The recent High Court ruling marks a pivotal moment for survivors of the Manchester Arena bombing.
- Martin Hibbert and his daughter, Eve, successfully sued conspiracy theorist Richard D Hall for harassment.
- This landmark case addresses unfounded claims made by Hall that the bombing was fabricated.
- The ruling underscores the misuse of media freedom to spread harmful conspiracies.
- Victims hope this judgement will deter future harassment from conspiracy theorists.
A recent High Court decision has strengthened the standing of Manchester Arena bombing victims, Martin Hibbert and his daughter Eve, by ruling in their favour in a harassment case against Richard D Hall. Hall, a former TV producer and conspiracy theorist, falsely claimed that the tragic bombing was staged and targeted victims in his media outputs.
The attack, carried out by Salman Abedi in May 2017, resulted in 22 fatalities and hundreds of injuries. Among those injured were the Hibberts, who sustained severe injuries. Mr Hibbert was left with a spinal cord injury while his daughter suffered a catastrophic brain injury.
Hall’s defence argued that his actions served the public interest, asserting that many had been deceived by a fabricated narrative of the attack. However, this claim was dismissed by Mrs Justice Steyn, who found Hall’s actions to be unreflective and harmful, causing immense distress to the victims.
In her decisive ruling, Justice Steyn criticised Hall for abusing media freedom and publishing baseless allegations. The court refused to rule on a data protection claim at this stage, focusing instead on the harassment aspect.
The judgement arrives after a detailed investigation by BBC Panorama and Radio 4, which documented Hall’s targeting of bombing victims. Following the investigation, Hall’s YouTube channel, which propagated various conspiracy theories, was removed.
Martin Hibbert commended the ruling as a comprehensive victory and expressed his intention to campaign for new legislation to protect individuals from similar harassment in the future. He hopes this case will serve as a deterrent to those who spread baseless and harmful allegations.
This ruling sets a crucial precedent against unfounded conspiracy theories, reinforcing the importance of media responsibility.
