Manchester bombing victims win case against conspiracy theorist who claimed UK gov't behind attack

Victims sued Richard Hall – a self-styled journalist who claimed without evidence that the attack was orchestrated by British government agencies – for alleged harassment.

People attend a vigil for the victims of last week's attack at a pop concert at Manchester Arena, in central Manchester, Britain May 29, 2017.  (photo credit: ANDREW YATES/REUTERS)
People attend a vigil for the victims of last week's attack at a pop concert at Manchester Arena, in central Manchester, Britain May 29, 2017.
(photo credit: ANDREW YATES/REUTERS)

Two survivors of a bombing that killed 22 people following an Ariana Grande concert seven years ago won their harassment lawsuit on Wednesday against a conspiracy theorist who claimed the attack was staged.

Martin Hibbert was paralyzed from the waist down and his daughter Eve, then 14, suffered a catastrophic brain injury in the bombing at Manchester Arena in northern England in 2017.

They sued Richard Hall – a self-styled journalist who claimed without evidence that the attack was orchestrated by British government agencies – for alleged harassment.

Their case bears some similarities to defamation lawsuits brought against US conspiracy theorist Alex Jones by relatives of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting.

The ruling

Judge Karen Steyn said in a written ruling that Hall's conduct in publishing a book and videos about the Manchester Arena bombing and filming Eve Hibbert and her mother outside their house in 2019 amounted to harassment.

People pay their respects to the victims of the deadly suicide bombing in Manchester that took place during an Ariana Grande concert.  (credit: REUTERS)
People pay their respects to the victims of the deadly suicide bombing in Manchester that took place during an Ariana Grande concert. (credit: REUTERS)

Martin Hibbert said in a statement that he wanted the ruling to "open the door for change and to help protect others from what we have been put through."

The Hibberts' lawyer Kerry Gillespie said the judgment sent "a very clear message to people who think they have the right to publish absurd, harmful, unfounded allegations against others."

Hall was not immediately available for comment.

He fought the lawsuit, arguing that journalistic investigation did not amount to harassment and an injunction would be a disproportionate interference with his free speech rights.

Steyn, however, said Hall's course of conduct was "a negligent, indeed reckless, abuse of media freedom."


Stay updated with the latest news!

Subscribe to The Jerusalem Post Newsletter


"Freedom of expression undoubtedly provides protection for journalism which focuses on important occurrences, such as the attack, and investigates the veracity and accuracy of established narratives as to what took place," she said.

"But Mr Hall has abused media freedom. Over a period of years, he has repeatedly published false allegations, based on the flimsiest of analytical techniques, and dismissing the obvious, tragic reality to which so many ordinary people have attested."

A hearing to decide whether the Hibberts should be granted an injunction and paid any damages will take place on Nov. 8.