Arena bomb victims should not have to deal with ‘hurtful’ hoax claims – survivor

Martin Hibbert and his daughter Eve are suing former television producer Richard Hall, who claims the attack was staged, for harassment.

Martin Hibbert was injured in the May 2017 attack (James Manning/PA) (PA Wire)

Manchester Arena bombing survivors should not have to deal with “hurtful” claims that the attack was a hoax, one of those injured in the blast has said as he waits for a decision in a High Court harassment case.

Martin Hibbert and his daughter Eve are suing former television producer Richard Hall for harassment and data protection over his claims in several videos and a book that the bombing was staged.

The father and daughter were at the Ariana Grande concert in May 2017 and suffered life-changing injuries, with Mr Hibbert left with a spinal cord injury and Miss Hibbert facing severe brain damage.

We live in a society where free speech and the right to express a genuinely-held opinion must be protected, but when those beliefs and actions are inaccurate, offensive and damaging, and cause harm to those who have already suffered so badly, people must be challenged

Martin Hibbert

But Mr Hall has claimed his actions – including an incident of filming Miss Hibbert outside her home – were in the public interest as a journalist and that “millions of people have bought a lie” about the attack.

He told the London court: “The primary evidence shows there was no bomb in that room that exploded.”

After a three-and-a-half-day trial, Mrs Justice Steyn said on Thursday that she would give her decision on the claim in writing at a later date.

Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London after the trial had finished, Mr Hibbert thanked his legal team and said he believed it was “an extremely important case to bring to court”.

He continued: “We live in a society where free speech and the right to express a genuinely-held opinion must be protected, but when those beliefs and actions are inaccurate, offensive and damaging, and cause harm to those who have already suffered so badly, people must be challenged.”

Mr Hibbert added: “We shouldn’t have to face such allegations that the Manchester Arena attack never happened and that our injuries were not as a result of the bombing – we certainly shouldn’t have needed to be here in court to make a stand and to protect others from this kind of behaviour.

“For many families affected by the bombing, it is a struggle every day, even now more than seven years on, to comprehend what happened, and the impact it has had on their lives.

“They should never have to face such hurtful claims and I hope this case sends out a clear message that it will not be tolerated.”

(The Hibberts) have suffered the most appalling tragedy, not just their injuries, physical and psychological, but everything that goes with this

Jonathan Price, representing the Hibberts

Asked what it was like to come to court, Mr Hibbert told reporters: “It’s been very difficult … I had to take a stand, I’m all for freedom of speech but I had to take a stand to protect the most beautiful thing in my life, my daughter Eve, and that’s what this is about.”

“It’s been a tough thing to have to get through, but I know I’ve got a lot of people supporting me,” he added.

Salman Abedi killed 22 people and injured hundreds when he detonated the homemade rucksack-bomb in the crowd of concert-goers, with the court told that the Hibberts were some of the nearest people to him at the time of the blast.

But Mr Hall has claimed that several of those who died are living abroad or were dead before the attack, telling the court he believed that no-one was “genuinely injured” in the bombing.

In his closing arguments, Jonathan Price, for the Hibberts, said the pair were private individuals.

He said: “They have suffered the most appalling tragedy, not just their injuries, physical and psychological, but everything that goes with this.”

The barrister added: “Eve’s life was just beginning. She was just flourishing at the age of 14. It is hard to imagine a greater tragedy, even had she died.”

Mr Price later said Miss Hibbert “is an unwilling and unwitting participant in the defendant’s baseless speculation”, calling Mr Hall’s conduct “objectively harmful” and “offensive, and known by the defendant to be offensive”.

It’s clear from the evidence, I suggest, and from the cross-examination of Mr Hall, it has never been suggested that he is making things up

Paul Oakley, representing Richard Hall

Paul Oakley, for Mr Hall, said on Thursday that Mr Hibbert “is not somebody who has shied away from publicity”.

He added that his client, previously an engineer, “actually believes what he’s saying”.

The barrister said: “It’s clear from the evidence, I suggest, and from the cross-examination of Mr Hall, it has never been suggested that he is making things up.”

Mr Oakley later told the court that there had been “no actual contact” between Mr Hall and Miss Hibbert and that “any distress she has suffered has been imparted to her by her parents”.

Mrs Justice Steyn’s written ruling is expected to be released after early October.