Government seeks to block MI5 evidence from Manchester synagogue attack inquests

The Home Office has applied to withhold MI5 material from public inquests into the deaths of two men killed in the Heaton Park Synagogue attack last October.

Home Office bids to suppress MI5 material from Manchester synagogue inquests

The Government has applied to prevent certain MI5 intelligence from being heard in public during the inquests into the deaths of two men killed in the Manchester synagogue attack, BBC News reports.

A pre-inquest hearing at Manchester Coroner's Court was told that the Home Office wants the information withheld when the inquests into the deaths of Adrian Daulby, 53, and Melvin Cravitz, 66, proceed next year.

Jihad Al-Shamie, 35, a Syrian-born British citizen, drove a vehicle into the gates of the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation Synagogue in Manchester on 2 October last year, before launching a knife attack while wearing a fake suicide belt. Cravitz died from multiple stab wounds. Daulby was struck by a bullet fired by armed officers responding to the scene — he was hit while blocking the synagogue doors to prevent Al-Shamie from entering.

National security claim contested by families

Neil Sheldon KC, representing the Home Office, told the hearing that making the MI5 material public would endanger national security. "The Secretary of State asserts that disclosure would harm national security," Sheldon said.

Lawyers acting for the victims' families argued that the Government's Public Interest Immunity (PII) application stood in direct "contradiction" to statements made publicly in the immediate aftermath of the attack. They cited remarks by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood and senior counter-terror police officers, who stated that Al-Shamie had not been on their radar and was unknown to the security services.

Victoria Ailes, representing the Cravitz family, told Judge Alexia Durran, Chief Coroner of England and Wales: "We would respectfully suggest the interest in open justice is heightened."

Anna Morris KC, acting for the Daulby family, said there had been a "demonstrable lack of candour" by the security services in "other proceedings". She added that the family were concerned the withheld material might contradict prior public statements that the attacker had not been known to counter-terror policing or MI5. The Daulby family expected a "rigorous investigation" and had raised concerns about delays and "procedural rights".

Inquest or public inquiry?

Ed Pleeth, counsel to the inquest, acknowledged that the PII application reflected a "well-evidenced" national security risk, but noted the MI5 information was also directly relevant to the inquests. He highlighted a structural problem: in inquest proceedings there is no legal power to exclude parties such as family lawyers, meaning sensitive MI5 material cannot be examined in that setting.

Pleeth told the hearing that the Chief Coroner would need to consider converting the inquests into a formal public inquiry, where legislation does permit sensitive security material to be heard in "closed" sessions attended only by a senior judge and security-vetted lawyers.

A decision on whether Yoni Finlay — injured by the same bullet that killed Daulby — should be granted "interested party" status was deferred to the next hearing.

Officers and other parties named

Earlier, the Chief Coroner granted "interested person" status to three Greater Manchester Police firearms officers who attended the scene, identified only as F42, S19 and C25. The court was told that officer F42 fired four shots from his Glock pistol; his first round missed Al-Shamie, fatally striking Daulby and wounding Finlay. Officer S19 discharged five rounds and C25 fired once, both using carbine weapons.

Andrew Franks, described in court as the man who opened the synagogue compound gates to Al-Shamie, was also granted interested person status. The coroner specified that this designation carried no implication of "criticism or culpability" on his part.

Next steps uncertain

Due to what Pleeth described as "procedural uncertainty" around whether the case will proceed as an inquest or public inquiry, no date has yet been fixed for the next pre-inquest hearing. A written ruling on the PII application is expected from the Chief Coroner at a later stage.

Source: BBC News