The Manchester Arena attack affected a survivor’s life “in every conceivable way”, the High Court has heard at the start of a harassment trial against a man who claims the bombing was faked.
Bombing survivors Martin and Eve Hibbert are suing self-described journalist Richard Hall for harassment and data protection at the London court.
The father and daughter were at the Ariana Grande concert in May 2017 and suffered life-changing injuries, with Mr Hibbert left with a spinal cord injury and Miss Hibbert facing severe brain damage.
However, Mr Hall has claimed that the attack, in which Salman Abedi detonated a home-made rucksack bomb in the crowd of concert-goers, was faked by government agencies with “crisis actors” used.
Mr Hall is being sued over several videos and a book in which he has made claims that the bombing was a “hoax”, as well as “secretly filming” Eve and her mother at their house.
Defending the claims, 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 Monday, Mr Hibbert and Mr Hall appeared at the High Court for the first day of the trial, with around 20 members of the public watching the proceedings across two courtrooms.
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.
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.”
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 due to conclude on Thursday with a decision expected in writing at a later date.
