‘Millions of people have bought a lie’ over Manchester Arena attack, court told

"Millions of people have bought a lie" a conspiracy theorist who believes the Manchester Arena attack was staged has told the High Court.

Richard D Hall, who is being sued by two survivors of the bombing, said “there was no bomb” and that the public inquiry into the attack “ignored” evidence.

Taking to the stand on the third day of a civil harassment trial, Mr Hall told the court in London he believed that no one was “genuinely injured” in the attack, with evidence showing the incident was “faked”.

Martin Hibbert, and his daughter Eve, brought legal action for harassment and data protection against Mr Hall over several videos and a book where he claims the bombing was a “hoax”, as well as “secretly filming” Miss Hibbert and her mother at their house.

The pair were at the Ariana Grande concert in May 2017 where Mr Hibbert sustained a spinal cord injury - leaving him paralysed - and Miss Hibbert was left with a “catastrophic” brain injury.

However, Mr Hall, who said he has worked as a “fully independent investigative journalist” since 2015 after careers as an engineer and television producer, said there is “no primary evidence of a bomb”.

He told the court: “There was no bomb in that room or genuinely injured people… The primary evidence shows there was no bomb in that room that exploded.”

Mr Hall later said that a “majority” of people “believe a lie” about the attack.

“Millions of people have bought a lie,” he said.

In his written evidence, Mr Hall claimed that a video was taken minutes after the blast, showing no damage to the building or broken glass.

Discussing the video, said to have been taken by a member of the public called John Barr, Mr Hall said: “There was no shrapnel visible. The lighting was intact and working. No injuries were visible.

“The number of people in the room seemed far lower than officially claimed.

“There are people lying on the ground, and some others apparently attending to them.

“There is no sign of any urgent activity during this video of people rushing to attend to the purportedly dead and injured; no sign of tourniquets being applied, nor of any other activity consistent with an extremely serious major incident having just occurred.”

Mr Hall suggested that there was “very strong evidence that injuries were being staged in a faked ‘attack’”.

Salman Abedi killed 22 people and injured hundreds when he detonated the homemade rucksack-bomb in the crowd of concert-goers, with the Hibberts some of the nearest people to him at the time of the blast.

Abedi’s brother, Hashem Abedi, was jailed for life in August 2020 after he was convicted of assisting the terror plot.

The public inquiry into the atrocity began on September 7 2020 and ended on February 15 2022.

In its third report, published in March 2023, inquiry chairman Sir John Saunders concluded the attack might have been prevented if MI5 had acted on key intelligence received in the months prior.

Jonathan Price, for the Hibberts, asked Mr Hall why he would not “just believe” the pair and Miss Hibbert’s mother Sarah Gillbard about the incident.

Mr Hall replied: “Because there is no evidence to show any of their claims.”

He later added “I’m presenting the evidence and letting people decide for themselves”, adding that his statements were “my opinion based on what I see”.

The barrister asked: “If it is true, and that is what they have been through, would you feel any compassion towards them?”

“Well, of course, but it is not true,” Mr Hall said, adding: “I feel compassion to anyone who suffers a life-changing injury which they clearly have.

“Of course they do have life-changing injuries but I don’t accept that it happened at 10.21pm in the Manchester Arena.”

The barrister later asked Mr Hall why he believed it to be in the public interest to feature the Hibberts in his work.

Mr Hall replied: “There were many statements in the media but the primary evidence completely contradicted it… It was in the public interest to explore those witnesses.”

Mr Price suggested that Mr Hall’s work was “not rigorous journalism” and “nothing but conjecture”.

But in his written evidence, Mr Hall described his book and films as featuring “nothing more than honest reporting and opinion”.

The trial before Mrs Justice Steyn is due to conclude this week with a decision in writing expected at a later date.