The Bizarre Trial of Richard D. Hall - Part 3

*******************************************

I have not received any encouragement or inducement from anyone to write about or discuss any information related to the Manchester Attack. All research discussed is exclusively my own and based solely upon information freely available in the public domain.

*******************************************

Please read Part 1 and Part 2 in order to grasp some of the wider context of the civil claim of harassment and GDPR breaches brought by two purported “victims” of the Manchester Arena hoax against investigative journalist Richard D. Hall: Martin Hibbert & Eve Hibbert and Richard D. Hall.

The evidence Hall unearthed showed that there was no bomb in the City Room (foyer) of the Manchester Arena. I subsequently explored the wider implications of the case, the propaganda setting, and presented additional damning evidence in my book The Manchester Attack: An Independent Investigation—also freely available as a PDF.

Once the prosecution had outlined their case—see Part 2—Hall’s defence, represented by barrister Mr Paul Oakley, was free to begin the cross-examination of the prosecution’s witnesses. Mr Martin Hibbert (father of Eve Hibbert and one of the joint claimants) was the first to take the stand.

Like the prosecution, the defence began by reading passages from Hall’s book Manchester: The Night of the Bang. You can get the book for FREE from Hall’s Richplanet website or you can support Richard D. Hall by purchasing a paperback copy.

Mr Oakley highlighted that his client’s—Richard D. Hall’s—opinion about the Manchester attack was honestly held. Mr Oakley noted that the effect of the prior summary judgement, which precluded the defence from questioning the official Manchester Arena account, meant for the purposes of the trial these alleged “facts” were not disputed. Oakley made it clear “the facts” were not questioned by the defence only because they could not be questioned. He stated that Mr Hall maintained his honest view that Manchester was a hoax.

In light of the prosecution, which seeks an injunction to potentially censor Hall’s book and video reports, Mr Oakley suggested that the case was actually a defamation case rather than a harassment and GDPR breaches claim. While Mr Oakley did not explore this at-length, it is worth considering what he was intimating.

A common defence against a defamation claim is “the truth defence.” The court starts from the assumption the claimant has been defamed but if the defendant can demonstrate that their allegation are based in truth the defamation claim cannot stand. Therefore, it would not have been so easy to issue the summary judgement—barring Hall from examining the Manchester hoax evidence in the High Court—had the case been a defamation claim.

Mr Oakley pointed out that Hall had acted reasonably. Hall had maintained his willingness to change his “staged attack hypothesis” should evidence come to light contradicting said “hypothesis.” Hall had made two applications to the court to see such evidence—which the prosecution claimed to exist—but these applications were rejected by the High Court when the claimants successfully secured the summary judgement, prior to commencement of the trial.

Just as Hall did in his book, Mr Oakley examined some of the many public statements Mr Hibbert had provided to the legacy media. Mr Oakley pointed out that Mr Hibbert had stated in an interview that he and the mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham, were seeking to use the potential verdict to press for legislation that would stop investigative journalists questioning the victims of reported terrorist attacks.

Mr Oakley pressed Mr Hibbert on the scope of his claim and asked if he was seeking to censor all of Mr Hall’s work on the Manchester attack or just stop Hall questioning his and his daughter’s account with regard to the alleged bombing . Mr Hibbert said that he merely sought remedy to redress the alleged “harm” caused by Mr Hall to himself and his daughter—co-claimant Eve Hibbert.

The claimants are seeking an injunction in the case to stop Hall’s public criticisms and remove them from the public domain. It was clear from Mr Hibbert’s answer that the claimants were only seeking an injunction in so far as it related to information specifically about them. They were not, according the Mr Hibbert, seeking an injunction to censor Hall’s entire body of work on the Manchester hoax.

Mr Oakley observed that Mr Hibbert’s ‘X’ social media profile described him as an author, motivational speaker and media personality. Mr Hibbert said that he had no control over ‘X’ description of him as a media personality. Mr Oakley asked Mr Hibbert if he paid for his “blue-tick” status on ‘X’ and asked if he had ever challenged the assignment of “media personality” to his profile. Mr Hibbert confirmed that he paid for ‘X’ services and that he had not challenged the description.

Mr Oakley asked about Mr Hibbert’s relationship with the media. He pointed out that Mr Hibbert had appeared in more than 160 print-media reports alone. Mr Hibbert said that he had “never” approached the media and that they had instigated all approaches to him. Mr Hibbert acknowledged that he had become a “mouthpiece or a voice” for the alleged Manchester attack survivors.

Mr Hibbert said that he had a good relationship with journalists who had been with him “from the start”—the immediate aftermath of the alleged bombing. Mr Hibbert said he personally authorised all stories about him and Eve and the use of all images. Mr Hibbert said that these were proper, decent, professional journalists because they always asked permission to use images or publish content about him and Eve. Mr Hibbert stated that he approved every one of these media stories because they were respectful and did not question his account.

