What happened at Ariana Grande’s 2017 Manchester concert? Survivors’ lawsuit against MI5 gets rejected

A lawsuit filed against Britain’s domestic intelligence agency MI5 by survivors of the 2017 Ariana Grande concert bombing was rejected. In May 2017, a man named Salman Abedi carried out a bombing as fans were departing Ariana Grande's Manchester concert, resulting in the death of 22 people and a slew of injuries.

On Friday, November 22, a special tribunal rejected a legal claim made by over 300 concert survivors. Their case claimed that the MI5 failed to properly take into consideration, intelligence regarding the potential attack that they had received.

The claim, which stated that the organization violated the claimants' human rights, was dismissed due to the survivors allegedly waiting too long to file the claim.

---

The 2017 bombing at Ariana Grande's Manchester concert resulted in 22 deaths

On May 22, 2017, a 22-year-old individual named Salman Abedi planted a knapsack bomb at the Manchester Arena, towards the end of an Ariana Grande concert. The concert which began at 9 at night, drew to a close before 10:30. A minute later, Abedi's nail bomb exploded in the arena's City Room.

Thousands of people attended the Ariana Grande concert and 22 innocent civilians, mostly children and teenagers, lost their lives alongside Salman Abedi. The youngest victim of the attack was 8-year-old Saffie-Rose Roussos, while the oldest victim was 51-year-old school receptionist Jane Tweddle. ISIS later claimed responsibility for the attack.

In April of this year, AP reported that over 250 survivors of the Ariana Grande concert attack were taking legal action against Britain’s domestic intelligence agency MI5, being represented by three separate law firms. A group claim was filed to the U.K.'s investigatory powers tribunal.

A 2023 official inquiry into the attack revealed that the MI5 could have prevented the tragedy had they acted quicker and more efficiently on procuring actionable intelligence.

Back in 2014, years before the attack, Salman Abedi was labeled as a "subject of interest" by the MI5.

However, Abedi was removed from the list as he was only found to be a low-risk threat. Furthermore, the report also revealed that one MI5 officer procured intelligence that deemed Abedi a national security concern but did not discuss it with their colleagues on time.

In response to the inquiry report, MI5 head Ken McCallum said in March of last year:

"I deeply regret that such intelligence was not obtained. Gathering covert intelligence is difficult – but had we managed to seize the slim chance we had, those impacted might not have experienced such appalling loss and trauma. I am profoundly sorry that MI5 did not prevent the attack."

As mentioned earlier, the lawsuit filed by the survivors of the Ariana Grande concert attack was dismissed by the U.K.’s Investigatory Powers Tribunal on Friday.

As reported by ABC News, although Justice Rabinder Singh was aware of the "horrendous impact" of the tragedy on the victims, it wasn't fair for the claims to proceed when they could have been filed earlier.

Singh also claimed that furthering the case would've strayed the MI5 away from its core responsibilities. Singh stated that any "reasonable person" would have sympathy for the victims of the attack. He said:

"The grief and trauma which they have suffered, particularly where young children were killed, is almost unimaginable."

However, he added:

"Nevertheless, we have reached the conclusion that, in all the circumstances, it would not be equitable to permit the claims to proceed."

The dismissal did not sit right with the three law firms representing the 300-plus survivors, Hudgell Solicitors, Slater & Gordon, and Broudie Jackson Canter.

According to The Guardian, the firms released a joint statement calling the dismissal "extremely disappointing". The statement further read:

"Following these significant findings, our clients believed the IPT would provide the route to the formal vindication of their human rights. 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. "

The firms claimed that the judgment did not exonerate MI5 and vowed to continue to support their clients in the fight for "full accountability and justice".