Manchester Arena bombing survivor begins landmark action against conspiracy theorist

Elaine Willcox was at the first day of the hearing at the High Court

A Manchester Arena bombing survivor says he is taking landmark legal action against a conspiracy theorist to save his daughter from "the stalker man".

Martin and Eve Hibbert, suffered life-changing injuries after attending the Ariana Grande concert in May 2017.

Mr Hibbert was left with a spinal cord injury, while Miss Hibbert is facing severe brain damage.

Both later became targets of author Richard D Hall, who claimed the attack, in which Salman Abedi detonated a homemade rucksack bomb in the crowd of concert-goers, was faked by government agencies.

Mr Hibbert said the five years of videos and trolling by Mr Hall was "mentally exhausting", leaving him feeling unsafe, and scared to go to the car on his own.

His daughter, Mr Hibbert said, described the defendant as "the stalker man", while his wife Gabby also no longer feeling safe at home.

The Hibberts are bringing a landmark defamation and harassment case against Mr Hall, suing him over several videos and a book in which he has made claims the bombing was a “hoax”, as well as “secretly filming” Eve and her mother at their house.

Defending, lawyers for Mr Hall said his actions were “pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime” and that he has deleted the footage from outside the home.

On the opening day of the trial, at the High Court in London, Mr Hall arrived brandishing two books, in which he claims those killed and injured in the attack were part of a conspiracy to fool the public.

The self-confessed conspiracy theorist claims the Hibberts had been signed up as "crisis actors" with the victims agreeing to disappear, and many others claiming they were injured.

Opening the case, Jonathan Price, for the Hibberts, said the pair were some of the closest to Abedi when he detonated the bomb and that the attack changed Mr Hibbert’s life “in every conceivable way”.

“They have both suffered life-changing injuries from which they will never recover,” the barrister said.

The court heard that Mr Hibbert received 22 wounds from shrapnel, and Miss Hibbert suffered a “catastrophic brain injury” after a bolt from the bomb struck her in the head - leading to her being presumed dead at the scene.

The teenager spent nine months in hospital and will require care for the rest of her life.

Mr Price added: “Martin, paralysed, saw Eve lying next to him with a hole in her head and assumed he was watching her die, unable to help.

"He saw others lying dead or injured around him.”

He continued: “Mr Hall does not accept any of this. His theory is that it is an elaborate hoax.”

“He doggedly adheres to the assertion that this attack did not happen and that we are all being fooled,” Mr Price later said.

The barrister said Mr Hall has claimed Mr Hibbert is lying, and that Miss Hibbert was disabled before the bombing.

He continued: “Mr Hall says her parents are invoking their daughter’s catastrophic disability as part of a huge fraud on the general public.”

The defendant in his book and website had claimed the fact Miss Hibbert did not do interviews was "suspicious" and he claimed that was evidence her injuries were fake.

The court was told he had gone to her home, and filmed the teenager coming out of her house in her wheelchair, and spoke to people in the street who did not know she had been in the bombing.

Mr Hibbert told the court Eve's injuries means she now has the capacity of an eight or nine-year-old, and he has had to talk to her about the case "in simple terms" to stop her from worrying about "the stalker man".

He said he was taking the action to protect her, and because she was scared.

Paul Oakley, for Mr Hall, said his client is “entirely entitled” to have his views, which were formed after he “scoured the public domain”.

He told the court: “My client is perfectly entitled to hold his views and he is willing to amend them if he is made aware of evidence to the contrary.”

In written submissions, Mr Oakley said Mr Hall and his beliefs have the right to freedom of expression.

He said: “However unpleasant Mr Hall’s published views are considered to be, they are protected.”

Mr Hibbert had made a “positive choice” to co-operate with the media concerning the attack, the barrister later said.

“As such, it is Mr Hibbert who has come to the ‘harassment’ and not the converse.”

The court was later told that, while there was one incident of filming, this was from a public highway and the footage was never published.

Mr Oakley continued: “It is submitted that this single incident would not be sufficient to found an action.”

The trial before Mrs Justice Steyn is expected to last four days with a decision expected in writing at a later date.