The families of victims of the Manchester Arena attack accused MI5 of a “devastating” failure after an official inquiry found the agency missed a “significant opportunity” to stop the deadliest terror plot in Britain since the 7 July 2005 attacks in London.
A public inquiry led by Sir John Saunders concluded that there was a “realistic possibility” that the bomber could have been thwarted if the security services had acted more decisively on intelligence.
The inquiry began in 2019 and has found that MI5 missed a ‘significant opportunity’ to prevent the attack, which was carried out by a lone suicide bomber at an Ariana Grande concert. The report has highlighted a number of failures on the part of MI5, including a lack of communication between different departments and a failure to assess the threat posed by the attacker properly.
Families of the victims have expressed their frustration and anger at the findings, accusing MI5 of failing in its duty to protect the public. They have called for greater transparency and accountability from the agency, and have demanded that lessons be learned to prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the future.
In the long-anticipated final report of the inquiry, Saunders said it was “quite impossible” to say definitively whether any different action would have prevented the blast but that there was a “significant missed opportunity to take action that might have prevented the attack”.
The conclusion triggered a rare public apology from MI5’s director general, Ken McCallum, who said it was of “deep regret” that the agency did not obtain sufficient intelligence to stop the “terrible tragedy”.
He added: “Gathering covert intelligence is difficult – but had we managed to seize the slim chance we had, those impacted might not have experienced such appalling loss and trauma. I am profoundly sorry that MI5 did not prevent the attack.”
But the apology was rejected by Roussos, whose daughter was the youngest victim of the attack. He said it was “insulting” for MI5 to say there was only a “slim chance” of stopping the attack, adding: “He [McCallum] had loads of chances, transparent chances. I can’t accept an apology for losing my daughter.”
The 226-page report, which came two-and-a-half years after the inquiry began, found that:
- Salman Abedi’s return from Libya four days before the blast would have been taken “extremely seriously” by MI5 had key pieces of intelligence been taken more seriously in the months before the blast.
- The spy agency could have found Abedi’s homemade device, stored in a car in Manchester, if an investigation begun at this stage. The attack “might have been prevented” if MI5 had found the vehicle.
- MI5 failed to share two significant pieces of intelligence with counter-terrorism police in the run-up to the blast, amid what Saunders described as a “communication breakdown” between the agencies.
- Abedi’s family holds “significant responsibility” for his extremist beliefs but he should have been referred to the anti-radicalisation scheme, Prevent, up to two years before the attack.
One of the inquiry’s key findings was that MI5 failed to properly assess the threat posed by the attacker, Salman Abedi. Despite his links to terrorist groups and his suspicious behaviour in the lead-up to the attack, MI5 did not consider him to be a significant threat. The report also highlighted a lack of communication between MI5 and other agencies, including the police and the security services, which may have contributed to the agency’s failure to prevent the attack.
The “significant missed opportunity” identified by Saunders concerned the handling of two pieces of intelligence by MI5 in the months before the attack.
The report does not describe the nature of these two pieces of intelligence. However, it rejects a previous claim by the Security Service that they related to “non-terrorist criminality” by Abedi.
Saunders said that on occasion MI5’s “corporate position” did not reflect how its officers viewed this material and instead was more of a “retrospective justification for the actions taken or not taken”.
Saunders said there was a “material possibility” that this would have led to MI5 uncovering Abedi’s plans.
Caroline Curry, whose 19-year-old son Liam Curry was killed in the bombing alongside his girlfriend Chloe Rutherford, 17, hit out at public bodies for failing to quickly acknowledge their failures during the inquiry, saying: “Shame on you all.”
In an emotional statement delivered near Manchester Hall, where families of the victims had gathered to read the report, Curry added: “Forgiveness will never be an option for such evil intentions and those that played any part in the murder of our children will never, ever get forgiveness.
“From top to bottom, MI5 to the associates of the attacker, we will always believe that you all played a part in the murder of our children.”
Unlike previous investigations, the public inquiry heard evidence from the MI5 officers who analysed the information and who testified that together they were of “potential national security concern”.
MI5 witnesses told the inquiry that if the first piece of intelligence had been received today it would have prompted “low-level investigative inquiries, in conjunction with the police”.
One MI5 officer, Witness C, believed the second piece of intelligence could be of “pressing national security concern” but failed to raise the alarm promptly, the report found.
It said the agent should have raised concerns to colleagues “straight away” and written a report on the same day but did not do so.
Saunders said this delay “led to the missing of an opportunity to take a potentially important investigative action”.
This was significant, Saunders said, because the intelligence gave rise to the “real possibility of obtaining information that might have led to actions which prevented the attack”.
The retired high court judge said more decisive action would have led MI5 to take “extremely seriously” Abedi’s return from Libya, where he had been fighting alongside Islamists, four days before the attack.
He said it could also have led investigators to the Nissan Micra where he had stored his homemade explosives and, had they found the vehicle, “the attack might have been prevented”.
Much of the evidence from MI5 and counter-terror police was heard in secret due to national security concerns.
The families of the victims have called for greater cooperation between different agencies and for a more joined-up approach to counter-terrorism. They have also criticized MI5 for failing to share information and intelligence with other agencies, which may have helped to prevent the attack.
In response to the findings, MI5 has issued a statement acknowledging the agency’s failure to prevent the attack and apologizing to the families of the victims. The agency has also promised to learn from the mistakes made and to take steps to improve its procedures and protocols.
The Manchester Arena attack was a tragic and senseless act of violence that claimed the lives of innocent people and changed the lives of countless others forever. As the official inquiry draws to a close, it is clear that there were failures on the part of MI5 and missed opportunities that would have seen Salman Abedi stopped before he destroyed the lives of so many innocents.
Ultimately it was Salman Abedi’s terrorism that killed 22 people who innocently attended an Ariana Grande concert.
PLEASE HELP US KEEP GOING AD-FREE
This is a "Pay as You Feel" website.
Hey there! Thanks for stopping by. If you've enjoyed reading the articles on Labour Heartlands so far, We would be incredibly grateful if you could consider making a small donation. Labour Heathlands is not your typical news outlet. We are not here to simply regurgitate the daily news cycle, that's for the rest of them. Our focus is on delving deeper, uncovering the untold stories and shedding light on the issues that the mainstream media chooses to ignore.
Our unwavering commitment to journalistic integrity means that we are not influenced by any external forces. We are not beholden to PR companies, advertisers or press barons, and we refuse to let anyone dictate what we report on. Our editorial independence is sacrosanct, and our only allegiance is to the truth.
While we do not align ourselves with any particular political party, we stand firmly against corruption, injustice and the erosion of truth and the rule of law. We believe that accurate information is the lifeblood of a democracy and that facts are not up for debate.
Once again, thank you for your support – We truly couldn't do this without you!