The Bizarre Trial of Richard D. Hall - Part 4

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

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, Part 2, and Part 3 to familiarise yourself with this highly unusual civil claim for harassment and GDPR breaches. The claim was brought against the investigative journalist Richard D. Hall by two reported survivors of the Manchester Arena bombing—Mr Martin Hibbert and his daughter Eve—after Mr Hall published the evidence which shows the bombing was, in fact, a hoaxed false flag.

You can get a copy of Hall’s book Manchester: The Night of the Bang for FREE from his Richplanet website or you can support Richard D. Hall by purchasing a paperback copy.

I was among the many people who found the evidence Hall reported compelling. 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.

Having cross-examined Mr Hibbert—one of the two claimants—Hall’s defence barrister, Mr Paul Oakley, continued to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses.

The next to be called was Miss Burke, who was Eve’s carer. Eve Hibbert has a reading age of eight to nine. Given that the “Disaster Deniers” episode of BBC Panorama was first broadcast in October 2022, Mr Oakley asked Miss Burke when Eve had first become aware of and, presumably thereafter, concerned about the actions of Mr Hall.

Miss Burke revealed that Eve thinks of Hall as the “stalker man.” Mr Oakley tried to clarify who had described Mr Hall to Eve as the “stalker man.” Miss Burke indicated that Eve’s mother, Sarah Gillbard, had discussed the Panorama program with Eve and it was Miss Gillbard who described Hall, to Eve, as the “stalker man.”

Miss Burke said Eve was distressed by Halls’ work on the Manchester attack. She said Eve had said things like “it’s not fair” and asked why Hall “can make money from his book.” Mr Oakley asked how Eve had become aware of the litigation against Hall and Miss Burke confirmed her parents (Martin Hibbert and Sarah Gillbard) had told her.

Mr Oakley drew Miss Burke’s attention to a letter dated May 2024 from Expanse Learning—Eve’s specialist education providers. The letter discussed managing Eve’s possible distress after watching the BBC’s October 2022 broadcast of Panorama’s Disaster Deniers. The letter was a response from Expanse Learning following Miss Gillbard’s expressed concern about Eve’s potential reaction.

Miss Burke said Miss Gillbard’s actions were reasonable because Eve worried that Mr Hall would “try to find her again.” Mr Oakley asked Miss Burke, on the timeline between Mr Hall’s August 2019 visit to Miss Gillbard’s street and the October 2022 broadcast of Disaster Deniers (and the subsequent 2024 letter from Expanse Learning), when Eve had expressed this alleged concern. Miss Burke said she couldn’t remember.

Mr Oakley referenced an incident—reported in the 2024 Expanse Learning letter—where Eve refused to go to lunch because she was frightened by the presence of a camera crew. Mr Oakley put it to Miss Burke that this incident had nothing to do with his client—Mr Hall. Miss Burke was rather noncommittal in reply but maintained that Eve was worried about the “stalker man.”

Mr Oakley highlighted the letter written by Mr Hall to the claimants, in January 2023, where he informed them he had no intention of visiting their property again and no intention of pursuing any further investigation that would require any kind of personal approach being made to the claimants. Oakley asked Miss Burke if she thought informing Eve about Mr Hall’s reassurances would have been beneficial for Eve. Miss Burke said she thought it could.

Mr Oakley drew Miss Burke’s attention to her written statement where she said Eve had overheard her parents talking about the “stalker man.” Given that Mr Hall visited Eve’s street once in August 2019, never approached the claimants again and had given written assurances that he had no intention of doing so, Mr Oakley asked Miss Burke if she thought describing Mr Hall to Eve as the “stalker man” was justified or wise.

Miss Burke told Oakley that she was not aware of any incident where Hall had approached Eve but stated that Eve was worried and distressed by the “stalker man.” Oakley put it to Burke that it would, in fact, be wise to disabuse Eve of the idea that Mr Hall was stalking her. Miss Burke argued that, as an adult, Eve had a right to know but also acknowledged that Eve does not have capacity as an adult.

When asked by Mr Oakley, Miss Burke said that she would not personally describe Hall as the “stalker man” to Eve but added that she did not have parental responsibility for Eve and maintained that Eve had a right to know.

