MI5 'lacked candour' in Manchester Arena bomb inquiry evidence, victim families claim

MI5 'lacked candour' when it gave evidence to the Manchester Arena bomb inquiry and other reviews of the atrocity, a lawyer representing families affected by the outrage has told a tribunal.

The claim, strenuously denied, was made by a KC representing the families as the security services attempted to block a legal action taken against survivors, arguing it was brought too late.

The public inquiry into the 2017 attack found the bombing might have been prevented if MI5 had acted on intelligence received in the months before the attack when two pieces of information about the bomber, Salman Abedi, were assessed at the time by the security service to not relate to terrorism.

READ MORE: Under-fire Didsbury Mosque warned by Charity Commission over late accounts

But inquiry chairman Sir John Saunders said, having heard from MI5 witnesses at secret hearings, he considered that did not present an 'accurate picture'.

Following publication of the inquiry's final report last year, MI5's Director general Ken McCallum expressed 'deep regret' that intelligence was not gathered which may have stopped Abedi in his tracks, and said he was 'profoundly sorry' that MI5 was unable to prevent it.

Lawyers representing more than 250 people caught up in the attack at the Ariana Grande concert have submitted a claim to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), arguing evidence of missed intelligence only emerged during the public inquiry, which submitted its final report in March 2023.

At today's hearing in London, and with members of the families watching from the public gallery, Pete Wetherby KC argued it would have been 'impossible' for the families to take action sooner as it was only by the publication of the inquiry's final report in March last year that details of missed opportunities emerged.

He said the delay in bringing the action was down to the 'inaccurate narrative presented to the public inquiry and earlier reviews'.

"The corporate position lacked candour to the families and to the public," said the KC, who said the families were bringing the action as another step towards 'vindication' because of a 'failure to act on intelligence'.

He argued the two pieces of intelligence - details of which have never been made public - had to be seen in context and not as 'bits of information floating about in the ether'.

At the time of the attack - which claimed 22 innocent lives and left hundreds of others seriously hurt - the national threat level was 'severe' which meant an attack was considered 'highly likely', said the barrister.

Islamic State-inspired Abedi was of Libyan heritage and he flew back from the country to pick up explosives he had left in a Nissan Micra he had left parked in Rusholme before carrying out the attack. Mr Wetherby said the the threat from the terror group in Libya was 'publicly known' at the time.

Abedi had been a 'closed subject of interest' for MI5 which had had him on their 'radar' since 2010, he said, pointing out that the bomber had rented flat to make the chemicals for the bomb, rented a car for the attack, assembled a 'complex device' and carried out 'hostile reconnaissance' at the arena.

MI5's assessment 'should not have been carried out in a vacuum', said Mr Wetherby, who described the agency's stance as 'retrospective justification of actions taken or not taken'. He said Sir John had 'rejected the corporate picture' after hearing from MI5 officers during secret sessions of the public inquiry and decided that the two pieces of information were actually 'pressing national security concerns'.

The barrister pointed to three 'lead claimants' pursuing the action: Chloe Rutherford who was 17 when she died in the attack; Eve Hibbert, who was 14 at the time and who survived despite suffering massive injuries which left her requiring full time care to this day; and Lesley Callander who found her daughter Georgina, 18, being carried out of the arena on a makeshift stretcher. She died later.

MI5 say 'not fair to characterise it as lack of candour'

Neil Sheldon KC, representing the security services and the government, said his clients were 'neutral' on the claim before the tribunal.

He strenuously denied the allegation of a lack of candour and said: "The first point of course is that the (public) inquiry was an inquisitorial process. Nobody was running a case. The object for all those involved including my client was to give the inquiry the fullest possible opportunity that it could in the search for the truth."

He said that included giving the inquiry MI5's 'post-attack review', which he said Sir John accepted was prepared 'at a fast pace', 'was comprehensive' and was 'an impressively detailed piece of work given the circumstances in which it was written'. Its review was 'self-critical'.

It included information that Abedi was a 'closed subject of interest' by the time of the attack and that an 'opportunity was missed' to place him on a 'ports stop' which would have alerted officials to stop Abedi when he flew back into Manchester to carry out the attack, said Mr Sheldon.

The KC said: "It's not right or fair to characterise that situation is a lack of candour on behalf of MI5. It's simply a reflection of a fact-finding tribunal reaching its own conclusions in an inquisitorial process having heard further evidence."

Referring to Sir John's conclusions, he said: "Possible actionable intelligence might possibly have led to information of significant seriousness which might possibly have been so serious as to justify physical surveillance on his return which might possibly have resulted in him being followed to the Nissan Micra which possibly, if it had been actioned, might have caused effective actions to be taken which might have prevented the plot."

He argued for the financial claim to succeed the tribunal would have to be satisfied that any breach by the security services caused the injuries. He said it was 'never going to be a case in which compensatory damages are going to be payable'.

Lord Justice Singh, President of the Tribunal, said he would 'reserve judgment' to decide whether the action can proceed.

The IPT is an independent judicial body which provides right of redress to anyone who believes they have been the victim of unlawful action by a public authority using covert investigative techniques.