Manchester Arena inquiry: MI5 had time to stop bombing, lawyer for victims’ families says
Written by Hitmix News on 27 October 2021
MI5 had time to prevent the Manchester Arena bombing, a lawyer for some of the victims’ families has told an inquiry into the attack.
It comes after a senior MI5 officer has admitted that making different decisions could have stopped the plot, the inquiry heard.
Pete Weatherby QC said the planning took place over a “significant period of time” and involved enough activity that MI5 could have identified it if they had been investigating.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Opportunities missed in Manchester
He asked the director general of counter-terrorism, referred to only as Witness J, about “a significant number of transactions” that the attackers carried out over this period.
These included buying pre-cursor chemicals, purchasing a car to store the chemicals, renting two different flats, one to manufacture the explosives and one to put the bomb together.
“If it had been investigated, there were things to spot?” Mr Weatherby asked.
The officer said: “Yes, if Salman Abedi and Hashem Abedi had been investigated by MI5 for all those months, detection of the plot would be far more likely – but at the time [Salman] wasn’t someone who was under investigation.”
More on Manchester Bombing
But he added: “The judgement we made not to investigate him, was sensible.”
Image: Salman Abedi walked past two PCSOs on the night of the attack
Mr Weatherby then insisted that had Abedi been stopped and questioned as he returned to Britain – even if he had not been carrying anything suspicious – it would have been enough to put him off carrying through his plans.
Mr Weatherby said: “He was going out of his way, using anti-surveillance. There was a real opportunity to stop him, the evidence is he was trying to stay off grid?”
Witness J said: “It is possible it would have had an impact on his behaviour, it doesn’t get to the point it would have deterred him.”
Twenty-two people died in the attack by Salman Abedi at an Ariana Grande concert at the Manchester Arena in May 2017.
Abedi had first been on the MI5 radar in 2010, seven years before the attack and was made a “subject of interest” in 2014.
MI5 received information on Abedi, including his support for ISIS, in mid-2016 but it was not examined until April 2017- a process that was overtaken by the attack on 22 May.
On two separate occasions in the months before the attack, MI5 received intelligence that Abedi was involved in terrorism but dismissed it as criminal activity.
The intelligence is said to have been “highly relevant” to the planned attack but the significance was not “fully appreciated” at the time. A meeting was due to be held about him nine days after the attack.
Duncan Atkinson QC, who questioned Witness J on behalf of other victim’s families, also told him it was difficult to hear that MI5 could have succeeded in stopping the plot “had the cards fallen differently.”
Follow the Daily podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Spreaker
“You will understand how intensely difficult that is for the families to hear, that a differently shuffled pack could have spared them years of suffering,” he told the witness.
Witness J said with improvements made since the attack “we would have been able to identify more opportunities” but it was “speculation whether that would have led to a set of different decisions that would have identified the plot”.
However, Sir John Saunders, the inquiry chairman, questioned whether “Clematis” – an operation to go back to closed subjects of interest and review their cases – could have been sped up.
The chairman also asked whether a decision not to put Abedi on a list of suspects who should be stopped at the port was a deliberate one or that it was “simply overlooked.”
Abedi was taken to Libya by his parents in April 2017 on a one-way ticket but returned to the UK on 18 May 2017, four days before his attack.
Sir John said: “An investigation might have started into Salman Abedi and no one can say this would stop what was happening but on the face of it just speeding up Clematis might have produced a different result and a port stop might have produced a different result?”
“Yes, I accept that,” the witness said.
Sir John Saunders, the inquiry chairman has ruled that there is “centrally important material” relevant to the question of whether MI5 could have prevented the attacks that cannot be revealed to the public.
The inquiry continues.