled to benefits once in hospital.
I didn’t realise this was such a difficult issue for some and I especially didn’t realise how deeply some would double down after it was explained to them, so I’ve spent rather more of my Friday than I’d planned to, battling misinformation, misunderstanding and misinterpretation on social media, including from some who should know better.
AR is, quite simply, not entitled to benefits – the end. It’s not even unclear when you look up detail.
He’s a convicted murderer, he remains a convicted murderer whilst in hospital for treatment and his eligibility for benefits is proscribed by law. You don’t have to believe me: you could spend some of your Friday night reading regulation 19 of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013, issued under the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and see for yourself –
Reg 19 –
(1) Entitlement to universal credit does not arise where a person is —
(a) a member of a religious order who is fully maintained by their order;
(b) a prisoner; or
(c) serving a sentence of imprisonment detained in hospital.
By anyone’s standards, AR is a Reg 19(1)(c) example, hence my bold emphasis – he’s a convicted murderer, serving a sentence of 52yrs imprisonment (minimum) but currently detained in hospital, because he’s been transferred there under the s47/49 MHA as outlined and further explained in my last blog.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW
This appears to have been confusing for some because they’ve conflated it with another case which also caused significant discussion about convicted patients’ eligibility for benefits. Earlier this year, I blogged about hospitals and benefits in light of issues raised by the Nottingham attacks. It was pointed out that Valdo Calocane (VC) was in receipt of around £10,000 a year in benefits, having been sentenced by a criminal court to a restricted hospital order, under s37/41 MHA.
The legal difference in status and journey is why there is a difference in benefit eligibilty.
- VC pleaded guilty to manslaughter (diminished responsibility) and was then immediately hospitalised, under a restricted hospital order.
- AR pleaded guilty to murder and was then immediately imprisoned. Only now, eighteen months later has he been transferred to hospital.
And that’s it: that’s the difference.
Convicted prisoners who are transferred are not eligible for benefits – convicted patients who went directly to hospital are. Pointing this out does not mean I’m defending it – merely than I am explaining it. If pressed on this, I would agree that VC receiving £10,000 a year in benefits after pleading guilty to such grave crimes is an outrage, no issues at all and I do hope the UK Government review of this forms a view it should be stopped. I’m less convinced around patients who are prosecuted for serious crimes who are then found insane or unfit to plead where their illness affects questions of competence and culpability, so I’ll wait to see what the review says about those cases.
DUMBING DOWN
So today we have had doctors, senior prison figures and others insisting AR will be eligible for benefits and maintain that view after being directed to other opinions that he won’t and to the legislation itself which does make it a black / white issue and the reason I was keen to call this out and why I decided to give more time to it than I’d planned, is because of the importance and impact of this.
In Merseyside this evening, the families of three girls were who were brutally and incomprehensibly murdered must be wondering what on earth is going on, along with eight other families of children who were seriously injured and psychologically traumatised and two adults who were attacked and equally affected. Their worlds must have rocked when they heard of the transfer decision because it is a big deal and almost everyone with a knowledge of interest in these issues is wondering what’s really going on. But we have no idea when or how they were told about it, how well it was explained to them and precisely what information was given in response to questions they must have had.
I hope the Ministry of Justice or agencies involved did this well, but I’m not holding my breath.
Meanwhile, we see Chris Walker KC, the families’ lawyer, in the media expressing their concern about the “merits of the transfer” and that’s perfectly understandable. Not everything I’d like to know to understand all this is in the public domain and I can imagine the families are in a similar position, hence Mr Walker calling for more information from ministers on their behalf. (We should remember: a s47/49 transfer must be authorised by the Secretary of State for Justice so this is a great way for the new SoS to show what they’re about by communicating all this well, but we can infer that they haven’t because of the call for information.
WHY THIS MATTERS
For me, though, that’s why any discussion of this stuff today needs to be grounded in facts, avoids guess work and is predicated on the law. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp MP stood on one of my few remaining nerves earlier when he posted on X (Twitter) –
“The transfer of Axel Rudakubana to Broadmoor Hospital is a kick in the teeth to the victim’s families Broadmoor has a much softer regime than Belmarsh – although it is secure, it is not a prison. This vile man killed three young girls. He did not plead mental health issues at his trial yet now claims to have them. He belongs in prison, like other criminals. Medical treatment can be given in prison if needed. As the Prison Officers’ Association has said, Rudakubana has played the system. This should not have been allowed to happen.”
Sorry, Mr Philp –
- What on EARTH do you mean by “softer”?! – plenty of people who have knowledge of both know they are different regimes and Broadmoor can be a harsh experience. Some who’ve experienced both stated they preferred prison and this comment just wreaks ignorance and plays on cheap tropes.
- The fact he did not “plead mental health issues at his trial” does not mean he did not have such issues (they were mentioned in sentencing); OR mean that he doesn’t have them now (imprisonment can worsen anyone’s mental state for reasons which should be obvious).
- This stuff shouldn’t need pointing out to a Shadow Home Secretary, it’s just a basic error of comprehension and critical thinking.
- “Medical treatment can be given in prison if needed” – no, it can’t. Not all of it.
- Some treatment can be given and it requires consent. But the MHA cannot be relied upon in prison if treatment is required without consent.
- Again, this is basic law and he has people available to him who could explain this.
- The Prison Officers’ Association have no more idea whether AR has “played the system” than Mr Philp does, or than I do. He may have done – but we can’t know that, sitting outside of the decision-making.
- There is NO WAY any of us can truly know and guess work feels like a really bad way to do the politics of this, when it shouldn’t really be about politics at all.
- But guess what? – even if he has played the system, as I suspect, for example, Ian Huntley did when ended up in a high-secure hospital, it will be found out soon enough and the criminal justice system will kick back in.
- He can be remitted to prison under s50 MHA, if needed.
- If that doesn’t happen, then we have to assume the psychiatrists in Broadmoor agree with the prison psychiatrist and those who assessed him for transfer that he does need to be there.
WHAT A FRUSTRATING DAY!
Special mention to Mark Fairhurst, chair of the Prison Officers Association, for doubling down in the face of overwhelming ‘feedback’. Despite multiple explanations, legislation being shown to him and people who have worked in high secure hospital finance departments explaining AR will not be eligible for benefits he kept at it like a trooper! It takes a very special kind of courageous confidence to just dig in despite facts, evidence and explanation about an issue you were guessing about in the very first place from people who did jobs connected to the thing you obviously don’t understand.
Prison officers deserve better representation.
This stuff is far too important for the amount of misinformation, misunderstanding and misinterpretation we’ve seen today, from many who should know better and from more who are keen to get outside their lane. There are actual families and victims having to absorb what’s going on here who are still affected on a daily basis by the horrible events of July 2024 and if they’ve been seeing this woeful debate, they must be a very anguished combination of frustrated, disappointed and confused. I’d be apoplectic about it all, if it were me and I’m pretty close to that anyway, despite being unaffected. I’d hate to think any of the families or surviving victims believed any of the nonsense about benefits because it would rightly upset them even more than they already were.
We all need to do better, for the sake of those families and victims who are the most important of us all.
Awarded the President’s Medal, by
the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
Winner of the Mind Digital Media Award
All opinions expressed are my own – they do not represent the views of any organisation.
(c) Michael Brown, 2026
I am not a police officer.
I try to keep this blog up to date, but inevitably over time, amendments to the law as well as court rulings and other findings from inquests and complaints processes mean it is difficult to ensure all the articles and pages remain current. Please ensure you check all legal issues in particular and take appropriate professional advice where necessary.
Government legislation website – www.legislation.gov.uk
Mental Health Cop 