Post also available on Substack.
* * *
Please note: This is entirely my own work. I have not discussed this article with anyone. All links provided to others’ work and their websites have been made without their awareness or their consent.
* * *
This article is a segue from my new series exploring Andy Burnham’s Trojan Manshetserism. The topic of Burnham’s involvement in the possible future enactment of Eve’s Law deserves specific and separate attention.
To give some background: the UK High Court found independent investigative journalist Richard D. Hall liable for harassment on 22nd October 2024. The claim against Hall appears to have been instigated by the BBC but was brought to the High Court by two of the reported Manchester Arena victims.
The damages award, plus costs, has resulted in Hall being made bankrupt, which, sadly, ultimately threatens to make Hall’s eleven-year-old son homeless. A trust fund has been set up to hopefully mitigate the potential harm to Hall’s son (you can donate here). Hall has also lodged an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
The High Court found Hall liable for harassment by publication. More or less the entire body of work that he produced, reporting his investigation of the Manchester Arena attack, in combination with his investigatory process, was deemed by the court to be the “course of conduct” that amounted to harassment of the claimants.
Some independent media commentators think that Hall, who briefly reported his observations of one of the claimants, did something, or committed some act, that alone warranted the accusation of harassment. Yet even the BBC has been reasonably consistent about the nature of the claim against Hall.
Mr Hall is being sued over several videos and a book in which he claimed the bombing was a “hoax”, as well as “secretly filming” Eve and her mother at their house.
Doubting anything reported by the BBC is wise but can backfire if you don’t examine the evidence yourself. Automatically rejecting whatever the mainstream media reports seems to have led some independent analysts to suggest that the media falsely conflated Hall’s investigative work with some sort of separate allegation of harassment. This assertion is incorrect. The harrassment claim was always based upon Hall’s body of work. In this regard, the BBC’s report was accurate—though little else within it was.
Presumably, the confusion exhibited in some corners of the independent media has arisen because they don’t understand what the claim against Hall was about—or what constitutes harassment. They could have just read the court documents.
In her finding, the presiding bench judge Mrs Justice Steyn made it very clear what the High Court was trying to ascertain:
This case concerns a false narrative, published by the defendant, an independent journalist and broadcaster, that the Manchester Arena attack was an elaborate hoax – carefully planned by elements within the state and involving ordinary citizens (including the claimants) in the deception as “crisis actors” – in which no one was injured or died. The essential question is whether through his publications, and the steps he took to investigate the claimants, the defendant has committed the statutory tort of harassment.
To be abundantly clear: Hall was found liable for harassment by publication because his published work was considered false and because he secretly filmed one of the claimants. By publishing his work he directly challenged and contradicted the victims’, including the claimants’, accounts of events. His publications—books and videos—and his observations were found by the High Court to meet the legal threshold to demonstrate, on the balance of evidence, as it was a civil claim, that he was liable for “the statutory tort of harassment.”
The benchmark for demonstrating harassment by publication in the UK is set high due to the implications for the freedom of the press, and because, to determine that journalism amounts to harassment, conflicting ECHR Article rights must be carefully considered. For these reasons, Mrs. Justice Steyn observed that “[n]o claim of harassment against a media organisation has succeeded at trial.” Other legal experts have noted that Steyn’s “decision explores the concept of responsible journalism and is thought to be the first to explore this in the context of a harassment claim.”
Regardless of what you think about the evidence Hall published or his investigation, the finding against him set a worrying legal precedent. Potentially, if journalism is determined to be false (who decides?), people in the UK who claim they were harmed by investigative journalism now have a legal precedent they can rely on to sue journalists for harassment. It is obvious that the British Establishment could use this legal development to protect its narratives from scrutiny.
Furthermore, precedent could form the basis for future legislation that will effectively make questioning state narratives about events, where people were reportedly injured or died, highly letigious—terrorist attacks or murder, for example. This won’t affect the mainstream media because it doesn’t question state narratives, but some independent journalists do, and they may find themselves legally compelled to desist. Unless they too are willing to risk being made bankrupt.