A close friend of Mr Hibbert’s, Mr Steve Lloyd, was next to be cross-examined by Mr Oakley. Mr Lloyd confirmed that Mr Hibbert had first become aware of Mr Hall in May 2018 but added Mr Hibbert was not unduly concerned at the time. Again, it was not clear how this could have possibly been the case.

Mr Lloyd confirmed that Mr Hibbert became increasingly concerned about Mr Hall’s activities in July 2021 when Greater Manchester Police (GMP) informed him of Hall’s August 2019 visit to Miss Gillbard’s property. Following the GMP investigation, in January 2022, Mr Hibbert began planning an expedition in Africa and, according to Mr Lloyd, became “focused on Hall” after his return in June 2022.

Mr Lloyd disclosed that Mr Hibbert was worried about the possible threat presented by Hall and his followers. He feared he may be stabbed and sought information or advice on how the defend himself. Mr Oakley asked Mr Lloyd why Mr Hibbert feared this level of threat to his safety. Where, Oakley asked, did Mr Hibbert get this fear from?

Mr Lloyd said that threats were made in Hall’s video documentary A Table for Two—released in November 2023. With the transcript in front of him, Mr Oakley gave Mr Lloyd as much time as he needed to specify where this threat was made. After reading the transcript Mr Lloyd said Hall’s statement “there is more I could say about Paul Harvey [Paramedic] but we’ll leave it there” was threatening.

Mr Oakley put it to Mr Lloyd that there was no actual threat “implied or otherwise” in anything Mr Hall had said about either Mr Harvey or Mr Hibbert. Mr Lloyd conceded this point but added that Mr Hall’s behaviour remained a concern.

Oakley pursued this argument. He put it to Mr Lloyd that neither Hall nor any of his followers had ever threatened Mr Hibbert or anyone else for that matter. Oakley suggested that Mr Hibbert’s fears were groundless and subjective. He argued that there was no evidence of his client threatening anyone, that no evidence demonstrating any threat had been presented to the court and that Mr Hibbert’s apparent fear for his safety was not based upon anything other than his own imagination.

Mr Lloyd mentioned an anonymous letter—presumably written by someone interested in Hall’s work—to Mr Hibbert’s physiotherapists seeking further information about Mr Hibbert’s back injury. Mr Lloyd said this letter was “creepy.” He added that the letter said “Hibbert is protected by dark forces of the state”, which Mr Lloyd thought was concerning. Mr Oakley suggested to Mr Lloyd that not only was there nothing to indicate Mr Hall had written the letter but that it was, in any event, simply a request for information and no threat was implied or made.

Like Miss Burke, Mr Lloyd maintained that the actions and published opinions of Mr Hall were grossly offensive, distressing and could be perceived as threatening. Mr Lloyd expressed his opinion that the claimants had good reason and were right to be concerned.

Martin Hibbert (center) flanked on the right by Mr Steve Lloyd

As a journalist reporting from the court I noted that throughout Mr Oakley’s cross examination the prosecution barrister Mr Price did not appear to be overly attentive. From my vantage point in the court I could see that Mr Price was reading excerpts from my book rather than listening to Mr Oakley. Of course, Mr Price could have been doing both simultaneously.

After each prosecution witness is cross examined by the defence, the prosecution barrister has the opportunity to ask any further question in response. From my lay perspective, it seemed to me that Mr Oakley had significantly undermined the prosecution’s case but, following the testimony of Mr Hibbert, Miss Burke and Mr Lloyd, the prosecution did not make any attempt to counter any of Mr Oakley’s arguments.

Perhaps there is a solid legal reason for not doing so. I cannot imagine what it could be.

The next on the stand was Miss Sarah Gilbard, Eve’s mother. The defence agreed that Miss Gillbard could give testimony by video link from her home. As Eve lacks capacity, Miss Gillbard was the appointed litigation friend for Eve Hibbert. As such, Sarah Gillbard represented Eve—the co-claimant—in all matters and every aspect of the case.

Mr Oakley started by asking Miss Gillbard if she had read Mr Hibbert’s book prior to publication. Miss Gillbard said she had read sections of the book but, when asked by Mr Oakley, confirmed she had not read a proof copy or been asked to approve the publication by Mr Hibbert.

