Manchester Arena victim John Atkinson could have survived attackon November 3, 2022 at 5:55 pm

The family of a Manchester Arena bombing victim have said he was “totally failed at every stage” after a report found he might have lived but for flaws in the emergency response.

Inquiry chairman Sir John Saunders said it was likely that the emergency services’ “inadequacies” had prevented 28-year-old John Atkinson’s survival.

Mr Atkinson’s family said it was clear he “could and should have survived”.

Emergency chiefs have said they are “truly sorry” for the failings.

Twenty-two people were killed when suicide bomber Salman Abedi detonated a homemade device in the foyer of Manchester Arena as crowds left an Ariana Grande concert on 22 May 2017.

Delivering the second of three reports into what happened on the night, Sir John said everyone involved in the emergency response “no doubt thought they were doing their best, [but] in some cases . . . their best was not good enough”.

He said “significant aspects” of the emergency response “went wrong”, adding: “This should not have happened.”

“Some of what went wrong had serious and, in the case of John Atkinson, fatal consequences for those directly affected by the explosion,” he said.

The inquiry has heard that Ron Blake, a member of the public in the foyer, used his wife’s belt as a tourniquet on Mr Atkinson’s leg as he lay bleeding in agony on the floor for up to 50 minutes, during which time he told a police officer: “I’m gonna die.”

The 28-year-old was then carried on a makeshift stretcher to a casualty clearing area where he later suffered a cardiac arrest – one hour and 16 minutes after the blast.

Sir John said it was “likely that inadequacies in the emergency response prevented” Mr Atkinson’s survival.

Speaking after the publication of the report, Mr Atkinson’s family said it was now “clear beyond any doubt” that on the night of the bombing he had been “totally failed at every stage”

“It is crystal clear that due to those failings, John died from injuries that he could and should have survived,” they said.

“As we know from witnesses, John kept asking if he was going to die.

“John must have known that he was dying and the pain that causes us is too great to put into words.

“This should simply never have been allowed to happen.”

His family added that an apology they had received from North West Ambulance Service (NWAS) meant “nothing unless they act rapidly on this report to ensure that no family ever has to go through this horrific experience again”.

“Talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words,” they said, adding: “We will be watching to see what happens now.”

Considering the other evidence, Sir John also said he could not rule out the possibility that the youngest victim of the attack, eight-year-old Saffie-Rose Roussos, could have been saved with better treatment.

He said while it was “highly unlikely” she could have lived, he could not say that she had “absolutely no chance of survival if the most comprehensive and advanced medical treatment had been initiated immediately after injury”.

He also found that the other 20 victims suffered injuries that they could not have survived and he was “sure that inadequacies in the response did not fail to prevent their deaths”.

Speaking to the BBC, Saffie-Rose’s mother Lisa said she believed “in her heart” her daughter would have survived “had she been given the correct medical attention she needed”.

Her father Andrew said she had been “badly let down”, adding: “Our nightmare carries on; tomorrow, today, it doesn’t end.”

Sir John’s report also said two of the most senior Greater Manchester Police (GMP) commanders on the night “made no effective contribution to the emergency response” and highlighted that the force duty officer, who was responsible for initial command, was overwhelmed and overburdened.

He highlighted a number of failures of the emergency response to the attack and said avoidable mistakes had been made.

He said in the “golden hour” immediately after the bomb went off, “none of the emergency services had gripped the response to the attack as they should have” and GMP, NWAS and Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service (GMFRS) had made separate risk assessments and reached different conclusions.

He said GMP did not lead the response in the way it should have done and NWAS had failed to send enough paramedics into the foyer, while also criticising GMFRS for failing to turn up at the scene for more than two hours and describing Emergency Training UK, the company contracted by the arena to provide emergency medical care, as inadequate.

The report went on to make 149 recommendations, which included:

Sir John said within this report and the previous one, which levelled criticism at British Transport Police (BTP), the arena operators SMG and their contracted security providers Showsec, he believed that he had “got to the truth of what happened on that dreadful night”.

“I also hope fervently that what comes out of this inquiry will make a difference,” he added.

Speaking after the report was published, solicitor Kim Harrison, who represents 11 victims’ families, said it had confirmed her and her clients’ “greatest fears” about the “catastrophic failings” of the emergency services.

Describing the report as damning, she said it was “totally unacceptable” that people were left dying while help should have been on the way.

“The complete and utter failure of the government and emergency services to recognise [the] mistakes [made after the 7/7 bombings in 2005] is wholly unacceptable,” she said.

In a tweet, Home Secretary Suella Braverman said she would “carefully consider” the recommendations made in the report.

She said that “without doubt, our emergency services show incredible courage when responding to incidents of this magnitude”, but it was “right that we reflect and work together to learn from this tragedy”.

Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham said there was “no justification nor excuse” for the “confused response” on the night.

He said GMP had provided “an inaccurate account of their actions nine months after the attack”, which had been signed off by the former chief constable.

He said that was not just “disrespectful to the families of those injured”, but had also had the “effect of misleading myself and the deputy mayor”.

Responding to the report, GMP Chief Constable Stephen Watson said he was “truly sorry” for what had happened and added that the force’s “combined failings were significant”.

“The horrific nature of that which is still being endured by so many drives us to ensure that we never repeat these failings,” he said.

He added that work the force had undertaken since the attack meant he was “already able to confidently state that GMP is now in a fundamentally stronger position than it was in 2017, should we be called upon to lead and respond to a similarly challenging event”.

His comments were echoed by BTP Chief Constable Lucy D’Orsi, who also said admitted that her force made significant errors before and after the attack, for which she was “truly sorry”.

GMFRS chief fire officer David Russel said the report made for “very difficult reading”.

“Our response that night was wholly inadequate and totally ineffective, and that will forever be a matter of deep regret for our service,” he said.

He added that GMFRS “let the families and the public down in their time of need” and he was “truly sorry” for that.

NWAS chief executive Daren Mochrie said its failures “weigh heavily on us as individuals and as an organisation”.

“Whilst our actions were well-intentioned, I apologise wholeheartedly for our failures,” he said.

The inquiry, which started in September 2020, will deliver a third and final report that will focus on the radicalisation of Abedi, what the intelligence services and counter-terrorism police knew about him and his family, and if they could have prevented the attack.

Abedi’s brother Hashem was jailed for at least 55 years a month before the inquiry began for his part in the bombing.

The report makes for intense reading.

At about 1,000 pages, it took all of the six hours allotted to accredited journalists to read and analyse.

At the start of the public inquiry, Sir John Saunders said he was not looking for scapegoats in relation to the attack, but his language is strong, and he prefaces this volume by acknowledging that some of his criticisms “may seem harsh”.

Words like “inadequate”, “unacceptable” and “failure” pepper the text.

Sir John said that he believed he has got to the truth of what happened.

That may give some comfort to the families of those who died but they, and many of those affected by the attack, will find much of the detail distressing and hard to accept.

Several have told me that this report will only feel valuable if it leads to real measurable change.

Why not follow BBC North West on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram? You can also send story ideas to northwest.newsonline@bbc.co.uk