'Conspiracy theorist crossed the line attacking my daughter', warns Arena bomb survivor
Martin Hibbert telling ITV Granada Reports the claims are 'sickening'
A Manchester Arena survivor said he was "shaking with anger" hearing claims by a conspiracy theorist that "the bomb attack was fake" and "the 22 people who died were still alive."
Martin Hibbert and his daughter Eve are bringing legal action against Richard Hall for harassment, misuse of private information and data protection.
Mr Hibbert from Chorley said when he was told Richard Hall had gone to his daughter Eve's house, to film her and post the footage to his website, that had "crossed the line".
He told ITV Granada Reports he picked the wrong father, if he thought he could "attack the most precious thing in my world".
During the court hearing, Mr Hibbert said he was forced to listen to sickening claims that he and his daughter were "actors" who had taken part in a "training exercise" and the bombing was "staged".
He said the purpose of the legal action was "to shut down" the conspiracy theorist's website, to stop him making thousands of pounds from his theories and "to change the law to stop people like him benefiting from other people's pain and suffering."
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.
In a landmark ruling, a judge at the High Court said that Richard Hall's claims that the Manchester Arena bombing was staged by government agencies and did not kill or injure anyone is “absurd and fantastical”.
Mr Hibbert said he was forced to listen in disbelief to Richard Hall claim Salman Abedi, who detonated a home-made bomb, was still alive and that no one was injured or killed.
He said he was very close to some of the bereaved families and "could not stand by to see the pain and suffering that they go through and let someone like him make money from that."
At a hearing in London last month, Mr Hibbert and his daughter made a bid for summary judgment – a legal step to decide parts of the case without a trial – on several parts of the case’s background to stop him repeating his hurtful and false accusations.
This included rulings on whether 22 people did die during the attack, and whether the Hibberts’ injuries were caused by the bombing.
Mr Hall, representing himself, argued that there is no “first-hand tangible evidence”, like CCTV footage or photographs of injuries, to prove the father and daughter were at the arena or were hurt as a result of the blast.
He showed the court a series of images, which he claimed reveals survivors are lying about their injuries, and referred to people pictured lying on the ground near the arena as having “agreed to take part in an exercise”.
In a ruling on Thursday, Judge Richard Davison ruled in favour of the pair and said that without this early decision, Mr Hall would “use the trial as a vehicle to advance and test his staged attack hypothesis”.
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.”
He said it was “fanciful” to suggest that Abedi did not die and “still more fanciful” to argue the bomber was an intelligence asset.
The judge continued: “Whilst acknowledging that issues as to the claimants’ presence at the attack and the attack itself are separate and distinct, 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.”
Following the judgment, 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.
“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.”
Further hearings are expected to take place to determine the rest of the claim and costs.
Want a quick and expert briefing on the biggest news stories? Listen to our latest podcasts to find out What You Need To Know...