The government has been aware of new Southport charges in recent weeks

Senior figures in the government have become aware for the first time in recent weeks of the possibility of new charges against the suspect in the Southport murders, the BBC has been told.

A spokesman for the Prime Minister said it was “not correct” to say the government was involved in withholding facts from the public.

It comes after the two Conservative leadership candidates said the government had questions to answer about the new charges.

Axel Rudakubana, 18 – who is accused of murdering three young girls in Southport in July – faces two more charges, including one under the Terrorism Act.

He is charged with manufacturing a biological poison contrary to Section 1 of the Biological Weapons Act 1974.

He has also been charged with possessing a PDF document of a kind likely to be useful to any person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, contrary to section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

The teenager had already been charged with the murder of three girls killed in Southport, as well as 10 counts of attempted murder and possession of a knife.

To charge someone under the Biological Weapons Act, the Crown Prosecution Service must obtain permission from the government’s law officers: the Attorney General or Attorney General.

The BBC has been told that permission in this case was requested in recent weeks and granted “within days”.

The teenager was due to appear in court in Liverpool last Friday, October 25, for a pre-trial hearing.

That was postponed so that all charges could be heard together at Westminster Magistrates Court, where he will appear on Wednesday, October 30.

The decision on charges and its timing was a matter for the CPS, a government spokesperson added.

It comes after the two Conservative leadership candidates raised questions about the new charges.

Robert Jenrick suggested that information was being “hidden” from the public.

“We were told for months that this was not a terror-related incident, and yet we learned that this individual, the suspect, allegedly read al-Qaeda manuals and had access to dangerous substances such as ricin,” he said.

“Given the magnitude of the public interest, I think it’s an important question to ask: why wasn’t this information put into the public domain sooner? So I ask the public authorities and the Prime Minister: what did they know, when did they learn it, and why was the decision made not to be more honest and transparent with the public?

Meanwhile, Kemi Badenoch has suggested that “serious questions need to be asked of the police, the CPS and also Keir Starmer’s response”.

She has not elaborated on what those questions are, suggesting they should be asked in Parliament.

Police say it is “certainly not the case” that they have hidden things from the public. It would be highly unusual for them to release details of a live police investigation.

The CPS suggests it took time to bring charges as this was a “lengthy and complex investigation”.

The new charges do not mean the Southport attacks will be treated as a terrorist incident.

Possession of a document that could be useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism is an entirely separate crime.

To be labeled as terrorism, the attack would have to be an attempt to advance a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause. But it is not clear what possible motivation there might have been.

Authorities are urging people not to speculate as this could jeopardize the entire trial.

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said: “These additional costs will undoubtedly be distressing for the people of Southport.

“The most important thing is justice for Bebe, Alice and Elsie and their heartbroken families, and for everyone affected by the attack, and no one should jeopardize that.

“The police and prosecutors have an important role to play in their investigation, exploring all possible avenues and taking the necessary action prior to trial.

“We must support them and ensure that everything possible is done to achieve justice.”