The evidence suggests that, during his stint as mayor of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA), Andy Burnham was quite closely involved in the case against Hall. He was, perhaps understandably, publicly supportive of the claimants, but as prime minister, he has also proceeded with a legislative program that seems to be moving us close to establishing what has been dubbed Eve’s Law: a prospective law publicly championed by Mr. Martin Hibbert—one of the claimants in Hall’s trial.
On the 31st October 2022, more than a year before Hall had a claim lodged against him and coinciding with a series of disastaer troll-themed investigations into Hall—broadcast by the BBC—Andy Burnham publicly stated:
The law needs to be changed to make it a serious criminal offence to peddle these offensive lies and conspiracies with custodial penalties.
In other words, Andy Burnham proffered that journalists, or indeed members of the public, who cause offence or allege state conspiracies, that have yet to be officially acknowledged by the epistemic authorities, should be punished with prison terms.
To Burnham’s opinion into context: we are living through a period of British history where legislation, such as the Online Safety Act 2023, is being used to censor information. Since 2020—primarily under the watchful eye of the inscrutable National Security Online Information Team (NSOIT) and using a range of Acts, including the OSA—more than 62,000 British people have been arrested for various online communication offences.
The pressure group Big Brother Watch reported:
Videos from mainstream political parties, posts on British history and paintings by famous artists have all been blocked or age-gated online due to the OSA. [. . .] A systematic analysis of Reddit has found age-gating is being applied to many more topics than required in law, with posts on BBC News reports about the war in Gaza, complaints about a papercut and discussion of 1970s punk bands all being hidden behind demands for ID. Arrests for speech offences are extremely high, and far exceed convictions, raising questions about the overuse of arrests for controversial speech. At least 62,199 people in the UK were arrested for communications offences over 5 years; 18,520 were charged and 12,292 convicted.
While many of the related convictions were for offences such as sending death threats or perpetuating domestic abuse online, the vast majority of the arrests were for the entirely subjective suspected “crime” of causing some manner of offence. Evidently there is a push to dissuade the public from speaking freely online. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that a coordinated propaganda effort is underway to convince the public that digital ID is necessary to keep people safe and to enable the state to regain control of information.
Should Eve’s Law progress as planned, state narratives about, for instance, major terrorist events or high-profile murders, will effectively be placed beyond question. With digital ID potentially controlling public access to information, a state dictatorship will be guaranteed. Some people are aware of this danger, though unfortunately perhaps not enough.
Nevertheless, Burnham’s October 2022 statement—published on what was then Twitter—was roundly savaged by people concerned about the chilling effect such a law would have on free speech.
The next day, using the media to defend his own opinions, Burham told the press:
Immediately people come back defending freedom of speech but this is not about opinion, it is written in fact. People can’t be free to deny historical incidents and retraumatise victims of these events. [. . .] I think this should be a criminal offence. It is not about freedom of speech to deny historical events that caused serious harm. In parliament this needs to be addressed before this goes further.
Again, more than a year before a claim was lodged against Hall, Andy Burnham raised the prospect of a law to prevent people from questioning “historical incidents”—in which victims were reportedly harmed—whenever that questioning retraumatised them.
Irrespective of Burnham’s views, the only way to establish the facts is by examining the evidence. Therefore, to determine the facts, all the evidence must be examined. Thus, all the evidence must be available, and none of it restricted or denied by anyone to anyone. Only by clearly establishing the facts can we have any chance of understanding the truth—which is objective and immutable, no matter what anyone believes the truth to be.
As reported by the independent researcher and filmmaker Pighooey (go to: 50.05), in February 2024, Mr.Hibbert was asked on national television about his relationship with Andy Burnham:
I spoke with Andy, probably a couple of years ago, and I’ve also spoken to my legal team as well, and they’re going to help. So we said if we we are successful, then if we . . . can make it a criminal offence, for people that are in terrorist attacks, [. . .] to make it a criminal offence to turn up at somebody’s house uninvited, to video them [. . .] to make that a criminal offence.
Hall’s High Court trial commenced in the 22nd July 2024. On the 23rd July 2024, the BBC wrote:
Manchester Arena bomb survivors have filed landmark legal action against a conspiracy theorist who claims the attack was faked. [. . .] It is the first time such action has been launched in the UK against a conspiracy theorist. [. . .] Mr Hibbert hopes the action will finally stop Mr Hall and set a UK precedent to help protect other people who survive disasters from these conspiracies and tactics. [. . .] Manchester’s Mayor, Andy Burnham, has met Mr Hibbert to discuss campaigning for a new law that could better protect survivors of tragedies from harassment and conspiracy theories.
