On 20 December 2024 the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) authorised charges against two men who were involved in a serious incident with Police Officers at Manchester Airport - Charges authorised over Manchester Airport incident | The Crown Prosecution Service (please read in full).
Mohammed Fahir Amaaz was charged with section 47 Actual Bodily Harm x 2, assault against an emergency worker, and common assault (against a member of the public).
Muhammed Amaad was charged with section 47 Actual Bodily Harm.
A trial was held at the Crown Court in Liverpool
and, in July 2025, the jury convicted Amaaz of assaulting PC Lydia Ward, causing actual bodily harm, and the assault of emergency worker PC Ellie Cook - Man guilty of Manchester Airport attack on police officers - BBC NewsAfter 10 hours of deliberation, the jury was unable to reach verdicts on allegations that Amaaz and his brother, Muhammad Amaad assaulted PC Zachary Marsden causing actual bodily harm.
A second trial was held but the jury was unable to reach a majority verdict. The outcome was that the judge discharged the jury, The CPS was given until 29 May to decide whether it would seek a third trial - Manchester Airport assault retrial jury discharged - BBC News.
In the event, the CPS offered no evidence and verdicts of not guilty were formally entered - Brothers accused of assaulting officer at Manchester airport will not face third trial | Manchester | The Guardian.
Representing the prosecution, Paul Greaney KC said a third trial would have been pursued only in “exceptional circumstances” and that though the Crown believed “the count on the indictment is serious and the case has attracted significant public interest, it cannot properly be described as one of extreme gravity”.
Law and Practice on retrials:
Re-trials | The Crown Prosecution Service states the legal position where two juries have been unable to reach a verdict
'If two juries have retired to reach their verdict and have had to be discharged having been unable to do so (as distinct from the discharge of a jury prior to considering their verdict) the prosecution must apply the relevant authorities as to whether the case should proceed to a third trial. There is a very clear presumption and expectation that there will not be a third trial save in very exceptional circumstances. The Lord Chief Justice, giving the judgment in Bell [2010] EWCA Crim 3, doubted the value of offering further guidance on the circumstances in which a second re-trial may be appropriate but made the following clear:
“…the jurisdiction which permits a second re-trial after two jury disagreements in circumstances like the present must be exercised with extreme caution. The broad public interest in the administration of criminal justice leads us to the clear view that a second re-trial should be confined to the very small number of cases in which the jury is being invited to address a crime of extreme gravity which has undoubtedly occurred (as here) and in which the evidence that the defendant committed the crime (again, as here), on any fair minded objective judgment remains very powerful.”
Where the charge is not murder or violent crime, particularly strong justification is needed to satisfy the test of extreme gravity: Burton [2015] EWCA 1307.
Accordingly, a third trial is extremely rare and prosecutors will need to address “extreme gravity” and “evidence that the defendant committed the crime remains very powerful” in their decision. A Chief Crown Prosecutor must approve any decision to seek a third trial (a second re-trial).
The prosecution should anticipate where possible that a jury will not reach a verdict and make the decision about a re-trial before they are discharged. If this has not been possible, an adjournment of no more than 7 days (if the defendant is in custody) or 14 days (if the defendant is on bail) should be sought and the decision reached by the adjourned hearing date. If no adjournment is permitted a new trial date should be set. The decision to prosecute remains under continuing review and can be further reviewed as necessary prior to the trial.'
Public comment:
The case has attracted an enormous volume of public comment.
Much of the comment has been ill-informed (e.g. based on short video clips shown on media such as X) rather than on the full evidence which, after all, only the two juries actually heard. This included comment that the brothers are thugs who ought to face a third trial.
Politicians such as Nigel Farage (Leader of the Reform party) also commented and found himself reported to the Attorney General for possible contempt of court. A decision was taken not to institute contempt proceedings. The legal position is clear enough and is in the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The whole purpose of the restriction on comment is to secure a fair trial. As far back as December 2024 the CPS said -
"The Crown Prosecution Service reminds everyone that criminal proceedings are active and each of the defendants has the right to a fair trial.
It is extremely important that there be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings."
Further media comment has been along the lines that the whole legal system is unfit for purpose and requires reform including some power for politicians to be able to remove judges. This is dangerous thinking. Crucially, our freedom under the law depends on the existence of an independent judiciary and the ability of decision-makers (be they judges, jurors or magistrates) to achieve outcomes based strictly on the law and the evidence.
I understand that sentencing will take place in late June on the actual convictions obtained in the first trial.
Cases relating to retrials:
R v Benguit [2005] EWCA Crim 1953
R v Byrne [2002] EWCA Crim 632
B (A Child) v The Queen) (Privy Council Appeal No. 48 of 2000) [2001] UKPC 19.
No comments:
Post a Comment