Man loses a second bid to challenge an appeal over his Manchester Arena hoax theory

An author has been denied a second chance to challenge a ruling that his theory is "absurd and fantastical" after claiming the Manchester Arena bombing was staged and did not kill anyone.

Richard Hall is being sued for harassment, misuse of private information and data protection by bombing survivors Martin and Eve Hibbert at the High Court.

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

However, Mr Hall has claimed that the attack, in which Salman Abedi detonated a homemade rucksack bomb in the crowd of concert-goers, was faked by government agencies.

The author has been accused of visiting the homes and workplaces of those injured in the attack – including Miss Hibbert’s home – and recording footage of them.

The full trial in the Hibberts’ claim against Mr Hall is expected in July.

Mr Hibbert and his daughter were successful in a bid for summary judgment in a preliminary ruling in February, meaning a legal step to decide parts of the case without a trial on several parts of the case's background.

This included rulings on whether the Hibberts' injuries were caused by the bombing and whether 22 people did die during the attack.

Mr Hall lost an initial bid to appeal against the judgment without a hearing in March - he was denied again on 21 June.

Barrister Paul Oakley, for Mr Hall, said that while a judge may find some of the allegations to be "distasteful", the issues were too complicated to be dealt with through summary judgement.

He told the High Court in London: “I’m not saying my client is going to prove he is correct at trial, I am saying he is entitled to a fair trial.”

When asked what Mr Hall’s argument was about where the 22 people who were found to have died in the attack are now, Mr Oakley said: “Three died earlier, others it appears are abroad.”

Mr Hall also said: “A funeral is not evidence of a death, it is evidence of a wooden box.”

In written submissions, Mr Oakley claimed Mr Hall wanted to bring an appeal due to the previous judge’s “comprehensive failure to address factual and relevant evidence”.

But at the end of the hearing, Mr Justice Julian Knowles dismissed Mr Hall’s renewed bid to bring an appeal and said his full reasons would be provided in writing.