Judith Moritz

And in this case, it was even though there was a criminal case going on, there was somebody who had been charged and then eventually pleaded guilty for what happened.

It was very clear from the absolute get-go that there would be multiple questions to answer that a court case, a criminal case, wasn't going to touch.

And that's what this inquiry was designed to do.

So it had various functions.

Included in it actually was to be the inquests for the three little girls who died.

That was part of this process.

But way beyond that, it was looking at the circumstances of the day itself, but really critically, everything that preceded it.

The background to the attacker, to what we now know was not done to prevent this.

It was realised really early on that this was an attack that could have maybe been prevented.

Today, of course, we've got that confirmation.

Yeah, I think that the headline here, if you want, and bearing in mind, you know, we're talking 800 pages, lots of chapters, lots of detail.

But the inquiry chair, when he delivered the report, when he made his statement, he said, well, there's one headline finding.

It's what he's calling the absence of risk ownership, which is essentially saying all of these different authorities and agencies are

It's not the case that they didn't know there were problems with Rudacabana.

They were all talking about it.

They were even talking to each other, but they were all, frankly, passing the buck.

What we're seeing here, laid bare today, is the way in which nobody owned the particular risk.

No one took command or leadership.

There was a lot of evidence that individuals would, and we're talking both agencies and individuals working for them.

So, you know, across the public sector, particularly social services, health service, schools, they're criticised in different ways and to different extents.