A lawsuit brought against MI5, Britain’s domestic intelligence agency, by survivors of the 2017 Ariana Grande concert bombing has been dismissed. In May 2017, Salman Abedi carried out a bombing as fans were leaving Ariana Grande's Manchester concert, killing 22 people and injuring many more.
On Friday, November 22, a special tribunal rejected a legal claim made by over 300 survivors. The lawsuit alleged that MI5 failed to adequately act on intelligence they had received about a potential attack.
The claim, which accused the agency of violating the claimants' human rights, was dismissed because the survivors were said to have waited too long to file it.
On May 22, 2017, Salman Abedi, a 22-year-old, detonated a knapsack bomb in the City Room of Manchester Arena at the conclusion of the Ariana Grande concert. The event, which started at 9 p.m., ended shortly before 10:30 p.m., with the explosion occurring moments later.
The bombing, which was attended by thousands of fans, resulted in the deaths of 22 civilians, many of them children and teenagers, alongside Abedi. The youngest victim was 8-year-old Saffie-Rose Roussos, while the oldest was 51-year-old Jane Tweddle, a school receptionist. The attack was later claimed by ISIS.
In April 2023, it was reported by AP that over 250 survivors of the Manchester attack were suing MI5, represented by three law firms. The group claim was filed with the U.K.'s Investigatory Powers Tribunal.
An official inquiry conducted in 2023 found that MI5 could have potentially stopped the attack if they had acted more promptly and effectively on the intelligence they had gathered.
Back in 2014, Salman Abedi had been identified by MI5 as a "subject of interest."
However, he was later removed from the list as he was deemed a low-risk threat. The inquiry also revealed that an MI5 officer obtained intelligence indicating Abedi was a national security concern but failed to share it with colleagues in time.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