Court dismisses legal action by Manchester Arena attack victims against MI5

Judges have determined that over 300 individuals impacted by the Manchester Arena bombing are unable to proceed with their legal case against MI5. Those who survived the incident and relatives of the deceased asserted that the security service’s inability to implement “appropriate measures” to avert the May 2017 attack constituted a violation of their human rights. However, Lord Justice Singh and Mrs Justice Farbey, judges at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), concluded that the claim was submitted beyond the permissible timeframe, thus preventing its continuation. The three legal practices representing the plaintiffs – Hudgell Solicitors, Slater & Gordon, and Broudie Jackson Canter – characterized the judges’ decision as “extremely disappointing for our clients”. Counsel for the claimants further stated: “We are disappointed that time is one of the reasons now being used against them to prevent their claims progressing.” They also remarked: “Seven years have now passed since the atrocity in May 2017 – six years of that seven-year delay was caused by MI5.” A representative for the Home Office indicated that the agency had “participated fully” in the investigation and conveyed that “our thoughts continue to be with all those who lost loved one and suffered such terrible harm”. He further commented: “We note the judgment of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in this case,” The incident, which occurred at the conclusion of an Ariana Grande concert, resulted in the deaths of twenty-two individuals and injuries to hundreds when a suicide bomber activated an explosive device. Ken McCallum, the director-general of MI5, expressed in March 2023 that he was “profoundly sorry” that the security service had been unable to avert the assault. These remarks came after a public inquiry determined that MI5 had overlooked a crucial opportunity to intervene, which potentially could have prevented the bombing. The security service had evaluated two specific pieces of intelligence concerning the suicide bomber, Salman Abedi, as not being connected to terrorism. Investigatory Powers Tribunals (IPTs) provide a mechanism for individuals who believe they have suffered from illegal actions by a public authority employing clandestine investigative methods to pursue compensation or remedy. Despite dismissing the claim presented by the survivors and the bereaved, Lord Justice Singh stated: “We are conscious of the horrendous impact of the atrocity on the claimants and their families.” He continued: “Any reasonable person would have sympathy for them.” He added: “The grief and trauma which they have suffered, particularly where young children were killed, is almost unimaginable.” “Nevertheless, we have reached the conclusion that, in all the circumstances, it would not be equitable to permit the claims to proceed,” he concluded. Lord Justice Singh explained that although the panel could “readily understand” why the legal claims were not initiated until after the public inquiry’s final report, subsequent “real expedition” was required. He further stated: “We bear in mind the other matters that had to be investigated and arrangements which had to be put in place but, in our view, the filing of the proceedings was not given the priority which, assessed objectively, it should have been.” The judge additionally highlighted that if the claims had been permitted to advance, MI5 would have been compelled to “divert time and resources to defending these proceedings rather than their core responsibilities” of averting future assaults. During a previous IPT hearing, Pete Weatherby KC, who represented the claimants, characterized their legal endeavor as “the next step” towards achieving vindication. Following the judges’ decision, the claimants’ legal representatives stated that their clients had been compelled to “endure continued delays” and observed that they “have done so with great patience and understanding in the hope that by allowing all legal processes to be fully explored, transparency and justice would be achieved”. The legal counsel for the victims asserted that the IPT ruling “certainly doesn’t exonerate MI5”. They further declared: “There were failings by MI5 and multiple other parties leading up to and on the actual evening of 22 May 2017 and collectively we continue to support our clients in their fight for full accountability and justice.”