🔴 LIVE: Manchester Airport Attack Trial Coverage by VPN

🔴 LIVE: Manchester Airport Attack Trial Coverage by VPN.

The trial of two brothers accused of multiple assaults during a police incident at Manchester Airport resumed today at Liverpool Crown Court.

Mohammed Fahir Amaaz, 20, and Muhammad Amaad, 26, both of Tarnside Close in Rochdale, are jointly facing charges arising from a confrontation with police officers on 23 July 2024. The incident was widely circulated on social media following the publication of mobile phone footage, prompting public interest and sparking comment online and in the national press.

Mr Amaaz is accused of assaulting a member of the public, Abdulkareem Hamzah Abbas Ismaeil, by allegedly headbutting him inside a Starbucks café at the airport. He faces a further charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm against PC Zachary Marsden, one of the attending officers, during the subsequent attempted arrest.

Two additional charges allege that Mr Amaaz assaulted two other police constables during the incident: PC Lydia Ward, allegedly causing her actual bodily harm, and PC Ellie Cook, who was allegedly beaten while performing her duties as an emergency worker.

His brother, Mr Amaad, is charged with a single count of assaulting PC Marsden during the same incident.

Jurors were warned at the outset of proceedings that the trial was likely to attract significant media coverage. Addressing the panel of twelve, Judge Neil Flewitt KC said: “It’s highly likely this case will be reported in the media whether in the press or TV or the radio or elsewhere. It’s also highly likely to be the subject of comment on social media.” He reminded jurors to disregard all external coverage and focus solely on the evidence presented in court.

Much of the prosecution’s case centres on CCTV, police body-worn video, and mobile phone footage recorded by members of the public, some of whom were present in the terminal during the confrontation.
DELIBERATION DAY 2:WED 30 JULY

🔴 4:00pm LIVE UPDATE – VERDICTS REACHED IN AIRPORT ASSAULT TRIAL

The jury has returned verdicts in the trial of two brothers accused of attacking police at Manchester Airport:

• Mohammed Fahir Amaaz has been found guilty of three assaults:

• Assaulting a male airline passenger

• Assaulting PC Lydia Ward, causing actual bodily harm

• Assaulting PC Ellie Cook, an emergency worker

• The jury could not reach a verdict on the joint charge of assaulting PC Zachary Marsden causing actual bodily harm. This applies to both Amaaz and his brother, Muhammad Amaad, who faced no other charges.

Judge Flewitt KC confirmed that majority verdicts were allowed after one juror was discharged. The jury deliberated across two days.

The Crown Prosecution Service will now consider whether to seek a retrial on the unresolved charge involving PC Marsden.

Sentencing for the guilty verdicts will take place at a later date. Stay with us for the latest updates.
DAY 19 - AFTERNOON SESSION - MONDAY 28th JULY

🔴 3:05pm UPDATE-THE TRIAL HAS NOW CONCLUDED AND THE JURY HAS RETIRED TO CONSIDER ITS VERDICTS.

We will report the outcome as soon as it is available.

🔴 3:05pn JUDGE GIVES FINAL DIRECTIONS BEFORE DELIBERATIONS

Just before the jury was sent out to begin its deliberations, Judge Neil Flewitt KC reminded them: “It’s important for you to remember you are under no pressure of time and it’s entirely up to you how long you take to reach verdicts in this case.”

He told the jurors it was their collective responsibility to reach verdicts, and emphasised that the decisions were theirs alone.

🔴 2:50pm DEFENDANT DENIES ‘PUMMELLING’ POLICE OFFICER

Judge Flewitt reminded the jury that Mr Amaad told them he answered “no comment” in his police interview on legal advice.

Under cross-examination by the prosecution, Mr Amaad accepted that he could have chosen to walk away from the alleged racist abuse incident and report it to police later.

He said the conversation at Starbucks had mostly taken place in English, and he was unable to explain why two witnesses said it had occurred in a foreign language.

He also could not explain why witnesses described Mr Amaaz, rather than Mr Ismaeil, as the aggressor.

The defendant accepted that by the time they reached the pay station, his brother would have been of interest to police.

Mr Amaad said everything he did at the pay station was lawful and carried out in self-defence or in defence of his brother, who he believed was being “choked” by PC Marsden.

He denied a suggestion that he had been “pummelling” the officer.

🔴 2:40pm: DEFENDANT SAYS HE WAS ‘SCARED’ AND ACTED IN SELF-DEFENCE

Judge Flewitt reminded jurors of the account given by Mr Amaad, who said officers grabbed his brother and pushed him against a ticket machine without saying anything.

He said he repeatedly said the word “easy” — five times in total — in an effort to de-escalate the situation.

Mr Amaad told the jury he then received a “huge bang” to the face which took him by surprise. He said he didn’t remember who was punching him, and that his eyes were closed.

He said he had to defend himself and didn’t have time to think through his options.

The defendant told the court he was “scared,” placed his hands on his head and called out his brother’s name, who by then appeared motionless on the ground.

He said he started “screaming mum” because he feared for his mother’s safety and “didn’t want her to be next.” Mr Amaad said he then saw blood on his mother’s face.

🔴 2:25pm DEFENDANT SAYS HE THOUGHT POLICE WERE TRYING TO KILL THEM

Judge Flewitt reminded jurors that Mr Amaaz had agreed he knew he had headbutted, punched, and attempted to punch Mr Ismaeil — but said it had not occurred to him that he might be of interest to police officers.

He told the jury the officers who approached him at the pay station “didn’t give him a minute to think,” and that he believed he was acting in self-defence against what he thought was a deadly threat from the police.

Mr Amaaz said he believed the officers were trying to kill him and his brother.

The jurors were also reminded that when interviewed by police, the defendant gave a “no comment” response — but that this was on the advice of his solicitor and not, as the defence stressed, because he needed time to make up a story.

🔴 2:20pm JURY REMINDED OF MR AMAAZ’S CROSS-EXAMINATION

As proceedings resumed this afternoon, Judge Flewitt reminded the jury of key points from Mr Amaaz’s cross-examination by the defence.

The defendant said he believed the incident involving his mother on the flight constituted a “hate crime”. He told the court he remained calm, polite, and composed when he approached the other passenger to ask for an apology.

Mr Amaaz denied claims that he and his brother had “cornered” the man, Mr Ismaeil, during the incident at the Starbucks seating area.

He also rejected a suggestion that he had been the aggressor at all times during the altercation.

Mr Amaaz further denied that both his brother and mother had tried to restrain him or stop him from getting to Mr Ismaeil.

DAY 19 - FINAL DAY. MORNING SESSION - MONDAY 28th JULY

🔴 1:10pm LUNCH BREAK

The judge’s summary will continue after lunch.

🔴 1:10pm - ‘GRABBED BY SOMEONE AT THE PAY STATION’

Judge Flewitt reminded the jury of the account Mr Amaaz gave in his evidence, describing the moment he first came into contact with police.

Mr Amaaz said he was grabbed by someone near the airport pay station and, at that point, had not known it was a police officer. He told the court that if he had realised they were police, he would have spoken to them.

He said that when he turned and saw it was officers who were holding him, he didn’t know why he was being grabbed. Mr Amaaz described being pushed into the pay station, with an officer grabbing him by the neck and trying to force him to the ground. He told the jury he feared he would be “beaten to death”.

Mr Amaaz said he kicked out to try to stop officers from attacking his brother, and that he was acting to protect his sibling.

The judge reminded jurors that Mr Amaaz described feeling a punch to his throat and said he “instinctively” felt the need to protect himself. He said he threw a punch and only at that point realised the person he had struck was a police officer. He claimed he had no other choice but to punch the second officer.

Mr Amaaz also said he believed his brother was about to be shot. He told the court he had never seen a Taser before and believed in that moment that he had saved his brother’s life.

He then described feeling a sharp pain and collapsing to the floor. Mr Amaaz said he recalled seeing a boot come towards his face, which he said knocked him unconscious, and that a further stamp to his body woke him up.

🔴 1:05pm - AMAAD TOLD OF ‘I WILL F—ING KILL YOU’ THREAT

Judge Flewitt reminded the jury of Mr Amaaz’s account of the initial incident in Starbucks, which he said had followed earlier verbal abuse directed at his mother.

Mr Amaaz had told the court that after picking his mother up from the airport, she informed him it had been “the worst eight hours of her life” and that a man on the flight had called her a “P—i bitch”.

She pointed out the man in the airport, and Mr Amaaz said he approached to ask for an apology. He told the jury he had not wanted an altercation, only an apology — and if not, he would report it to the police later.

Judge Flewitt reminded jurors that Mr Amaaz claimed the man responded by saying: “I will f—ng kill you.” Mr Amaaz said he then headbutted the man to get him away from him.

As he and his family walked away, Mr Amaaz said the man was sticking his fingers up at them in what he described as an offensive manner.

🔴 12:35pm -USE OF FORCE CHALLENGED

Judge Flewitt reminded the jury that during cross-examination, PC Ellie Cook was asked about the conduct of her colleague PC Marsden.

She told the court she had not considered challenging PC Marsden about the kick he delivered to Mr Amaaz, as she had not thought it amounted to improper conduct.

The judge said PC Cook was also challenged about her own actions. When it was suggested to her that her use of force during the incident was unlawful, she disagreed.

🔴 12:30pm -POLICE OFFICER SAID IT WAS ‘CLEAR WE WERE POLICE’

CROWDED SCENE AT PAY STATION

PC Ellie Cook, in her evidence, had described entering the pay station area where she saw a crowd of around 20 people and a male matching the suspect’s description.

She had told the court she chose not to arrest the man immediately because she didn’t know how he would react and didn’t want to do so in front of members of the public.

‘CLEAR TO MR AMAAZ WE WERE POLICE OFFICERS’

The judge reminded the jury that PC Cook did not identify herself verbally as a police officer as Mr Amaaz turned and saw her — but said it would have been clear from her appearance and the presence of other officers that they were police.

Judge Flewitt told jurors: “PC Cook said it would have been clear to Mr Amaaz that we were police officers.”

PUNCHED IN THE HEAD

The judge recapped that PC Cook had seen PC Marsden attempt to deliver a strike before she herself delivered one. She said she then felt a kick to her leg and a punch to her head.

PC Cook had described stumbling, her vision going blurry, and then being struck again.

KICK DELIVERED AFTER TASER

Judge Flewitt also summarised PC Cook’s account of seeing PC Marsden deliver a kick to Mr Amaaz. At the time, she did not believe PC Marsden was aware that the Taser had been discharged.

She told the court that she pressed the emergency button on her radio in response to the incident.

🔴 12:10pm - TRIAL JUDGE: ACCURACY IN COVERAGE IS VITAL

JUDGE WARNS PUBLIC OVER ‘IRRESPONSIBLE’ SOCIAL MEDIA COMMENTS

As proceedings resumed, His Honour Judge Neil Flewitt KC issued a firm warning regarding ongoing discussion of the case online and in the press.

‘SOME COMMENTS UNDOUBTEDLY AMOUNT TO CONTEMPT’

“There has been a lot written and said about this case both in the mainstream media and on social media,” the judge told the court.

“Many of the comments on social media have been inaccurate and, at times, offensive. Some of them undoubtedly amount to contempt of court.”

ACCURATE REPORTING IS ‘ESSENTIAL’ AT THIS STAGE

“We have now reached an important stage in this trial as it is likely that, later today, the jury will begin its deliberations,” Judge Flewitt continued.

“It is, for that reason, essential that any reporting of, or commentary on this case is responsible and accurate.”

CONTEMPT OF COURT CAN LEAD TO PRISON, JUDGE WARNS

The judge concluded with a warning about potential legal consequences:

“Any irresponsible or inaccurate reporting or commentary, particularly if it is intended to influence the jury, may amount to a contempt of court.

“Any person found guilty of contempt of court is liable to punishment by way of a fine or up to two years’ imprisonment.”

🔴 11:50 am OFFICER DESCRIBES RAPID ESCALATION AND INJURY DURING STRUGGLE

PC WARD SAYS SHE WAS KNOCKED UNCONSCIOUS AND NEEDED SURGERY

The jury was reminded today of the evidence given by PC Lydia Ward, who described how the situation at the Manchester Airport car park “escalated quickly” after she attempted to take hold of the suspect’s arm.

PC Ward told the court she saw her colleague, PC Marsden, being pushed onto a set of seats before being kicked. She recalled that “everything went black”, and believed she had been rendered unconscious for a period of time.

When she regained awareness, she realised she was bleeding from her nose. The officer later attended hospital, where she required surgery to realign a broken nasal bone.

NO PRIOR RISK ASSESSMENT CARRIED OUT

Under cross-examination, PC Ward confirmed that no formal risk assessment had been carried out prior to the incident. However, she explained to the jury that in such cases, assessments of risk are typically completed after the situation has been brought under control.

DEFENCE QUESTIONED WHETHER SUSPECT KNEW SHE WAS A POLICE OFFICER

Responding to questions from the defence, PC Ward said it would have been apparent to Mr Amaaz that she was a police officer — and that she was female — at the time of the incident.

🔴 11:40 am - PC MARSDEN DENIES BEING ‘OUT OF CONTROL’ DURING INCIDENT

OFFICER SAYS HIS CONDUCT WAS ‘PROFESSIONAL’

Judge Flewitt has reminded the jury of evidence given by PC Marsden under cross-examination, in which the officer was challenged on the force he used during the altercation at Manchester Airport.

Defence counsel had suggested his actions amounted to unlawful force and had fallen below the standards expected of a serving police officer. PC Marsden rejected this, telling the court his behaviour remained “professional” throughout and did not breach professional standards.

PRIORITY WAS TO DETAIN, NOT TO GATHER FURTHER INFORMATION

When it was put to him that he could have sought more information — including by reviewing CCTV — before engaging with the defendant, PC Marsden said his priority was to locate and detain the subject, which he considered more important at the time.

It was also suggested that he should have clearly identified himself as a police officer. In response, the officer said he had chosen not to do so immediately, as he believed doing so posed a risk. His focus, he said, was first on safely detaining Mr Amaaz.

OFFICER DESCRIBES AFTERMATH OF THE INCIDENT

PC Marsden also told the jury he had later spoken to a practitioner in hospital who informed him he was suffering from post-concussion syndrome as a result of the incident.

Finally, when it was put to him by the defence that he had been “out of control” during the confrontation, PC Marsden disagreed. He maintained that his actions were necessary, proportionate, and reasonable in the circumstances.

🔴 11:30 am - JUDGE SUMMARISES PC MARSDEN’S EVIDENCE

Judge Flewitt is continuing his summing up of the case, reminding jurors of key parts of PC Marsden’s evidence.

EXTREMELY VULNERABLE

The officer had told the court he was left “extremely vulnerable” after his spectacles were knocked off and his earpiece was dislodged during the confrontation at the pay station.

PC Marsden said he fired his Taser and felt a blow to the head, followed by a second impact that knocked him off his feet. On the ground, he recalled feeling an arm around his head and said he began to “feel the strain” and was “exhausted”, but had made a conscious decision not to draw his firearm.

KICK TO FACE

He told the jury he decided to perform a single strike with his boot to the facial area using the soft, laced part. He also said he tried to stamp on his radio wire to regain control of it but missed.

🔴 11:00 AM: JUDGE’S SUMMING UP

The jury is seated and Judge Flewitt has begun his final summing up for the jury.

DAY 18 MORNING SESSION - FRIDAY 25th JULY

🔴 11:50: JURY SENT HOME FOR WEEKEND. JURY TOLD TO PUT THE CASE OUT OF THEIR MINDS UNTIL MONDAY. DELIBERATIONS TO BEGIN AFTER JUDGE’S SUMMARY

The jury in the Manchester Airport assault trial has been sent home for the weekend.

Judge Neil Flewitt KC told jurors to put the case out of their minds until they return on Monday morning, when he will deliver his summing-up of the evidence.

The trial is scheduled to resume at 10.30am on Monday, after which the jury will begin deliberating on their verdicts.

🔴 11:40 CLOSING SPEECH: ‘UNHINGED’ OFFICER USED DANGEROUS FORCE

‘DEFENCE: ‘PC COULD HAVE KILLED HIM’

Bringing her closing speech to a dramatic end, Ms Gardner told the jury that PC Marsden was “unhinged” during the incident at Manchester Airport.

She said: “PC Marsden could have killed Mr Amaaz with that kick to the head. He could have suffocated Mr Amaad.”

The court heard claims that Muhammad Amaad was left in a police cell for “the best part of 14 hours”, apart from a “five-minute medical examination”, and that his solicitor was given “the wrong information” by officers.

Ms Gardner reminded the jury that it is for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. “You have to be sure,” she said, before thanking jurors for their patience and asking them to return a not guilty verdict.

Ms Gardner’s speech concluded the defence case. The jury has now left court for a short break.

🔴 11:30 ‘BULLY WITH A BADGE’ OFFICER LATER SPOKE AS IF HE WAS IN A WARZONE, DEFENCE CLAIM

PC MARSEN ACTED LIKE A WEAPON, SAYS DEFENCE

Defence barrister Ms Gardner launched a blistering attack on PC Marsden’s actions at the pay station, describing the officer as “an uncontrolled bully with a badge”.

OFFICER BROUGHT WARZONE MENTALITY TO A CAR PARK

She told the jury: “The reality is PC Marsden — firearm on his leg, Taser on his chest — was a weapon in himself.” Quoting from one of his own statements, she added: “He said the situation ‘prompted me to close him down’. But he is not in a war zone — he is in a pay station car park.”

Ms Gardner reminded the court that, at the moment of the alleged assault, Muhammad Amaad “had done nothing to him at this point”. She said: “Mr Amaad felt pulling from all sides. He was disorientated. He had never been in this situation before.”

Describing the moment of the confrontation, she continued: “In the heat of the moment, Mr Amaad did no more than he thought was necessary. He did what was necessary. He believed he was under attack.”

The jury heard that Mr Amaad was Tasered but managed to get to his feet and placed his hands on his head. Ms Gardner reminded them of his own words: “‘I’m not dying today,’ he said. ‘I didn’t know what could come next.’”

“He is terrified,” she said. “He doesn’t know what PC Marsden was going to do next.”

🔴 11:15 OFFICER ‘THREW AWAY RULE BOOK’, SAYS DEFENCE

DEFENDANT WAS TRYING TO DE-ESCALATE MATTERS

Defence barrister Ms Gardner told the jury that the “height” of Muhammad Amaad’s involvement inside Starbucks was a genuine effort to calm things down.

“He was trying to de-escalate matters,” she said.

PC ‘COVERED IN RED MIST’ USED ‘UNNECESSARY VIOLENCE’

Turning to the later incident at the pay station, Ms Gardner said: “Nothing is said, members of the jury, by any of the officers — not even that they are police. Certainly no announcement of any intent to arrest or detain. That’s crucial.”