Mr Oakley asked Mr Hibbert about the “infamous” photograph of Mr Hibbert and Eve Hibbert at San Carlo restaurant in Manchester. Mr Oakley pointed out that this image had been used in many media reports and on numerous social media posts and asked Mr Hibbert if he had authorised that use in every case. Mr Oakley put it to Mr Hibbert that he did not, in fact, control either the use of such imagery or the reports about him and the Manchester event, nor could Mr Hibbert stop criticism of the public statements he made. Mr Hibbert conceded that he could not control use of his images once they were in the public domain and that he could not stop criticism of his public statements.

the “infamous” San Carlo photograph

Richard D. Hall published his book and accompanying documentary film in March 2020. During his investigation, in August 2019, Hall visited the home of Eve’s mother Sarah Gillbard. Mr Hibbert claimed that he first heard about Hall questioning his account of the “bombing” in May 2018. He said that he knew a “conspiracy theory,” claiming Manchester was a hoax, had been floated at that time. It was not immediately clear how this could possibly have been anything to do with Richard D. Hall.

Mr Hibbert said that he wasn’t initially bothered about the hoax “conspiracy theory” or the questioning of his account. Mr Hibbert said he thought he must have done something right if he had a conspiracy theorist “after” him. Mr Hibbert has said the same in many legacy media interviews.

Mr Oakley highlighted Mr Hibbert’s repeated public statements that he was “old-school” and believed in the adage: sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me. Consequently, Mr Oakley sought to identify when Mr Hall’s reporting crossed the Rubicon—from Mr Hibbert’s perspective—from innocuous if uncomfortable criticism to harassment that allegedly caused “harm.”

Under Oakley’s cross examination Mr Hibbert confirmed that he had not known anything about Mr Hall’s 2019 visit to Miss Gillbard’s (and Eve’s) address until the summer of 2021. Mr Oakley drew Mr Hibbert’s attention to Miss Gillbard’s written statement where she said “the whole street” knew about Eve following Hall’s 2019 visit. In light of the fact that Mr Hibbert didn’t know anything about Hall’s visit until the summer of 2021, Mr Oakley asked Mr Hibbert if Miss Gillbard had discussed Hall’s visit with him prior to the summer of 2021. Mr Hibbert said he didn’t know when Eve’s neighbours were alerted to the alleged cause of Eve’s injuries.

Mr Oakley also noted that Greater Manchester Police (GMP) had been made aware of Mr Hall’s 2019 visit in the summer of 2021. They subsequently conducted door-to-door inquiries in the street where Miss Gillbard and Eve lived. As Part of their inquiries GMP investigated Hall’s book and his documentary. In July 2021, the GMP concluded their investigation indicating they found no evidence of any wrongdoing by Mr Hall. The GMP ceased their inquiries and no further action was taken.

Mr Oakley noted that the prosecution, when asked by the defence for their evidence, had presented—in addition to the book—transcripts of thirty-two of Hall’s video reports. The majority of these reports had nothing to do with Manchester.

Mr Oakley asked Mr Hibbert to specify where, in any of those reports, he had identified some form of harassment directed against either himself or his daughter by Mr Hall. Mr Hibbert said he could not make that clarification based solely upon the written transcripts. Therefore, Mr Hibbert could not identify any specific incidents of harassment while on the stand.

Given that Mr Hibbert said he only became concerned about Hall’s work in the summer of 2021—more than a year after it was first published and broadcast—Mr Oakley asked him how he eventually came to access Mr Hall’s work. Mr Hibbert said that other people told him about Hall’s allegations via social media. Mr Oakley asked if Mr Hibbert had any evidence to substantiate his claim that he only knew about Hall’s work from third parties. Mr Hibbert confirmed that he did not.

Mr Hibbert alleged that he received a constant stream of abuse from Mr Hall’s followers on social media. Mr Oakley noted that the prosecution had not provided any evidence to substantiate this allegation and asked Mr Hibbert why none had been presented. Mr Hibbert deferred to his legal team—led by barrister Mr Price—and said that he didn’t know why this evidence wasn’t included in the prosecution’s legal bundle.

Mr Oakley asked Mr Hibbert if his client—Mr Hall—had made any approaches to Mr Hibbert or to his extended family beyond the 2019 visit to Miss Gillbard’s address. Mr Hibbert confirmed that Hall had not.

The focus of the cross examination turned to Mr Hibbert’s claimed intention to protect his daughter and co-claimant Eve Hibbert from public scrutiny. Mr Hibbert said that both he and Miss Gillbard sought to protect Eve and her interests and did not want Eve’s medical conditions to be discussed. Mr Hibbert fully supported Miss Gillbard’s statement to this effect.

Mr Oakley noted that, during the case, Mr Hibbert’s new book had been serialised by the Daily Mail. Mr Oakley read some passages from Mr Hibbert’s book:

Blood trickled from her [Eve’s] gaping mouth as she gasped for breath, a horrifying hole around her right temple exposing brain tissue. [. . .] ‘You’re OK,’ I wheezed. ‘I’m here. Daddy’s here.’ She continued to gasp. Like a fish out of water. [. . .] ‘Please,’ I whimpered, trying to gesture towards her with my eyes. ‘My daughter.’ [. . .] I could see Eve’s beautiful, torn face once more. [. . .] I watched Eve being scooped onto a piece of hoarding from a merchandise stand and carried away

Despite the claim for emotional distress and “harm” allegedly caused by Hall’s questioning of his account, Mr Hibbert sat stony-faced throughout Mr Oakley’s reading of the harrowing details Mr Hibbert published about the injuries sustained by Eve Hibbert. There was no sign that Mr Hibbert was distressed by having to relive these memories in the court.

