“Multiple motives underpin this orchestrated event. It served to tighten public control and facilitated the passing of legislation like Martyn's Law. Furthermore, it bolstered security service budgets and justified heightened military actions in Libya. The incident also played into President Trump's efforts to impose travel bans, particularly on Muslim-majority countries, bolstered by the narrative surrounding the Manchester incident.”
“24. Issue 1 is whether on22 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. 25. This Issue is obviously made out by the fact that Hashem Abedi was (as the defendant accepts) convicted of 22 counts of murder in respect of the bombing. His conviction followed a six week trial at the Central Criminal Court which concluded on17 March 2020 . Following CXX v DXX (which resolved a longstanding controversy about the evidential effect of a conviction) Abedi’s conviction is a “weighty piece of evidence” in its own right. It falls to the defendant to prove the contrary, which is a burden I find he has no “real prospect” of discharging. I do not propose to engage with the detail of the defendant’s evidence. Suffice it to say that, although his beliefs may be genuinely held, his theory that the Manchester bombing was an operation staged by government agencies in which no one was genuinely killed or injured is absurd and fantastical and it provides no basis to rebut the conviction.”
“I have already referred to the inherent implausibility of the defendant’s ‘staged attack’ hypothesis. Whilst acknowledging that issues as to the claimants’ presence at the attack and the attack itself are separate and distinct, once the defendant’s general hypothesis has been rejected (as I have rejected it) it is unrealistic to maintain that the claimants were not there and were either not severely injured at all or acquired their injuries earlier and by a different mechanism than the bombing. Indeed, the latter points are simply preposterous.”
“He has no real prospect, indeed no prospect at all, of success on the Issues and I will resolve them in the claimants’ favour.”
“11. The Appellant has no real prospect of persuading the appeal court that Master Davison was wrong to conclude that he had not raised anything other than a fanciful case that the First Respondent, and the Second Respondent’s mother, were lying about the circumstances in which the First Respondent and their daughter had suffered their (admitted) injuries. 12. Giving summary judgment on the identified issues was not unfair, and the Master made no error in concluding that it accorded with the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost, bearing in mind that it was likely to reduce the trial time estimate from 10 days to 4 days. The Appellant had fair notice of the hearing, an opportunity to adduce evidence in response, which he took by adducing a lengthy statement and exhibits, and a fair opportunity to make submissions in writing and orally. It is plain that he was given as much time as he needed to make his oral submissions. The principles applicable in determining a summary judgment application, which the Master applied, take into account that if the matter were to go to trial there would be more evidence. It is only when, as here, the answer is nonetheless so clear that the Appellant has no real prospect of success, even allowing for further evidence, that the test is met. 13. In my judgment, there is no real prospect of the appeal court concluding that Master Davison’s reasons were inadequate, or that his conclusions were wrong.”
“(1) In any civil proceedings the fact that a person has been convicted of an offence by or before any court in the United Kingdom or of a service offence (anywhere shall (subject to subsection (3) below) be admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving, where to do so is relevant to any issue in those proceedings, that he committed that offence, whether he was so convicted upon a plea of guilty or otherwise and whether or not he is a party to the civil proceedings; but no conviction other than a subsisting one shall be admissible in evidence by virtue of this section. (2) In any civil proceedings in which by virtue of this section a person is proved to have been convicted of an offence by or before any court in the United Kingdom or of a service offence - (a) he shall be taken to have committed that offence unless the contrary is proved; and (b) without prejudice to the reception of any other admissible evidence for the purpose of identifying the facts on which the conviction was based, the contents of any document which is admissible as evidence of the conviction, and the contents of the information, complaint, indictment or charge-sheet on which the person in question was convicted, shall be admissible in evidence for that purpose.”
“A Staged Operation using an Intelligence Asset as an Alleged Perpetrator 85. Based on extensive research and investigation, I hold firm to the belief that the Manchester Arena incident was a meticulously planned operation involving various public sector agencies. I contest the narrative surrounding the alleged perpetrator, asserting that he was a controlled intelligence asset observed on CCTV prior to the attack, obtaining materials for a device. I do not subscribe to the notion that he perished in the incident but rather evaded the scene in a grey Audi vehicle, later being apprehended by regular police and subsequently cleared. The Recruitment of Participants and the Simulation of a ‘Terrorist Attack’ 86. My investigations indicate the involvement of numerous recruited members of the public, potentially a hundred or more, in a simulated terrorist attack. Some participants were tasked with portraying fake injuries intending to relay fabricated experiences to the media and the public. Co-ordination by a Central Government Agency 87. I suspect that a national government agency orchestrated and coordinated this operation, facilitated at a local level by the counter-terror department situated at Greater Manchester Police Headquarters. The department’s liaison officer is presumed to have played a key role in organizing the event and recruiting arena staff to participate. Limited Insight and Knowledge within the Emergency Services 88. While I suspect that a select few within the emergency service teams were probably briefed and were aware of the staged nature of the event, I suspect the majority of personnel, including those in control rooms, operated under the assumption of a genuine emergency. Chains of command potentially hindered normal response protocols. The use of a loud pyrotechnic device contributed to the perceived realism, deceiving witnesses in the City Room. Faked Deaths and Serious Injuries from the Event 89. Individuals such as Martin and Eve Hibbert, visibly injured, were likely harmed before the attack and recruited but did not attend the concert. Moreover, I suspect that approximately three individuals may have perished before the concert due to accidents or natural causes, their deaths exploited to fabricate genuine grief among families. I hold the belief that others purported to have died might have started new lives abroad, an aspect that might seem implausible but, I believe, was part of extensive planning.”