Richard D. Hall Found Guilty of Harassment of Manchester Bombing Victims
General News
Thursday 24th, October 2024
A High Court ruling has found conspiracy theorist Richard D Hall guilty of harassment against Martin Hibbert, a survivor of the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, and his daughter Eve Hibbert. Mrs Justice Steyn DBE delivered the judgment in the case Martin Hibbert & Eve Hibbert (by her mother Sarah Gillbard) v Richard D Hall [2024] EWHC [2677] (KB), declaring that Hall’s actions amounted to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
There was an update on Richard D. Hall's website,
Richard D Hall, an independent journalist, was accused of spreading false claims that the Manchester Arena bombing was a staged event. Hall published content stating that the attack, which claimed 22 lives and left many seriously injured, was an "elaborate hoax" orchestrated by the state. According to his theory, survivors, including the Hibberts, were crisis actors, and no one had actually died or been injured in the bombing.
The attack occurred on 22nd of May 2017, at an Ariana Grande concert at the Manchester Arena. Martin Hibbert and his daughter Eve were among the attendees. Martin was left paralysed from the waist down, and Eve suffered a severe brain injury as a result of the bombing.
The principal claim was for harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The court found that Hall's course of conduct included multiple actions over several years. These included attending Eve Hibbert’s home and recording her secretly, and publishing four videos, a film, and a book between 2018 and 2020, all of which perpetuated the false narrative. Hall also repeated his claims in around 12 shows per year in 2018 and 2019.
In her ruling, Justice Steyn stated, "The claimants had more than satisfied the burden of establishing that the defendant’s conduct was oppressive, unacceptable and of sufficient gravity to sustain criminal liability". She also concluded that Hall’s media activities were “a negligent, indeed reckless, abuse of media freedom”.
Section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 prohibits any course of conduct that amounts to harassment, and the Court ruled that Hall's actions clearly fell within this scope. Hall denied knowing that his actions constituted harassment. However, the Court concluded that a reasonable person with the information available to him would have known that his behaviour was likely to cause distress and harassment.
Hall attempted to defend his actions by arguing that his conduct was in pursuit of preventing or detecting crime and that his actions were reasonable under the circumstances. The Court rejected both defences. Justice Steyn found that his reliance on freedom of thought (Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights) was misplaced, as his views amounted to an opinion, not a belief.
The Court acknowledged the serious emotional and psychological impact of Hall’s actions on the Hibberts. The judgment noted that his conduct "alarmed and distressed" Martin Hibbert and caused Eve Hibbert “real, lasting and persistent anxiety, and enormous distress”.
While the harassment claim was upheld, the Court has yet to determine what remedies the claimants will receive. The Hibberts have requested both damages and an injunction to prevent further harassment. These will be addressed in a future hearing.
This ruling is a significant victory for Martin and Eve Hibbert and underscores the legal consequences of promoting false conspiracy theories that harm individuals. The decision highlights the Court's stance on balancing media freedom with the rights of individuals to be free from oppressive and distressing conduct.
A summary and full copy of the judgement can be found at the links below.
There was an update on Richard D. Hall's website,
A judgment has been made, which can be viewed here.
" the claimants have succeeded on their harassment claim "
There will be a public Hearing at the High Court on Friday 8th November 2024, with a time estimate of half a day.
The issues of the Hearing will be : Remedies on the Harassment Claim; Determination of liability and remedies on the Data Protection Claim; and Costs.
Richard D Hall, an independent journalist, was accused of spreading false claims that the Manchester Arena bombing was a staged event. Hall published content stating that the attack, which claimed 22 lives and left many seriously injured, was an "elaborate hoax" orchestrated by the state. According to his theory, survivors, including the Hibberts, were crisis actors, and no one had actually died or been injured in the bombing.
The attack occurred on 22nd of May 2017, at an Ariana Grande concert at the Manchester Arena. Martin Hibbert and his daughter Eve were among the attendees. Martin was left paralysed from the waist down, and Eve suffered a severe brain injury as a result of the bombing.
The principal claim was for harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The court found that Hall's course of conduct included multiple actions over several years. These included attending Eve Hibbert’s home and recording her secretly, and publishing four videos, a film, and a book between 2018 and 2020, all of which perpetuated the false narrative. Hall also repeated his claims in around 12 shows per year in 2018 and 2019.
In her ruling, Justice Steyn stated, "The claimants had more than satisfied the burden of establishing that the defendant’s conduct was oppressive, unacceptable and of sufficient gravity to sustain criminal liability". She also concluded that Hall’s media activities were “a negligent, indeed reckless, abuse of media freedom”.
Section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 prohibits any course of conduct that amounts to harassment, and the Court ruled that Hall's actions clearly fell within this scope. Hall denied knowing that his actions constituted harassment. However, the Court concluded that a reasonable person with the information available to him would have known that his behaviour was likely to cause distress and harassment.
Hall attempted to defend his actions by arguing that his conduct was in pursuit of preventing or detecting crime and that his actions were reasonable under the circumstances. The Court rejected both defences. Justice Steyn found that his reliance on freedom of thought (Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights) was misplaced, as his views amounted to an opinion, not a belief.
The Court acknowledged the serious emotional and psychological impact of Hall’s actions on the Hibberts. The judgment noted that his conduct "alarmed and distressed" Martin Hibbert and caused Eve Hibbert “real, lasting and persistent anxiety, and enormous distress”.
While the harassment claim was upheld, the Court has yet to determine what remedies the claimants will receive. The Hibberts have requested both damages and an injunction to prevent further harassment. These will be addressed in a future hearing.
This ruling is a significant victory for Martin and Eve Hibbert and underscores the legal consequences of promoting false conspiracy theories that harm individuals. The decision highlights the Court's stance on balancing media freedom with the rights of individuals to be free from oppressive and distressing conduct.
A summary and full copy of the judgement can be found at the links below.