Oakley asked Mr Hibbert how he thought publishing such material protected Eve from public scrutiny. In what way, Oakley asked, was Mr Hibbert’s public discussion of Eve’s injuries consistent with Miss Gillbard’s wish to keep Eve “out of it.” Mr Hibbert said he could not speak for Miss Gillbard but that he did not want any “unauthorised” accounts of Eve’s injuries to be discussed in the public domain. By extension, Mr Hibbert suggested that some people were “authorised” to talk about Eve.

Mr Oakley put it to Mr Hibbert, by publishing such material, he had no way of knowing and could not control what criticisms people may make of his account or their speculation about Eve’s reported injuries, as described by Mr Hibbert. Oakley added that people had the right to criticise or comment on any information published in the public domain. Mr Hibbert conceded the points raised by Mr Oakley.

In reference to apparently “authorised” reports, Mr Oakley noted that the legacy media had published that Mr Hibbert remembers very little either about the bombing or the weeks and months that followed. Mr Hibbert said that this was not an accurate report and acknowledged that he had not challenged this account or found it distressing.

Mr Hibbert stated that he had written his book in order to inspire people. He wanted to reach out to other disabled people and encourage them. He intended to show that anything could be overcome with the kind of grit and determination he had exhibited throughout his own recovery.

Mr Oakley noted Mr Hibbert’s allegation that Hall was a conspiracy theorist who presented farfetched and preposterous ideas. Oakley referenced Mr Hibbert’s published account of talking to the ghost of his grandmother. Oakley asked Mr Hibbert if he accepted that people may question or perhaps even disparage such claims. Mr Hibbert agreed the possibility existed.

In an interview given to Channel 4, and elsewhere in the legacy media, Mr Hibbert was extremely critical of the Kerslake Report into the response to the purported Manchester bombing. Mr Oakley asked why Mr Hibbert felt it was acceptable for him to be critical of the official narrative but not his client—Mr Hall. Mr Hibbert said his own criticism did not question the bombing. This appeared to amount to substantive difference from Mr Hibbert’s perspective.

It was noted by Mr Oakley that Mr Hibbert had said there had been a “huge reaction” to the BBC Panorama episode Disaster Deniers—first broadcast in October 2022. Based on the alleged journalism of the BBC’s first social media and disinformation correspondent, Marianna Spring, Disaster Deniers featured Hall and levelled many of the same allegations, later made by Mr Hibbert, against him.

Mr Hibbert stated that the “huge reaction” led him, Eve and his extended family, including Miss Gillbard, to fear for their safety. Mr Oakley asked if Mr Hibbert had willingly participated in the Panorama program. Mr Hibbert confirmed that he had. He stated that he had known Marianna Spring since 2021 and that Spring was among the people who had mentioned Hall and Hall’s work to him.

Mr Hibbert said that he had worked with Spring on her “Disaster Trolls” podcast series, which also attacked Hall. When asked by Oakley, Mr Hibbert confirmed that he had launched the legal proceedings against Hall after his involvement with the BBC and Marianna Spring.

Mr Oakley asked Mr Hibbert if he was aware that his client—Hall—had repeatedly declined to participate in the BBC’s Disaster Troll and Denier investigations. Mr Hibbert acknowledged this fact. Therefore, Mr Oakley put it to Mr Hibbert that he could have avoided the “huge reaction”—which Mr Hibbert claimed to be the source of his and his families distress—if he too had refused take part in the BBC programs. Oakley invited Mr Hibbert to acknowledge that it was he, and not his client Mr Hall, who had actively contributed toward constructing the allegedly intimidating and harmful environment. Mr Hibbert insisted it was Hall’s actions that had led to the claimed distress.

Toward the end of the cross-examination Mr Oakley moved on to discuss the claimed GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) breaches. Mr Oakley highlighted that, in order to address any concerns, it was standard practice in the first instance to raise a complaint with the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). Mr Oakley asked if Mr Hibbert was aware of this and if he had reported his complaint to the ICO.

Mr Hibbert said that he was not aware of this procedural step. Nor had he been advised by his solicitors to take his concerns to the ICO before pursuing legal action through the High Court of Justice.

From my lay perspective, Mr Hibbert’s testimony raised questions about the extent to which he was the instigator of the claim against Hall. It seemed evident that the claim was being driven by others. Perhaps most notably the BBC, Marianna Spring and Mr Hibberts legal team. The fact that Mr Hibbert had not been advised about the ICO complaints procedure brought this possibility sharply into focus.

Mr Oakley then moved on to cross-examine the prosecutions remaining witnesses. If Mr Hibbert’s testimony was surprising, what Miss Gillbard and others would disclose was shocking. Please read Part 4 where I will discuss some quite astounding admissions.