As Pighooey observed, if Mr Hibbert met with Andy Burnham about two years prior to the TV interview, that would mean Mr Hibbert and his legal team were discussing the prospective Hall case with Burnham at around the same time as the BBC was broadcasting and publishing a series of reports highly critical of Hall. If so, there was evidently a shared view between powerful parties, including Burnham’s mayoral team, that a claim against Hall could possibly be used to assist the enactment of Eve’s law. These conversations appear to have occurred long before any evidence was heard in the subsequent High Court trial.
Following the conclusion of the trial, but prior to Mrs. Justice Steyn publishing her finding, Mr. Hibbert, in the company of his legal team, delivered a prepared statement to a national television audience outside the High Court:
We live in a society where free speech and the right to express a genuinely held opinion must be protected, but when those beliefs and actions are inaccurate, offensive and damaging, and cause harm to those who have already suffered so badly, people must be challenged. [. . .] I will now liaise with my legal team, my media contacts, politicians and decision makers about Eve’s Law: a new law to better protect survivors of tragedies from harassment and conspiracy theories. Watch this space….!
Mr. Hibbert was referring to the law that Andy Burnham proposed in October 2022. However, perhaps partially in consideration of public opposition to the envisaged Eve’s Law, post the publication of Mrs. Justice Steyn’s finding on 22nd October 2024, the suggested scope of Eve’s Law suddenly changed.
Again, speaking on national television, on 12th November 2024, Mr. Hibbert said (Pighooey go to: 55:00):
What Eve’s Law might be is access to justice, because we’ve seen what it cost for me to win this case, I mean, you know, it’s over £200,000, most people don’t have that money. So what I’m speaking with Hudgell [Mr Hibberts legal team], I’m speaking with government officials, the mayor of Manchester [Andy Burnham], is maybe bringing about a pro-bono panel that can help others get access to justice. [. . .] If I can help others bring down, you know, the bad people that, you know, want to go after people who have been involved in tragedies then that’d be a nice thing to be done.
The apparent vector of the proposed Eve’s Law has shifted from a potential criminal offence to legal aid for victims seeking redress from journalists who purportedly cause them offence or some sort of harm. This was congruent with the finding in Hall’s case, which upheld Mr Hibbert’s and his co-claimants’ civil claim. Perhaps Steyn’s finding wasn’t quite as anticipated by the public-private network behind the Eve’s Law initiative.
Andy Burnham has long sought to expand the availability of legal aid. In what was said to be a “highly personal” agenda, as he made his second failed bid to become Labour leader in 2015, Andy Burnham said:
From introducing fees for workers taking a case to an employment tribunal, to making drastic and devastating cuts to the civil legal aid budget, David Cameron’s Government have made access to justice dependant on ability to pay. I believe that it is the hallmark of a civilised society that everyone can access justice, defend their rights and receive help in navigating the legal system, regardless of their income. So under my leadership, a Labour Government will commission an urgent review of civil legal aid.
Burnham was specifically referring to providing legal aid for workers in employment tribunals. The repeated reference to improving access to “civil legal aid” was notable, however. Clearly, this is a key issue for Burnham. Most people, with any sense, would support his efforts, in principle. But, given his other stated opinions, we should be very wary of assuming his and his supporting network’s motivations.
In 2017, shortly before standing to be mayor of the GMCA, one of Andy Burnham’s last parliamentary acts was to sponsor a private members bill named the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill, or the proposed Hillsborough Law. Parliament was dissolved for the 2017 general election before the bill received a full reading, and Burnham left for the GMCA job. Kier Starmer’s Labour government subsequently reintroduced the Hillsborough Law as proposed government legislation in 2024.
At first glance, the idea of the Hillsborough Law also seems very reasonable. It will supposedly place a “[l]egal duty of candour [. . .] on public officials and authorities to prevent coverups.” It recommends that bereaved families should “have publicly funded legal representation at inquests, making sure both sides are on a fair and equal footing.”
