🔴 MANCHESTER AIRPORT ATTACK TRIAL: FINAL WEEK ROUND-UP

The case hinges on whether the brothers struck out in aggression or acted in lawful self-defence.

The prosecution argue that the video evidence, which has been dissected in detail and referred to throughout the trial, shows clear aggression. In his speech, Mr Greaney KC urged jurors to “please trust your eyes and ears”, referring additionally to testimony from neutral witnesses that described Amaaz as the aggressor in the Starbucks head-butt incident.

Addressing the version of events given by the defendants, the prosecution characterised Amaaz’s claim that he had not been aware he was striking women as “bare-faced lies”. The prosecution asked the jury to draw conclusions from this regarding the reliability and honesty of the entire account given by Amaaz, with Amaad being similarly accused of lying to protect his brother.

The KC for the Crown told the court that the no-comment police interviews leave the brothers lacking key supporting evidence for the claim that they felt threatened and were acting in self defence.

The prosecution summarised the altercation with armed police as a case of the officers simply doing their job and attempting a lawful arrest, and suggested that Amaad would have understood that his brother was being arrested for assault and, the prosecution claim, unlawfully intervening. Regarding anything that came later, including the kick to Amaaz’s head, jurors were urged to consider this as irrelevant to the case.

For the defence, Imran Khan KC said the injuries suffered by officers must be seen in context. He told jurors Amaaz was reacting to what he believed was a lethal threat to his brother’s life.

He argued that Amaaz had seen a Taser being drawn and genuinely believed it to be a firearm. “It was about getting rid of the threat he faced,” Mr Khan said. He acknowledged that PC Ward’s injuries were serious, but told jurors: “Yes, it’s horrible — but he’s trying to save his brother’s life.”

Mr Khan criticised the officers’ conduct, claiming PC Marsden was angry and aggressive, and had “thrown the rulebook away”. He told jurors: “If you are assaulted unlawfully, you would think you would be able to defend yourself as best you could in the circumstances.”

He said that PC Marsden’s later claim to a colleague — that there were 10 to 15 people brawling — was a lie, and described the officer’s behaviour as the root cause of the confrontation, not the defendants.

Ms Gardner, appearing for Mr Amaad, described her client’s actions as limited and defensive. She said he was trying to de-escalate matters.

She said nothing was said by the officers — “Not even that they are police” — and told jurors: “Certainly no announcement of any intent to arrest or detain. That’s crucial.”

Describing PC Marsden as “an uncontrolled bully with a badge”, Ms Gardner said her client believed he was under attack and responded as anyone would in that moment of confusion and fear.

She argued that the brothers had not gone looking for a fight, had never been in trouble before, and were disorientated by the situation.

Lacking audio, she described video footage as ‘a jigsaw which has a piece missing’ and told the jury that it cannot reveal “what is going on in someone’s mind”.

Closing her speech, she accused PC Marsden of being “unhinged”, acting under a “red mist” of anger, and urged the jury to return a not guilty verdict.

The judge is expected to begin his summing-up on Monday morning, after which the jury will retire to consider their verdicts.

Well, that’s all for now. But until our next article, please stay tuned, stay informed, but most of all stay safe, and I’ll see you then.