OFFICER THREW AWAY RULE BOOK

Criticising the actions of PC Marsden, she told jurors: “Imagine grabbing and assaulting someone and saying nothing at all becomes accepted police practice — what then?”

“He seems to have thrown the rule book away long ago. He uses unnecessary violence, we say.”

Ms Gardner described the officer as “aggressive and uncontrolled”, claiming he was “covered in red mist”. From the outset, she argued, PC Marsden “had no regard for procedure” and “no interest in doing things the right way”.

“His way was the only way,” she said.

The defence also accused the officer of being dishonest: “We say he lied in his police statement, to the IOPC, and in this courtroom,” she told the jury. “PC Marsden didn’t act lawfully. His actions come under the chapter: unlawful and unethical.”

🔴 11:05: FINAL DEFENCE CLOSING SPEECH: ‘A JIGSAW WHICH HAS PIECES MISSING’

DEFENCE WARNS JURY NOT TO ‘FILL IN THE GAPS’

Beginning her closing speech on behalf of Muhammad Amaad, defence barrister Ms Gardner urged the jury to treat the CCTV evidence with caution.

“There is no audio,” she said. “It doesn’t show, as we think it might, every angle. It cannot convey what is going on in someone’s mind.”

She reminded jurors how fast-moving the incident had been, warning: “The danger is we all tend to forget how quickly this happened.”

The barrister argued that neither of the brothers went to the airport looking for confrontation. “They were there to pick up their mum,” she said. “Mr Amaad, like his brother, was someone who had never been in trouble before.”

She pointed to positive character references submitted on Amaad’s behalf, and highlighted the fact that Abdulkareem Ismaeil – the alleged victim of an assault in Starbucks – had not given a statement or attended court.

“They are asking you to guess the final picture in a jigsaw which has pieces missing,” she said.

THURSDAY 24 JULY - DAY 17: AFTERNOON SESSION

🔴 4:40 TRIAL ADJOURNS

With the summing up speech by the defence now concluded, court proceedings come to an end. Trial resumes tomorrow.

🔴 4:30 UPDATES:

‘IT’S DANGEROUS PUTTING YOUR HANDS AROUND SOMEONE’S NECK’

Continuing his closing speech, Imran Khan KC criticised the actions of PC Marsden during the arrest, telling the jury:

“It’s dangerous, putting your hands around someone’s neck. It’s a matter of common sense.

You only need, with a neck, something going slightly wrong and it could have been much worse.”

The defence barrister described the officer as being overtaken by anger:

“He was angry. He had the red mist. But it was of his own making. It was the decision-making and failures, and the inability — deliberate or otherwise — to follow what police officers ought to do.”

🔴 ‘THE ONLY BRAWL WAS THE ONE HE CREATED’

Mr Khan accused PC Marsden of dishonesty in his immediate report to a colleague.

“He told a fellow officer it was a ‘brawl’ involving ‘10 to 15 people against us three’. That’s a lie,” he said.

“The only brawl was the one that he was involved in, the one that he created.”

🔴 IF YOU’RE UNLAWFULLY ASSAULTED, YOU DEFEND YOURSELF’

Turning back to his client’s reaction, Mr Khan told the jury it was natural for someone under attack to defend themselves as best they could.

“If you are assaulted unlawfully, you would think you would be able to defend yourself as best you could in the circumstances,” he said.

“It is artificial, we say, to think you can stop at some point and simply say ‘I’ve done enough’. It’s what’s in your mind at the time — has the threat gone?”

🔴 ‘NO COMMENT’ WAS LEGAL ADVICE

Addressing the prosecution’s questioning over why Amaaz did not explain himself in interview, Mr Khan said his client had simply followed legal advice.

“It’s like your doctor giving you advice about medication when you’re ill — you’d take it,” he said.

“This was no different.”

🔴 DEFENCE CLOSING SPEECH ENDS

Mr Khan concluded his closing argument by urging the jury to see the incident from his client’s perspective — and to place responsibility for the chaos that unfolded on the officers’ decisions.

🔴 4:15 PC WARD’S INJURY CAME FROM MR. AMAAZ DEALING WITH A ‘LETHAL THREAT’

Addressing the jury directly, defence barrister Imran Khan KC said that Mohammed Fahir Amaaz had believed his brother’s life was in immediate danger when he struck out at police. The serious injury suffered by PC Ward, he argued, had to be understood in that context.

“Yes, it’s horrible,” Mr Khan said of the officer’s injury. “But we suggest you need to look at it in the circumstances that Fahir found at the time. It was getting rid of the threat he faced.”

‘HE THOUGHT HIS BROTHER WOULD BE SHOT AND KILLED’

Mr Khan told the jury that Amaaz had panicked when he saw PC Marsden withdraw what he believed was a firearm during the confrontation at the car park pay station.

“Fahir thought his brother was about to be shot and killed,” Mr Khan said. “What would you do if your loved one was in that position?”

OFFICERS ACCUSED OF ‘FLAUNTING EVERY RULE’

Mr Khan alleged that all three officers failed in their duties during the attempted arrest. He said they never identified themselves and immediately began using force.

“All three of them grabbed various parts of Fahir’s body. That was a deliberate thing. They never announced themselves [as police officers],” he said.

“This is a group of officers led by PC Marsden that flouted every procedure, every rule, every law.”

‘HE THOUGHT HE WAS GOING TO DIE’

Mr Khan said the way PC Marsden took hold of Amaaz — by grabbing his neck without warning — was terrifying.

“He thought he was going to be battered to death. He thought he was going to die,” Mr Khan said.

“Even if he was mistaken — if that’s what he believed — that’s enough.”

He asked the jury plainly: “Who throws the first blow in all of this? PC Marsden. He has a lot to answer for.

‘A RUGBY STYLE KICK TO THE HEAD’

The jury was reminded of the moment PC Marsden kicked Amaaz while he lay on the ground after being Tasered. Mr Khan said it was an act of violence that no officer should be able to justify.

“We suggest you would take a very dim view of what he did,” he said.

“PC Marsden sought to justify the unjustifiable. He kicked Fahir in the head — in what you might think was a rugby-style kick.”

He concluded: “In what world could any police officer justify that conduct? This was an officer out of control.”

🔴 4:05 DEFENCE: “HE IS DOING WHAT WE SAY ANYBODY ELSE IN THAT POSITION WOULD HAVE DONE.”

Mr Khan KC told the jury that the confrontation at the car park pay station stemmed from poor policing decisions — and claimed officers acted unlawfully and without warning.

OFFICERS ‘FLOUTED EVERY RULE’

“The decision that PC Marsden made on that fateful evening, a year and one day ago, was unlawful,” Mr Khan said. “It is unlawful to detain a suspect intending to arrest, but delay the decision to some later time.”

He alleged the three officers failed to identify themselves and used force from the outset. “All three of them grabbed various parts of Fahir’s body. That was a deliberate thing. They never announced themselves,” he told jurors.

“This is a group of officers, led by PC Marsden, that flouted every procedure, every rule, every law.”

AMAAS FEARED FOR HIS LIFE

Mr Khan said what happened next “must have been absolutely terrifying” for his client.

“PC Marsden, without saying a word, puts his hand onto his neck and restrains him, forcing him down,” he said. “He thought he was going to be battered to death. He thought he was going to die.”

He added: “Even if he was mistaken — if that’s what he believed — that’s enough.”

‘WHO THROWS THE FIRST BLOW?’

The barrister invited the jury to consider who initiated the violence. “Who throws the first blow in all of this? PC Marsden. He has a lot to answer for.”

He said the officer’s approach had “caused all of this to happen” and told the court “it could have been avoided.”

“HE IS DOING WHAT WE SAY ANYBODY ELSE IN THAT POSITION WOULD HAVE DONE.”

Mr Khan said Amaaz acted in panic and fear: “He is doing what we say anybody else in that position would have done.”

🔴 3:30 ‘NO COURTESY EXTENDED’ BY OFFICERS AT PAY STATION, SAYS DEFENCE

Turning again to the confrontation at the pay station, Mr Khan criticised the way officers approached Amaaz in the car park.

“There wasn’t, we say, a thought process of the three officers saying, ‘hang on, we’ve found him — what now?’” he told the jury. “But this is a closed airport.”

Mr Khan suggested the situation might have been handled differently had PC Marsden taken a more measured approach.

“You might expect that if PC Marsden had just gone up to Fahir and said, ‘Excuse me, sir, would you mind just stepping out? Can I have a word with you?’”

“It didn’t occur to him to extend that courtesy to Fahir.”

🔴 3:25 UPDATE: DEFENDANT ACTED ‘IN THE HEAT OF THE MOMENT’, JURY TOLD

The jury was urged to see Mohammed Fahir Amaaz not as a violent aggressor but as a young man reacting to threats — in a situation that escalated because of poor decisions by police, his barrister claimed.

SPOKE ‘RESPECTFULLY’ TO ALLEGED THREATENER

Imran Khan KC said Amaaz had approached Mr Ismaeil in Starbucks “to seek an apology”, and that his manner had been calm and respectful. “He was softly spoken,” Mr Khan told the jury, describing Amaaz’s approach as measured — contrary to prosecution claims of aggression.

He argued that Amaaz’s actions were in lawful self-defence, and that he had acted “in the heat of the moment” after being threatened. “The prosecution have not been able to undermine the suggestion those threats were made,” he said.

OFFICERS HOLD POWER — AND RESPONSIBILITY

Turning to the events at the car park pay station, Mr Khan acknowledged that police face difficult decisions — but said that their powers come with serious responsibilities. “Police officers have a difficult job,” he said, “but unlike other jobs they have a huge amount of power.”

He told jurors that PC Marsden had made critical errors in the way he approached the situation. “PC Marsden didn’t do the things we say he ought to have done,” Mr Khan said. “Get as much information as you can before you decide on your strategy. If you don’t, you could end up in trouble.”

‘LOTS OF OPTIONS’ MISSED, JURY HEARS

Mr Khan said the officer had failed to gather enough information to make an informed plan. “All of that information would have been useful and should have been obtained. We say that is the start of the failings that occurred with PC Marsden,” he said. “There were lots of options. He didn’t get enough information to assess those options.”

He suggested that the incident might have been avoided altogether if PC Marsden had first spoken to Mr Ismaeil. “That would have been the end of it,” Mr Khan said. “He didn’t do that — we don’t know why.”

‘CONFUSION AND CHAOS’ IN PLACE OF A PLAN

Mr Khan described the moments that followed as a failure of proper policing process. “There’s confusion, chaos,” he said. “No plan of the dynamic risk assessment.”

🔴 3:05 INCIDENT ‘WENT VIRAL’ BUT WAS ‘ARGY BARGY’, SAYS DEFENCE

Imran Khan KC turned to the Starbucks incident, arguing that it had been misunderstood and overblown.

He noted that there was no audio on the CCTV footage, and said that the alleged victim, Mr Ismaeil, had “never supported the proceedings” and had not given a statement.

Mr Khan reminded the jury that the initial 999 call made by Starbucks duty manager Cameron Cartledge described “two people just started fighting”, but made no mention of a headbutt.

“This was one of those water cooler moments,” Mr Khan said. “It is an incident which everybody was talking about at that time.”

He told jurors the incident “went viral” and suggested that the attention around it shaped how witnesses recalled events. “Over the following days, in that environment, Cameron Cartledge a few days later was asked to make a statement. You might find it somewhat implausible when this was happening that he didn’t speak to his barista, Justine Pakalne.”

Mr Khan described the incident as “argy bargy”, adding: “It wasn’t a big deal but it became a big deal.”

He also suggested Mr Cartledge had simply made a mistake when he claimed the people involved in the incident weren’t speaking English.

🔴 2:35 UPDATE

‘ENOUGH POLICE IN THE FAMILY TO START A STATION’

Imran Khan KC reminded the jury that Mohammed Fahir Amaaz was just 19 years old at the time of the incident, “a year ago yesterday.”

He said 20 character references had been read out on Amaaz’s behalf, “who spoke well of the defendant.”

Mr Khan told jurors his client came from a family that included “enough GMP officers to perhaps start up their own police station.” He also reminded them that Amaaz had no previous convictions and is a man of “good character.”

🔴 2:30 UPDATE — DEFENCE BEGINS CLOSING STATEMENT: JURY BACK AFTER LUNCH

The jury has returned to court after the lunch break.

Imran Khan KC, representing Mohammed Fahir Amaaz, is now on his feet to deliver his closing speech for the defence.

THURSDAY 24 JULY - DAY 17: MORNING SESSION

🔴 1:20pm: MORNING SESSION ENDSJurors will return at 2:20

🔴 1:20pm UPDATE — PROSECUTION: ‘AMAAD SAW RED WHEN OFFICER DEFENDED HIMSELF’.

Paul Greaney KC told jurors that Muhammad Amaad’s actions during the alleged assault on PC Marsden were “clearly unlawful.”

He said Amaad had “physically intervened” in an arrest “that he knew was amply justified.”

“On the evidence,” Mr Greaney submitted, “you can and should reach the conclusion that Amaad’s account lacks credibility and ought to be rejected.”

He continued: “The truth is that he joined in with his brother’s use of violence against the officer seeking to arrest him. Amaad saw red when PC Marsden defended himself, and then mounted a sustained assault on the officer.”

On the defendants’ police interviews, Mr Greaney told the jury: “They breathed not a word of the threat they mention now they acted in response to.”

Bringing his closing remarks to an end, the KC reiterated the Crown’s central message: “We return to where we started. This case just is not complicated. Please do resist any invitation to complication.”

🔴 13:10 UPDATE — PROSECUTION ADDRESSES POLICE ‘KICK’ AND ‘STAMP’

‘WE DO NOT SHY AWAY FROM IT,’ SAYS KC

Paul Greaney KC told the jury the prosecution “does not shy away” from the moment when PC Marsden was seen to kick and stamp on Amaaz during the car park struggle.

“Everyone will have a view — they may not be the same,” he said, referring to the footage already shown in court. “What does the kick, what does the stamp have to do with your task in deciding those counts?”

Mr Greaney said the defence appeared to be arguing that this and other aspects of the aftermath “reveal that the officers were out of control from start to finish.” But, he told the jury: “We suggest you can find that this is false — and wrong — on the evidence.”

Turning to the incident in Starbucks, Mr Greaney said Amaaz’s headbutt was “nothing more than gratuitous violence borne out of anger and his mother’s allegations.”

PROSECUTION: ‘CLEARLY A JOINT FALSE ACCOUNT’

The Crown’s lead counsel then addressed the case against Muhammad Amaad, who is accused of assaulting PC Marsden and causing actual bodily harm.

“You can and should be sure that Amaad has lied to you from that witness box about the events in Starbucks,” Mr Greaney said.

He argued that both defendants had given “the same lies” about what happened in the café. “That is the clearest indication, we invite you to conclude, that they have together sought to concoct a false story,” he said, before being interrupted by the judge.

🔴 13:00 UPDATE — PROSECUTION: ‘REVENGE, NOT SELF-DEFENCE’

FOOTAGE OF HEADBUTT AND CAR PARK CONFRONTATION SHOWN TO JURY

Jurors were shown CCTV footage of the incident inside Starbucks, during which Mohammed Fahir Amaaz headbutted Mr Ismaeil.

Paul Greaney KC told the court: “Amaaz was the aggressor and his account that he was calm, collected and polite is yet more lies.”

He argued that Amaaz “lost his temper” and “did so out of anger and revenge, and not in self-defence.”

Footage then moved to the car park pay station, where police arrived on scene.

Mr Greaney said the officers were acting entirely lawfully: “We submit you can be sure that they were doing what the law entitled them to do and what their duty required them to do.” He added: “You can be sure, we suggest, that the officers were effecting a lawful arrest in doing what they did.”

He claimed that Amaaz “decided to resist that arrest,” and that everything which followed was therefore unlawful.

PROSECUTION CHALLENGES ‘MISTAKEN IDENTITY’ CLAIM

Addressing Amaaz’s claim that he did not realise the two officers he struck were women, Mr Greaney said: “The suggestion that he didn’t know he was using violence towards two women is one that simply cannot exist in the real world we inhabit.”

He described the blow delivered to PC Marsden from behind as “cowardly,” and said Amaaz was “only stopped by the brave actions” of PC Cook.

“Nothing that occurred after this point,” Mr Greaney told the jury, “can possibly form part of their justification for what they had done.”

🔴 12:40 UPDATE — PROSECUTION SAYS DEFENDANT ‘FABRICATED STORY’

LIES ALLEGEDLY USED TO ‘OBSCURE THE TRUTH’

Paul Greaney KC continued his closing speech by inviting the jury to reject the account given by Mohammed Fahir Amaaz.

He suggested Amaaz had lied “because the prosecution case is correct, and he wishes by his lies to obscure that fact, hoping to avoid a just conviction.”

Addressing the defendants’ decision to give no comment interviews, Mr Greaney told the jury: “They didn’t tell their story to the police because they had not at that stage fabricated it.”

DISPUTED THREATS IN STARBUCKS INCIDENT

The prosecution turned to the incident in Starbucks, where Amaaz claimed he reacted to threats made by passenger Mr Ismaeil.

Mr Greaney noted that two Starbucks employees gave no evidence of hearing such threats. “There is simply no credible explanation for the fact that these two entirely independent witnesses didn’t hear these threats,” he said, “only that they were not shouted or said.”

CREDIBILITY UNDER THE MICROSCOPE

The KC suggested that the account given by Amaaz was a “false justification” constructed after the fact. He argued that this impacted the credibility of his evidence across the case.

“He cannot tell you the truth about what happened in either of these locations,” Mr Greaney said, “because if he told you the truth it would reveal he is guilty on each of the counts.”
🔴 12:20 UPDATE — PROSECUTION BEGINS CLOSING SPEECH

‘PLEASE TRUST WHAT YOUR EYES AND EARS HAVE REVEALED’

The jury is now hearing the prosecution’s closing speech, delivered by Paul Greaney KC.

He reminded jurors of his opening remarks nearly three weeks ago, in which he described the case as “not complicated.”

“Please avoid any efforts to make it complicated,” he said then — and today told the jury: “I continue to stand by that assertion.”

Urging jurors to focus on the evidence they had seen and heard, Mr Greaney said: “Please trust what your eyes and ears have revealed to you over the course of the last three weeks. We submit when you do so the truth will be clear — namely that the prosecution case has been proven so that you can be sure each defendant is guilty.”

‘BARE FACED LIES’ AND A ‘DELIBERATE COVER-UP’

Mr Greaney accused Mohammed Fahir Amaaz of telling “bare faced lies” when he claimed he was unaware that the complainants in counts three and four — PC Ward and PC Cook — were women.

He also invited the jury to reject the testimony of Muhammad Amaad, stating: “You can safely reject the account of Muhammad Amaad.”

