MI5 Accused of “Institutional Defensiveness” and Presenting “Inaccurate Picture” Post-Manchester Arena Attack

A tribunal heard that MI5 exhibited “institutional defensiveness rather than candour” following the Manchester Arena attack, and for an extended period, it consistently offered an “inaccurate picture” regarding its knowledge of the suicide bomber. The incident on 22 May 2017 resulted in the deaths of twenty-two individuals and injuries to hundreds when Salman Abedi detonated a homemade explosive device at the conclusion of an Ariana Grande concert. Over 250 individuals, comprising both those who lost loved ones and survivors of the bombing, are currently pursuing legal action against MI5, MI6, and GCHQ at an Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) taking place in London at the Royal Courts of Justice. Neil Sheldon KC, acting as counsel for the security services, contended that the claimants’ description was “not fair”. The public inquiry report published last year concluded that MI5 had overlooked a substantial opportunity to intervene, which potentially could have averted the attack. Pete Weatherby KC, who represents the claimants, stated that MI5’s conduct in the years following the bombing demonstrated a “lacked candour” towards the bereaved families, the public, and formal investigations into the tragedy. He further asserted that only the public inquiry, through its confidential questioning of crucial MI5 officers, managed to acquire a comprehensive understanding of the events preceding the bombing. In his written submissions presented to the IPT, Mr Weatherby indicated that, before the inquiry’s final report was released, MI5 had “not accepted that they had made any mistakes that were materially relevant to prevention of the bombing”. Mr Weatherby additionally noted that, within the inquiry’s concluding findings, MI5 had “presented an inaccurate picture of key parts of the evidence, and the corporate statements displayed retrospective justification – institutional defensiveness – rather than candour”. Mr Sheldon countered that this characterization was “not fair” and emphasized: “There was no lack of candour.” Mr Weatherby contended that MI5’s inability to prevent the attack was of such gravity that the tribunal might determine it constituted a human rights violation. However, Mr Sheldon asserted that the tribunal “could not get anywhere near” such a finding, considering the extensive actions required to expose the bomb plot. Mr Weatherby stated that the current legal action centered on the “missed opportunities” to avert the attack. During the months preceding the bombing, MI5 acquired two distinct pieces of intelligence concerning Abedi. The public inquiry report disclosed that the MI5 officers responsible for processing this intelligence had, at the time, recognized that both items could be connected to terrorism. Prior to this revelation, MI5’s official statements to the inquiry, parliament, and an official review had indicated that the intelligence was evaluated as pertaining to non-nefarious or non-terrorist criminality by Salman Abedi. Sir John Saunders, the inquiry chairman, concluded: “I do not consider that these statements present an accurate picture.” In his written submissions to the IPT, Mr Weatherby remarked: “The perpetrators were not unknowns who acted spontaneously or with a simplicity which gave little room for discovery.” The IPT hearing was informed that three principal cases were representing all of the claimants. Mr Weatherby asserted that the present legal action had not been initiated belatedly. He contended that the standard time limit for claims ought to be prolonged, as it had not been feasible to file the case before the public inquiry concluded last year. The barrister representing the claimants maintained that the public inquiry’s conclusions had established the factual foundation for the most recent claims. Mr Weatherby stated that his clients “were pleased that the public inquiry brought out material and information and conclusions that had not hitherto been there but they see this process as being the next step in (their) vindication”. The barrister subsequently mentioned that the claimants were also pursuing compensation. Mr Sheldon remarked that the public inquiry into the atrocity was “inquisitorial” in character and further stated: “The obligation on all those involved was to give the inquiry the fullest possible co-operation that it could in its search for the truth.” He continued: “As part of its full co-operation to the inquiry, my client provided a self-critical internal review.” He explained that this review encompassed the handling of the two pieces of intelligence. “There was no lack of candour,” Mr Sheldon reiterated. He subsequently informed the tribunal that it might be crucial “to have some idea of where this claim is going and what it is seeking to achieve”. Lord Justice Singh and Mrs Justice Farbey, who presided over the case, will decide at a future date whether the claim will advance to a full hearing.