A conspiracy theorist being sued by two survivors of the Manchester Arena bombing is “perfectly entitled” to believe the deadly attack was an “elaborate hoax”, his lawyer has told a court.
Martin Hibbert and his daughter Eve, then 14, were among the hundreds of people injured when 22-year-old Salman Abedi detonated a homemade bomb at an Ariana Grande concert in May 2017.
Mr Hibbert was paralysed from the waist down, while his daughter suffered a severe brain injury in the attack, which killed 22 people.
They are suing self-styled journalist Richard Hall for alleged harassment and breaches of data protection laws in a civil trial at the High Court in London.
Mr Hall has claimed that the attack was faked by government agencies using “crisis actors” and has published a book and videos claiming the bombing was a “hoax” – as well as “secretly filming” Miss Hibbert and her mother outside their house.
Jonathan Price, representing the Hibberts, said they were some of the closest to Abedi when he detonated his rucksack bomb and the attack had changed Mr Hibbert’s life “in every conceivable way”.
The court heard that Mr Hibbert suffered 22 wounds from shrapnel, while his daughter suffered a “catastrophic brain injury” after a bolt from the bomb struck her in the head – leading to her being presumed dead at the scene.
“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,” Mr Price said.
“They have both suffered life-changing injuries from which they will never recover.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Mr Price said Mr Hall’s theory is that “it is an elaborate hoax” and he has claimed Mr Hibbert is lying, and that Miss Hibbert was disabled before the bombing.
“Mr Hall says her parents are invoking their daughter’s catastrophic disability as part of a huge fraud on the general public,” he added.
Mr Price said the Hibberts were entitled to damages and an injunction to stop Mr Hall repeating his claims about the attack.
Read more:
Could MI5 have prevented Manchester Arena attack?
The missed opportunities to stop Salman Abedi
Police officers took two-hour break for kebabs on night of attack
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Mr Hall is fighting the claim, arguing that an injunction would be a disproportionate interference with his right to free speech.
“However unpleasant Mr Hall’s published views are considered to be, they are protected,” his lawyer Paul Oakley said in court filings.
He said his client is “entirely entitled” to have his views, which were formed after he “scoured the public domain”.
Be the first to get Breaking News
Install the Sky News app for free
The barrister said Mr Hibbert had made a “positive choice” to co-operate with the media and while there was one incident of filming, it was from a public highway and the footage was never published.
“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,” he said.
The trial is due to finish on Thursday, with a decision expected in writing at a later date.
It bears similarities to defamation lawsuits brought against US conspiracy theorist Alex Jones by relatives of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting, which he claimed was a hoax.