Mr Greaney alleged that Amaad “lied to protect his brother and himself in relation to all of these events.”
🔴 12:10 UPDATE — JURY DIRECTED ON ‘NO COMMENT’ INTERVIEWS

JUDGE: ‘IT WAS THEIR RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT’

Judge Flewitt KC has directed the jury on how to approach the defendants’ decisions to give ‘no comment’ interviews during police questioning.

He reminded jurors that both men were entitled to remain silent. However, he said they had also been cautioned that failing to mention something they would later rely on in court “might harm [their] defence.”

Both defendants have since relied on explanations that were not raised in interview.

Amaaz told the jury he acted against Mr Ismaeil because he felt threatened and believed his brother was at risk. He also said he used force against police because he thought officers were going to kill him and his brother.

Amaad said he intervened against PC Marsden because he believed it was necessary to defend himself and his brother.

‘YOU MAY CONCLUDE THEY HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY INVENTED AN ACCOUNT’

Judge Flewitt explained that “the defendants’ failure to mention those matters may, as they were told in the words of the caution, harm their defence because you may conclude that they have subsequently invented an account to fit the prosecution case against them.”

But, he added, “you may only draw that conclusion… if you think that it is a fair and proper conclusion and if you are satisfied about three things.”

Those three conditions are: that the facts relied on in court could reasonably have been mentioned in interview; that the only sensible explanation for the failure to do so is a lack of credible answer at the time; and that the prosecution case in interview was strong enough to require a reply.

Judge Flewitt warned that even if jurors do reach that conclusion, “you must not convict the defendant wholly or mainly on the strength of it.” But they may treat it as “some additional support for the prosecution case.”

🔴 11:40 UPDATE — JUDGE SUMS UP GOOD CHARACTER EVIDENCE

NO PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS FOR EITHER DEFENDANT

Judge Flewitt KC has directed the jury on how to consider the defendants’ good character, noting that both have no previous convictions.

“Although good character is not a defence to any of the charges faced by the defendants, it is relevant in two ways,” he said.

RELEVANT TO CREDIBILITY & LIKELIHOOD OF OFFENDING

“Firstly, as the defendants have given evidence, their good character is a positive feature which you should take into account in their favour when considering whether you accept what they told you.

“Secondly, the fact that the defendants have not offended in the past, either before or since 23 July 2024, may make it less likely that they acted as the prosecution allege in this case.”

JURY MUST DECIDE HOW MUCH WEIGHT TO GIVE

“It is for you to decide how much importance you attach to the defendants’ good character and the extent to which it assists on the facts of this particular case.

“In making those decisions you should take into account everything you have heard about them, including the unchallenged testimonials read on their behalf.”

The judge’s legal directions have now concluded. The jury has left court for a short break.

🔴 11:25 UPDATE — JUDGE OUTLINES LAW ON SELF-DEFENCE

‘SELF-DEFENCE IS REALLY JUST COMMON SENSE’ — JUDGE

Judge Flewitt KC has now directed the jury on the legal principles of self-defence.

“The law of self-defence is really just common sense,” he said. “If a person is under attack or believes he is about to be attacked, if he believes another person is under attack or about to be attacked, then he is entitled to defend himself or that other person.”

JURY MUST CONSIDER WHO WAS THE AGGRESSOR

The judge told the jury that if they find the defendant was the aggressor, then the question of self-defence does not arise.

If self-defence is applicable, he said, the response must be “reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them to be, even if he was mistaken in that belief.”

🔴 11:15 UPDATE — JURY GIVEN LEGAL DIRECTIONS ON SELF-DEFENCE AND CHARGES

DEFENDANTS ‘DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING’

Judge Flewitt KC has continued his legal directions, reminding the jury that the burden of proof rests entirely with the prosecution.

He said the defendants “do not have to prove that they were acting in self-defence” — it is for the prosecution to prove they were not.

The jury, he said, should take into account “the strain you may think anyone would be under” when on trial, particularly in a case that has “attracted so much attention and comment.”

🔴 CHARGES: COUNT ONE — ALLEGED ASSAULT ON MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC

On count one, Mohammed Fahir Amaaz denies assaulting Abdulkareem Hamzah Abbas Ismaeil by beating him at Starbucks, Terminal 2, Manchester Airport, on 23 July 2024.

He accepts that he used force but says he was acting in lawful self-defence or in defence of his brother.

COUNT TWO — ALLEGED ASSAULT ON PC MARSEN

On count two, both Amaaz and Muhammad Amaad deny assaulting PC Zachary Marsden, causing actual bodily harm.

The prosecution alleges it was a “joint attack.” Both defendants accept using force and accept that PC Marsden’s injuries amount to actual bodily harm, but say they acted in lawful self-defence or in defence of each other.

COUNT THREE — ALLEGED ASSAULT ON PC WARD

On count three, Amaaz denies assaulting PC Lydia Ward, causing actual bodily harm. He accepts using force and that her injuries meet the threshold for ABH, but maintains he acted in lawful self-defence.

COUNT FOUR — ALLEGED ASSAULT ON PC COOK

On count four, Amaaz denies assaulting emergency worker PC Ellie Cook by beating. He accepts striking her but claims it was done in lawful self-defence.

🔴 11:10 UPDATE - JUDGE FLEWITT KC DELIVERS LEGAL DIRECTIONS TO THE JURY.

Opening his remarks, he provided a brief summary of the case, outlining the prosecution’s position that the defendants’ actions were unlawful because they were “offensive rather than defensive.”

He contrasted this with the defence case, which maintains that the brothers were “at all times acting lawfully, either in self-defence or in defence of another.”

Judge Flewitt acknowledged that the case has “attracted a lot of attention in both the mainstream media and on social media,” warning jurors that some of the reporting—particularly online—has been “emotive and inaccurate.”

“If you have seen or heard anything of that sort,” he told the jury, “you must put it out of your minds. Your verdicts must be based on, and only on, the evidence you have seen and heard in court.”

🔴 11:05 - THE JURY HAS RETURNED TO COURT AND PROCEEDINGS HAVE RESUMED.

🔴 JUDGE ADDRESSES JUROR’S QUESTIONS

Judge Flewitt KC informs the court he has received a “quite a long note” from one of the jurors. The note raises questions about the relevance of Agreed Fact 13, concerning the IOPC investigation.

The judge says he will address this point when summarising the evidence.

A further query was raised regarding the jury’s approach to character references. Judge Flewitt states this will be covered in his legal directions.

🔴 5:00pm Wed 23 July - DAY 16: Afternoon Session — No Proceedings Today

There had been plans for a 2:15pm sitting, however legal discussions required more time and court was unable to resume this afternoon.

We’ll be back in court tomorrow. Stay tuned for live updates — & read our summary of the evidence the jury has heard.

TUESDAY 22nd JULY: DAY 15 MORNING SESSION

🔴 12:45: ALL EVIDENCE NOW HEARD

Judge Flewitt told jurors they have now heard all of the evidence in the case.

🔴 TRIAL ADJOURNED UNTIL TOMORROW

The judge sent the jury home until 2.15pm tomorrow, explaining that further legal discussions must take place between counsel before proceedings can resume.

He added that, depending on how matters progress, jurors will likely be sent out to begin their deliberations on Friday or Monday.

The trial has now concluded for the day.

🔴 12:40: JURY TOLD PC MARSDEN IS SUBJECT TO ONGOING IOPC INVESTIGATION

Prosecutor Adam Birkby read an agreed fact to the jury outlining the status of the police watchdog’s investigation into PC Marsden.

He said the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) had launched an investigation into the officer’s conduct in connection with the incident at Manchester Airport on July 23, 2024 — and that the investigation had not yet concluded.

Jurors were told that the focus of the inquiry included allegations of professional misconducttowards both the defendants and members of the public, as well as a criminal investigation.

Mr Birkby continued:

“On December 20, 2024, the Crown Prosecution Service publicly announced that PC Marsden would not be prosecuted for any criminal offence arising out of the incident.”

However, the IOPC’s investigation remains open and ongoing. Until it is formally concluded, it remains classified as an open criminal investigation.

The jury heard that when the watchdog’s investigation is complete, a decision will be made — as required by law — on whether to refer the matter to the CPS again, if the IOPC believes new evidence justifies doing so.

🔴 12:30: DEFENCE CASE CONCLUDES AS JURY RETURNS

Jurors returned to court shortly before midday after a short adjournment.

Defence barrister Chloe Gardner confirmed that no further evidence would be called on behalf of Muhammad Amaad.

Mr Amaad’s case was then declared concluded.

🔴 11:30 : JURY SENT AWAY UNTIL MIDDAY

His Honour Judge Flewitt KC told the jurors they would now be sent away until around noon while legal discussions take place regarding whether any further evidence will be called in the case.

🔴 11:15 DEFENDANT SAYS STRUGGLE ‘FELT LIKE FIVE SECONDS’

🔴 NO LINK MADE TO EARLIER INCIDENT AT STARBUCKS

In re-examination, defence counsel Chloe Gardner asked Mr Amaad whether he was aware that police had been called to Starbucks when he arrived at the car park pay station.

The defendant confirmed he was not, and said he “didn’t make any connection” between what had happened at Starbucks and what was unfolding at the pay station moments later.

“FELT LIKE IT HAPPENED IN FIVE SECONDS”

Ms Gardner asked how fast the incident had felt in real time.

“The whole thing felt like it happened in like five seconds or something,” Mr Amaad said. “It was that quick.”

DEFENDANT INSISTS HE BELIEVED HE WAS UNDER ATTACK

Asked if he had ever been in a similar situation before, Mr Amaad replied: “No, never.”

“Did you believe you were under attack?” Ms Gardner asked.

“Absolutely, yeah,” the defendant responded.

He agreed that he had wanted to get away from PC Marsden and “what he thought was the attack”. He said he stopped acting when he believed the attack had ended.

CHARACTER REFERENCES READ TO THE COURT

Mr Amaad’s evidence has now concluded. He left the witness box and returned to the dock.

Ms Gardner then read several character references in support of her client, including one from Mohammed Idris, a team leader who worked under Mr Amaad at KFC in Rochdale.

Mr Idris described him as “amazing to work for”.

🔴 10:55am: “I WAS TERRIFIED”: DEFENDANT EXPLAINS SILENCE IN POLICE INTERVIEW

NO REGRETS ABOUT HIS ACTIONS

Mr Birkby suggested to Mr Amaad that he had now had plenty of time to reflect on his actions — both during the trial and while watching the CCTV evidence.

“Is there anything about your behaviour that you would change?” the prosecutor asked.

“No,” Mr Amaad replied.

SILENCE IN INTERVIEW UNDER SCRUTINY

The court heard that Mr Amaad made no comment during his police interview. Mr Birkby put it to him that he could have explained at the time that he was acting in self-defence, both for himself and his brother.

“The reason why you didn’t is because at that stage, Mr Amaad, you hadn’t made it up yet, had you?” the prosecutor suggested.

“I’VE NEVER BEEN IN A POLICE STATION BEFORE”

“All that is incorrect,” the defendant responded.

“At that stage I was terrified. I’m in a police station — I’ve never been there before. I didn’t sleep. My chest was hurting. I was terrified.”

🔴 10:40am: AMAAD DENIES ELBOWING HIS MOTHER OR STOPPING PUNCHES TO OFFICER ONLY BECAUSE HIS MOTHER FELL

“I didn’t know it was my mum behind me, so I didn’t know who fell.”

Mr Amaad confirmed his six punches came after receiving two blows from PC Marsden — a number which prosecutor Adam Birkby suggested was the ‘maximum’.

CCTV was played in court showing Mr Amaad’s sixth punch landing with his mother “very close” to his right arm. Moments later, she fell to the floor.

AMAAD DENIES HE CAUSED HIS MOTHER’S FALL OR STOPPED PUNCHING OFFICER TO OUT OF CONCERN FOR HER

Mr Amaad told the jury he stopped hitting the officer because PC Marsden let go of his T-shirt.

Mr Birkby asked: “If it hadn’t been for your mum falling to the floor and your attention being diverted towards her, you would have carried on punching PC Marsden, wouldn’t you?”

“No,” replied Mr Amaad.

When it was suggested that his mother may have fallen due to accidental contact with his elbow, he said: “No, I disagree.”

“I didn’t know it was my mum behind me, so I didn’t know who fell.”

🔴 10:30: TRIAL RESUMES

The jury is back in court, ready for proceedings to continue. There will be further cross examination of Mr. Amaad, who is back in the witness box. He is dressed in a grey check suit.

MONDAY 21st JULY: DAY 14 AFTERNOON SESSION

🔴 5:05 TRIAL ADJOURNED. BACK TOMORROW MORNING

The jury is discharged for the day and the trial is due to resume tomorrow morning.

🔴 5:00pm UPDATES

DEFENDANT INSISTS SIX PUNCHES WERE THROWN IN SELF-DEFENCE

Mr Amaad told jurors he did not “pummel” a police officer at Manchester Airport — and claimed his punches were the result of panic, not aggression.

‘HE SMASHED ME IN THE FACE’

The jury heard Mr Amaad deny a prosecution suggestion that he was “pummelling” PC Marsden after forcing him backwards onto yellow seating near the pay station.

Mr Amaad said: “He smashed me in the face” — referring to an earlier strike which, he claimed, prompted his own reaction.

SEQUENCE OF BLOWS UNDER SCRUTINY

Prosecutor Andrew Birkby put it to the defendant that the first punch was thrown in ‘retribution’ for being elbowed in the face.

“I was just defending myself,” said Mr Amaad.

He said he could not remember the second punch — which Mr Birkby said landed when the officer had both hands in the air. Mr Amaad said he wasn’t forcing the officer backwards.

“I was just punching him,” said Mr Amaad. “You’re talking about seconds — it was so quick.”

He insisted the second punch, like the first, was defensive.

When asked about the third blow, Mr Amaad said: “I just remember punching.” He agreed this punch came as the officer was being forced back towards the pay machine — but denied it was offensive.

“It was defensive,” he maintained.

‘I JUST WANTED TO GET OUT’

Jurors heard the fourth punch came while the officer “still had a hold” of Mr Amaad.

“I was just trying to defend myself,” he said. “I just can’t get away from the situation. I just wanted to get out. You are talking about seconds.”

He told the jury he did eventually step back, once he had the chance.

When asked why he didn’t try to pull away sooner, he replied: “In the heat of the moment it felt like everyone was just on me.”

He denied suggestions he “saw red” and lost control, insisting he had no time to consider alternative options.

‘THAT’S YOUR OPINION’

Mr Birkby put it to Mr Amaad that the fifth punch landed while PC Marsden was cornered, seated on the yellow chairs.

“That’s your opinion,” the defendant replied.

Mr Amaad rejected the idea that the officer was unable to get away, saying: “It was the heat of the moment. It was not to corner a police officer or attack a police officer.”

DENIES GOING FOR ‘MAXIMUM DAMAGE’

The court heard that during the sixth and final punch, Mr Amaad was allegedly holding the officer down by his utility belt while striking with his dominant left hand.

Mr Amaad denied both points — and rejected the suggestion that the final punch was delivered “with as much force as possible” to cause “as much damage as possible.”

Mr Birkby concluded: “He posed absolutely no threat towards you, did he?”

Mr Amaad replied: “I disagree.”

“You were simply pummelling him with six punches when he’s in no position to defend himself,” said the prosecutor.

“I disagree,” repeated the defendant.

🔴 4:15 UPDATES

DEFENDANT CLAIMS HE FEARED HIS BROTHER WAS BEING CHOKED, DENIES GRABBING OFFICER BY THROAT

Mr Amaad told jurors he believed officers were using excessive force against his brother inside the Manchester Airport car park pay station — and insisted his own actions were purely defensive.

🔴 NO WARNING TO BROTHER ABOUT POLICE, SAYS DEFENDANT

Mr Amaad denied prosecution claims that he was captured on CCTV alerting his brother that police were approaching.

🔴 NO IDEA WHY POLICE WERE PRESENT

He told the jury he hadn’t connected the officers’ arrival to the earlier Starbucks incident, and said he wasn’t sure why his brother was being grabbed.

🔴 ‘I THOUGHT HE WAS BEING CHOKED’

The defendant said he saw his brother being shoved into the pay machine and claimed he saw PC Marsden pushing his brother’s head down.

He insisted he wasn’t trying to interfere with an arrest — only to stop what he thought was a dangerous situation.

“At that moment,” Mr Amaad said, “I believed my brother was being choked.”

🔴 ‘EASY’ COMMENT AIMED AT POLICE — NOT BROTHER

Jurors heard Mr Amaad repeat the word “easy” five times during the incident.

He denied those remarks were aimed at calming his brother, and said they were directed at police.

He added: “The officers were getting violent.”

🔴 DENIES INTENT TO HINDER ARREST, DENIES GRABBING OFFICER BY THE THROAT

Mr Amaad admitted taking hold of PC Marsden’s arm in an effort to make him let go of his brother.

He denied attempting to stop an arrest.

He said: “I wasn’t trying to protect him from being arrested. It was defensive.”

He rejected the suggestion that a punch from PC Marsden had missed and said he was reacting under pressure.

When it was put to him that he grabbed the officer by the throat, Mr Amaad replied: “By that point my eyes are closed and I’m just pushing.”

He also denied wrapping his arm around PC Marsden’s neck, again insisting: “I was just pushing.”

🔴 ‘I WAS DEFENDING MYSELF’

Mr Amaad said the situation escalated quickly and that, after the initial moments, he was acting to protect himself — not his brother.

“My actions after that,” he said, “were in defence of myself.”

🔴 3:50: UPDATES: DEFENDANT: WANTED PRIORITISED GETTING FAMILY OUT OF THE SITUATION OVER INVOLVING COPS

Mr Amaad told jurors he didn’t call police after the airport Starbucks clash because his only concern was removing his family from the situation. He insisted the punches he threw during the later scuffle at the pay station were lawful, and said he had expected to speak with police — not be arrested.

NO CALL TO POLICE AFTER STARBUCKS CONFRONTATION

Mr Amaad said he didn’t contact the authorities following the confrontation with Mr Ismaeil because he was focused on getting his loved ones to safety.

“I just wanted my family away from this guy as quick as possible,” he told the jury.

DEFENCE: FORCE AT PAY STATION WAS LAWFUL

He agreed his legal position was that his use of force inside the airport car park’s pay station was justified.

Mr Amaad accepted that if he had punched PC Marsden six times, it was not unlawful.

“I wasn’t counting,” he said. “But if it’s six, then yes.”

EXPECTED A CONVERSATION — NOT CUFFS

The defendant said he hadn’t expected to be arrested after the Starbucks incident.

“I thought we’d have a conversation about it,” he told jurors, referring to his expectation of discussing the matter with police.

