Richard D Hall Goes To Trial Over Manchester Bombing Theories
General News
Thursday 1st, August 2024
Richard Hall, a self-described journalist, has faced a civil trial at the High Court after being accused of harassment and data protection breaches by Martin Hibbert and his daughter Eve, both survivors of the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. The attack, which took place on 22th May 2017 during an Ariana Grande concert, resulted in 22 deaths and numerous injuries. The Hibberts, who were severely injured in the bombing, have taken legal action against Hall over his claims that the bombing was a "hoax".
Martin Hibbert sustained a spinal cord injury in the explosion, which left him paralysed. His daughter Eve suffered a "catastrophic" brain injury and was initially presumed dead by emergency services. Despite their harrowing experience, Hall has publicly asserted that there was "no bomb in that room" and that "no one was genuinely injured in the attack".
Hall, who previously worked as a television producer before turning to what he calls "independent investigative journalism", claims that the bombing was staged by government agencies using "crisis actors". In court, he stated, "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 further argued that "millions of people have bought a lie" about the attack.
The case against Hall centres on several videos and a book in which he espouses his theories, as well as allegations that he secretly filmed Eve Hibbert and her mother, Sarah Gillbard, outside their home. Hall has claimed that this footage was taken from a public street and has since been deleted.
Jonathan Price, representing the Hibberts, challenged Hall in court, asking why he would not "just believe" the family’s account of the incident. 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 pressed on whether he would feel any compassion for the Hibberts if their account was 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".
Hall has insisted that his actions were in the public interest, arguing that there were "many statements in the media" that were contradicted by what he called "primary evidence". He maintains that it is important to "explore those witnesses".
However, the Hibberts’ legal team has dismissed Hall's assertions as "not rigorous journalism" and "nothing but conjecture". They have also highlighted the distress caused to the family by Hall’s actions and his refusal to accept the reality of their injuries and the attack.
In a witness statement, Martin Hibbert reflected on the role of the internet in spreading such conspiracy theories, stating, "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, argued that his client is "entirely entitled" to hold and express his views, which were formed after he "scoured the public domain". He defended Hall’s actions as being "pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime".
The trial, presided over by Mrs Justice Steyn, started on the 22nd July 2024, with a decision expected to be delivered in writing at a later date. The outcome could have significant implications for how conspiracy theories and their proponents are dealt with in the courts, particularly when their actions cause harm to survivors of traumatic events.
Martin Hibbert sustained a spinal cord injury in the explosion, which left him paralysed. His daughter Eve suffered a "catastrophic" brain injury and was initially presumed dead by emergency services. Despite their harrowing experience, Hall has publicly asserted that there was "no bomb in that room" and that "no one was genuinely injured in the attack".
Hall, who previously worked as a television producer before turning to what he calls "independent investigative journalism", claims that the bombing was staged by government agencies using "crisis actors". In court, he stated, "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 further argued that "millions of people have bought a lie" about the attack.
The case against Hall centres on several videos and a book in which he espouses his theories, as well as allegations that he secretly filmed Eve Hibbert and her mother, Sarah Gillbard, outside their home. Hall has claimed that this footage was taken from a public street and has since been deleted.
Jonathan Price, representing the Hibberts, challenged Hall in court, asking why he would not "just believe" the family’s account of the incident. 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 pressed on whether he would feel any compassion for the Hibberts if their account was 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".
Hall has insisted that his actions were in the public interest, arguing that there were "many statements in the media" that were contradicted by what he called "primary evidence". He maintains that it is important to "explore those witnesses".
However, the Hibberts’ legal team has dismissed Hall's assertions as "not rigorous journalism" and "nothing but conjecture". They have also highlighted the distress caused to the family by Hall’s actions and his refusal to accept the reality of their injuries and the attack.
In a witness statement, Martin Hibbert reflected on the role of the internet in spreading such conspiracy theories, stating, "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, argued that his client is "entirely entitled" to hold and express his views, which were formed after he "scoured the public domain". He defended Hall’s actions as being "pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime".
The trial, presided over by Mrs Justice Steyn, started on the 22nd July 2024, with a decision expected to be delivered in writing at a later date. The outcome could have significant implications for how conspiracy theories and their proponents are dealt with in the courts, particularly when their actions cause harm to survivors of traumatic events.
