Manchester Airport Assault Trial: Week Three Summary
The Manchester Airport assault retrial has entered its third week, with the jury hearing for the first time from defendant Mohammed Fahir Amaaz. Mr Amaaz, accused alongside his brother of assaulting PC Marsden occasioning actual bodily harm, took to the witness stand following the conclusion of...
The Manchester Airport assault retrial has entered its third week, with the jury hearing for the first time from defendant Mohammed Fahir Amaaz.
Mr Amaaz, accused alongside his brother of assaulting PC Marsden occasioning actual bodily harm, took to the witness stand following the conclusion of the prosecution case on Tuesday. Mr. has previously been convicted of assaults on PCs Ellie Cook and Lydia Ward, in moments which are again being scrutinised during the retrial.
Evidence heard throughout the week revealed sharply contrasting accounts of events as witness examination and cross-examination presented the central issue of this trial into sharp focus: whether this was a case of sustained, unlawful violence, as claimed by the prosecution, or a fast-moving confrontation in which the defendant believed he was acting in self-defence.
Under cross-examination, Mr Amaaz accepted that a previous jury had convicted him of assault related to the events of 23 July 2024 in Manchester Airport's T2, but told the court he does not agree with those findings. Regarding his existing convictions, he said: “I understand the jury’s views and of course everyone has their own views. But I still maintain my innocence.”
The court heard first-hand accounts, supported by medical evidence, from police officers and Mr Amaaz himself, who each present themselves as victims of unlawful violence. In tense questioning, the accusaion of 'losing control' has been repeatedly directed to both Mr Amaaz and PC Marsden, whose alleged assault forms the basis of this retrial.
The week began with PC Lydia Ward returning to the witness box on Monday for a second day of evidence. She told jurors that officers approached Mr Amaaz in the airport pay station area intending to arrest him, not expecting anything out of the ordinary. She said she took hold of his right arm while PC Marsden took his left, with the aim of applying handcuffs.
PC Ward said the situation escalated quickly. She described Mr Amaaz’s arm tensing, which she took to bea sign of resistance, while she described his brother later obstructed officers. She told the court she then became aware of Mr Amaaz kicking PC Marsden with force, and intervened, attempting to pull Mr Amaaz away.
Moments later, she said, she was punched in the face by Mr Amaaz. She described falling backwards, briefly losing consciousness, and later noticing blood. The court heard she attended hospital that night and was found to have suffered a broken nose, which later required surgery.
PC Ward told jurors of her fear and concerns over further violence as the incident continued and said she activated her emergency button to call for assistance.
Under cross-examination, defence counsel suggested there had been failures in planning and risk assessment before the arrest. It was also put to her that she may have struck Mr Amaaz. She rejected those suggestions, stating she did not punch him and maintaining that officers were dealing with a fast-moving situation.
CCTV footage of the incident was shown to the jury. PC Ward stated she could not recall certain details, including whether PC Marsden had kicked or stamped on Mr Amaaz, saying she had just been punched and was disorientated.
On Tuesday, the court heard from Detective Sergeant Danielle Bullivant, whose evidence focused on the investigation and the defendants’ arrest and interview. Jurors were told both defendants gave “no comment” interviews on legal advice.
The officer confirmed that CCTV footage was not shown to them during those interviews, in order to obtain what was described as an “untainted” account. The court also heard both defendants were later offered a further opportunity to be interviewed after the evidence had been gathered.
The jury was then presented with agreed facts, including medical evidence. PC Ward’s injuries were recorded as including bruising and a fracture to her nose. The court also heard details of injuries sustained by Mr Amaaz following the incident, including abrasions and the effects of Taser discharge. He later attended hospital reporting dizziness and vomiting, though no acute head injury was found.
With that, the prosecution case concluded.
Mr Amaaz then entered the witness box to give evidence in his own defence. He confirmed his background and family circumstances, including that several relatives work or have worked in policing. He told the court he had “nothing but respect” for the police.
Turning to the events of 23 July 2024, he said he had gone to the airport with his brother to collect their mother. He told jurors she became upset after telling him she had been subjected to racist abuse by another passenger during the flight.
He said she pointed out the man in the terminal, later identified as Abdulkareem Ismaeil. Mr Amaaz said he approached him in a Starbucks café to ask why the incident had occurred and to seek an apology.
He told the court his intention was to resolve the matter without involving police. He said the exchange escalated, and that he felt threatened. He described Mr Ismaeil as becoming aggressive and said he believed he was about to be attacked.
Mr Amaaz accepted that he headbutted the man, describing it as an attempt to create space. He said he then tried to move away and left the area with his family.
The prosecution case disputes that account, suggesting the defendant acted out of anger rather than fear.
The court then heard Mr Amaaz’s account of the confrontation in the pay station area. He said he did not initially realise that the men who grabbed him were police officers and believed he was being attacked.
He described that by the time he turned around and recognised the police uniform, he was already being held and forced towards the ground, casuing him to feel confused and frightened. He said he believed he was being assaulted by officers, as his brother called for them to go easy.
Mr Amaaz accepted that he kicked and punched, including striking PC Ward, but said his actions were instinctive and taken in self-defence and in defence of his brother.
He told jurors he believed both of them were facing an unexplained and potentially fatal attack from out-of-control police officers and said: “It felt like we were fighting for our lives.”
He also described seeing an officer holding what he believed to be a firearm, which was later confirmed to be a Taser, in a 'shooting stance' pointed at his brother. He said that he beleived at that moment his brother was about to be shot and acted to stop it.
Mr Amaaz said he was then Tasered and fell to the floor in wha the called indescribable pain. He told the court he recalled being on the ground and seeing a boot come towards his face, which he said struck him and caused him to lose consciousness briefly.
Under cross-examination, prosecutor Paul Greaney KC challenged the defendant’s account. He put it to Mr Amaaz that he had used a high level of violence and lost self-control. Mr Amaaz conceded the characterisation that the force he used as high level violence, but rejected any notion of losing self control, describing his emotion as fear and maintaining that his actions were lawful and in self-defence.
The prosecutor also questioned why certain details, including the alleged threats made in Starbucks which form the basis of his initial self defence regarding the headbutt incident, were not mentioned in his police interview. Mr Amaaz said he had followed legal advice and was in a state of distress, wanting to leave the police station.
Under continued questioning, he accepted that he had used violence during the incident, but maintained that every action he took was justified.
By Friday, the cross-examination had concluded, and the positions of both sides were clearly set out before the jury.
The prosecution say the defendant carried out unlawful and sustained violence against police officers. The defence say he was reacting to what he believed was an immediate threat to himself and his brother in a fast-moving and confusing situation.