Miss Gillbard stated that she did not want to read Mr Hibbert’s book because she did not wish to be reminded either about her former relationship with Mr Hibbert or how Eve sustained her brain injury.

Miss Gillbard stated that Mr Hibbert was Eve’s father and that she trusted he would protect Eve’s interests. She added that she did not want people who did not know Eve to study Eve, to discuss Eve or to speculate about her. She said she did not want Eve to be perceived as “that girl from the Arena.”

Mr Oakley alluded to the excerpts from Mr Hibbert’s book—serialised during the trial by the Daily Mail—where Mr Hibbert discussed Eve’s injuries and how she purportedly sustained them in extremely graphic detail. Mr Oakley asked Miss Gillbard if Mr Hibbert had sought her permission to publish these details about Eve. Miss Gillbard confirmed he had not.

While Eve lacks capacity, she is an adult. This admission from Miss Gillbard clearly indicated to me that Mr Hibbert has not sought Eve’s permission to disclose her personal medical history to the public.

Under cross-examination, Miss Gillbard confirmed that she had first learned about Hall’s August 2019 visit to her home address in the summer of 2021. She further confirmed that Mr Hibbert had not expressed any concerns to her about either Hall or his work until the summer of 2021.

Miss Gillbard was asked if she was aware of a letter written by GMP in June 2024 in response to a request for information from Hudgell soliciters—acting for the claimants. That letter from GMP confirmed their findings, following their visit to Miss Gillbard’s street and the door-to-door inquiries they made in July 2021. GMP indicated they found no evidence of any wrongdoing either by Hall or any of his followers. Miss Gillbard said she was aware of the GMP letter.

Mr Oakley therefore inquired if Miss Gillbard was aware of any incident, perpetrated either by Hall or any of his “followers,” that could constitute harassment of Eve or any other incident, instigated by the same, that could have distressed Eve since the summer of 2021. Miss Gillbard confirmed that no such incident had occurred to her knowledge.

Miss Gillbard then asserted that the “whole street” knows about Eve and how she sustained her injuries because of the actions and publications of Mr Hall. Mr Oakley sought to clarify when the “whole street” had become aware of how Eve reportedly sustained her injuries. Miss Gillbard maintained this was a consequence of Hall visiting her street and asking question in August 2019 despite already stating that she knew nothing about this herself until the summer of 2021.

Mr Oakley asked if Miss Gillbard had told anyone else in her street about how Eve purportedly sustained her injuries. Miss Gillbard confirmed that she had told her immediate neighbours—to both sides of her property—with whom she said she was “very close.”

Mr Oakley asked Miss Gillbard who else in the street knew that Eve was reportedly injured in the Manchester bombing. The people who Miss Gillbard could clearly identify as knowing about Eve’s personal medical history were the neighbours she had informed. Miss Gillbard could not identify any other neighbours with any such knowledge.

Mr Oakley asked when Miss Gillbard first raised concerns about the potential activities of Mr Hall with Eve’s school. Miss Gillbard said she had done so after GMP informed her of Hall’s 2019 visit in the summer of 2021. She stated that GMP advised her to tell her neighbours and the school to be on the look out for any suspicious activity.

It was evident that, contrary to her written statement, Miss Gillbard did not know who in her street, other than those she informed, knew about Eve’s medical history. It seems Hall’s account that he had made inquiries about Eve had led her to assume Hall had told others about Eve. No evidence was presented to substantiate this assumption.

Miss Gillbard acknowledged that she had not read Hall’s book or watched his associated Manchester documentary. She had seen only a few clips from his videos including one where Mr Hall questioned how Mr Hibbert acquired his spinal injuries. She said she did not want to watch them or access any of Hall’s work.

Mr Oakley asked Miss Gillbard what she knew about Mr Hall’s visit to her street in August 2019. Miss Gillbard confirmed she only knew what GMP had told her. When asked, Miss Gillbard said she was aware that Hall hadn’t hidden anywhere near her property or otherwise attempted to conceal his activities.

The cross-examination then turned to how Eve first became aware of Mr Hall, his visit to her mother’s property and his publications questioning the bombing. Mr Oakley asked if Eve was likely to research Mr Hall’s work herself. Miss Gillbard stated that she would not. She said Eve could not have read Hall’s book and only used the internet for playing games and listening to music.

