'It was terrifying': Manchester Arena attack survivor tells of ordeal with conspiracy theorist

A dad paralysed from the waist down in the Manchester Arena attack has described the "terrifying" ordeal he endured after a conspiracy theorist tailed him and his daughter in attempts to 'prove' the bombing was a hoax.

Martin Hibbert and his daughter Eve sued Richard Hall for harassment in the High Court and were awarded £45,000 in damages on Friday.

The father-of-one was left with a spinal cord injury and Ms Hibbert suffered severe brain damage as a result of the 2017 bombing - which Hall had described as "a lie".

Mr Hibbert, of Chorley, Lancashire, said: "It's been tough having to deal with the injuries not just to myself but to my daughter, the most precious thing in my life. It was like a double blow.

"Just dealing with that and living with a spinal cord injury is tough enough but then having to deal with the constant abuse on social media and having it in the background all the time. It has been five, six years.

"Then to find out he had taken it even further and had filmed Eve outside the house. It had to be stopped.

"Friday was a really tough day to get through but it was vindication in a way that everything we have had to put up with. It wasn't right. It was harassment. The judge agreed with that.

"It was terrifying and I found out at a time when I was giving evidence at the inquiry back in 2021 so it was a tough time anyway.

"The police came round to where Eve lives to check the garden because he said that he had hidden a camera disguised as a tree or a bush but then he didn't capture the video that he wanted so then he parked outside the house and filmed her and saw her in a wheelchair with a carer and went on his website and declared he had got this footage. The police were concerned about that.

"I had a lot to focus on at the time and I had to keep quiet about it for twelve months which was a really tough thing to do while all these videos are being posted. It was tough."

Twenty-two people died and hundreds more were injured when suicide bomber Salman Abedi detonated a homemade device in the foyer of the venue as crowds left an Ariana Grande concert.

Hall had told the court his claims were in the public interest as a journalist and claimed "millions of people" had "bought a lie" about the attack.

Martin is now hoping to bring out Eve's Law so that others are protected in the future.

He said "I can't give a clear definition of what it is but in the run-up to the trial I thought Eve's Law would be a law to protect others who are involved in tragedies from conspiracy theorists and hate online. What the trial proved was the law can cope with this.

"Eve's Law could well be the access to justice for people. We have seen what it cost for me to do this. You are looking at £260,000. It's impossible for anyone to afford that so I am thinking a panel of pro bono barristers that can help the public to take these people down. If that is the legacy that would be something quite beautiful to come out of it."

In a judgment in October, Mrs Justice Steyn ruled in favour of the Hibberts and described Mr Hall’s behaviour as “a negligent, indeed reckless, abuse of media freedom”.

At a hearing on Friday 8 November, the judge said Mr Hibbert and his daughter would each be awarded £22,500 in damages. Mr Hall was also told to pay 90% of the Hibberts’ legal costs.

The final figure may be determined by a specialist judge if an agreement is not reached, but the court heard their total is currently estimated at £260,000.

Jonathan Price, for the pair, said Mr Hall’s behaviour was “towards the more oppressive end of the spectrum of harassing conduct”.

He continued in written submissions: “In a series of widely viewed videos, a print publication, as well as during in-person lectures, the defendant insisted that the terrorist attack in which the claimants were catastrophically injured did not happen and that the claimants were participants or ‘crisis actors’ in a state-orchestrated hoax, who had repeatedly, publicly and egregiously lied to the public for monetary gain.”

Mr Price had said a total of £75,000 for the pair in damages should be awarded, as well as at least 90% of their legal fees.

Paul Oakley, for Mr Hall, said in written submissions that £7,500 each in damages “would be appropriate”, adding there was “no justification” for aggravated damages.

He told the court: “There is no allegation of malice and that is really a fundamental point as far as damages are concerned.”

“Some of these harassment cases can get pretty nasty, but there was no vindictiveness.”

Mr Oakley later said that a suggested injunction was too wide, describing it as “a blanket ban” on all of Mr Hall’s output, and called the Hibberts’ estimated costs as “jaw dropping”.

The barrister said: “Mr Hall’s work was ‘not about’ the claimants, who featured only minimally in the entirety of his recorded and written output.

“At best, those parts of Mr Hall’s works which concern the claimants may be redacted but no more.”

Mr Oakley also said Mr Hall should be awarded costs after a data protection claim from the Hibberts was not continued.