Mary Dejevsky

How the Manchester Arena bombing inquiry failed

Mourners near floral tributes in Manchester on the first anniversary of the Manchester terrorist attack on May 22, 2018 (Credit: Getty images)

Responding to Sir John Saunders’ third and final report on the bombing at Manchester Arena, Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary called it a ‘difficult day’ for the Home Office. In saying so, she was clearly referring not just to the general failure of the authorities to prevent the attack, which cost 22 lives, but specifically to the failures of the security service, MI5, which comes under the aegis of the Home Office. 

In his report, Sir John concluded that the bombing might have been prevented had MI5 responded differently to the information they had. He noted that one officer in particular had contributed to the failure by not passing on information promptly. Most damaging of all, however, he expressly rejected the assessment made by MI5‘s own expert that no one other than the bomber, Salman Abedi, and his brother, Hashem, were knowingly involved in the attack. The corporate position, as it was presented, he said, was more a ‘retrospective justification for the actions taken or not taken’.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in