The Law vs. The Truth: Getting to the Bottom of the Richard D. Hall Case

Part 1 - Introduction

Part 1 - Introduction

In a landmark judgment (“the Judgment”) in UK law, dated October 22, 2024, the independent investigative journalist Richard D. Hall (“the defendant”) was found guilty of harassment of Martin Hibbert and his daughter Eve (“the claimants”), two of the reported victims of the incident which took place in the foyer outside the Manchester Arena on May 22, 2017. 

Hall has been ordered to pay £45,000 in damages, plus £234,000 to cover 90% of the claimants’ costs, totalling £279,000, and has had an injunction imposed upon him. Anyone wishing to help Hall meet these costs can donate to his legal fund by clicking here.

In his published work, most notably Manchester: The Night of The Bang (2020) and a film by the same title, Hall exposed deficiencies in the official account of the Manchester Arena incident. 

In return, Hall has found himself on the receiving end of lawfare aimed at destroying his reputation and potentially bankrupting him. 

The Judgment is being used by the media to create the misimpression that Hall was found guilty because his views about the Manchester Arena incident are false. Hall was not on trial for challenging the official version of events, however, nor was any attempt made by the High Court to engage with his evidence in that regard. The Judgment does not find him guilty of lying or of accusing others of lying. 

Rather, Hall has been found guilty of harassing two people whom he had never met and never tried to meet, with whom he had never exchanged a word, and with him having no idea that he was engaging in harassment. The Judgment is, thus, ridiculous on its face. 

The “harassment” verdict relies on the concept of “harassment by publication.” The conduct complained of by the claimants consists of four videos, a book, a film, a visit to Eve Hibbert’s home in 2019, and (inferentially) the content of Hall’s in-person lectures [11]. 

The numbers in square brackets refer to the relevant paragraph in the Judgment unless otherwise specified.

Only one of the items complained of involves any attempt by Hall at direct contact (i.e., an attempt to speak to Eve’s mother, Sarah Gillbard, not Eve). When no one answered the door, Hall lawfully left a camera running in his vehicle that was parked on a public highway, and deleted the footage without broadcasting it. Six months later, he reported his suspicion, based on that footage, that Eve Hibbert is in a wheelchair (he was not even sure it was Eve — see Hall, 2020, p. 221). He never returned to Eve’s home, nor did he ever try to make contact with Gillbard again.

Given that the Prosecution did not refer to Hall’s in-person lectures during the trial, we are left with four videos, a book, and a film in terms of the conduct complained of. Hall was unaware of the claimants’ existence when the first two videos were published in 2018 and 2019 [76]. Therefore, he cannot, in any reasonable sense, be said to have been “harassing” the claimants with those videos. He only refers to the claimants in two videos from 2020 (only for a small portion of each) and in the book and film (which are essentially the same content in different form). As Hall told the Court, “I discuss over 200 people who were either directly involved or [...] first hand witnesses, 200, in [...] a 435 page book. So [the claimants] were [...] not central.”

And that is it. That is the full extent of Richard D. Hall’s “harassment” of Martin and Eve Hibbert. Hall mentioned them briefly in two videos, a book, and film, almost entirely based on information that was already in the public domain, and which had mostly been put there by Martin Hibbert. In the book and film, he reported his unconfirmed suspicion that Eve is in a wheelchair. All of these publications came out between March 27, 2020, and June 13, 2020, two and half years before the claimants began their legal action. Hall expressed no further interest in the claimants during those two and a half years.

Prima facie, it is very hard to see how those four publications in a period of less than three months could be construed as harassment, especially given that the claimants only feature as bit-part characters in them. Those publications were not targeted at the claimants in the sense of singling them out or focusing on them specifically.

The Judgment becomes even more incredible, however, given that Hall was being sued in his capacity as an investigative journalist, and no harassment claim against a media entity in the UK had ever previously succeeded [162]. For context, think of all the terrible behaviour that the British tabloid press has engaged in down the years, including sending journalists and paparazzi to violate victims’ privacy, publishing intrusive details about them, bullying them through false allegations, violating ethical codes to obtain information about them, relentlessly targeting them for years, exploiting tragedy for commercial gain, etc. Not once, in all the decades this has been going on, has a British tabloid newspaper ever been found guilty of harassment; “media freedom” has always been protected. Yet, now the British justice system expects us to believe that, by mentioning Martin and Eve Hibbert in four publications in the spring of 2020, Richard D. Hall has behaved worse than the tabloid press ever did when it comes to harassment. This, too, is patently ridiculous. 

