Judge Says Claims Manchester Arena Bombing Did Not Happen Are ‘Absurd’

Richard Hall (centre) pictured outside the High Court in central London on Jan. 29, 2024. Jordan Pettitt/PA Wire

A High Court judge has said a claim made in a book that the Manchester Arena bombing was staged and Salman Abedi was an “intelligence asset” who did not kill anyone is “absurd and fantastical.”

Last year Martin Hibbert and his daughter Eve, who both suffered life-changing injuries in the 2017 bombing, brought legal action against Richard Hall, author of a book published in 2020 called “Manchester: The Night of the Bang.”

Unlike the Sandy Hook case in the United States—where broadcaster Alex Jones was sued for defamation by the families of victims who said he had accused them of lying—the Hibberts were suing not for defamation but for harassment, misuse of private information, and data protection.

They accused Mr. Hall of visiting the homes and workplaces of some of those affected by the attack and recording footage of them in an effort to support his claim they were not really injured.

Abedi, 22, detonated a device on May 22, 2017 in the foyer of Manchester Arena, known as the City Room, a few minutes after the end of an Ariana Grande concert, killing 22 people.

His younger brother Hashem was later extradited from Libya, convicted by a jury in London, and in August 2020 was jailed for life with a minimum tariff of 55 years.

On Thursday, Judge Richard Davison gave a preliminary ruling in the Hibberts’ lawsuit, in which he outlined the facts as he saw them.

The judge said Mr. Hall, who described himself as a journalist and broadcaster, wrote a book, published on March 27, 2020, in which he maintains “the attack was ‘a staged operation using an intelligence asset [Salman Abedi] as an alleged perpetrator.”

Judge Davison said: “He believes that the ‘incident’ (as he labels it) was not a genuine event but, rather, a ’staged scenario‘ or ’drill‘ orchestrated by ’various public sector agencies’ using ‘numerous recruited members of the public, potentially a hundred or more’ some of whom were ’tasked with portraying fake injuries’.”

The judge said Mr. Hall claims only a “select few” were “briefed and aware of the staged nature of the event.”

Was It a Bomb or a Loud Pyrotechnic Device?

He added Mr. Hall’s book claimed, “There was no explosion as such, but rather the use of a ‘loud pyrotechnic device’ whose role was to contribute to the ‘perceived realism deceiving witnesses in the City Room’.”

At a hearing in London last month, Mr. Hibbert and his daughter made a bid for summary judgment, in which they sought to decide parts of the case without a trial.

This included rulings on whether 22 people died and whether they were injured in the bombing.

Mr. Hall, representing himself, argued there was no “first-hand tangible evidence” like CCTV footage or photographs of injuries to prove the Hibberts were at the arena or were injured by a blast.

But Judge Davison ruled in favour of the Hibberts and said he would not allow Mr. Hall to “use the trial as a vehicle to advance and test his staged attack hypothesis.”

CCTV image of Salman Abedi at Victoria Station making his way to the Manchester Arena, where he detonated his bomb, in Manchester, England, on May 22, 2017. Greater Manchester Police/Handout via PA

Judge Davison said, “Suffice it to say that, although his beliefs may be genuinely held, his theory that the Manchester bombing was an operation staged by government agencies in which no one was genuinely killed or injured is absurd and fantastical and it provides no basis to rebut the conviction.”

‘Fanciful’ to Claim Abedi Was Intelligence Asset

The judge said it was “fanciful” to suggest Abedi did not blow himself up, and “still more fanciful” to claim he was an intelligence asset.

He said Hashem Abedi was found guilty after a six-week trial at the Central Criminal Court and he said, “Abedi’s conviction is a ‘weighty piece of evidence’ in its own right.”

The judge ruled: “Once the defendant’s general hypothesis has been rejected (as I have rejected it) it is unrealistic to maintain that the claimants were not there and were either not severely injured at all or acquired their injuries earlier and by a different mechanism than the bombing. Indeed, the latter points are simply preposterous.”

Undated image of Martin Hibbert (centre), who was paralysed in the Manchester Arena attack in 2017 but climbed Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania to raise money for charity. Spinal Injuries Association.

Further hearings will now take place to assess the Hibberts’ claims regarding harassment and misuse of private information.

After Thursday’s ruling, Mr. Hibbert said, “I am pleased by the court’s sensible ruling today. I believe everyone is entitled to an opinion, however, there comes a point where the line is crossed and action has to be taken.”

“Hall’s views on what happened at the arena are repugnant and offensive to those who suffered so badly that evening. When he started to approach my daughter and her home as part of these fanciful investigations he went way too far,” he added.

“It is unacceptable to bring anxiety and distress to us in this way and a stand had to be taken. I am pleased that a court saw through his ridiculous assertions,” added Mr. Hibbert.

Mr. Hall wrote on his website: “I have submitted a complaint against the BBC about their article on the summary judgment hearing. Their article implies that I have lost the case, which is not true. It also fails to mention any of my arguments or evidence which were put forward at the hearing.”