Passage of the Hillsborough Law received a significant political boost when Andy Burnham took the opportunity of his first Commons intervention as prime minister to stress its importance.
He said:
I come here today not to take credit for this Government or this House. [. . .] It belongs to the families and to the campaigners, and I pay tribute to every one of them: the Hillsborough families, [and] the Manchester Arena families—some of whom were with me again this afternoon and are here today.
It is unclear why some of the “Manchester Arena families” would support the Hillsborough Law. None of the 22 victims who reportedly lost their lives in the Manchester Attack, nor their bereaved families, were afforded formal legal inquests into their deaths. Had it existed at the time, legal aid for bereaved families at inquests would have made no material difference to the Manchester Arena families.
Prime Minister Burnham continued:
We have had a situation in this country where people suffered the trauma of the initial bereavement—the incident that took their loved ones away—and then were retraumatised by the behaviour of the state. We cannot take that hurt away tonight, but we can put decency back at the heart of the British state, and that is what this Bill does.
It probably hasn’t escaped your notice that expanding legal aid to people who say they have been traumatised by an event and who then claim they have been “retraumatised” by subsequent “behaviour” is precisely what Eve’s Law intends to address. The context is different, but the legal concept is the same.
The Hillsborough Law and Andy Burnham have been widely supported by the mainstream media. For example, the Guardian wrote that its imminent enactment marks a “new era.” The Guardian reported that Burnham said the Hillsborough Law will “change the way this country thinks and works about justice.” Though that change might not be all it’s cracked up to be.
In seeking to make public servants, such as MPs, more accountable by imposing on them a “legal duty of candour,” the Hillsborough Law removes the common law offence of misconduct in a public office and replaces it with “two statutory offences – ‘breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury’ and ‘seriously improper conduct’.” The UK government is currently intent on doing away with jury trials, but, traditionally, common law offences are tested in court by a jury of the people.
Statutory offences, on the other hand, can and frequently are amended by secondary legislation—commonly in the form of statutory instruments. The Hillsborough Law currently focuses on providing legal aid to bereaved families in inquests, and its legal aid component is unlikely to extend beyond access to inquests. Statutory instruments certainly could be used to reinterprete how new “breach of duty” and “improper conduct” offences are applied and to whom.
The Hillsborough Law appears to move political accountability further away from the public and places it more firmly in the hands of parliament. The likelihood is that the “new era” will be one where MPs are less answerable to the public and can more readily evade candour. If so, political coverups will be easier to perpetrate. It is difficult to imagine how the Hillsborough Law will “put decency back at the heart of the British state.”
The Public Authority (Accountability) Bill—the Hillsborough Law—has been described as “the biggest expansion in legal aid eligibility in decades.” It was initially pushed forward by Keith Weatherby KC, who has represented some of Manchester Arena bereaved families. With regard to Eve’s Law, especially in light of Andy Burnham’s “highly personal” agenda, the significance of the imminent Hillsborough Law is that it sets a policy trajectory for the Burnham government to pursue.
The Hillsborough Law establishes the Burnham government’s intent to expand “publicly funded legal representation” to bereaved families who have been retraumatiased by subsequent behaviour. This is clearly the current suggested objective of Eve’s Law. Burnham’s conspicuous statement that the Hillsborough Law has support from “Manchester Arena families”—despite its current scope being of no appreciable relevance to them—and the leading influence of Keith Weatherby KC, indicate that there is an undeclared intention to pursue Eve’s Law.
Eve’s Law appears to be squarely on the legislative horizon. “Watch this space….!”
Please feel free to share anything from iaindavis[.]com excluding any and all third party content. I use a Creative Commons License. All I ask is that you give credit to the author and clearly mark any changes you make. Please share my work widely. Censorship is increasing and we need to get this information out there. If you value what I do then please consider supporting my work. Many thanks.
Please consider supporting my work. I really need your help if I am going to continue to provide the research and analysis that you value on a full-time basis. You can support my work for less than the price of a cup of coffee via my donor page or alternative become a paid subscriber to my Substack.
AI Transparency: I do not use AI to research or write any of my work. I use an AI grammar tool to check the first draft of the completed article because I can’t spell and my grammar is atrocious.
Be the first to comment on "Is Andy Burnham Taking Us Closer To Eve’s Law?"