🔴 3:30: UPDATES: DEFENDANT INSISTS HE WASN’T BREAKING UP A FIGHT

Mr Amaad insisted his brother’s actions were defensive and denied he was trying to step in to stop the violence. He told jurors he intervened between the men during the altercation at Manchester Airport — but his priority was to get his family away from a volatile situation.

‘I WAS JUST GETTING IN BETWEEN’

Mr Amaad told the jury he wasn’t trying to break up a fight — he was simply ‘getting in between’ the two men.

‘LEFT HOOK WAS DEFENSIVE’

He described his brother’s initial punch as a “left hook” thrown in self-defence.

Mr Amaad denied that his brother’s second punch was unprovoked, insisting Mr Ismaeil still posed a threat at that point.

MOTHER STEPS IN

He confirmed their mother moved between the men and pushed Mr Amaaz away.

He said his brother was not shouting or angry — and rejected the idea that either he or his mother were acting as a barrier to stop Mr Amaaz returning to confront Mr Ismaeil.

‘I WANTED TO GET MY FAMILY AWAY’

Mr Amaad agreed he was seen on CCTV pushing his brother, but told jurors this happened after Mr Ismaeil had made a “five-minute” threat.

He said his priority was to remove his family from the situation — not to prevent his brother’s arrest.

🔴 3:20: UPDATES:?CCTV SHOWN TO JURY AGAIN

Jurors were shown footage of Mr Ismaeil gesturing towards the arrivals hall. Mr Amaad claimed this was the moment Mr Ismaeil admitted he had directed racist remarks at a child.

The defendant denied that when he was seen pointing twice, he was challenging Mr Ismaeil to step outside for a fight.

‘I DON’T KNOW IF IT WAS PASSIVITY’

CCTV captured Mr Ismaeil placing a hand on his chest during the exchange. Mr Amaad said he couldn’t be sure whether this was intended as a gesture of peace and a ‘sign of passivity’ or not.

Mr Amaad rejected the claim from Mr Birkby that the defendant had been ‘in his face’.

DISPUTES VIOLENCE WAS UNPROVOKED

Asked by the prosecution whether the headbutt delivered by his brother was a forceful strike, Mr Amaad said he didn’t believe it was.

He denied the blow had come “out of nowhere”, insisting it followed threats being shouted at Amaaz.

'‘NO THREAT— JUST A HEADBUTT OUT OF ANGER?’

Prosecutor Adam Birkby challenged Mr Amaad with a stark suggestion: “Isn’t the reality there was no threat and your brother simply headbutted him out of anger?”

“No,” replied Mr Amaad.

‘THREATS CONTINUED EVEN AFTER HEADBUTT’

Mr Amaad told the jury that Mr Ismaeil continued to shout threats even after being headbutted.

🔴 3:05: DEFENDANT DENIES COVERING FOR HIS BROTHER

Mr Amaad denies lying to support his brother’s version of events, insisting that it was Mr Ismaeil — not Mr Amaaz — who was the aggressor during the confrontation at Starbucks.

‘WE ASKED FOR AN APOLOGY’

The defendant told jurors that he and his brother had simply asked Mr Ismaeil for a reason behind his alleged behaviour on the flight and requested an apology.

“We asked the reason why,” Mr Amaad said. “And then we asked for an apology.”

WITNESSES SAY EXCHANGE WASN’T IN ENGLISH

Prosecutor Adam Birkby reminded the defendant that both the Starbucks duty manager and a barista had said they didn’t hear the exchange take place in English — nor did they hear any of the threats the brothers claimed had been made.

Mr Amaad said he couldn’t explain why they had made these mistakes.

DEFENDANT MAINTAINS MR ISMAEIL MADE THREATS

Mr Birkby put it to Mr Amaad that no such threats had been made by Mr Ismaeil.

The defendant replied firmly: “He did.”

DISPUTES EYEWITNESS CLAIM THAT BROTHER WAS AGGRESSOR

Jurors heard that Mr Amaad had previously stated Mr Ismaeil was the aggressor.

When reminded that two independent witnesses had said it was actually Mr Amaaz who had taken the lead, Mr Amaad said he had no explanation for why they might have got that wrong.

‘NO’ — AMAAD REJECTS PROSECUTION’S THEORY THAT AMAAD WAS AGGRES

Mr Birkby asked: “Is the straightforward explanation that your brother was the aggressor, not Mr Ismaeil?”

“No,” replied Mr Amaad, flatly denying that he was lying to protect his brother.

🔴 2:55 UPDATES : DEFENDANT INSISTS: ‘WE JUST WANTED TO TALK’

Jurors are once again shown CCTV footage of the confrontation inside Starbucks at Manchester Airport. The images capture the moments leading up to the alleged assault, as both brothers approach Mr Ismaeil after their mother identifies him as the man who had allegedly racially abused her on a flight.

MOTHER IDENTIFIES MAN IN STARBUCKS

Mr Amaad told the court his mother pointed out Mr Ismaeil inside the coffee shop. He said there had been no prior discussion between him and his brother about how to respond.

‘I DIDN’T KNOW WHAT HE WAS THINKING’

The defendant said he wasn’t aware of what his brother, Mr Amaaz, intended to do. However, Mr Amaad admitted that, had he acted alone, he too would have approached Mr Ismaeil.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED — AND REJECTED

Asked whether they could have simply walked away or reported the incident to the police, Mr Amaad agreed both were options. But he accepted that it was his brother who chose to walk up to Mr Ismaeil first.

“I followed him,” Mr Amaad said, adding that he too wanted to “have a conversation” with the man his mother had accused.

DENIES ‘SHOW OF STRENGTH’ MOTIVE

Mr Amaad rejected the prosecution’s suggestion that the approach was intended as a “show of strength”.

“No,” he said. “I just wanted an explanation… justification as to why he’d done that to my mum.”

SAYS THEY WOULD HAVE GONE TO POLICE

The defendant claimed that if Mr Ismaeil had refused to explain himself, they would have reported the matter to police.

“That was always the next step,” he told jurors.

DISPUTES CLAIMS OF INTIMIDATION

When it was put to Mr Amaad that his brother had entered Mr Ismaeil’s personal space, the defendant disagreed, saying Mr Amaaz had simply “wanted to have a conversation”.

He denied suggestions that he himself had come “within touching distance” of Mr Ismaeil.

‘HE COULD HAVE ASKED TO LEAVE’

Mr Amaad also rejected the idea that Mr Ismaeil had been trapped or blocked in by the brothers’ presence, claiming that if Mr Ismaeil had wished to leave, “he could have just said so.”

He dismissed the prosecution’s suggestion that Mr Ismaeil would have needed to climb over luggage or push past them to get away.

🔴 2:45 UPDATE: MR AMAAD ‘ABSOLUTELY’ BELIEVED HIS MOTHER’S ACCOUNT OF THE ABUSE

Mr Amaad told the court his mother showed distress, sweating and appearing visibly upset as she recounted what had happened during the flight.

“My mum was upset. She’s a 60-year-old woman,” he said.

The defendant said he “absolutely” believed her when she claimed Mr Ismaeil had called her a “P**i bitch” and had deliberately banged his luggage against her legs.

Mr Amaad confirmed he did not report the matter to the police, nor did he contact any of his relatives who are serving officers.

He denied that he or his brother were angry after hearing the allegations, insisting instead that he was “shocked”.
🔴 2:40 UPDATE: JURORS RETURN FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT

The jury returns to court as cross-examination of Mr Amaad begins, led by junior prosecutor Adam Birkby.

Mr Amaad confirms that his mother is seen smiling at him and his brother as she arrives at the airport.

The defendant agrees that Mr Ismaeil, along with his wife and three children, also appear on the CCTV footage.

Jurors hear that Mr Amaad’s mother greets her young grandson first, followed by an embrace with Mr Amaaz.

Mr Amaad tells the court his mother had been away for between 18 months and two years. He describes himself as “very” close to her.

MONDAY 21st JULY: DAY 14 MORNING SESSION

🔴 12:40: TRIAL TO RESUME THIS AFTERNOON

The hearing has been adjourned for lunch and is scheduled to continue at 1.50pm.

Cross-examination of Mr Amaad will begin when the trial resumes.

🔴 12:35 UPDATES: ‘‘I WAS DEAD FRIGHTENED’ SAYS DEFENDANT

Mr Amaad tells the jury he felt his arms pulled behind his back before his face was “smacked off the floor twice.”

He describes a “huge pressure” being forced down on the back of his neck.

Asked how he was feeling, he says: “I was dead frightened. I was being punched, I’d been smacked, my hands were twisted up behind my back — and I genuinely didn’t know what was happening.”

NEPHEW CRYING, MOTHER BLEEDING

The defendant says he could see his young nephew crying and noticed his mother had blood on her face.

He says he struck PC Marsden because he “was put in a situation where I had to defend myself.”

JURY HEARS INJURY LIST

Mr Amaad says he suffered multiple injuries during the incident.

He lists a burn and abrasion to the right side of his chest, marks on the left side, an abrasion to the back of his neck, a wound to the back of his head, and a cut to his mouth.

‘I HAVE NEVER BEEN IN THE SITUATION IN MY LIFE’

Mr Amaad says he felt “terrified” after being taken into police custody.

“I have never been in the situation in my life,” he tells the court.

He says he followed his solicitor’s advice to give a “no comment” interview, adding: “Because they know better.”

He describes feeling “drained” and “scared” in the police station and says he had never been arrested, cautioned or charged with any criminal offence before.

🔴 12:35 UPDATES: ‘DEFENDANT CLAIMS HE SAW BROTHER COLLAPSE

Mr Amaad tells the jury he saw his brother fall to the floor and describes his body as “stiff.”

He says he did not witness PC Marsden’s alleged kick because his view was blocked by his mother.

“At this point I was screaming my mum’s name,” he says. “I just wanted her out of the way.”

‘I DIDN’T WANT THEM TO START ON MY MUM’

The defendant says he noticed his six-year-old nephew standing alone nearby and became concerned for the child’s safety.

He tells the court: “I didn’t want anything to happen to him.”

He says he feared officers might turn their attention to his mother next.

“I didn’t want her to be next,” he says. “I didn’t want them to start on my mum.”

Mr Amaad says he told his mother to take hold of the boy and move away.

‘I PUT MY HANDS STRAIGHT BACK ON MY HEAD’

Mr Amaad says PC Marsden then returned and began shouting at him.

“He comes back to me and starts screaming ‘get down, get down’,” he recalls.

“I put my arms straight back on my head. At that point I start moving really slow because I don’t want to get hit with anything no more.”

‘IF YOU MOVE I’M GOING TO SMASH YOUR F—ING FACE IN’*

The defendant says as he crouched down, he felt a kick to his stomach.

He says he placed his hands on the ground, then felt “two smacks” to the back of his head.

He claims someone then jumped on his back.

“As I looked to my right, I saw a fist and heard, ‘If you move, I’m going to smash your f***ing face in’,” he tells the jury.

🔴 12:25 UPDATES:DEFENDANT CLAIMS HE HAD NO TIME TO THINK

Mr Amaad tells the jury he had no opportunity to think or weigh up his options during the confrontation.

Asked when the physical struggle ended, he replies: “When I felt all the bullying and pushing stop, I stepped off the person.”

He says the moment the aggression stopped, he “had the opportunity to step away,” and he took it.

‘I DIDN’T HAVE A CLUE WHAT IT WAS’

The defendant says that shortly after stepping back, he becomes aware of “something coming towards” him.

“I didn’t have a clue what it was,” he tells the court, adding that he recalled instinctively “pushing.”

Moments later, he says, he feels a sharp pain as something strikes him.

He describes his legs feeling weak and a tightness in his chest, before collapsing backwards.

‘I’M NOT DYING TODAY’

Mr Amaad says that as he hits the ground, he spots the officer’s firearm and immediately places his hands on his head.

“At that point I see the officer’s firearm and I straight away put my hands on my head,” he says.

“I just felt to myself — I’m not dying today. I’ve been punched and Tasered so I just put my hands on my head.”

He adds: “I was just scared, so I kept my hands on the top of my head. I’ve been punched and Tasered and I didn’t know what could come next.”

🔴 12:00 UPDATES:

‘I WAS DISORIENTATED, I WAS STUNNED. I GENUINELY DIDN’T KNOW WHAT HAD HIT ME’

Mr Amaad said he saw PC Marsden “yanking or pulling” at his brother’s neck.

Asked what happened next, he told the jury: “All I remember is I get a huge bang to the face. My eyes kind of shut and I was like — what was that? I put my hands out to block it, and I just remember bang, bang, bang.”

He described being hit in the face, saying the impact “took me by surprise.”

“I was disorientated, I was stunned. I genuinely didn’t know what had hit me,” he said.

He told the court he was being punched, but couldn’t tell where the blows were coming from, or how many times he’d been hit by PC Marsden.

Even at that stage, he said, the officers didn’t say anything to him.

He said he stumbled backwards into some chairs, felt people “holding and grabbing” at him, and said: “I had to defend myself at that time.”

“My eyes were closed at that moment — I was disorientated,” he said.

He denied deliberately pushing an officer into the seating area, insisting his eyes were shut and he couldn’t see what was happening.

“I was shocked by the whole thing,” Mr Amaad said. “I didn’t know what was going on.”

He told the jury he “punched out” in self-defence, explaining he is left-handed and swung out with his left hand.

🔴 12:00 UPDATES : DEFENDANT CLAIMS POLICE USED UNNECESSARY FORCE DURING ARREST

The jury hears further evidence from Muhammad Amaad as he describes the moment his brother was arrested at the Manchester Airport car park. Mr Amaad says the officers approached without warning and used immediate and unnecessary force. He insists he did not assault anyone and was only trying to help de-escalate the situation.

AMAAD SAYS HE WANTED BROTHER’S HELP TO PAY FOR PARKING

Mr Amaad tells the court he had forgotten his wallet and asked his brother to come over to the airport car park pay station so he could pay using his brother’s phone. He says he then saw police officers entering the area.

DEFENDANT DENIES WARNING HIS BROTHER ABOUT POLICE

Asked whether he was alerting Mr Amaaz to the approaching officers, Mr Amaad says he was instead asking “how long?” in relation to the transaction. He insists he was not warning his brother.

‘THEY GRABBED HIM AND STARTED PUSHING FORWARD’

Shown still images of the confrontation, Mr Amaad tells the jury: “At that point is when they come and grab Fahir straight away. They grab him and they start pushing forward into the ticket machine.”

He adds: “The officers said nothing. I didn’t understand the need for the aggression.”

‘I WAS JUST TRYING TO DE-ESCALATE’, DEFENDANT SAYS

Mr Amaad says his instinctive response was to try to calm the situation: “My natural reaction was (to say) ‘easy, easy, easy’. I didn’t understand the need for aggression and I was just trying to de-escalate.”

DEFENDANT CLAIMS OFFICER HAD HANDS ON BROTHER’S NECK

He claims one officer grabbed his brother by the neck. “At first, I thought he had both hands around his neck. I thought he was choking him,” he says, telling the jury he asked the officer: “Why are you holding his neck?”

‘I JUST WANTED HIS HAND OFF HIS NECK’ – AMAAD

Mr Amaad denies pushing up towards PC Marsden and insists he did not grab the officer’s throat.

“I just wanted his hand off his neck,” he says.

🔴 11:40 UPDATE: ‘I WILL SMASH YOU – YOU DON’T KNOW WHO I AM’

ISMAEIL ‘THREATENED TO SMASH AND KILL’, COURT HEARS

Mr Amaad tells the jury that Mr Ismaeil’s aggression suddenly escalated: “It was at that point his aggression levels go up and [he’s] saying ‘I will smash you, you don’t know who I am and I’ll kill you.’”

He says Mr Ismaeil began raising his voice and moved closer to Mr Amaaz, prompting his brother to “defend himself”.

DEFENDANT SAYS HE TRIED TO SEPARATE THE MEN

Mr Amaad says Mr Ismaeil was “in his face” and that he stepped in between them, trying to separate the two men and get his brother to walk away.

MR ISMAEIL ‘ON THE PHONE AND SHOUTING’, JURY TOLD

He says Mr Ismaeil was then shouting “five minutes” while speaking on the phone, and appeared to want to move his own family away from the scene.

BROTHERS PLANNED TO REPORT INCIDENT TO POLICE

Mr Amaad says he told his brother that if they saw a police officer or airport security outside, they would report what had happened.

🔴 11:35 DEFENDANT SAYS MAN’S EXPLANATION ‘DIDN’T MAKE ANY SENSE’

Mr Amaad tells the jury he speaks Urdu, but would not assume any Asian person could understand it. He repeats that the conversation with Mr Ismaeil was conducted in English.

He says neither he nor his brother speak Arabic.

The defendant says Mr Ismaeil initially denied the accusation, and that the man’s wife claimed the slur had not been directed at his mother but at a little girl who had been sitting next to her on the flight.

Mr Ismaeil then said: “Yeah, yeah, it was a little girl on the flight,” Mr Amaad tells the jury.

He says that explanation “didn’t make any sense” — questioning why someone would call a child a “P**i bitch”.

“That’s when the volume started to go up,” he says. “I was speaking normal — I was just confused he would just openly say that.”
🔴 11:30 UPDATES: DEFENDANT SAYS HE WAS ‘SHOCKED’ AND ‘UPSET’ BY MOTHER’S ACCOUNT

Mr Amaad tells the court he drives to Manchester Airport with his brother and six-year-old nephew to collect their mother. At first, she appears to be in good spirits, but later “breaks down” and tells them she has had a “horrible flight”.

“She said the guy hit his luggage into the back of her leg,” he says, adding that the incident took place as she was coming off the plane.

Mr Amaad says his mother also claimed she had been called a “P**i bitch” during the journey. “It was shocking and upsetting,” he says.

DEFENDANT DENIES ‘CORNERING’ MAN IDENTIFIED BY MOTHER

As they reach Starbucks in the terminal, Mr Amaad says his mother points out a man and says: “This is the man.”

He says he approaches the individual and says: “Excuse me brother — my mum says you called her a P**i bitch,” before asking him for his “reasoning”.

He tells the jury it is his brother who engages the man first, and he joins the conversation afterwards. He denies they had “cornered” him.

“There was no cornering,” Mr Amaad says. “First my brother went up to him. Then I just went up to him. There was no aggression at all.”

He adds that the exchange is conducted in English and that his brother is speaking “in a normal tone”.

🔴 11:20 UPDATES: DEFENCE CASE MOVES ON TO SECOND BROTHER

With Mohammed Fahir Amaaz’s evidence now concluded, the trial moves on to the case of his brother and co-defendant, Muhammad Amaad. He is sworn in before the jury and begins giving evidence in his defence, led by his barrister Chloe Gardner.

DEFENDANT TELLS JURY HE HAD ‘UTMOST RESPECT’ FOR POLICE

Mr Amaad confirms his name and age to the court, telling the jury he is now 26 and was 25 at the time of the incident at Manchester Airport.