Mr Oakley asked Miss Gillbard how, then, Eve came to be fearful of the “stalker man.” Miss Gillbard confirmed that it was she who had described Mr Hall as the “stalker man” to Eve following the GMP investigation and the advice given to her by the police.

Miss Gillbard pointed out that Eve’s comprehension was not the same as most adults. Thus, using the term “stalker man” simply enabled Eve to remember who Hall was in conversation. Miss Gillbard asserted that Eve would not take the same inference from this epithet as would an adult with full capacity.

Oakley noted the reported incident of Eve becoming distressed when, at some point after the summer of 2021, she saw some spilt red paint. This triggered what was described as a “flashback” for Eve. According to the testimony of Miss Burke, Eve had become distressed at seeing the paint and said she did not like the “stalker man.”

Oakley put it to Miss Gillbard that, flashback aside, Miss Gillbard could have reduced the likelihood of Eve becoming distressed by informing her there was no reason to fear the “stalker man.” Mr Oakley suggested that disabusing Eve of any inference she may have, in fact, taken from Hall being described to her as a stalker would have helped Eve.

Mr Oakley asked Miss Gillbard if she had read and agreed to the letter before claim sent to Mr Hall in December 2022. This was the official notification of a claim being filed against Hall by Mr Hibbert and, on behalf of Eve, Sarah Gillbard. Miss Gillbard said that she had not. Therefore it seemed evident that, witnessed signature or not, one of the claimants—Miss Gillbard acting for Eve—could not possibly have formally agreed to proceeding with the claim.

Mr Oakley asked if Miss Gillbard had read or had been informed about Hall’s response to the letter before claim. In this response to the claim, Hall made no admission of wrong doing but offered to forego standard journalistic practice and, on this single occasion, remove any images of the claimants from the videos hosted on his site. This offer made by Hall, should, under pre-action protocol rules, have been considered by both claimants in order to try to settle the issue without going to court.

Miss Gillbard—effectively the co-claimant—stated that she had not read and was not made aware of Hall’s response by her solicitors. This drew an audible “wow" from Mr Oakley.

Mr Oakley’s shock was understandable. One of the two co-claimants apparently had no knowledge of any of the discussion that preceded the decision to take Hall to the High Court. Miss Gillbard (Eve Hibbert) did not know about Hall’s offer, intended to avoid litigation, and had evidently not been briefed on the basis of the claim which, it seemed, she could not possibly have agreed to.

As I have repeatedly stressed, I am not a legal scholar. That said, I wondered why the case wasn’t immediately thrown out of court there and then.

Miss Gillbard acknowledged that she had talked to Mr Hibbert about his concerns in the summer of 2021 but that they did not commonly discuss how Hall’s work may impact Eve.

Mr Oakley turned to Martin Hibbert’s involvement with the BBC and, in particular, his decision to participate in the Disaster Deniers Panorama investigation. He asked Miss Gillbard if she was aware that Hall had declined to participate and she stated that she was.

Mr Oakley asked Miss Gillbard if she and Mr Hibbert had discussed how Eve may react to the Panorama documentary her father would appear in. She conceded they had not.

Mr Oakley spoke about the “huge reaction” the Panorama program elicited, according to Mr Hibbert. He asked Miss Gillbard if she had contacted Eve’s college, in light or in anticipation of this huge reaction, to discuss protecting Eve from it. Miss Gillbard confirmed that she had.

Mr Oakley asked Miss Gillbard if Eve was upset by the BBC documentary. Miss Gillbard confirmed that she was. Mr Oakley asked if Eve would usually watch Panorama and Miss Gillbard confirmed that she would not.

Therefore, Mr Oakley asked how Eve had become aware of the BBC documentary she found so upsetting. Miss Gillbard stated that she had sat Eve down to watch it with her.

Mr Oakley asked, given Eve’s limited comprehension, if Eve was upset about the BBC documentary because it brought back memories of the attack or because it discussed the activities of the “stalker man.” Miss Gillbard stated it was both and added Eve was worried about the “stalker man.”

Mr Oakley asked Miss Gillbard to re-confirm who first told Eve about the “stalker man.” Miss Gillbard stated Eve had heard this directly from her and from conversations Eve had overheard between herself and Mr Hibbert.

