Investigators have not ruled out concluding that Emad al-Swealmeen’s alleged attack on Liverpool Women’s hospital had “no ideological or political motive” and was therefore not an act of terrorism.
Counter-terrorism police and security services inquiries continue but as the inquiry entered its third day, investigators were not yet pointing to any specific ideology behind the explosion on Sunday morning.
It had been feared that the bomber’s target could have been the Remembrance Sunday service and procession at Liverpool’s cathedral, which was a 10- to 15-minute walk from where the taxi exploded outside the hospital.
But investigators from counter-terrorism police and MI5 are understood to be leaning towards the idea that the maternity hospital itself was the intended target of Swealmeen, who is believed to have made the explosive device.
Police declared the attack as terrorist on Monday morning “given all the circumstances”, and any decision to downgrade that assessment remains unlikely. But insiders said on Tuesday “it was still possible” investigators would not find any ideological trigger for the attack.
Earlier the security minister, Damian Hinds, told Sky News that while counter-terrorism police were discovering “more by the hour” about Swealmeen, it “could be weeks” before the full picture of “how this came about and what the motivation was” became apparent.
It is understood that Swealmeen, who had been in the UK for about seven years, had an asylum claim rejected in December 2020. When a previous claim was rejected, several years earlier, he suffered mental ill-health and was sectioned, according to a friend in the city, Malcolm Hitchcott.
Investigators also do not believe the explosive used on Sunday was TATP, an unstable compound that can be made from consumer products, and which has been used by a number of Islamist attackers, most notably in the 7 July 2005 attacks on London’s transport system.
Nevertheless, there remain concerns that there have been two attacks in a month, with Sunday’s incident coming soon after the killing of Sir David Amess, a Conservative MP, at his constituency surgery in Essex.
One source with knowledge of the thinking of counter-terrorism chiefs said there was real concern that the two violent incidents could embolden those thinking of attempting a fresh atrocity.
Such concerns helped underpin the decision on Monday to lift the terror threat level to severe, meaning a fresh attempt at an atrocity is deemed highly likely.
The source pointed to a similar effect in 2017 when the first attack in March of that year on parliament was followed a series of others in quick succession, three with a jihadist motive and one with an extreme far-right motive.
A counter-terrorism source told the Guardian: “There have been two terror incidents in the last four weeks, and we’ve seen how that can encourage or embolden other extremists.”
The second part of the concern among senior counter-terrorism officers is that any spurring on of violent extremists would come as more people are out and about in the run-up to Christmas, for the first time since the pandemic struck.
“We’re heading into our first proper Christmas since the start of the pandemic and our towns and cities are going to be incredibly busy, so the cooperation from the public in fighting the threat is going to be vital,” the counter-terrorism source added.
Officers specialising in fighting violent extremism are going to exhort the public to report concerns about potential attack plots and say that of 10,000 calls to a counter-terrorism hotline every year, a fifth yield useful intelligence and potentially save lives.
Police forces are putting on extra patrols, and arrangements for protective security – that is, making it harder for terrorists to attack – are being reviewed, including for hospitals.