He says that before the events in question, he had “the utmost respect for the police.” He recalls being stopped on two separate occasions — once when officers claimed they could smell marijuana in his car, though “nothing was found”, and another when he was pulled over outside a friend’s house because his vehicle was registered to a dealership in Darlington.

Both encounters were, he says, “normal”, and he tells the jury he applied to become a student police officer after university, reaching the second stage on one occasion and narrowly missing out the second time. “I missed by a couple of marks,” he says.

VIRGIN MEDIA FIRED HIM DUE TO MEDIA ATTENTION, COURT HEARS

Mr Amaad says he worked as an assistant manager at KFC before joining Virgin Media as a case manager. He remains in that role until February 2025. He says he “disclosed everything” to the company about the case but was later dismissed “because of the media attention.”

BROTHERS MADE FOODPACKS FOR HOMELESS, JURY TOLD

Asked about charitable work, Mr Amaad says he and his brother have previously raised money and made up foodpacks to distribute to homeless people.

🔴 11:00: CHARACTER REFERENCES READ AS TRIAL RESUMES

As proceedings resume at Liverpool Crown Court, jurors hear a series of character references offered on behalf of defendant Mohammed Fahir Amaaz. The statements aim to provide insight into his background and conduct, as the defence seeks to support his account of events.

BROTHER DESCRIBES AMAAZ AS ‘RESPECTFUL’ AND ‘HARD-WORKING’

Mr Khan, representing Mr Amaaz, reads aloud a statement from the defendant’s brother, Mohammed Abid, a serving police officer. He describes Mr Amaaz as “the baby of our family” and says he has “always been respectful” towards their parents. Mr Abid tells the jury his brother often comes to him for advice and adds: “He is a hard-working young man. I can confidently vouch for his good character.”

SECOND REFERENCE PRAISES DEFENDANT’S POLITE MANNER

A second character reference, provided by Nazir Hussain, describes Mr Amaaz as “polite and respectful” and “a person of good character.”

FRIDAY 18th JULY: DAY 13 AFTERNOON SESSION

🔴 2:30 UPDATE: JURORS SENT HOME - TRIAL RESUMES ON MONDAY

Judge Flewitt has dismissed jurors. They will return on Monday morning.

FRIDAY 18th JULY: DAY 13 MORNING SESSION

🔴 1:45:COURT WILL RETURN AFTER LUNCH BREAK

🔴 1:45 UPDATES- DEFENDANT CLAIMS SELF-DEFENSE IN VIOLENT CLASH WITH POLICE, DENIES KNOWING OFFICERS’ IDENTITY

Defendant Mohammed Fahir Amaaz told the court he acted instinctively during a violent confrontation with police officers, claiming he believed they were trying to kill him and his brother. He denied knowing at first that they were police and insisted his actions were in self-defense, despite admitting to punching PC Lydia Ward and causing injury.

🔴DEFENDANT ‘DECIDED TO SAVE HIS BROTHER’S LIFE’

Mr Amaaz said he thought when PC Marsden withdrew his Taser he was about to shoot his brother with a gun and he “decided to save my brother’s life.”

It was suggested again to the defendant he was “out of control” and Mr Amaaz said: “At this point I’m scared sh—less. These officers are attacking us again and again. They are not stopping.”

🔴 “THIS LUNATIC BATTERED ME IN THE HEAD”

Mr Greaney told the defendant he had delivered 12 blows and two attempted blows to the officers within a second and a half of being grabbed by the cops, by which time he knew they were police.

Mr Amaaz said: “Police officers who were attacking me and my brother again and again trying to kill us. This lunatic battered me in the head and stamped on me. If that’s not enough he elbowed my mother with his Taser and if that’s not enough he punched my brother in the back of the head twice.”

He insisted he didn’t know “from the start” they were police officers and insisted the cops were “trying to kill us.”

The KC suggested that he knew each blow was at police officers and “unlawful” and Mr Amaaz said: “That’s wrong.”

🔴 MR AMAAZ WAS ‘LYING ON THE FLOOR, DEFENCELESS’

Mr Greaney went on that “right or wrong” PC Marsden had kicked Mr Amaaz and stamped at him but suggested all occurred after the 12 blows and “your violence.”

“Yes, I was lying down on the floor defenceless, yes,” said Mr Amaaz, adding that the blows came after “he had attempted to kill me.”

🔴 1:20 UPDATES— WHAT WAS HE GOING TO DO TO ME ONCE I WAS ON THE GROUND?

Mr Amaaz said he believed PC Ward was part of a group trying to kill him, alongside PC Marsden, who he claimed had been “trying to force me down to the ground.”

He added: “What was he going to do to me once I was on the ground? He would have battered me to the point I was dead.”

When asked if he believed PC Marsden wanted to kill him, he replied: “Yes.”

🔴 I HAVE PROTECTED MYSELF

When it was put to him that he had “just punched a female officer to the face,” Mr Amaaz responded: “I have protected myself.”

The prosecutor said he punched PC Ward hard enough to break her nose, to which Mr Amaaz said: “It was just an instinctive strike.”

The KC suggested there was “absolutely nothing defensive” about the punch, but Mr Amaaz replied: “That’s wrong. I was protecting myself.”

When the prosecutor suggested he was “wholly out of control,” the defendant said: “That’s wrong.”

🔴 1:10 - UPDATES: Defendant denies phone was used 'to deliver more force'

Mr Amaaz agreed he had a phone in his left hand but he denied it was to deliver ‘more force’.

The defendant denied that he must have known that PC Lydia Ward was a woman and a police officer.

🔴 He said: “I just feel a strike straight in the throat. It’s an instinctive reaction and I turned and strike at the same time… This is happening so quick. It’s a matter of seconds.”

The KC suggested one frame shows the defendant looking straight in the face of PC Ward who has no cap and long red hair. Asked if he really didn’t realise it was a woman, Mr Amaaz said: “It’s a matter of seconds.”

Mr Greaney said ‘you punched her straight in the face’ and Mr Amaaz said: “I didn’t know where my punches were going. It was just a reaction.”

He agreed that in fact he did punch PC Ward in the face.

When it was put to him he had also broken her nose, the defendant said: “I think so.”

🔴 Asked if he thought PC Ward was part of a group of officers trying ‘murder you’, he said: “She was part of this group, yes.”

🔴 12:30 UPDATES: “THEY DIDN’T GIVE ME A CHANCE TO THINK”

DEFENDANT CLAIMS HE WAS ACTING IN SELF-DEFENCE AGAINST POLICE

‘I THOUGHT MY BROTHER WOULD EXPLAIN TO THEM’

Mr Amaaz agreed his brother was looking in the direction of the police as they entered the car park pay station.

He told the jury he assumed his brother would explain to the officers what had happened earlier inside the terminal.

“HE MIGHT HAVE SAID ‘POLICE ARE HERE’ – I DIDN’T HEAR”

The KC suggested that Mr Amaad leaned towards his brother and said: “The police are here.”

Mr Amaaz said he may have said that but he didn’t hear him. He believed they were talking about the pay machine.

DEFENDANT AGREES HE SAW ‘POLICE’ WRITTEN ON UNIFORM

Mr Amaaz confirmed that the person who grabbed him was wearing a cap and uniform clearly marked “Police”.

He admitted he realised the individual was a police officer “at that point” — before any violence occurred.

“I WAS BEING HIT MULTIPLE TIMES”

Asked to explain earlier comments that he hadn’t known they were police officers, Mr Amaaz said: “I’m protecting myself and my brother.”

He claimed he had been struck “multiple times”.

‘I WAS FORCED TOWARDS THE TICKET MACHINE’

The defendant said the officers didn’t give him a moment to assess the situation.

“These officers didn’t give me a chance to think about anything,” he told the jury. “They didn’t give me a second to think or say anything.”

KC PRESSES ON STRIKES CAUGHT ON CCTV

When asked about the punches, elbows and kicks he is seen delivering on camera, Mr Amaaz said: “I was protecting myself.”

He denied knowing why the police were there, despite the KC’s suggestion that it was “glaringly obvious”.

🔴 12:05 UPDATES: DEFENDANT PRESSED OVER STRIKING FEMALE OFFICERS- IT HADN’T OCCURRED TO AMAAZ THAT POLICE WANTED TO SPEAK TO HIM AFTER INCIDENT ON STARBUCKS

🔴 KC TURNS TO CAR PARK PAY STATION FOOTAGE

Mr Greaney KC told jurors he was now turning to the events at the car park pay station, with CCTV footage due to be played.

Mr Amaaz agreed his position was that “everything he did and every blow he struck was lawful.”

🔴 “YOU THINK IT’S LAWFUL TO STRIKE WOMEN IN THE FACE?”

When asked directly if he believed it was lawful to hit women in the face, Mr Amaaz replied: “I didn’t know they were women.”

🔴 CLAIMED HE FEARED ‘BEING MURDERED BY POLICE’

The prosecutor reminded the jury that Mr Amaaz had previously said he and his brother feared they would be “murdered by police in broad daylight and on CCTV.”

The defendant confirmed this was his belief.

He also maintained that he would have complied if the officers had announced themselves — despite agreeing they were in full police uniform.

🔴 VIOLENCE USED IN FRONT OF CHILDREN

Mr Amaaz accepted he used violence against Mr Ismaeil in front of his children at a public airport.

🔴 IT HADN’T OCCURRED TO AMAAZ THAT POLICE WANTED TO SPEAK TO HIM AFTER INCIDENT ON STARBUCKS

Asked if it had crossed his mind that he might be of interest to police while walking to the pay station, Mr Amaaz said it had not.

🔴 12:00 UPDATES: “YOU KNEW YOU’D JUST COMMITTED A CRIME”

PROSECUTOR SAYS DEFENDANT AVOIDED POLICE BECAUSE HE WAS GUILTY

🔴 ‘YOU WERE THE AGGRESSOR FROM START TO FINISH’

Mr Greaney KC put it to Mr Amaaz that “from start to finish you were the aggressor during this episode.”

“That’s wrong,” the defendant replied.

The prosecutor then said the violence used was “offensive, not defensive.”

“That’s also wrong,” said Mr Amaaz.

🔴 POLICE WERE OUTSIDE — BUT NOT CALLED

Mr Amaaz claimed he and his brother had planned to report the incident to police once they were outside the terminal building.

But when reminded that three officers were present outside, he insisted: “That was for a completely different reason.”

Asked again why no report was made, Mr Amaaz said their priority was getting their mother and nephew “away from this guy.”

🔴 “YOU KNEW YOU’D JUST COMMITTED A CRIME”

The KC suggested: “The real reason you didn’t call the police was because you knew you had just committed a crime.”

Mr Amaaz firmly responded: “That’s incorrect.”

🔴 11:50 UPDATES: DEFENDANT DENIES INVITING MR ISMAEIL TO FIGHT

CCTV GESTURE ‘MEANT NOTHING’, SAYS AMAAZ

🔴 ‘NOTHING TO DO WITH A CHALLENGE’

Mr Amaaz denied that a gesture he made — caught on CCTV — was an invitation for Mr Ismaeil to step outside for a fight.

Asked what he was doing, the defendant simply replied: “Nothing.”

🔴 ‘I WASN’T ANGRY’

Prosecutor Paul Greaney KC suggested the defendant was visibly angry as he walked away from Mr Ismaeil. “That’s incorrect,” Mr Amaaz responded.

The defendant agreed his brother, Mr Amaad, then stepped between him and Mr Ismaeil — but denied it was to stop him launching another attack.

“He just intervened because he knew Mr Ismaeil was much larger than me and much bigger than me, and he didn’t want anything to happen to his brother,” Mr Amaaz told the court.

🔴 ‘I WASN’T THE AGGRESSOR’

Mr Amaaz denied his mother had stepped in out of concern that he might attack again.

He did agree the CCTV then showed bystanders attempting to push him away from Mr Ismaeil — but rejected the prosecution’s claim that this was because he was “the aggressor”.

“That’s incorrect,” said Mr Amaaz.

🔴 11:35 UPDATES: ‘I THOUGHT HE WAS ABOUT TO ATTACK ME’ — AMAAZ SAYS HE AND HIS BROTHER FACED IMMINENT ATTACK

Prosecutor Paul Greaney KC put it to Mr Amaaz that: “As a matter of fact, that man you headbutted — that person was no threat to you. You didn’t believe for a moment he was a threat to you and you were acting out of revenge. That’s the truth.”

Mr Amaaz replied: “This man was constantly shouting threats at me and threatening to kill me. He’s getting so close I could literally feel his spit on my face and I thought any second now he’s going to attack me.”

The KC suggested that when Mr Amaaz’s mother took hold of his arm, the defendant then tried to land another blow.

🔴 Mr Amaaz responded: “He’s shouting ‘I will f—ing kill you’ and I’m thinking he’s about to hit my brother.”

Mr Greaney repeated the prosecution’s position — that Mr Ismaeil was never a threat and Mr Amaaz “attempted to deliver that blow out of anger and revenge”.

“That’s incorrect,” said Mr Amaaz. “He’s literally shouting I will f—ing kill you again.”

🔴 11:20: ‘LITERALLY JUMPED & SWUNG A ROUNDHOUSE PUNCH’ — AMAAZ CLAIMS PUNCH WAS INSTINCTIVE DEFENCE

🔴 LEFT-HANDED BLOW WAS TO ‘GET HIM AWAY’

Prosecutor Paul Greaney KC suggested Mr Amaaz had “literally jumped and swung a roundhouse punch with your left hand”.

Mr Amaaz agreed he had swung a punch, but said he couldn’t recall “literally jumping” as he did so.

The KC put it to him that it was a “clenched fist” punch. The defendant replied: “I don’t know if it completely connected or not.”

Asked again whether it was an intentional strike, Mr Amaaz said: “It was my intention to get this man away from me.”

Mr Amaaz confirmed he is left-handed. When it was suggested he had used his dominant hand to deliver the punch, he told the jury: “It was just instinctive.”

🔴 11:15 UPDATES: DEFENDANT DENIES MARTIAL ARTS TRAINING — AMAAZ CLAIMS HEADBUTT WAS ‘INSTINCTIVE’

🔴 DEFENDANT DENIES TRAINING IN MARTIAL ARTS

Mr Amaaz told jurors he had “somewhat” of an interest in fitness but denied ever receiving training in martial arts.

He said Mr Ismaeil’s two older children were merely “looking at the conversation” and denied they were “staring” at what was unfolding.

🔴 CCTV SHOWS HEADBUTT

Jurors were once again shown CCTV footage of Mr Amaaz headbutting Mr Ismaeil.

Mr Amaaz accepted that Mr Ismaeil had “not laid a finger” on him before that moment.

The defendant described it as “an instinctive headbutt” and said he could not recall how forcefully it had landed.

🔴 ‘OFFENSIVE, NOT DEFENSIVE’

Prosecutor Paul Greaney KC suggested the headbutt had been a “forceful” one.

Mr Amaaz responded: “He might have just been off balance and that’s why he stumbled backwards.”

Mr Greaney told the court: “That man posed no threat to you. You didn’t believe he was a threat to you and you were acting out of anger and revenge.”

Mr Amaaz replied: “I don’t agree.”

“It was offensive, not defensive,” said the KC.

“Defensive,” said Mr Amaaz.

🔴 11:00 UPDATES: PROSECUTOR PRESSES ON STARBUCKS WITNESS EVIDENCE — AMAAZ INSISTS HE WAS NOT THE AGGRESSOR

🔴 QUESTIONS CONTINUE

Mr Amaaz was reminded by prosecutor Paul Greaney KC that both Starbucks witnesses described “the man in the blue tracksuit” — identified as Mr Amaaz — as the aggressor.

They claimed he was “in the face” of Mr Ismaeil, who they described as calm throughout the exchange.

🔴 ‘THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU DO’

The prosecutor suggested the witnesses had painted a picture that was “the opposite of what you do”.

Mr Amaaz accepted this but claimed one witness had not seen the exchange completely, while the other only had a view of Mr Ismaeil’s back.

🔴 ‘THEY’RE BOTH WRONG’

Mr Greaney told the jury both witnesses had said they could see Mr Amaaz. The defendant responded: “They’re both wrong.”

“He’s the one that’s coming close to me,” Mr Amaaz said of Mr Ismaeil.

He denied being the aggressor or acting out of anger over what had happened to his mother, telling the jury instead: “I was upset.”
🔴 10:45 UPDATES: AMAAZ DENIES LYING ABOUT ISMAEIL’S WORDS — DEFENDANT CHALLENGES INDEPENDENT WITNESS TESTIMONY

🔴 ‘THAT’S A LIE’

The prosecutor suggested that Mr Ismaeil had been “effectively cornered” — a claim Mr Amaaz firmly denied.

Mr Amaaz accepted that Mr Ismaeil’s two children were “staring” at them during the exchange, but denied this was because he had been confronting their father.

🔴 ‘NO AXE TO GRIND’

The prosecutor referred to the evidence given by two independent witnesses from the nearby Starbucks — a duty manager and a barista — who, he said, had “no axe to grind”.

Mr Amaaz agreed they were independent, but disagreed with their recollection.

The two witnesses had said the conversation they overheard between Mr Amaaz and Mr Ismaeil was not in English. Mr Amaaz disputed this and responded: “I don’t know why they have made an error.”

🔴 AMAAZ STANDS BY CLAIM ISMAEIL ISSUED THREATS

The prosecutor reminded Mr Amaaz that he had previously claimed Mr Ismaeil shouted in English: “I will f***ing kill you.”

Mr Amaaz agreed that if those words had been said, he would expect others nearby to have heard them.

Asked if there was any reason why the witnesses might not have heard the threats, Mr Amaaz reiterated that they had been speaking in English throughout.

He said he would also expect bystanders to have heard Mr Ismaeil shouting “outside, five minutes”.

When the prosecutor suggested the truth was that Mr Ismaeil had not used those words, Mr Amaaz replied: “That’s a lie.”

🔴 10:40 UPDATES: AMAAZ CLAIMS HE WAS CALM AND POLITE WITH MR ISMAEIL

DEFENDANT SAYS HE DIDN’T WANT THE SITUATION TO ESCALATE

🔴 DEFENDANT DID NOT WANT THE SITUATION TO ‘ESCALATE’

Mr Amaaz told the jury that his mother pointed out Mr Ismaeil in the terminal and said: “There’s the man” who had racially abused and assaulted her.

Asked whether he could have simply walked away, Mr Amaaz agreed that he could have done so. He also accepted that he could have called the police — or even one of his relatives who works in the police.

But he said he didn’t want the situation to escalate.

🔴 POLITE REQUEST FOR AN APOLOGY

Mr Amaaz confirmed he had initially been calm and polite. He said he asked Mr Ismaeil: “If this is true please could you apologise.”

He agreed that anyone standing close by would have heard he was speaking calmly.

