A conspiracy theorist has told the High Court “there was no bomb” and no one was “genuinely injured” in the Manchester Arena attack in which 22 people were killed.
Richard Hall said he believes the atrocity was staged and “millions of people have bought a lie”.
The former television producer is being sued in a civil trial by Martin Hibbert and his daughter Eve who were severely injured in the explosion at an Ariana Grande concert on 22 May 2017.
The Hibberts have brought legal proceedings against him for harassment and data protection.
Their action relates to several videos and a book where he claims the bombing was a “hoax”, as well as “secretly filming” Ms Hibbert and her mother at their house.
The father and daughter were at the gig where Mr Hibbert suffered a spinal cord injury – leaving him paralysed – and Ms Hibbert was left with a “catastrophic” brain injury.
As well as killing 22, the suicide bomber Salman Abedi also injured hundreds when he detonated a homemade bomb in the crowd, with the Hibberts among the people nearest to him at the time of the blast.
Mr Hall told the London 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.”
He later said that a “majority” of people “believe a lie” about the attack, with evidence showing the incident was “faked”.
“Millions of people have bought a lie,” he said, and the public inquiry into the attack “ignored” evidence.
‘No injured were visible’, says Mr Hall
In his written evidence, Mr Hall claimed that a video, believed to have been filmed by a member of the public, was taken minutes after the blast, showing no damage to the building or broken glass.
He told the court: “There was no shrapnel visible. The lighting was intact and working. No injuries were visible.”
He said the number of people in the room “seemed far lower than officially claimed”.
He also said there was no sign of people of “rushing to attend to the purportedly dead and injured”, or any other activity “consistent with an extremely serious major incident having just occurred”.
Mr Hall, who said he has worked as a “fully independent investigative journalist” since 2015 after careers as an engineer and television producer, suggested there was “very strong evidence that injuries were being staged in a faked ‘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
Why did Mr Hall not just believe the survivors?
Jonathan Price, representing the Hibberts, asked Mr Hall why he would not “just believe” the pair and Ms Hibbert’s mother Sarah Gillbard about the incident.
Mr Hall replied: “Because there is no evidence to show any of their claims.”
He later added: “I’m presenting the evidence and letting people decide for themselves”, saying his statements were “my opinion based on what I see”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
The barrister asked: “If it is true, and that is what they have been through, would you feel any compassion towards them?”
“Well, of course, but it is not true,” Mr Hall said, adding: “I feel compassion to anyone who suffers a life-changing injury which they clearly have.
“Of course they do have life-changing injuries but I don’t accept that it happened at 10.21pm in the Manchester Arena.”
The barrister later asked Mr Hall why he believed it to be in the public interest to feature the Hibberts in his work.
Mr Hall replied: “There were many statements in the media but the primary evidence completely contradicted it… It was in the public interest to explore those witnesses.”
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Be the first to get Breaking News
Install the Sky News app for free
The trial before Mrs Justice Steyn is due to conclude this week with a decision in writing expected at a later date.
In the public inquiry’s third report, published in March 2023, the chairman Sir John Saunders concluded the attack might have been prevented if MI5 had acted on key intelligence received in the months prior.
