MI5 bosses accused of 'institutional defensiveness' as Manchester Arena families seek 'vindication'

A lawyer representing victims of the Manchester Arena bombing has accused MI5 of 'institutional defensiveness' as the families pursue a legal action to achieve 'vindication'.

The claim was made in a 'skeleton argument' handed to the media by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), which is hearing a case being brought by more than 250 people caught up in the 2017 terror attack which claimed the lives of 22 innocents and left hundreds of others seriously injured.

The public inquiry into the 2017 attack found the bombing might have been prevented if MI5 had acted on intelligence received in the months before the attack. Bosses had said the two pieces of information about the Islamic State-inspired bomber, Salman Abedi, were assessed at the time by the security service to not relate to terrorism.

READ MORE: Under-fire Didsbury Mosque warned by Charity Commission over late accounts

But Pete Weatherby KC, representing the families, said MI5 'lacked candour' during oral submissions to the tribunal on Tuesday, a claim which was strenuously denied. In his written 'skeleton argument' given to the media following an application to the court, the barrister sought to emphasise the apparent disparity between the 'corporate position' of bosses in MI5 and officers on the ground who assessed the two pieces of information.

He noted that inquiry chairman Sir John Saunders, having quizzed MI5 witnesses who assessed the information at secret hearings, said: "I do not consider that these statements present an accurate picture."

One of the officials who handled the information, identified only as Witness C, concluded that the first piece of information 'might have some national security significance', Sir John revealed. The same officer