In a high-profile case currently before the UK High Court, Richard D. Hall, a self-proclaimed investigative journalist, is defending himself against harassment claims brought by Martin Hibbert and his daughter, Eve. The legal action centres around Hall’s controversial book and documentary Manchester: The Night of the Bang, which allege that the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing was a staged event. The Hibbert family, victims of the attack, argue that Hall’s theories have not only defamed them but also caused significant emotional distress.
This article provides a detailed examination of the claims from both sides, outlining Hall’s defence and the case presented by the Hibberts. It also investigates the broader implications of the trial, touching on freedom of speech, privacy, and the boundaries of investigative journalism.
The Manchester Arena Bombing: A Tragic Event.
The official narrative states the Manchester Arena bombing on May 22, 2017, killed 22 people and injured hundreds more during an Ariana Grande concert. One of the most devastating terrorist attacks in recent UK history, the bombing left long-lasting scars on victims and their families, including Martin Hibbert, who was paralyzed from the waist down, and his daughter Eve, who sustained severe brain injuries.
Despite these facts, conspiracy theories surrounding the event quickly emerged, suggesting the bombing was a hoax. Central to these theories is Richard D. Hall, a figure well-known for his investigative work into alleged cover-ups involving the state and other large institutions.
Richard D. Hall’s Investigative Claims.
Richard Hall, a former engineer turned independent journalist, has been producing investigative content since 2009. His work focuses on controversial events, often suggesting government involvement in fabricating or covering up incidents. Hall’s investigative foray into the Manchester Arena bombing culminated in his book Manchester: The Night of the Bang, released in 2020, which claims the bombing was staged, involving actors posing as victims, including Martin and Eve Hibbert.
In his witness statement, Hall outlines how his investigation began in 2019, two years after the attack. He claims to have reviewed evidence such as a video filmed shortly after the explosion, which he believes contradicts official reports. Hall’s analysis includes points like the lack of visible injuries in the footage, undamaged nearby objects, and the behaviour of alleged victims. He specifically points to Ruth Murrell, a survivor seen in the footage, walking unimpeded despite media reports that she had sustained a severe leg injury.
Hall also visited the homes of several witnesses, including Eve Hibbert’s mother, Sarah Gillbard, as part of his research. He recorded video footage of her street but maintains that his approach was polite and professional, denying any intent to harass or intimidate.
“I was simply attempting to gather information in the public interest,” Hall states in his defence, emphasising that his work is investigative journalism protected under the principles of free speech. He further highlights public scepticism about the Manchester bombing, citing a 2022 survey by King’s College London, which found that 26% of the UK population believed the government or mainstream media were involved in a cover-up related to the bombing.
 |
| Richard D Hall |
The Hibberts’ Case: Harassment and Defamation.
For Martin and Eve Hibbert, Hall’s work crosses a line from investigation to harassment. Represented by Martin’s legal team, they argue that Hall’s publications have deeply affected their lives, not just by questioning the legitimacy of their injuries but by suggesting they were involved in a hoax. Martin’s testimony details the trauma he has endured—not only from the bombing itself but from being publicly accused of fabricating his and his daughter’s suffering.
The Hibberts argue that Hall’s conspiracy theories have caused further emotional distress, particularly as Hall’s book and film have been viewed widely, gaining traction in online communities known for promoting conspiracy theories. Hall’s decision to visit their home and record their street, they claim, only exacerbated their fear and sense of intrusion.
Their legal case is built on multiple pillars, including harassment, defamation, and misuse of personal data. They assert that Hall’s repeated public statements, media appearances, and the content of his publications amount to a systematic campaign to discredit them and undermine the truth of the Manchester bombing. They also highlight how Hall’s claims have led to their private lives being scrutinised in the public eye, particularly after his secretive filming of their street.
Martin Hibbert has been a public figure in the years following the bombing, using his platform to advocate for survivors of terror attacks and raise awareness about the importance of better emergency responses. Eve’s mother, Sarah, on the other hand, has sought to keep her daughter’s life as private as possible, avoiding media attention as Eve copes with the aftermath of her injuries. Hall’s actions, the Hibberts argue, have violated this privacy.
Freedom of Speech vs. Harassment.
The case touches on the broader issue of the limits of free speech and investigative journalism. Hall maintains that his work was carried out with journalistic integrity, adhering to the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) code of conduct. He argues that any opinions expressed in his publications were clearly labelled as such and not presented as fact. Furthermore, Hall contends that his use of public images of the Hibberts falls under "fair use," as the images were already publicly available through the media.
However, the Hibberts claim that Hall’s actions went beyond free speech and entered the realm of harassment. They contend that Hall's publications and videos not only cast doubt on their integrity but also subjected them to intense public scrutiny, undermining their safety and well-being. In their view, Hall’s conspiracy theories were not rooted in genuine journalism but rather in reckless speculation, designed to provoke controversy and attract attention.
The Court's Challenge: A Complex Decision.
The court must now balance these competing interests, and deliver their verdict on 24 October 2024. On the one hand, Hall argues that his work is a matter of public interest, especially in light of public distrust of official narratives surrounding the bombing. On the other hand, the Hibberts seek justice for what they claim is an unfounded and harmful attack on their personal lives.
The legal decision will likely hinge on whether Hall’s investigative methods can be seen as reasonable under the circumstances, and whether his actions crossed the line into harassment. Moreover, the case will explore whether Hall’s theories, presented as opinions, can still cause harm to the claimants under UK law, particularly the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Data Protection Act 2018.
Conclusion: The Implications.
The case of Richard Hall versus the Hibberts raises important questions about the responsibilities of journalists and the limits of free speech in the age of conspiracy theories. It also highlights the lasting trauma experienced by survivors of terror attacks, who, in some cases, must contend not only with physical and psychological injuries but also with unfounded public accusations.
As the trial proceeds, it will serve as a critical test of the balance between the right to investigate and report, and the need to protect individuals from harassment and defamation. Regardless of the outcome, the case has already ignited a broader debate about where the line should be drawn when questioning official narratives and conducting public investigations.
Communication from Richard D Hall - RICHPLANET.NET - Trial Transcript.
Greetings,
Just to update you on the on-going situation with my recent trial at the
High Court in London.
I have obtained a full transcript of the trial which is available to read
or download from this link ...
https://cdn1.richplanet.net/pdf/Trial-Transcript.pdf
My own cross examination starts at page 298.
The witness statement I submitted to the trial can also be found here ...
https://cdn1.richplanet.net/pdf/Trial-Witness-Statement.pdf
I am interested to know from people who read the transcript any thoughts
they may have. Please send them to richard@richplanet.net.
I am expecting a judgment on the case on or around 24th October 2024. I
will let you know the outcome.
Thanks for your continued support and for the donations which have funded
my defence. Paul Oakley, my barrister did an excellent job. You can read
every word of what happened at the trial from the link above.
Further details can be found here ...
https://www.richplanet.net/legal.php
Further legal documents can be found here ...
https://www.richplanet.net/legaldocuments.php
My work on the Manchester Arena incident can be found here ...
https://www.richplanet.net/manchester.php
Richard
richard@richplanet.net