🔴 10:30 UPDATES. AMAAZ QUESTIONED BY PROSECUTOR

🔴 MOTHER TOLD HIM FLIGHT WAS ‘WORST EIGHT HOURS OF HER LIFE’

AMAAZ ASKED WHAT ABUSE CONSISTED OF — AND WHY HE DIDN’T REPORT IT

🔴 SHE TOLD HIM THE FLIGHT WAS ‘THE WORST OF HER LIFE’

Mr Amaaz told jurors he spoke to his mother at 8.20pm to ask how her journey had been. He said she later told him it had been the “worst eight hours of her life”.

🔴 CLAIMS OF RACIAL & PHYSICAL ABUSE

The defendant confirmed he had previously said in evidence that his mother had been racially and physically abused. Pressed on what the physical abuse involved, he alleged Mr Ismaeil struck the backs of her legs repeatedly with his hand luggage.

He told the court he was “shocked” and believed the incident amounted to a hate crime.

🔴 NO REPORT TO POLICE

Asked whether he reported the alleged abuse to police, Mr Amaaz said he did not. He told the jury his priority was getting his mother out of the airport safely.

🔴 AMAAZ DENIES HE WAS FEELING ANGRY

Prosecutor Paul Greaney KC asked whether what he had been told made him angry. Mr Amaaz replied no — he said he was “upset”, not angry.

🔴 10:25: COURT IN SESSION. CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT BEGINS

Mr Amaaz questioned on airport confrontation

JURORS RETURNED to court as Mr Amaaz resumed his evidence under cross-examination by Paul Greaney KC for the prosecution.

Addressing the first charge of assaulting Mr Ismaeil, Mr Amaaz acknowledged that the complainant “did not lay a finger” on him. Asked why he attacked Mr Ismaeil, the defendant said it was “to protect myself”. When it was put to him that his actions were “indefensible”, Mr Amaaz said he understood the allegation but maintained he had acted in self-defence.

The jury were shown footage of Mr Amaaz’s mother arriving at the airport. Mr Amaaz agreed she appeared to be smiling as she greeted her family. He also confirmed footage showed Mr Ismaeil walking through the terminal with his wife and three children.

Mr Amaaz accepted that he shared a warm embrace with his mother, and confirmed to the court that they were “very close”.

THURSDAY 17th JULY: DAY 12 - AFTERNOON SESSION

🔴 3:50 COURT ADJOURNS

With no questions from Amaad’s representative Chloe Gardner, proceedings close for the day. Court is due back in session at 10.15am tomorrow, when the cross-examination of Mr Amaaz will begin under Paul Greaney KC for the Crown.

🔴 3:45: AMAAZ: “I WAS JUST SCARED”

Defendant says he vomited after release from custody

HE RECALLED ‘BEING SICK ALL OVER’

Asked about his recollection of the altercation, Mr Amaaz said he didn’t remember some incidents, and didn’t recall feeling a knee in his back from PC Marsden.

He said he did recall the pain of the Taser fired by PC Cook — and claimed she reactivated it & stunned him a second time.

He told the jury a ‘bearded officer’ then came over, handcuffed him, and he remembered asking “what’s going on?” because he was “completely out of it”.

He said he was placed in a police van and taken to the station.

“I was just scared. I didn’t know what was going on,” he said. “I remember telling the custody sergeant I’ve got a banging headache.”

A nurse saw him a few hours later, he said.

He was interviewed by police and gave no comment answers on the advice of a solicitor.

After being released, Mr Amaaz said he recalled “being sick all over”.

He said his brother picked him up and drove him to a hospital in Oldham, where he was booked in for a CT scan the next day.

Mr Amaaz said a doctor initially told him he had a cyst on the brain — though he later learned this was unrelated to the incident.

He said he followed up with a few appointments at his GP surgery.

🔴 3:35 “I BELIEVE I SAVED HIS LIFE”

Defendant says he struck officer to stop him killing his brother

DEFENDANT SAYS HE BELIEVED HE PREVENTED PC MARSDEN FROM KILLING HIS BROTHER

Mr Amaaz said he saw PC Marsden ‘in a stance like he’s about to shoot’ and believed the officer was going to shoot his brother.

He shouted “no” and ran toward the officer.

Mr Amaaz agreed he had struck PC Marsden ‘a few times’.

“Then all of a sudden it feels like all the energy has gone out of me,” he told the jury.

“I believe I saved his life, yeah,” said Mr Amaaz.

He described the moment he was tasered: “It just felt like the soul has been sucked out of my body and everything went stiff.”

“I just remember everything going stiff. Honestly it was the worst pain I had ever felt. I had no idea what was going on…. Honestly, it felt like I was dying.”

“I could just see screaming and shouting and that’s about it,” he added.

Mr Amaaz said he could not recall his mother being near him but he could ‘see the shouting’.

Asked about the moment he lifted his head & was kicked by PC Marsden, he said: “I remember seeing a boot coming straight for my face.”

He said it ‘knocked me out’ and that a subsequent stamp ‘woke me up’.

“I just remember it knocked me unconscious,” said Mr Amaaz.

🔴 3:15: COURT TAKES A SHORT BREAK

🔴 3:15 UPDATE “I BELIEVE THIS MAN IS ABOUT TO SHOOT & KILL MY BROTHER”

Mr Amaaz says he believed his brother’s life was in danger when he saw an officer draw a Taser.

DEFENDANT SAYS HE THOUGHT OFFICER HAD A REAL GUN

Mr Amaaz told jurors he fell to the ground & looked over to see what was happening to his brother.

He said he saw an officer “pointing a gun towards him” — and believed it was a live firearm.

“I had never seen a Taser before,” said Mr Amaaz. “Honestly, I believe this man is about to shoot and kill my brother.”

🔴 3:10: DEFENDANT: “I STRUCK OUT TO PROTECT MYSELF & MY BROTHER”

Mr Amaaz says he lashed out instinctively, believing officers were attacking him & his brother — and only realised later that one of them was a woman.

‘I THOUGHT THIS OFFICER IS ABOUT TO ATTACK ME’

Mr Amaaz told jurors he struck out at PC Cook because he believed she was punching his brother.

“I was protecting him,” he said.

After a blow to his own throat, Mr Amaaz said: “Instinctively I feel I need to protect myself and I turn and strike at the same time.”

He said he didn’t realise it was a female officer and had simply wanted to stop what he believed was an attack.

After seeing PC Ward on the ground, he recalled thinking: “S**t, it’s another officer — when’s this going to stop?”

DEFENDANT CLAIMS HE SAW A THIRD OFFICER RUNNING TOWARDS HIM

Mr Amaaz said he then saw another officer “literally running towards me” and believed he was about to be attacked.

“I had no other choice but to protect myself,” he said, adding that he struck out, causing both to fall.

He told the jury: “I just feel like I’ve done enough, the threat’s no longer there.”

He agreed under questioning that the threat from PC Cook was ‘gone’ by that point.

🔴 3:05: DEFENDANT CLAIMS FEAR FOR HIS LIFE AS POLICE HELD HIM

Mr Amaaz told jurors he believed he would be “battered to death” if taken to the ground — and said he kicked out instinctively after seeing his brother being punched.

“I BELIEVED HE WOULD KILL ME,” DEFENDANT TELLS JURY

Mr Amaaz said he was grabbed on both sides and turned to see PC Marsden, who then forced him against the ticket machine.

He claimed the officer grabbed the back of his neck and tried to force him to the ground.

“Honestly, I was scared,” he said. “I didn’t want to go down to the ground. I honestly believed if he had got me to the ground he would have battered me and he would have killed me.”

He added: “It’s not like it hasn’t happened before where police have abused their powers and people have died.”

DEFENDANT SAYS HE SAW OFFICERS PUNCHING HIS BROTHER

Mr Amaaz said he saw his brother Amaad being punched in the face by two officers.

He recalled Amaad shouting “easy, easy, easy, no”, but said officers didn’t stop.

He said he was “shocked” and described his response — kicking out at an officer — as “instinctive”.

He told the jury: “I just wanted the officer to stop punching my brother in the face.”

🔴 2:50 “OUTSIDE, FIVE MINUTES” – DEFENDANT CLAIMS HE WAS FEARFUL WHEN GRABBED WITHOUT WARNING

Mr Amaaz told jurors he thought Mr Ismaeil was summoning others to confront him, and when he was grabbed in the pay station, he didn’t realise it was police officers until after he turned around.

MR ISMAEIL HEARD SHOUTING “OUTSIDE, FIVE MINUTES”

As the brothers walked away, Mr Amaaz said Mr Ismaeil was on the phone and shouted at them: “Outside, five minutes.”

ARRIVAL AT PAY STATION

The defendant said his brother went to pay for parking but didn’t have his wallet, so he handed over his own phone to help — but his brother didn’t know the password, so he stepped in.

🔴 2:50: DEFENDANT SAYS HE DIDN’T KNOW POLICE WERE INVOLVED

Mr Amaaz said he was unaware that a police officer had grabbed him inside the pay station, and initially thought it was someone Mr Ismaeil had called.

He told jurors: “Nothing was said to me.” He agreed he tensed up because he didn’t know who was grabbing him.

“If I knew it was police officers, I would have allowed them to do whatever they need to do,” he said.

Amaaz added that when he turned around and saw officers, someone else then grabbed his other arm — and again, he said he didn’t know who it was.

🔴 2:40: DEFENDANT CLAIMS HE FELT THREATENED & STRUCK MAN WHO SAID “I’LL F—ING KILL YOU”

Mr Amaaz told jurors he acted out of fear after being threatened by Mr Ismaeil, who he says became aggressive when asked to apologise for racially abusing his mother.

MR ISMAEIL SAID TO HAVE SHOUTED “GO FROM HERE”

Mr Amaaz said he calmly asked Mr Ismaeil to apologise after his mother accused him of calling her a “P- -i bitch” on the flight.

He said Mr Ismaeil initially denied the comment, replying: “No, no, no, who are you?”

Amaaz said he explained his mother was unwell and asked him to admit what he’d done. He said Mr Ismaeil told him to “go from here”.

DEFENDANT SAYS WIFE CONFIRMED SLUR WAS USED

According to Mr Amaaz, Mr Ismaeil’s wife then intervened — saying the slur had been directed at a child rather than his mother.

Mr Amaaz said: “That made it ten times worse. It made me even more upset.”

He told jurors that Mr Ismaeil then appeared to confirm it. “What he’s done is wrong,” he said, explaining he only wanted an apology.

“HE STEPS TOWARDS ME AND SAYS ‘I’LL F- -ING KILL YOU’”

Mr Amaaz said Mr Ismaeil shouted “do you know who I am?” and refused to back down.

He said: “This man’s demeanour changed because we called him out on it… We simply wanted an apology.”

Amaaz described Mr Ismaeil stepping forward and threatening: “I’ll f—king kill you.”

The defendant said he felt scared and responded by headbutting Mr Ismaeil, then swinging a punch which may not have landed.

He said he hit him again to create distance, as his brother stood in between them.

“My brother told me, ‘get away from him,’” he added.

🔴 2:35: DEFENDANT SAYS MOTHER WAS CALLED A RACIAL SLUR ON FLIGHT

Mr Amaaz told jurors the mood turned quickly at Manchester Airport after his mother accused a fellow passenger of racially abusing her. He said he approached the man to challenge him.

MOTHER CLAIMS SHE WAS CALLED “P- -I BITCH”

Mr Amaaz said he arrived at Terminal 2 with his co-defendant and young nephew to collect his mother.

Although she was initially happy, she quickly told them her flight had been “the worst eight hours of her life”.

She claimed a male passenger had “bothered her non stop” and had called her a “P- -i bitch” during the journey.

DEFENDANT APPROACHED ALLEGED ABUSER

Mr Amaaz said his mother pointed out the man — later identified as Mr Ismaeil — and he decided to confront him.

“I was shocked,” he told the jury.

He said the man was “a lot bigger than me” but he walked up and said: “Excuse me brother.”

🔴 2:25: DEFENDANT CLAIMS POLICE ONCE STOPPED HIM “JUST TO MAKE OUR DAY BAD”

Mr Amaaz told jurors he’s never been in a physical fight & only had two encounters with police before — including one where officers searched his car without reason, he claims.

NO PRIOR VIOLENCE OR ARRESTS

Mr Amaaz said he had never been involved in a physical fight and had no history of trouble with the police.

TWO ENCOUNTERS WITH POLICE

He told jurors he’d only ever had two encounters with officers before this case.

In the first, he was in a car with his co-defendant when police stopped them and demanded to see a licence. Officers searched the car but found nothing, and eventually let them go.

He claimed there had been “no reason” for the stop and that the officers “just wanted to make our day bad.”

The second encounter was “perfectly normal,” he said.

🔴 2:20 “I RESPECT THEM A LOT”: DEFENDANT HIGHLIGHTS FAMILY TIES TO POLICE

Mr Amaaz tells jurors he holds no hostility toward officers — explaining his close-knit family includes multiple serving and retired GMP officers, including his own brother.

DEFENDANT RESPECTS POLICE

Mr Amaaz said his family had deep ties to policing. On his father’s side, one uncle had served 30 years before retiring from the force, and his cousin — that uncle’s son — now works for Greater Manchester Police.

He told jurors he has “about four cousins” on his father’s side in GMP, and another cousin on his mother’s side also working in the police.

He said they joined because they “respected” his uncle, who had been deeply committed to the job.

Asked how he felt about police in the family, he replied: “I respect them a lot.”

NO HOSTILITY TO POLICE

Speaking of his own brother’s recruitment into GMP, Mr Amaaz said: “He was really excited and I was excited for him… I looked up to him a lot.”

When asked directly whether he had any hostility towards police, Mr Amaaz said “no,” adding he recognised that officers “have a difficult job.”

🔴 2:10 UPDATE - AMAAZ TELLS COURT: “I’VE NEVER BEEN IN TROUBLE BEFORE”

The defendant gives jurors a detailed account of his education, charity work in Pakistan & university life — insisting this was his first ever contact with police or the courts.

EDUCATION & CAREER PATH

Mr Amaaz told the court he grew up in Rochdale, attending both primary and secondary school locally and achieving eight GCSEs.

He went on to complete A-Level PE and a BTEC in applied science at sixth form before briefly enrolling at the University of Salford to study sport rehabilitation.

He said he left after a month, explaining the course was “not for me.”

CHARITY WORK & UNIVERSITY LIFE

After taking a gap year and spending five to six months in Pakistan doing charity work, Mr Amaaz said he began working and later enrolled at Manchester Metropolitan University, where he is now studying sport marketing and management.

NO PRIOR POLICE CONTACT

He told jurors he had “never” been in trouble with the police before, and had never been inside a police station or court prior to these proceedings.

🔴 2:00 - DEFENDANT TELLS JURY HE HAS POLICE OFFICER SIBLING

Mr Amaaz confirms he was 19 at the time of the incident & gives details of his background, including a sibling currently serving as a police officer with Greater Manchester Police.

BACKGROUND & FAMILY DETAILS

Mr Amaaz confirms his name and date of birth to the jury, saying he is now 20 years old but was 19 at the time of the incident.

He tells the court he was born in Rochdale and currently lives there with both of his parents — his father, a taxi driver, and his mother, who is not medically fit to work.

He also tells jurors he has siblings, including one who has worked for five years as a police officer in Greater Manchester.

🔴 1:50 DEFENDANT MR. AMAAZ SWORN IN TO GIVE EVIDENCE BEFORE JURY

Mr Amaaz has now taken to the witness stand in his own defence. Wearing a suit & tie, he is giving evidence under oath as the trial enters a new phase of testimony.

The jurors are brought back into court and Mr Amaaz, wearing a suit and tie, is sworn in. He is being taken through his evidence by his barrister, Imran Khan KC.

THURSDAY 17th JULY: DAY 12 - MORNING SESSION

🔴 12:35: COURT RESUMES AT 1:45

Court takes an early lunch break.

🔴 12:35 UPDATES - MEDICAL REPORT FINDS NO FRACTURES & POLICE CONDUCT INQUIRY STILL OPEN
Jurors have now heard agreed facts relating to PC Marsden’s condition and the ongoing investigation into his conduct during the incident. The IOPC probe is said to focus on professional standards and remains unresolved.
NO ACUTE INJURIES TO PC MARSDEN
Prosecutor Mr Birkby read out a series of agreed facts to the jury, including a diagnostic imaging report which found that PC Marsden had not suffered any acute injuries.
There was no evidence of skull or facial fractures, and medical records did not mention any bleed on the brain.
IOPC MISCONDUCT INVESTIGATION NOT CONCLUDED
The court heard that the Independent Office for Police Conduct has carried out an investigation into PC Marsden’s conduct.
Jurors were told the investigation is still ongoing and concerns allegations of professional misconduct — not a criminal matter.

🔴 12:30 UPDATES: DEFENDANT ACKNOWLEDGED POLICE CAUTION & RECORDS SHOW POSSIBLE HEAD INJURY

The jury has now heard further details about the police interviews of Mr Amaaz, with jurors shown footage in which the defendant appeared to indicate understanding of the proceedings. Records also note a reported strike to the head.

MR AMAAZ CONFIRMED HE UNDERSTOOD INTERVIEW PROCESS

Detective Sergeant Bullivant agreed that during his police interview, Mr Amaaz was asked by the interviewing officer “does that make sense?” on three occasions, and each time he replied “yeah”. He was also asked if he was happy to continue and confirmed that he was, the officer said.

Jurors were shown a clip of the interview in which Mr Amaaz nodded in response to questions — including when asked whether he understood the caution.

RECORDS CONTAIN MENTION OF POSSIBLE HEAD STRIKE TO AMAAZ

Ms Gardner, for Mr Amaaz, resumed her questioning and highlighted a medical record that listed various abrasions suffered by the defendant. DS Bullivant agreed the notes included a reported injury to the back of the neck and a reference to Mr Amaaz believing he had been “punched to the back of the head”.

🔴 12:10 UPDATES: INCORRECT SUGGESTION OF MULTIPLE ASSAULTS — INTERVIEW PROVIDED DEFENDANTS A CHANCE TO CHALLENGE THIS

Detectives acknowledged that questions posed in interview incorrectly suggested Mr Amaad had assaulted more than one officer — but insisted the process gave him the opportunity to give his account. The jury also heard he had no criminal record and was declared fit for detention.

🔴 DS Bullivant agreed it was incorrect to suggest during the interview that Mr Amaad had assaulted more than one police officer.

She added:

“Sometimes you have to ask the questions to get the facts and that’s why we interview people”

AMAAD - NO CRIMINAL RECORD

The officer also confirmed Mr Amaad had never been arrested before and had no prior convictions, cautions, reprimands or warnings.

MEDIC DEEMED SUSPECT FIT FOR DETENTION

Under re-examination by Mr Birkby for the prosecution, the officer agreed the notes show a medical professional confirmed Mr Amaad, who had been Tasered, was conscious and alert at the station.