Hall initially appealed the summary judgement barring him from presenting his evidence—showing Manchester was a hoax—to the High Court. In order to proceed with the appeal, Hall was required to complete an N161 form and serve notice of the appeal to the claimants.

At the time, Hall did not have any legal representation and, when advised by court officials to send copies to the claimants, Hall mistakenly thought this meant he had to send the N161 notification directly to Miss Gillbard and Mr Hibbert. In fact, a reply to the claimants solicitor would have been sufficient.

Miss Gillbard received the notification of appeal from Hall at her home address. Miss Gillbard was apparently angered and evidently, for some not entirely clear reason, assumed Hall was harassing Eve and her by sending it to her address.

Miss Gillbard described an animated and angry phone conversation between herself and Mr Hibbert about the letter. Miss Gillbard conceded that Eve could hear her berating Hall, referred to in the conversation as the “stalker man.”

Miss Gillbard conceded that such events can cause Eve to suffer “flashbacks.” She further stated that Eve’s flashbacks are triggered by “lots of things.”

Mr Oakley asked Miss Gillbard if she was aware of any evidence suggesting that Hall had ever posed any kind of threat to Eve. Miss Gillbard conceded that she was not aware of any such evidence.

Mr Oakley put it to Miss Gillbard that it was not, in fact, the actions of his client—Mr Hall—that has caused Eve any distress or harm but rather the actions of her father, by agreeing to participate in legacy media productions that were admittedly the source of Eve’s distress. He further put it to Miss Gillbard that it was she, and not his client, who had caused Eve to worry about the “stalker man.” Mr Oakley stated that Miss Gillbard had no reason to describe his client—Richard D. Hall—to Eve in those terms.

Mr Oakley further put it to Miss Gillbard that if the “whole street” knew about the reported causation of Eve’s injuries they only did so after the GMP had conducted their door-to-door inquiries in July 2021. There was no evidence that the whole street knew anything about the claimed cause of Eve’s injuries prior to July 2021, irrespective of Hall’s 2019 visit. Further, Oakley suggested to Miss Gillbard that Eve would not have known anything about Hall’s journalism had Miss Gillbard and Mr Hibbert not openly discussed it with and in front of her or shown her the BBC documentary that criticised Hall and reportedly upset Eve.

Miss Gillbard firmly stated this was not the case. She maintained that it was Hall’s visit that had alerted the “whole street” to Eve’s status as Manchester “victim” and it was Hall’s views about the alleged “bombing” that upset Eve.

Mr Oakley pressed Miss Gillbard on what she understood about the nature of the claim against his client. Miss Gillbard said that she would like to see all of Mr Hall’s work on the Manchester hoax banned and that she supported Mr Hibbert’s intention to seek a change in the law that would stop “conspiracy theorists,” like Hall, questioning the accounts of terror victims or expressing doubts about reported terrorist attacks.

It is worth noting this is not supposed to be the objective of the claim. It is allegedly seeking recourse for harassment and GDPR breaches.

Following Cross examination of Miss Gillbard by the defence, on this occasion, the prosecution did re-examine their witness. Mr Price asked Miss Gillbard to confirm that Eve did not appear in the BBC Disaster Deniers documentary and that the “whole street knew” following Hall’s visit. Miss Gillbard confirmed that was her understanding.

At the end of day two of the trial it seemed to me that there were questions to ask about how this case ever came to the High Court in the first place. It appeared that one half of the claimants knew very little about it. Certainly one had to wonder how Eve’s litigation friend, Miss Gillbard, could possibly have agreed to proceed with the prosecution if she had never seen the letter before claim or Hall’s response.

Once again the suspicion arose in my mind that the trial of Richard D. Hall was not really about a claim of harassment and GDPR breaches. It appeared to me to be a vehicle for some other, wider agenda.

That suspicion would only deepen when, on day three, the prosecution called the one and only defence witness: Richard D. Hall.

In tomorrow’s concluding article we’ll look at Hall’s cross-examination by the prosecution, in which Hall managed to cross-examine the claimants’ barrister—no, I am not joking—and the frankly bizarre ending to a High Court trial that, had I not witnessed it myself, I would have barely believed possible.