Manchester Arena attack survivors win harassment claims against conspiracy theorist

The claimants, Martin Hibbert and his daughter, Eve, were severely injured in the Manchester Arena terrorist attack in May 2017. The defendant in this case, Richard Hall, is an independent journalist and online conspiracy theorist who has published videos, a book and a film repeating the false narrative that the attack was a hoax and that the claimants were not injured and were "crisis actors". Hall also visited the claimants’ shared home and surreptitiously filmed them from his car as they left the house.

The claimants sued Hall, alleging that his conduct amounted to harassment and that he had breached data protection legislation, the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, by processing their personal data unlawfully.

Hall argued that his conduct was reasonable and in pursuit of journalism on a matter of public interest and that his belief about the attack being a hoax was protected under freedom of thought and expression.

The claimants succeeded on their harassment claim, but the High Court ruled that further submissions were needed from both parties on the data protection claim, which was not decided in the judgment.

Caroline Henzell, a litigation expert specialising in data, privacy and media disputes at Pinsent Masons, said: “This ruling is an important demonstration that the legal system in England and Wales is prepared to take a firm stand against the harmful effects of misinformation and online conspiracy theories. It represents a positive step towards not only safeguarding the public from the dangers of online misinformation, but also upholding the integrity of responsible journalism in the digital age.”

On the harassment claim, Mrs Justice Steyn acknowledged the balance that must be struck between the claimants’ right to respect for their private life and Hall’s right to freedom of expression, two of the fundamental rights covered by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).  She found, however, that Hall’s course of conduct, including the publications and surreptitious filming, lacked “any semblance of balance” and were “a negligent, indeed reckless, abuse of media freedom” which amounted to harassment.

In making this finding, the judge also considered the level of the claimants’ vulnerability, particularly Mr Hibbert’s teenage daughter, and concluded that Hall’s conduct was “oppressive, unacceptable, and of sufficient gravity to sustain criminal liability”.

“A reasonable person in possession of the same information that the defendant had would know the course of conduct in which he engaged would alarm, distress and have a harassing effect on the claimants,” she said.

The judge also made it clear that the “falsity” of Hall’s publications was a significant factor in assessing the reasonableness of his conduct. His publications, she held, lacked sensible critical analysis and made grave, false allegations, and his conduct as a whole was unreasonable under the harassment laws of England and Wales.

“This is the first time that legal action has been successfully pursued against a conspiracy theorist. It is a welcome decision for responsible journalists and for those targeted by conspiracy theories and misinformation campaigns in the UK, and will hopefully set a precedent for holding the people who spread such false information under the guise of journalism to account,” said Henzell.

This harassment judgment comes in the wake of a similar landmark case heard two years ago in the US, where Alex Jones, a famous online right-wing conspiracy theorist, was held liable for defamation against the families of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims. Jones was ordered to pay $965 million in damages for promoting the lie that the 2012 massacre was a hoax.

“The parallel between these two cases in the UK and the US highlights a growing international recognition of the legal need to combat harmful misinformation and protect the dignity and rights of affected individuals,” said Henzell.

Deciding on the data protection claim of the Manchester attack survivors’ case, the judge did recognise that Hall’s videos, books and other publications contain material that is the claimants' personal data, making them data subjects for the purposes of data protection legislation, and that Hall was “obviously” a data controller.

Beyond this, however, the judge held that the data protection claim had been inadequately pleaded and so a final determination was not reached. The parties have instead been invited to provide further submissions on this aspect of the claimants’ claim, which will be considered alongside remedies for the harassment claim.