The healthcare worker judged him fit to be detained and interviewed. DS Bullivant said the notes recorded Mr Amaad telling a police officer in his cell that he was “feeling well”.

🔴 11:50 JUDGE: ‘JURORS HAVE “GOT THE POINT”‘

As Ms Gardner continued to press the witness, Judge Neil Flewitt KC told her the jurors had “got the point”. When the barrister suggested the judge had laughed during her questioning, the judge replied she was “very close to being rude”.

🔴11:50 WRONG ARREST DETAILS GIVEN TO LAWYER

Defence lawyers question accuracy of police records and disclosure material provided to legal representatives during the brothers’ arrest and interview process.

Chloe Gardner, representing Mr Amaad, asked Detective Sergeant Bullivant about inaccuracies in the custody record. The officer confirmed Mr Amaad was checked in at 22:27 after spending time in the back of a police van, and that a duty solicitor had been requested. DS Bullivant agreed it was “imperative” for pre-interview disclosure provided to a solicitor to be accurate. She acknowledged it was incorrect for the disclosure to state Mr Amaad had been arrested for affray and assault of an emergency worker. The document wrongly said police were called to Terminal 2 after a report of a passenger being assaulted by “two males”, and included a claim that a description of “the males” was passed to officers. DS Bullivant accepted both references should have referred to a single male. The officer said the interviewing officer would have come on duty that morning and read through the available statements.

🔴 11:15 UPDATE- KICK TO HEAD ‘MAY JUST NOT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN DOWN’

DS Bullivant agreed there was no reference in the custody records to the reported kick to Mr Amaaz’s head. She told the court the officer compiling the document “may just not have written it down”. Jurors also heard that Mr Amaaz was given paracetamol and ibuprofen while in custody and was released after his police interview.

🔴 11:10 UPDATES: KC RAISES QUESTIONS OVER INTERVIEW PROCEDURE — MINOR INJURIES RECORDED TO AMAAZ

Defence KC questions accuracy of police process as court hears more on Amaaz’s condition in custody

🔴 Jurors heard a series of challenges to the procedures followed during Mr Amaaz’s formal police interview, including whether he gave clear acknowledgment of the police caution and whether the initial disclosure provided to his solicitor was accurate. The defence also highlighted that Mr Amaaz had no prior convictions and sustained several minor injuries during the incident. The officer confirmed a medical examiner deemed him fit to be detained — though scuffs and abrasions were documented.

INTERVIEW LASTED 12 MINUTES, SOLICITOR PRESENT

The interview with Mr Amaaz at Cheadle Heath police station lasted 12 minutes, the court heard. DS Bullivant confirmed the defendant was cautioned and represented by a solicitor throughout. A transcript shows the interviewing officer saying “yeah” after asking if the defendant understood the caution — but Mr Amaaz gave no clear verbal acknowledgment himself. DS Bullivant said the presence of a solicitor meant any concerns could have been raised at the time.

NO PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS OR CAUTIONS

A Police National Computer check revealed that Mr Amaaz had no previous convictions or cautions, DS Bullivant confirmed to the court.

MEDICAL EXAMINER FOUND SCUFFS AND ABRASIONS

DS Bullivant said Mr Amaaz was examined in custody by a medical professional who deemed him fit to be detained. The officer confirmed the presence of minor injuries, including abrasions and scuffs recorded in medical notes: Abrasion on the right side of the nose; 3cm abrasion on the abdomen; red scuff line on the right cheek; scuffed area on the lip; abrasion on the left knee; abrasion on the left buttock. The officer confirmed these findings were documented as part of the formal custody procedure.

🔴 11:00 UPDATE- QUESTIONED BY THE DEFENCE, DS BULLIVANT AGRESS POLICE GAVE ‘SLIGHTLY INACCURATE’ INFO TO SUSPECTS DURING INTERVIEWS

Court hears officers shared early disclosure with errors before brothers gave ‘no comment’ replies

Under cross-examination from Imran Khan KC, representing Mohammed Fahir Amaaz, Detective Sergeant Danielle Bullivant accepted that the ‘pre-interview disclosure’ provided to both defendants ahead of their police interviews contained some inaccuracies.

Khan put it to the officer that it was important suspects receive an accurate and fair account of what would be put to them during formal interview. DS Bullivant agreed with that proposition.

The court heard that although officers provided a basic outline of the allegations in a formal disclosure document, this was done at what the DS described as “the very, very early stages of an investigation”.

DS Bullivant accepted that the information was not fully accurate, and confirmed that it could be described as “slightly inaccurate” in some aspects.

Despite this, the officer maintained that both men were formally cautioned, told what the caution meant, and given the opportunity to respond during interview — but each chose to answer “no comment” throughout.

🔴 10:55 - DEFENDANTS REFUSED CHANCE TO VIEW FOOTAGE — AFTER SPEAKING AT PRESS CONFERENCE

Court hears how brothers gave no police account — but later spoke publicly about the fight without having seen full video evidence. When offered the opportunity to see this evidence and return for interview,

Jurors were told both Mohammed Fahir Amaaz and Muhammad Amaad declined to view footage of the Manchester Airport incident — despite being offered a chance to do so by senior police after a press conference in which they spoke publicly about the events.

Detective Sergeant Danielle Bullivant told the court that both men were taken to Cheadle Heath Police Station, where they were interviewed under caution the day after the incident. At that time, no CCTV or body-worn camera footage had yet been collated, and officers were seeking each man’s first account, she said.

The DS confirmed the brothers were not shown any footage during their formal police interviews and both men gave ‘no comment’ responses to all questions. That included questions about the alleged fight near Starbucks, the use of force by police, and injuries sustained by officers.

Following their arrest, the court heard, the brothers took part in a press conference, speaking publicly about the incident before they had seen the full video evidence.

DS Bullivant said a short time later, Chief Superintendent Hughes wrote to both men, inviting them to attend a second voluntary interview. The letter also offered them the opportunity to view the CCTV and body-worn footage gathered by police.

Neither man replied, the jury heard.

DS Bullivant said a full file of evidence was passed to the Crown Prosecution Service, which later authorised charges against both defendants.

🔴 10:45 UPDATES: DEFENDANTS GAVE ‘NO COMMENT’ POLICE INTERVIEWS

Jurors hear both brothers declined to answer questions when interviewed under cautionfollowing the incident at Manchester Airport.

Detective Sergeant Danielle Bullivant confirms that during his interview, Mohammed Fahir Amaaz was asked a series of questions, including:

• Whether he had been involved in an altercation with another male

• Whether he had assaulted that male

• Whether he had been assaulted by that male

• Whether police had attempted to arrest him later

• Whether he had assaulted any officers

• And whether anyone else was involved
DS Bullivant tells the jury Mr Amaaz gave a “no comment” response to all questions.
In a separate interview, Muhammad Amaad was asked:

• Whether a fight had taken place outside Starbucks

• Whether someone was headbutted during that fight

• Whether he himself was involved

• Whether he had assaulted a police officer to prevent an arrest

• And who had broken an officer’s nose — and why

The jury hears that Mr Amaad also answered “no comment” throughout his interview.

🔴 10:40 : COURT HEARS DETAILS OF POLICE INTERVIEWS WITH BROTHERS

Jurors are told about the circumstances surrounding the police interviews of Mohammed Fahir Amaaz and Muhammad Amaad following the airport incident.

Detective Sergeant Danielle Bullivant confirms both defendants were taken to Cheadle Heath police station, where they were interviewed under caution the following day.

The jury hears both men were provided with free legal representation, and were given pre-interview disclosure explaining that police had attended Starbucks in Terminal 2 and that officers were later assaulted.

DS Bullivant says both brothers were formally cautioned, and each had the meaning of the caution explained to them before the interviews began.

🔴 10:30: COURT IN SESSION. JURORS RETURN AS DS BULLIVANT TAKES THE STAND

The jury are brought back into court this morning as Detective Sergeant Danielle Bullivant is recalled to the witness box.

She is now facing questions from Adan Birkby, junior counsel for the prosecution.
TUESDAY 15th JULY: DAY 11 MORNING SESSION

🔴 1:10pm Update: COURT ADJOURNED — JURY SENT HOME UNTIL THURSDAY

Judge Neil Flewitt KC has told the jury they are being sent home until 10am on Thursday, due to legal matters that must be dealt with in their absence.

“There is going to be a further delay in the proceedings,” the judge explained.

He added that discussions between himself and counsel were likely to take up the remainder of today and most, if not all, of tomorrow.

Judge Flewitt made clear the delay was “through no fault of any of the parties in this case.”

He also advised that the trial may now run into a fifth week.

Before releasing the jury, he reminded them:

“Please don’t do any research about this case on the internet or elsewhere.”

“If you are on social media, in fairness to both sides, ignore the sorts of comments that are on there.”

“The best thing is to ignore social media. If you are on it, please ignore any observations about this case.”

🔴 11:25 PROCEEDINGS DELAYED

We will bring you updates as soon as possible.

MONDAY 14th JULY: DAY 10 AFTERNOON SESSION

🔴 4:15 COURT ADJOURNS.

Trial will continue tomorrow at 10:30am.
🔴 4:10 UPDATES: ARMED OFFICER: ‘MY ACTIONS WERE NOT UNLAWFUL OR UNREASONABLE’

Under cross-examination by Chloe Gardner, who represents Amaad, PC Ellie Cook firmly denied that her conduct during the attempted arrest was improper.

The officer rejected multiple suggestions that her use of force had been “unlawful,” “completely unreasonable,” or “completely disproportionate.”

She also disagreed with the suggestion that PC Marsden’s actions were “uncontrolled.”

🔴 PC COOK: AMAAD WAS ‘OBSTRUCTIVE’ — NOT ASSAULTED

When asked whether Amaad had been assaulted by PC Marsden, PC Cook disagreed.

She maintained that Amaad was “obstructive” during the arrest of his brother, and not a victim of police aggression.

🔴 PC ADMITS SHE DID NOT TELL AMAAD TO ‘STAY BACK’

The jury heard that PC Cook did not warn Amaad to stay away during the encounter.

She confirmed she had not said “stay back” — but stood by the actions taken by herself and her colleague.

Despite this, the officer defended the conduct of both officers, insisting they were acting to safely arrest a violent individual.

🔴 3:40: AMAAD HEARD SAYING ‘EASY’ AND ‘NO NO NO’ ON FOOTAGE AS PC MARSDED PUSHES AMAAZ’S HEAD DOWN. ARREST HAD NOT BEEN VERBALLY DECLARED

PC Cook is cross-examined by Chloe Gardner, counsel for Amaad.

The officer agrees that PC Marsden had “not verbalised his intention” as the officers approached the pay station.

The witness is questioned about footage showing PC Marsden pushing down Amaad’s head, during which Amaad can be heard saying “easy” five times, followed by “no no no.”

PC Cook says she did not recall these words at the time of the incident but agrees they were “not provocative words.”

🔴 3:30: OFFICER DEFENDS COLLEAGUE OVER VIRAL KICK FOOTAGE

PC Ellie Cook is questioned about footage showing her fellow officer kicking Mohammed Amaaz during the airport arrest incident:

FOOTAGE ‘GONE VIRAL’ ONLINE

• Under cross-examination by Imran Khan KC, PC Cook confirms the video showing PC Marsden kicking Amaaz has “gone viral” on the internet.

• Asked whether she found the footage “shocking,” the officer says:

“On its own when there’s no context, maybe yes. But not for me because I have been through everything that happened.”

WAS MARSEN AWARE OF TASER DEPLOYMENT?

• PC Cook repeats her view that, at the time of the kick, PC Marsden was not aware Amaaz had been Tasered.

• Mr Khan suggests she only came to this conclusion while drafting her statement to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).

• The officer replies:

“I disagree with that. It’s maybe the way the statement is worded.”

NO FORMAL CHALLENGE MADE

• PC Cook confirms she did not challenge PC Marsden about the kick following the incident.

• Asked why, she explains:

“I didn’t think I needed to”

NOT ‘IMPROPER CONDUCT’

• When asked directly whether she considered her colleague’s actions to amount to “improper conduct,” PC Cook answers simply:

“No.”

🔴 3:00 : DEFENCE CLAIMS AMAAZ WAS ‘KICKING OUT TO DEFEND HIS BROTHER’

The footage appears to show Mr Amaaz not immediately reacting when officers take hold of him. The defence suggests he only begins to strike out after the officers deliver blows to his brother, Muhammad Amaad, who had intervened.

• PC Cook is shown footage from the car park incident as cross-examination continues.

• Defence barrister Imran Khan KC slows the video to a quarter-speed and suggests that at the start of the encounter, “all three officers have hands on Mr Amaaz.”

• PC Cook agrees this is accurate “at this point.”

• She confirms that Mr Amaaz “doesn’t react” initially, and accepts this was correct based on the footage shown.

• The officer says she did not witness PC Marsden push down Mr Amaaz’s head and does not recall any conversation taking place between the officers at that stage.

• PC Cook agrees that PC Marsden threw a blow toward Muhammad Amaad and that Mr Amaaz appeared to see this happen.

• Mr Khan KC puts forward the defence case: that Mr Amaaz was “kicking out in defence of his brother.”

🔴 3:10 : IMRAN KHAN KC TAKES OFFICER THROUGH MOMENTS SURROUNDING TASER DISCHARGE

Imran Khan KC, representing Mohammed Amaaz, continues to cross-examine PC Ellie Cook as she is shown slowed-down footage of the confrontation in the airport car park.

AMAAS SAID TO SHOUT ‘NO’ BEFORE TASER FIRED — OFFICER SAYS SHE DIDN’T HEAR IT

The jury is shown more footage of the car park incident as cross-examination of PC Ellie Cook continues.

• PC Cook agrees that Mohammed Amaaz turned and looked towards the officers as the situation unfolded.

• She confirms he would have seen PC Marsden aiming a “piece of equipment” at his brother, Muhammad Amaad.

• Mr Khan KC suggests that Mr Amaaz shouted “no” at this point — but PC Cook says she did not hear him say that.

• PC Cook tells the jury that as she fired her Taser at Mr Amaaz, she said the word “Taser” three times.

• She recalls seeing a “stiffness” in Mr Amaaz’s body after he had fallen to the ground, consistent with the effects of the stun gun.

🔴 2:50 UPDATES: OFFICER QUESTIONED OVER DECISION MAKING: HAD OFFICERS INVESTIGATED SITUATION THOROUGHLY?

Under questioning, PC Cook agrees she was detaining Amaaz with the intention of arresting him — & that arrest began the moment she grabbed him in the airport pay station

• The jury is temporarily excused while a legal discussion takes place.

• On their return, Judge Flewitt KC reminds them that he will give full legal directions at the end of the trial and that it is “not appropriate to debate the law” in front of them.

• Under cross-examination, PC Cook agrees she was responding to a fight involving two individuals and acknowledges there was “a possibility there were two sides to this”.

• She accepts it did not cross her mind that there might be an “alternative version” to what had been alleged by Mr Ismaeil.

🔴 NO OPPORTUNITY TO INFORM AMAAZ THAT HE WAS UNDER ARREST

• Asked whether she informed Mr Amaaz that he was under arrest, the officer replies there was no time to do so: “It happened so quick.”

• She says: “I grabbed him by the wrist and upper arm and virtually instantly as I grabbed the arm I felt the arm tense up.”

• The officer adds: “It usually means they are about to resist the arrest.”

🔴 2:35: PC DID NOT IDENTIFY HERSELF OR STATE REASON FOR ARREST, COURT HEARS

PC Ellie Cook confirms under cross-examination that she did not tell Mohammed Fahir Amaaz he was under arrest or identify herself as a police officer before taking hold of him.

She agrees she is aware of standard police procedure, including the requirement to consider alternatives to arrest, use less intrusive methods where possible, and inform suspects of the offence they are being detained for.

The officer accepted that she did not tell Mr Amaaz he was being detained and did not inform him she was a police officer.

The court also hears that her colleague PC Marsden had accepted it was “fair” to suggest Mr Amaaz would not have known they were police officers at the moment she grabbed him.

PC Cook confirms she was detaining Mr Amaaz with the intention of arresting him and agrees that this arrest began at the moment she took hold of his arm.

🔴 2:25, Court Back In Session: ARMED OFFICER PRESSED ON ARREST LOCATION AND USE OF FORCE

Cross-examination of PC Ellie Cook continues, with Imran Khan KC, representing Mohammed Fahir Amaaz, questioning the officer over the officers’ approach in the car park.

PC Cook told the court that it was necessary to move Mr Amaaz from the crowded pay station area before attempting the arrest, stating there was “too much of a risk to the public” to arrest him in that space.

The officer was reminded that in her original statement she had referred to using “reasonable force” under the Criminal Law Act by taking hold of Mr Amaaz’s arm.

She confirmed she had been “effecting an arrest” for an alleged assault at Starbucks.

MONDAY 14th JULY: DAY 10 MORNING SESSION

🔴 1:35, Final Update Before Lunch Break : CROSS-EXAMINATION BEGINS: OFFICER INSISTS THERE WAS AN ARREST PLAN

Under questioning from Imran Khan KC, representing Mr Amaaz, PC Cook was asked about her previous statement to the IOPC in which she had said there was “no plan” as the officers approached the pay station.

PC Cook maintained there was a plan, telling the court: “There was.”

She told the jury that the plan had been to arrest the suspect.

When pressed further, she said the written statement she provided on the night of the incident reflected her “freshest” memory.

Challenged by Mr Khan and told she was “not telling the truth,” PC Cook replied: “I wouldn’t agree with that.”

The trial will resume after lunch.

🔴 1:35 : OFFICER SUFFERED HEAD INJURIES AFTER ELBOW STRIKE, JURY HEARS

PC Cook told the jury that after returning to the police station that night, she was examined by a paramedic. She reported having “swelling” to her temple and pain in her jaw.

The court heard that the following day, the officer attended hospital where photographs were taken of her injuries. PC Cook said she believed the pain in her jaw resulted from being struck by an elbow.

🔴 1:30 : PC COOK FIRES TASER, SENDING AMAAZ TO THE GROUND. PC MARSDEN KICKS AMAAZ, UNAWARE TASER HAS BEEN DEPLOYED

Regarding the subsequent events, PC Cook expressed her belief that PC Marsden was unaware that Amaaz had been Tasered when he delivered a kick.

Mr Greaney noted that “the world now knows” PC Marsden kicked Amaaz in the head.

When asked if she had seen the kick, PC Cook responded:

“I didn’t feel PC Marsden was aware Mr Amaaz had been subject to Taser due to the loud environment and everything that was going on.”

She also confirmed she did not see the stamp.

After the kick, PC Cook said she placed her hand on PC Marsden’s body armour and communicated something to the effect of:

“He’s on my Taser – I have got him.”

