"Refused to" gives the appearance of knowing his intentions and his response to specific advice.  It expresses a point of view about his reasons for not taking security precautions (if indeed he didn't - there is a contradictory claim on the article's talk page).  "Did not" does not.  The Telegraph article does not seem to support the idea of an actual refusal to take security precautions.  I have now explained my edits in detail several times; "wee curry monster" has not bothered to give anything more than a vague, meaningless, unsubstantiated "these details are relevant".  His "rv IP edits" shows that he cares about the editor, not the edits themselves.  190.46.108.141