The British government is moving aggressively to block internal intelligence files from being examined at the upcoming inquest into the 2025 Manchester synagogue attack, pitting the imperative of state secrecy directly against the demands of grieving families for open accountability.
At a pre-inquest review at the Manchester coroner's court, legal representatives for Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood submitted applications to withhold a discrete body of security-sensitive material held by MI5 and counter-terrorism police. The state argues that public disclosure of these files would trigger severe risks to national security. For the families of Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby—killed during the assault at the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation synagogue on Yom Kippur—this maneuver stirs immediate fears of institutional concealment.
State secrecy in the wake of mass casualty events is an old script in Britain. Yet the legal collision unfolding before Chief Coroner Judge Alexia Durran highlights a recurring friction point between national security architecture and the public right to know.
The Anatomy of a Cover-Up Fear
When Jihad al-Shamie launched his attack on October 2 last year, wearing a simulated suicide vest and pledging allegiance to Islamic State before he was shot dead by armed police, official statements followed a familiar pattern. Ministers assured Parliament that the 35-year-old assailant was entirely unknown to the security services.
Families are now asking whether those initial parliamentary assurances will survive judicial scrutiny. Anna Morris KC, representing the family of Adrian Daulby, pointed directly to a historical lack of candour from security services witnessed during previous inquiries, such as the Manchester Arena bombing. When state actors claim that material cannot be shared even in redacted form because complete non-disclosure is the only viable path, skepticism from victims' relatives is entirely rational.
Neil Sheldon KC, arguing for the Home Office, maintained that the application to restrict the files is supported by cogent, compelling analysis rather than an extreme defensive posture. But the legal threshold being tested is unforgiving. Coroner's inquests operate under strict statutory limitations. Unlike statutory public inquiries, standard inquests cannot legally accommodate secret or closed material hearings where families and the media are excluded.
If Judge Durran accepts that the MI5 files are vital to understanding the context of the attack but cannot be admitted under the current format, the entire proceeding faces a structural crossroads.
The Public Inquiry Dilemma
The logical destination for cases involving classified intelligence blockades is a full public inquiry. This path carries heavy baggage. The Manchester Arena public inquiry dragged on for years, consuming immense resources while managing sensitive state secrets behind closed doors.
For the families, choosing between an open coroner's inquest stripped of vital intelligence files or a closed public inquiry where key state evidence is examined out of sight is a cruel procedural dilemma. Both options dilute the immediacy of open justice.
Adding to the complexity are concurrent revelations regarding police handling of digital evidence. Counter-terrorism officers recovered mobile devices belonging to al-Shamie after the synagogue attack, leading to subsequent arrests and charges, including individuals accused of failing to disclose information. However, separate disclosures revealed that Greater Manchester Police had seized phones belonging to associates months prior to the synagogue attack during unrelated arrests, yet left them unexamined until after the bloodshed.
The Cost of Compartmentalization
Bureaucratic silos and delayed digital forensics routinely plague modern counter-terrorism investigations. When agencies sit on unexamined devices or fail to share cross-jurisdictional intelligence, the cracks in the system widen.
The core question driving the inquest is not merely how al-Shamie executed his plan, but whether state machinery missed concrete windows of intervention. By seeking to seal off MI5 files from public view, the Home Office risks converting a search for truth into an adversarial contest over redactions and national security exemptions.
The Chief Coroner must now weigh the government's security assessments against the foundational principle that accountability requires transparency. Until those files are scrutinized by independent legal minds representing the victims, the shadow over the state's role in the Heaton Park tragedy will only lengthen.