The purpose of this series is to explain how and why the Judgment against Hall was reached, and to expose the legal chicanery that was involved. As we will see, and as should not be surprising in light of the above information, the Judgment was only deliverable following deliberate suppression of Hall’s evidence, selective application of the law, fallacious appeals to authority, and outright favouritism towards the claimants, completely undermining the idea of justice being impartially served.

To be blunt, this was more of a show trial in which the defendant’s guilt was determined in advance, and the true purpose of the trial was to intimidate dissidents into keeping their mouths shut about Manchester and other alleged “hoaxed” attacks. The Judgment also paves the way for new legislation which will make it easier to criminalise the questioning of such attacks. This only confirms what I wrote about the case in Wall Street, the Nazis, and the Crimes of the Deep State (pp. 14-15), namely, that it serves as a marker of a wider, transnational movement towards the criminalisation of dissent and totalitarianism.  

The Judgment sends a clear message to other investigative journalists not to investigate suspected covert state crime, especially so-called “false [or hoaxed] false flags,” i.e. terrorist attacks which are thought to be staged, not real. If such events have been taking place, and have been used to legitimise draconian “War on Terror” measures, then it stands to reason that the perpetrators will be heavily invested in making sure the public does not realise this. 

The advantage of faking a false flag attack, from the perpetrators’ perspective, is that it avoids the problem of victims’ relatives pursuing a lifelong quest for justice. It also allows for the creation of an enclosed space which can be carefully managed so that evidence of fakery can be suppressed, which is especially important in the age of camera phones and social media. Nevertheless, as we will see, two vital pieces of camera phone evidence did emerge from the Manchester Arena incident, namely, a 43-second video taken by John Barr and a photograph simultaneously taken by Chris Parker. A lot can be deduced from that evidence, and coupled with other available evidence, there is strong reason to doubt the official account that a TATP shrapnel bomb went off. 

Admittedly, this has very uncomfortable implications in terms of the alleged victims of the attack, but there is no need to engage in speculation about what may or may not have happened to them (territory which, in any case, is now classed as harassment in the UK). It is sufficient to demonstrate, based on primary empirical evidence, that there was no bomb, for the official account to unravel. It is that unravelling which the lawfare against Hall was intended to prevent.

Paradoxically, however, because Hall stood his ground with dignity throughout, the case against him has only succeeded in drawing more attention to the inconsistencies between what the public was told about the Manchester Arena incident and what the evidence shows. Iain Davis, for instance, has published an important book of his own on the topic, as well as an article on the Summary Judgment against Hall and four series on Marianna Spring, Hall’s detractors, the trial (which he attended in person), and the Judgment. Had it not been for the persecution of Hall, maybe none of this material would have been produced. As it is, the genie is well and truly out of the bottle. 

In my own series on the Hall case, I seek to build on Davis’ work by carefully examining the legal documentation. Although I add little new to the empirical evidence adduced by Hall and Davis in relation to the Manchester Arena incident, I do present extensive evidence indicating that the public should have no confidence in the processes that led to Hall being found guilty of harassment.

The Basic Facts of the Case

For anyone who is unfamiliar with the Manchester Arena incident or the Richard D. Hall trial, the key information is as follows:

• On May 22, 2017, roughly 14,000 people, mostly young, were attending an Ariana Grande concert at the Manchester Arena when, at 22:31 pm, a loud bang caused panic inside the auditorium and a stampede ensued as the concert-goers rushed for the exits.

• According to the official version of events, the Libyan terrorist, Salman Abedi, had detonated a TATP shrapnel bomb – not inside the auditorium where the concert was taking place, but in the adjacent foyer area, known as the City Room: 

Source: Kerslake Report, Figure 4

• According to the official account, the TATP shrapnel bomb killed Abedi and 22 innocent victims, and “many others” were injured.

• The Kerslake Report, “an independent review into the preparedness for, and emergency response to,” the incident was published on March 27, 2018.  

• The Manchester Arena Inquiry, a statutory public inquiry, was established by the Home Secretary in 2019 to investigate the deaths of the victims. Chaired by Sir John Saunders, it published its findings in three volumes in June 2021 (“Security for the Arena”), November 2022 (“Emergency Response”), and March 2023 (“Radicalisation and Preventability”).  

• On March 17, 2020, Salman Abedi’s brother, Hashem Abedi, was convicted at the Central Criminal Court (the Old Bailey) of 22 counts of murder and plotting to cause an explosion likely to endanger life.

