Arena bomb survivors' claim against MI5 rejected

More than 300 people affected by the Manchester Arena bombing cannot continue their legal action against MI5, judges have ruled.

Survivors and bereaved family members alleged their human rights had been infringed by the security service's failure to take "appropriate measures" to prevent the May 2017 attack.

But Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) judges Lord Justice Singh and Mrs Justice Farbey ruled their case had been brought too late and could not continue.

Three law firms representing the claimants - Hudgell Solicitors, Slater & Gordon and Broudie Jackson Canter - described the judges' ruling as "extremely disappointing for our clients".

The claimants' lawyers added: "We are disappointed that time is one of the reasons now being used against them to prevent their claims progressing.

"Seven years have now passed since the atrocity in May 2017 - six years of that seven-year delay was caused by MI5."

Twenty-two people were killed and hundreds injured when a suicide bomber detonated his device at the end of an Ariana Grande concert.

In March 2023, MI5 director-general Ken McCallum said he was "profoundly sorry" the security service had not been able to prevent the attack.

His comments followed a public inquiry which concluded MI5 had missed a significant chance to take action that might have stopped the bombing.

Two pieces of information about suicide bomber Salman Abedi had been assessed by the security service as not being terrorism-related.

IPTs allow anyone who believes they have been the victim of unlawful action by a public authority using covert investigative techniques to seek redress.

While rejecting the claim brought by survivors and the bereaved, Lord Justice Singh said: "We are conscious of the horrendous impact of the atrocity on the claimants and their families.

"Any reasonable person would have sympathy for them.

"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."

Lord Justice Singh said while the panel could "readily understand" why the legal claims had not been brought until after the public inquiry's final report, "real expedition" had then been needed.

He continued: "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 also pointed out that had the claims been allowed to continue, MI5 would have needed to "divert time and resources to defending these proceedings rather than their core responsibilities" of preventing future attacks.

Representing the claimants at an earlier IPT hearing, Pete Weatherby KC described their legal action as being "the next step" towards vindication for them.

After the judges' ruling, the claimants' lawyers said their clients had been forced to "endure continued delays" and noted 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 victims' legal representatives said it should be clear the IPT ruling "certainly doesn’t exonerate MI5".

They added: "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."

Listen to the best of BBC Radio Manchester on Sounds and follow BBC Manchester on Facebook, X, and Instagram. You can also send story ideas to [email protected] and via Whatsapp to 0808 100 2230.