This blog post has been contributed by Dr Carol Brennan, Module Convenor for Tort law.
The liability of an owner or keeper of an animal which causes damage can arise in tort under a number of different headings, including nuisance and battery. However most frequently it will be actionable in common law negligence and/or strict liability under the Animals Act 1971. This statutory provision is not on the syllabus of some LLB Tort modules, however the reports below, and others, indicate the topicality of the issue and the need for lawyers to be aware of the fundamentals.
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is often covered briefly in the Tort syllabus, where it overlaps with topics such as trespass to the person, nuisance, defamation and misuse of private information. It is informative to examine a recent important example of the application the Act in practice.
In May 2017, two Islamic suicide terrorists detonated a bomb at the Manchester Arena, where an Ariana Grande concert had just finished. 22 people were killed and over a thousand injured, many of them young people, like Eve Hibbert who was severely injured along with her father.
The defendant in Hibbert v Hall [2024] EWHC 2677 (KB) described himself as a journalist, broadcaster and media producer. He had written a book entitled ‘Manchester: The Night of the Bang’ in which he alleged that the event was a ‘staged scenario’, in which there was no actual explosion. His story was that, for ulterior motives and in concert with the emergency services, the victims, including the Hibberts, had actually faked their injuries. This claim was spread not only in his book but online, in social media and in public lectures. In pursuing this story, Hall had also visited the Hibbert’s home and secretly filmed them.
They brought a civil action against him in the High Court under s1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (in addition to various data protection breaches which were not determined in this case). The defendant argued that his conduct had been reasonable and was covered by the article 10 ECHR’s protection of freedom of expression and thought. The judge, Mrs Justice Steyn, recognised the need to balance article 10 with article 8 which protects private and family life.
However, for her, the blatant falsity of his accusations, combined with the vulnerability of the claimants, as survivors of the event, led to the conclusion that Hall’s conduct lacked ‘any semblance of balance’ and was ‘oppressive, unacceptable and of sufficient gravity to sustain criminal liability.’
It was held that the requirements of s1 of the 1997 Act were fulfilled: that is, the defendant had pursued a course of conduct, which amounted to harassment, of which he had actual or constructive knowledge, and this resulted in harm to the claimants. His defence that his conduct had been reasonable in the circumstances failed. In a subsequent hearing Hall was ordered to pay £45,000 damages to the Hibberts.
Lawyers have noted that this is the first time a legal action has been successfully pursued against a conspiracy theorist and there is hope that this case will be welcomed by both those who are at their mercy and by responsible journalists. It is interesting to note a parallel with the massive defamation damages award made in the US against online conspiracy theorists who had cast doubts about the Sandy Hook school shooting. This may indicate a more concerted international approach to combat intrusive and dangerous online publications.