• On March 27, 2020, Richard D. Hall published a book, titled Manchester – The Night of the Bang – which challenged the official version of events, as well as a documentary film by the same title. Hall also discussed the Manchester Arena incident in four videos formerly hosted on his website between June 15, 2018 and June 13, 2020, as well as during 12 live shows in 2018 plus more in 2019.  

• Between mid August and mid November 2022, Hall suffered what he has called “a litany of harassment and smear campaigns by the BBC.” 

• In December 2022, two of the reported victims of the Manchester Arena incident, Martin Hibbert and his daughter Eve, sent Hall a pre-action protocol letter announcing their intention to sue him for harassment and GDPR breaches. Hall replied on January 11, 2023, requesting “strict proof of the time and place of [the claimants’] injuries,” and also proposing remedies that would have allowed the matter to be resolved out of court. 

• Instead of replying to Hall’s letter, the claimants applied for a summary judgment that  would place the following points beyond dispute at the trial

1. On 22 May 2017 22 innocent people were murdered in a bomb explosion carried out by a terrorist at the Manchester Arena at the conclusion of a concert performed by Ariana Grande; 

2. The claimants were present at the Manchester Arena at the time of the bombing; 

3. They were severely injured rendering Martin Hibbert paralysed from the waist down and Eve Hibbert brain damaged; and 

4. The cause of these injuries was the explosion of the bomb. [6]

• The hearing for the summary judgment was held on January 29, 2024, at the High Court of Justice, and Master Richard Davison found in favour of the claimants in a ruling dated February 8, 2024 (“the Summary Judgment”). 

• On April 15, 2024, Mrs. Justice Karen Steyn refused Hall’s application for permission to appeal Master Davison’s Order.

• On June 28, 2024, Mr. Justice Julian Knowles refused Hall’s renewed application for permission to appeal at an oral hearing.

• The four-day trial of Richard D. Hall took place between July 22 and July 25, 2024 at the High Court of Justice in London. 

• Hall was found guilty of harassment by Mrs. Justice Karen Steyn in a ruling dated October 22, 2024 (“the Judgment”). 

• Hall was ordered to pay £45,000 in damages, plus £234,000 in costs, and had an injunction imposed upon him on November 8, 2024. 

The Key Participants

For the benefit of those who may be new to this trial, the key figures are:

• Richard D. Hall, the defendant

• Martin Hibbert, one of two claimants

• Eve Hibbert, the other claimant, who is Martin’s disabled daughter

• Sarah Gillbard, Hibbert’s ex-wife and Eve’s “litigation friend,” conducting proceedings on her behalf;

• Daisy Burke (witness), Eve’s teaching assistant and support worker and formerly her home carer;

• Steve Lloyd (witness), Martin Hibbert’s friend;

• Jonathan Price, barrister for the Prosecution; 

• Paul Oakley, barrister for the Defence;

• Master Richard Davison, who delivered the Summary Judgment; and

• Mrs. Justice Karen Steyn DBE, who delivered the Judgment.

Source Material and Style

Apart from Part 2 on “Forensic Evidence,” which draws on Iain Davis’ work, the vast majority (over 90%) of the information cited in this series is taken from official sources, specifically: 

• The Judgment

• The trial transcipt

• The Summary Judgment

• The Summary Judgment hearing transcript

• The Sentencing Remarks on the Hashem Abedi trial

• The Kerslake Report

I also draw on other relevant legal documents, such as the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, as well as some of the case law cited by Davison and Steyn in the Summary Judgment and Judgment, respectively. 

For the sake of consistency, I have opted to retain the style of the official documents where possible, e.g. through the use of square brackets to refer to the relevant passages of legal documents, the mimicking of the presentation of dialogue in court transcripts, the use of “judgment” instead of “judgement,” etc. One legal convention of which readers should be aware is the use of “J” after a surname to refer to a judge, e.g. “Steyn J” as shorthand for “Mrs. Justice Steyn.” Similarly, “MR” placed after a surname refers to a Master of the High Court. DBE, for those who were wondering, stands for Dame of the British Empire. 

For the sake of accuracy and completeness, I reserve the right to update this series as necessary, should new information come my way.  

Structure

This series is structured as follows, with Parts 4-8 focusing on the Judgment:

1 - Introduction

2 - Forensic Evidence

3 - The Summary Judgment

4 - Harassment How?

5 - An Abuse of Media Freedom?

6 - Evidence and Truth vs. Appeal to Authority

7 - Alarm and Distress

8 - Two Failed Defences

9 - Conclusion

I am hoping to release each new part every 2-3 days as this project nears completion. Stay tuned for a summary of the forensic evidence in relation to the Manchester Arena incident.