Richard D Hall Awaits Court Judgment in Manchester Bombing Civil Trial
General News
Friday 11th, October 2024
A civil trial involving Richard D Hall, a self described investigative journalist, and Martin Hibbert, a survivor of the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, is nearing its conclusion. Mrs Justice Steyn of the High Court is expected to deliver a judgment on or around 24th October 2024. The trial, which began in July, centres on allegations of harassment and data protection breaches brought by Hibbert and his daughter, Eve, who was also severely injured in the attack.
The case arises from Hall's repeated public claims that the Manchester Arena bombing, which took place on 22nd of May 2017 during an Ariana Grande concert, was a staged event. The bombing, carried out by a suicide bomber, resulted in 22 deaths and multiple injuries. Hibbert sustained a spinal cord injury, leaving him paralysed, while his daughter Eve suffered a catastrophic brain injury and was initially presumed dead by emergency services.
In court, Hall maintained that the bombing was a "hoax" orchestrated by government agencies. He told the court, "There was no bomb in that room or genuinely injured people. The primary evidence shows there was no bomb in that room that exploded". He claimed that the public had been misled, saying, "Millions of people have bought a lie" about the attack.
The legal action taken by the Hibberts focuses on videos and a book produced by Hall in which he promotes his theories. He has also been accused of filming Eve and her mother, Sarah Gillbard, outside their home without permission. Hall admitted to filming the family but stated that the footage was taken from a public street and has since been deleted.
The trial has brought to light Hall’s contention that his actions were justified by the public interest. When questioned by Jonathan Price, the Hibberts' lawyer, about why he would not accept the family's account of the bombing, Hall responded, "Because there is no evidence to show any of their claims. I'm presenting the evidence and letting people decide for themselves". When asked whether he would feel compassion for the family if their account were true, Hall said, "Well, of course, but it is not true. I feel compassion to anyone who suffers a life-changing injury, which they clearly have. Of course, they do have life-changing injuries, but I don't accept that it happened at 22:21 in the Manchester Arena".
The Hibberts' legal team has argued that Hall's claims are "not rigorous journalism" and amount to "nothing but conjecture". They also emphasised the distress caused to the family by Hall's refusal to accept the reality of their injuries and the bombing. In a statement submitted to the court, Martin Hibbert reflected on the impact of conspiracy theories in the digital age, saying, "Years ago, people like Mr Hall would have spouted their nonsense while standing on a soapbox at a street corner. Few would have stopped and listened. But in the age of the internet, anyone can listen and believe".
Paul Oakley, representing Hall, defended his client’s right to express his views, arguing that Hall is "entirely entitled" to hold his beliefs, which he formed after examining publicly available information. Oakley also stated that Hall's actions were aimed at "preventing or detecting crime".
The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how conspiracy theories and their proponents are handled by the courts, especially when such theories cause harm to survivors of traumatic events. Many are watching to see how the High Court will balance freedom of speech with the need to protect individuals from harmful and unfounded claims.
The judgment is expected to be delivered in writing later this month.
The case arises from Hall's repeated public claims that the Manchester Arena bombing, which took place on 22nd of May 2017 during an Ariana Grande concert, was a staged event. The bombing, carried out by a suicide bomber, resulted in 22 deaths and multiple injuries. Hibbert sustained a spinal cord injury, leaving him paralysed, while his daughter Eve suffered a catastrophic brain injury and was initially presumed dead by emergency services.
In court, Hall maintained that the bombing was a "hoax" orchestrated by government agencies. He told the court, "There was no bomb in that room or genuinely injured people. The primary evidence shows there was no bomb in that room that exploded". He claimed that the public had been misled, saying, "Millions of people have bought a lie" about the attack.
The legal action taken by the Hibberts focuses on videos and a book produced by Hall in which he promotes his theories. He has also been accused of filming Eve and her mother, Sarah Gillbard, outside their home without permission. Hall admitted to filming the family but stated that the footage was taken from a public street and has since been deleted.
The trial has brought to light Hall’s contention that his actions were justified by the public interest. When questioned by Jonathan Price, the Hibberts' lawyer, about why he would not accept the family's account of the bombing, Hall responded, "Because there is no evidence to show any of their claims. I'm presenting the evidence and letting people decide for themselves". When asked whether he would feel compassion for the family if their account were true, Hall said, "Well, of course, but it is not true. I feel compassion to anyone who suffers a life-changing injury, which they clearly have. Of course, they do have life-changing injuries, but I don't accept that it happened at 22:21 in the Manchester Arena".
The Hibberts' legal team has argued that Hall's claims are "not rigorous journalism" and amount to "nothing but conjecture". They also emphasised the distress caused to the family by Hall's refusal to accept the reality of their injuries and the bombing. In a statement submitted to the court, Martin Hibbert reflected on the impact of conspiracy theories in the digital age, saying, "Years ago, people like Mr Hall would have spouted their nonsense while standing on a soapbox at a street corner. Few would have stopped and listened. But in the age of the internet, anyone can listen and believe".
Paul Oakley, representing Hall, defended his client’s right to express his views, arguing that Hall is "entirely entitled" to hold his beliefs, which he formed after examining publicly available information. Oakley also stated that Hall's actions were aimed at "preventing or detecting crime".
The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how conspiracy theories and their proponents are handled by the courts, especially when such theories cause harm to survivors of traumatic events. Many are watching to see how the High Court will balance freedom of speech with the need to protect individuals from harmful and unfounded claims.
The judgment is expected to be delivered in writing later this month.
