He received 22 wounds from shrapnel, the court heard, while his daughter suffered a “catastrophic brain injury” after a bolt from the bomb struck her in the head – leading to her being presumed dead at the scene.
Mr Price said: “Martin, paralysed, saw Eve lying next to him with a hole in her head and assumed he was watching her die, unable to help.
“He saw others lying dead or injured around him.”
Mr Hall has claimed the attack was an “elaborate hoax”, that Mr Hibbert is lying, and that Miss Hibbert was disabled before the bombing, Mr Price said.
“Mr Hall says her parents are invoking their daughter’s catastrophic disability as part of a huge fraud on the general public,” the barrister added.
Paul Oakley, representing Mr Hall, said the author was “perfectly entitled to hold his views and he is willing to amend them if he is made aware of evidence to the contrary.”
In written submissions, Mr Oakley said Mr Hall and his beliefs have the right to freedom of expression.
His client’s published views, “however unpleasant”, were protected, the barrister added.
Mr Hibbert had made a “positive choice” to co-operate with the media concerning the attack, the barrister later said.
“As such, it is Mr Hibbert who has come to the ‘harassment’ and not the converse.”
The court was told there was one incident of Mr Hall filming from a public highway and the footage was never published.
Mr Oakley said this “single incident would not be sufficient” to bring legal action.
The trial continues.
