Martin Hibbert & Anor v Richard D Hall

This claim concerned a long-running campaign of publications and investigative steps by the defendant asserting that the 22 May 2017 Manchester Arena attack was a staged hoax and that many victims (including the claimants) were "crisis actors". The claimants alleged statutory harassment under section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and breaches of data protection law (UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018).

The court found that the defendant pursued a course of conduct comprising repeated public publications (videos, a film and a book) together with a targeted visit to the second claimant’s home and furtive filming. Viewed objectively and in light of the claimants’ vulnerability, that course of conduct was oppressive and unacceptable and amounted to harassment. The defendant either knew or ought to have known that his conduct would cause alarm or distress and failed to establish the defences in section 1(3) (prevention/detection of crime and reasonableness). The court held that the harassment claim therefore succeeds.

On the data protection claim the judge did not finally determine liability or remedies. The court identified issues with the pleadings and with the relief properly pleaded under the UK GDPR and DPA 2018 and invited further submissions on those matters and on remedies for the harassment claim.

Background and parties: On 22 May 2017 a suicide bomb detonated at Manchester Arena, killing 22 people and injuring many. The claimants are a father (Martin Hibbert) and his daughter (Eve) who each suffered life-changing injuries. The defendant, an independent journalist and broadcaster, published a series of videos, a film and a book advancing a theory that the attack was staged, and he undertook investigative steps including visiting the second claimant’s home and filming from his vehicle.

Nature of the claim / procedural posture: The claimants sued for harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and for breaches of data protection law. Some factual issues had been the subject of earlier summary judgment (Master Davison: [2024] EWHC 227 (KB)) and refusals of permission to appeal were recorded. The trial before Steyn J (Media & Communications List) ran over four days in July 2024.

Issues for decision: For harassment the court framed and decided whether (i) the defendant pursued a course of conduct (statutory requirement of conduct on at least two occasions), (ii) the course of conduct amounted to harassment (objective assessment against the statutory test and Convention rights), (iii) whether the defendant knew or ought to have known his conduct amounted to harassment, and (iv) whether statutory defences applied (prevention/detection of crime and whether the conduct was reasonable in the circumstances). For data protection the court identified whether the claimants were data subjects, whether the defendant was a data controller, whether the defendant processed the claimants’ personal data, and whether that processing breached the data protection principles of the UK GDPR.

Court’s reasoning on harassment: The judge found that the publications (2018 and 2019 videos, the Film and the Book published 27 March 2020, the Statement Analysis Video of 16 May 2020 and the 2020 video of 13 June 2020) together with the September 2019 visit and surreptitious filming amounted to a single, deliberate course of conduct aimed at victims and survivor families. Taken as a whole and assessed objectively, and bearing in mind the vulnerability of the claimants (particularly Eve), the conduct was oppressive and unacceptable and crossed the threshold required for harassment under section 1 PHA. The court applied the balancing exercise between article 8 and article 10 rights, noting that freedom of expression in journalism is important and exceptions narrow, but concluded that the defendant had abused media freedom: repeated false allegations, reckless statement analysis, and intrusive investigative steps produced foreseeable alarm and distress. The defendant did not show that preventing or detecting crime was his dominant purpose; nor was his conduct reasonable in the circumstances. Consequently the harassment claim succeeds.

Court’s approach to the data protection claim: The judge observed that the data protection claim had received less focus at trial and identified deficiencies in the pleading (lack of specification of particular data or acts of processing and the remedies sought). The court did not finally determine data-protection liability, finding it appropriate to invite further submissions on what specific processing is relied on and the remedies properly pleaded under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.

Subsidiary findings and consequences: The judgment records previous summary judgments and related refusals of permission to appeal; it finds that the defendant’s investigation and publication practices caused real anxiety and distress to both claimants and in particular to the vulnerable second claimant. Remedies and the data-protection issues were left for further submissions.

First instance: The court held that the claimants' harassment cause of action under section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is fully made out and succeeds. The defendant pursued a course of conduct (repeated publications and an intrusive visit/filming) that was oppressive and unacceptable, and which he knew or ought to have known would cause alarm and distress. The defendant failed to establish the defences in section 1(3). The court did not finally determine the data protection claim; it identified deficiencies in the pleading and invited further submissions on data-protection liability and remedies.

Prior interlocutory applications in this litigation: Master Davison gave summary judgment for the claimants on four issues as to the occurring of the attack and the claimants’ injuries ([2024] EWHC 227 (KB)). Permission to appeal that Order was refused (application refused 15 April 2024). A renewed application for permission to appeal was refused by Knowles J at an oral hearing ([2024] EWHC 1665 (KB)). This judgment is a first instance determination of the harassment claim in the High Court (King's Bench Division, Media and Communications List).