MANCHESTER 'BOMBING' - FREE SPEECH AT STAKE
The Trial of Richard D. Hall.
Conspiracist tells court 'no one
injured' in arena attack
A self-described journalist who claims the Manchester Arena attack was faked has told the High Court he still maintains the bombing was staged.
Richard Hall is being sued in a civil trial by attack survivors Martin Hibbert and his daughter Eve, who were severely injured in the 2017 blast.
The former TV producer told the court he believed there "was no bomb", and "no one was genuinely injured in the attack" in which twenty-two people died.
The Hibberts have taken legal action against him for harassment and data protection.
PA MEDIA Martin Hibbert and his daughter Eve have taken Mr Hall to court for harassment
Mr Hall, giving evidence on the third day of the trial, said he worked as a "fully independent investigative journalist" since 2015 after a career as an engineer and television producer.
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 "millions of people have bought a lie" about the attack.
https://www.nelsonslaw.co.uk/judgement-conspiracy-theorist-claim/
Summary Judgement For Conspiracy Theorist Claim
Posted on August 9, 2024 at 11:51 am.Written by Amrik Basra
Martin Hibbert and Eve Hibbert v Richard D Hall [2024] EWHC 1665
Background
On 22 May 2017, Martin took his daughter, who at the time was 14, to the Ariana Grande concert in the Manchester Arena. As they left the concert, terrorist Salman Abedi detonated an explosive device killing and injuring many.
Martin was left paralysed from the waist down and Eve suffered a serious traumatic brain injury.
The Defendant in this case, Richard D Hall, publicly spoke and published works, including videos, articles, and a book alleging that the Manchester Bombing was a staged incident.
The Defendant made further claims that the Claimants did not attend the concert and their injuries were not a result of the terror attack. The Defendant also attended Eve’s home uninvited. After knocking on the door to no answer, the Defendant waited in his car to film Eve, her mother, and her carer without their consent.
As a result of the Defendant’s alleged actions, the Claimants issued a claim for harassment, misuse of private information, and breach of their data protection rights. The Claimants are seeking damages in addition to an injunction that would prevent the Defendant from being able to continue making claims in respect of the Manchester Bombing and the Claimants.
The Claimants applied for summary judgment in respect of specific issues concerning the case. The issues related to a number of statements made in the Claimant’s particulars of claim that were denied or not admitted by the Defendant. These were:
- On 22 May 2017, 22 people were murdered in a terror attack at the Manchester Arena;
- The Claimants were present at the time of the bombing;
- The Claimants were severely injured; and
- The cause of the injuries was the explosion of the bomb in the Manchester Arena on 22 May 2017.
It was for the Court to determine whether summary judgment could be ordered in respect of the issues and if so, come to a determination. The Court may grant summary judgment against a Defendant on a particular issue if the Defendant has no real prospect of defending the issue successfully and there is no compelling reason why the issue should be disposed of at trial.
When making this decision, the Court must not only consider the information available for the summary judgment application but also evidence reasonably expected to be available at trial.
- On 22 May 2017, 22 people were murdered in a terror attack at the Manchester Arena;
- The Claimants were present at the time of the bombing;
- The Claimants were severely injured; and
- The cause of the injuries was the explosion of the bomb in the Manchester Arena on 22 May 2017.
Judgment
It was held that the Issues were not to be subject to debate at a future trial as the Defendant had no real prospect of succeeding on his claims regarding the Issues. Judge Davidson cited the mounds of evidence including witness statements, CCTV footage, and medical records all of which confirm that the Issues disputed by the Defendant were in fact true, further adding:
“Although his [the Defendant’s] beliefs may be genuinely held, his [the Defendant’s] theory that the Manchester bombing was an operation staged by government agencies in which no one was genuinely killed or injured is absurd and fantastical.”
The claim is now listed for a further directions hearing ahead of the final trial.
See also:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.