She added:

“At that point I didn’t believe he was aware he had been Tasered.”

The officer explained that she intervened to avoid moving across Amaaz and potentially snapping the Taser wires, which would have resulted in losing control of the suspect.

🔴 1:25 NO OPTION TO RETREAT – BATON AND SPRAY RULED OUT AS OFFICER FACED POTENTIAL ATTEMPT TO SEIZE FIREARMS

PC Cook tells the court that she and her colleagues faced an unknown and escalating threat during the confrontation with Mohammed Amaaz and his brother in the Manchester Airport car park.

She says walking away from the scene was not an option:

“It wasn’t, no. It wasn’t an option to walk away from such a violent individual at this point. I joined the job to protect members of the public and if I walked away I wouldn’t be doing my job.”

🔴 The officer says she could not determine what the attackers’ intentions were:

“I didn’t know why they were attacking us or whether they were taking our weapons off us or whether it was just an attack.”

She adds that her gun was loaded and that “it didn’t require any training” to use.

🔴 Asked about tactical decisions, PC Cook explains why certain equipment was ruled out.

She says she ruled out using her baton as she didn’t want to get close to Mr Amaaz, and ruled out her pepper spray due to the risk to fellow officers and members of the public in the immediate area, making her taser the best option.

🔴 She describes the moment she was knocked to the ground, and the danger to her armed colleague:

“When I was knocked to the floor I turned to look towards PC Marsden and saw the male in blue had jumped on his back and punched him in the head. I could not see PC Marsden’s firearm. I believe it was being covered where the subject was.”

The officer reiterates that the chaotic and violent struggle raised serious concerns that individuals may have been attempting to obtain the officers’ potentially lethal weapons, intensifying the risk to all present.

🔴 1:10 : CALL FOR EMERGENCY BACKUP – PC OVERWHELMED BY NON-STOP STRIKES FROM AMAAZ AS SHE APPROACHES HIM A SECOND TIME TO CONTAIN HIM

PC Cook tells the court she pressed the red emergency button on her police radio to summon urgent help after seeing her colleague, PC Ward, on the floor.

She says she then ran back towards Mohammed Fahir Amaaz.

Asked why she did so, the officer says:

“To arrest him and to detain him. He had used a high level of violence in the previous incident we were called to and he’s using same level of violence on us. I didn’t know whether he would use that level of violence on members of the public.”

She adds:

“I approached him and went towards him and I was then struck another couple of time. I don’t recall how many.”

PC Cook says these blows—delivered by Amaaz—struck her in the head and torso, and that she was knocked to the floor.

She tells the jury she wasn’t aware whether Amaaz had anything in his hands at the time.

Reflecting on the moment, she says:

“I realised I wasn’t going to be able to arrest Amaaz using my hands.”

🔴 1:00pm PC COOK DESCRIBES FEAR DURING AIRPORT ATTACK INCIDENT

Asked what she believed officers were facing at that moment, PC Cook told the jury:

“I didn’t know what we were dealing with. I just knew we had a hostile situation and we were in quite a bad place.”

She added:

“I had been assaulted and I have just seen Lydia (Ward) being assaulted and I didn’t know what was going to happen next.”

🔴 12:50 : PC COOK: ‘I HAVE NEVER FELT A PUNCH LIKE IT’: RECOVERING AWARENESS AFTER BEING STUNNED BY BLOW FROM AMAAZ, PC COOK TURNS & SEES AMAAZ STRIKING COLLEAGUE PC WARD

PC Cook tells the jury she is struck a second time by Mohammed Amaaz.

“I have never felt a punch like it. It made me stumble slightly and made my vision go quite blurry for a second,” she says.

As her vision cleared in the aftermath of the strike, PC Cook says she turned to face the threat and saw Mr Amaaz engage her colleague PC Lydia Ward. She witnessed him “deliver a single punch to PC Ward which knocked her to the floor.”

She adds that she later notices PC Ward bleeding.

🔴 12:40 : PC COOK: I WAS PUNCHED AND KICKED IN THE BACK BY AMAAZ — WHO COULD CLEARLY SEE MY POLICE UNIFORM

PC Cook tells the court that in the next moment she felt herself being kicked in the leg and punched in the head from behind.

She says: “I felt a kick to my right leg and shortly after that I felt what I thought at the time was a punch to the right side of my head.”

She confirms the blows could not have come from Muhammad Amaad, who was in front of her.

She turned to face the attacker and says: “As I did so I saw Mr Amaaz punch me again in some part of my head which then knocked my police cap off.”

Asked whether Amaaz would have known she was a police officer, she replies: “I believe he would have known… With all the uniform we were wearing it would have been quite obvious.”

🔴 12:30: PC COOK PUNCHES AMAAD: SAYS RIGHT LEVEL OF FORCE USED

PC Cook tells the court she struck Muhammad Amaad in the face after seeing him “try to grab hold of” PC Marsden during the arrest attempt.

She says she used her right fist and confirms the blow connected.

Asked about the force, she says it was “just the level I thought was proportionate and necessary to stop Mr Amaad trying to grab hold of PC Marsden.”

She says her intention was to protect her colleague.
🔴 12:15: AMAAD, OLDER BROTHER OF INITIAL SUSPECT, ‘TRIED TO GRAB HOLD OF’ ARRESTING OFFICERS, COURT TOLD. FIREARMS OFFICERS RESPOND BY AIMING PUNCHES AT AMAAD. 

PC Cook tells the court she saw another male, identified as Muhammad Amaad, approach during the arrest attempt.

She says Amaad put his arms on her shoulder and appeared to be trying to push PC Marsden away from the man in the blue top.

She tells the jury she believed Amaad would have known they were police officers as he had a “clearer view”.

PC Cook says she then saw PC Marsden “deliver a strike to Mr Amaad to get him off him”.

She believed PC Marsden had used his fist and aimed towards the chest, though she adds she thought the blow missed.

Asked about the justification for the strike, PC Cook says: “The male was trying to obstruct myself, PC Marsden and PC Ward whilst trying to carry out the arrest of an offender.”

She says Amaad then moved behind PC Marsden and “tried to grab hold of him”.

In response, PC Cook tells the jury she “delivered a strike” to Amaad’s face with her right fist.

🔴 11:50 : APPROACHING SUSPECT DIRECTLY WITHOUT ANNOUNCING THEMSELVES : OFFICER DESCRIBES INITIAL ARREST ATTEMPT AND REASONING BEHIND THEIR APPROACH

PC Cook tells the court she and PC Marsden approached the suspect in the car park with the intention to arrest him.

She says it was necessary to arrest the male to “protect members of the public”.

The officer says the officers executed an operation where she took hold of his right arm while PC Marsden took hold of his left, to gain control of the suspect.

She says she does not believe she announced herself as a police officer before the interaction, but adds that the male would have recognised that they were police when he turned around.

She explains that this physical approach of seizing a suspect’s arms is part of police training, with the deliberate purpose of allowing officers “to recognise if a suspect is beginning to tense up”.

She adds that in her experience, tensing up is something she has encountered “many times” in her career, and that it indicates a “likelihood” the person is going to resist arrest.

The officer says she may have said something along the lines of: “don’t resist arrest” during the interaction.

PC Cook tells the jury her intention was to apply handcuffs.

🔴 11:40 : OFFICER SAYS SUSPECT POSED ‘RISK TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC’

PC Cook tells the court she decided the male needed to be arrested after hearing he had “just headbutted someone” and described him as a “very violent male”.

She says she went with PC Marsden and PC Ward to the car park, where the suspect had last been seen.

Asked if they discussed a plan on the way, PC Cook says there was no conversation between her and the others, but adds: “They are both experienced officers.”

She says she was confident “we were all on the same wavelength” and that they were “going to arrest someone who had been violent at an international airport.”

At the car park pay station, she says she saw “a crowd of 20 people” and an Asian male in a blue shirt matching the description of the man seen on CCTV.

PC Cook says: “The male had just been violent to a member of the public,” and that she deemed him “a risk to members of the public” who might potentially be assaulted again.

She tells the court she decided to use force in order to detain him and move him away from the pay station crowd: “I didn’t know how he would react if he was arrested in the pay station.”

Describing the earlier headbutt, she says: “It was quite a high level of violence,” and explains she didn’t want the male “to attack police or members of the public.”

🔴 11:30 ARMED OFFICER CONFIRMS SHE WAS CARRYING CHAMBERED GLOCK

PC Cook tells jurors she was part of a three-person team at the time of the incident, working with fellow armed officer PC Marsden and unarmed PC Ward.

She confirms she was wearing full operational uniform, including a police cap with a chequered band and the word “police” on the side, to clearly identify her as a serving officer.

PC Cook says she was equipped with handcuffs, a baton, pepper spray, a Taser, and a Glock 17 pistol. Asked about the firearm, she confirms it was both loaded and chambered, as is standard procedure “every shift”.

🔴 11:25 :PC COOK CONFIRMS SHE IS A TRAINED FIREARMS OFFICER

PC Cook confirms she joined GMP in July 2018 and served as a response officer in Trafford. She began her firearms training in January 2024, passed in May, and became an authorised firearms officer at Manchester Airport. At the time of the incident, she had been in that role for around two months.

🔴 11:15: TRIAL RESUMES : PC Ellie Cook takes the stand as first witness of the day

PC Ellie Cook takes the stand as the first witness of the day. She is taken through her evidence by lead prosecution counsel Paul Greaney KC.

🔴 Proceedings start today at 11am.
Catch up on a summary of the events so far: https://www.vpnnews.co.uk/week-two-summary-trial-continues-in-manchester-airport-assault-case

THURSDAY 10th JULY: DAY 8

🔴 2:50 — COURT ADJOURNS — PROCEEDINGS RESUME MONDAY

The court was adjourned with no further hearings scheduled for tomorrow. Proceedings will resume on Monday.

🔴 2:45 UPDATES- INJURIES TO PC WARD SHOWN TO JURY

Mr Birkby outlined a series of agreed facts to the jury, including photographs showing the injuries PC Ward sustained on the night of the incident.

MEDICAL TREATMENT AND SURGERY

PC Ward attended Royal Preston Hospital where medics documented bruising to her forehead and a wound to the bridge of her nose. A scan confirmed she had a broken nose.

On August 9, 2024, she was admitted for surgery to realign the broken nose. The operation was reported to have gone well.

🔴 2:30 UPDATES - PC WARD CROSS-EXAMINED BY DEFENCE

PC Ward, now cross-examined by Chloe Gardner for Mr Amaad, admitted she could not recall when the alleged interference from Mr Amaad occurred. Reviewing CCTV footage, she agreed that early on she was not focused on Mr Amaad.

🔴 EMOTIONAL BODY-CAM FOOTAGE SHOWN TO JURY

The officer’s evidence concluded with jurors shown body-cam footage from PC Grey capturing PC Ward’s injuries. The footage shows her sobbing uncontrollably, blood pouring from her nose and filling her mouth. Colleagues are seen comforting her, urging her to take deep breaths and reassuring her that “you’re alright.”

🔴 1:30 UPDATES - PC WARD DENIES COLLEAGUE USED ‘UNLAWFUL FORCE’

🔴 DEFENCE CLAIMS VIOLENCE SPARKED BY POLICE ACTION

Under continued cross-examination, defence barrister Rosemary Fernandes suggested Mr Amaaz had only acted to defend his brother after witnessing PC Marsden use ‘unlawful force’.

“I don’t think PC Marsden did use unlawful force,” replied PC Ward.

🔴 OFFICER DENIES SUSPECT MISUNDERSTOOD POLICE ACTION

Ms Fernandes said it was possible Mr Amaaz ‘didn’t appreciate’ he was being detained by police.

PC Ward responded: “It doesn’t look like that from the footage or from memory. He’s not defending his brother – I just feel like he’s attacking us.”

🔴 SUGGESTION POLICE COULD HAVE AVOIDED VIOLENCE

Ms Fernandes suggested the altercation may have been avoided if PC Marsden had opened with a ‘civilised conversation’.

“We did what was necessary,” said PC Ward, insisting that the male was violent and the situation escalated too quickly for polite dialogue.

Asked whether being more ‘courteous’ might have de-escalated events, PC Ward replied: “It might not have done – but we don’t know, do we? With the violence that came afterwards, I would suggest there was no reasoning with him.”

🔴 ‘NOT A BULL IN A CHINA SHOP’

The officer rejected the suggestion that PC Marsden had behaved “like a bull in a China shop”.

🔴 1:00 UPDATES : CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PC WARD BEGINS

🔴 NO TIME TO PLAN, SAYS OFFICER

PC Lydia Ward was questioned by Rosemary Fernandes, representing Mr Amaaz, about what discussions had taken place between officers before they entered the car park pay station to make the arrest.

“We are all experienced police officers and deal with what’s in front of us,” said PC Ward. “It wasn’t a situation where we thought we could have a discussion with that.”

🔴 NO THREAT PERCEIVED ON APPROACH

Shown CCTV footage of the moment officers entered the pay station, Ms Fernandes suggested PC Ward had appeared to walk in confidently. The officer agreed, saying there was no apparent threat at that stage.

🔴 OFFICER COULD NOT RECALL ARREST DETAILS

PC Ward said she could not recall whether PC Marsden said anything to Mr Amaaz before detaining him or explained why he was being arrested.

Asked whether the suspect had been cautioned, she replied: “I can’t imagine any of that has happened because of the way the situation escalated, and there would have been time to caution the boy in the blue.”

🔴 12:45 TASER SEEN OVER MR AMAAZ, PEPPER SPRAY DRAWN BY WARD

PC Ward recalled seeing PC Marsden with his Taser stun gun deployed over Mr Amaaz. She then drew her pepper spray in case the stun gun was not effective.

🔴CROWD DID NOT COMPLY WITH POLICE ORDERS

“I was telling them to get back and they weren’t listening. I thought they were going to start interfering with my colleagues.” She said she feared the situation would escalate into further conflict. “I just didn’t know if they were coming for me instead,” PC Ward told the jury. “Honestly, I thought I was going to get into conflict with them.”

🔴 RADIO SUSTAINED DAMAGE - CALL FOR EMERGENCY BACKUP FAILS

During the confrontation, PC Ward pressed the red emergency button on her radio to urgently summon additional colleagues. Her call failed, the battery having fallen out during the confrontation.

🔴 NOSE BROKEN IN CONFRONTATION

PC Ward told the jury she had suffered a broken nose during the incident and later underwent re-alignment surgery to repair the injury.

🔴 12:30 - “BLOOD WAS POURING OUT MY NOSE”

PC Lydia Ward described the moment after she was struck, recalling blood pouring from her nose and a sense of fear amid shouting and bystanders filming the incident. She said no one intervened to assist and that the atmosphere felt hostile.

🔴 BLOOD WAS POURING OUT MY NOSE

PC Ward recalled getting up, blood “pouring out of my nose” and spotting blood on the floor. “I thought, ‘I’ve got a bad injury,’” she said.

🔴 I WAS TERRIFIED

The officer added, “I was terrified. Honestly, I was terrified. I have never experienced that level of violence towards me in my life.”

🔴 FEAR OF WHO WOULD ATTACK NEXT

“I didn’t know who was going to come at me next, who in that crowd was going to try next to swing at me. I was scared of going to the male again and him punching me again in the face.”

🔴 NO HELP — ONLY HOSTILITY

Asked what others in the pay station were doing, PC Ward said she heard shouting and saw people filming on their phones. “Nobody at all came to help or assist. It just felt like everyone in that room was against us. It was honestly terrifying…. I was just terrified of them coming near to me because of the hostility I felt from everyone there.”

🔴 12:10: OFFICER DESCRIBES BEING PUNCHED IN THE FACE BY DEFENDANT: “I JUST REMEMBER IT GOING BLACK”

PC Lydia Ward told the jury she was still trying to restrain Mr Amaaz — the man in blue — when his older brother, Mr Amaad, began interfering in the arrest.

“I have hold of his arm, trying to keep it behind his back so I could get the handcuffs on him,” she said.

She recalled Mr Amaad pushing PC Marsden to the side and then Amaaz, in blue, kicking him repeatedly.

“He was proper raising his leg and laying into him and booting him.”

PC Ward said she tried to pull Mr Amaad off her colleague when the situation escalated.

“I remember then he just turned and punched me straight in the face.

🔴 I’VE NEVER IN MY WHOLE TIME IN THE POLICE SERVICE HAD SOMEONE USE THAT LEVEL OF VIOLENCE TOWARDS ME

The officer described the moment of impact:

“I just remember it going black. I remember being punched in the face and falling backwards on the floor and everything going black and coming round.”

She said the punch was extremely forceful.

“I’ve never been punched in my life… I’ve never in my whole time in the police service had someone use that level of violence towards me.”

PC Ward said she hit the floor hard and believed she had been knocked unconscious.

“I fell really hard. I just remember thinking: ‘He’s knocked me out.’”

🔴 12:00 UPDATE- ‘SUSPECT DIDN’T WANT TO BE ARRESTED’

PC Ward tells the jury the suspect’s resistance indicated he didn’t want “that kind of interaction with the police” & might “potentially become violent”

🔴 OFFICER BELIEVED SUSPECT WAS RESISTING ARREST

Asked what she believed Mr Amaaz’s resistance meant, PC Ward told the jury:

“It indicated to me that this is a person who’s going to start potentially being violent and did not want to be arrested — didn’t want to have that kind of interaction with the police.”

🔴 SECONDARY ‘FRACAS’ DEVELOPS INVOLVING AMAAD: PC Ward said her attention was mainly focused on securing Mr Amaaz and removing him from the scene, and she wasn’t fully aware of what Mr Amaad, the older brother, was doing at that moment.

“I know something was happening there because PC Cook and PC Marsden had drawn their attention towards Mr Amaad, the larger male, who’s coming over and starting to be serious.”

“There’s some sort of fracas happening between PC Cook, PC Marsden and him — and they were trying to get him away so they could effect the arrest.”

🔴 11:40 - UPDATE : “It went from nought to a hundred“

SITUATION ESCALATED RAPIDLY, OFFICER SAYS

PC Ward told the court she couldn’t recall speaking to Mr Amaaz or identifying herself to him during the incident. She believed none of the police officers involved “had a chance to say anything” to the suspect before the situation escalated.

SUSPECT SHOWED SIGNS OF RESISTANCE

“It just escalated that quickly,” the officer said, adding she felt the suspect “tensing up and resisting.”

PC Ward described sensing Mr Amaaz’s muscles tighten as he resisted their attempts to control him.

Pressed further, she said: “I don’t know how else to describe it — he was resisting us. It went from nought to a hundred.”

🔴 11:30 - UPDATE: COURT HEARS THAT THE ‘CROWD’ FOUND IN CAR PARK PAY AREA ADDS A RISK FACTOR AS MARSDEN POINTS OUT SUSPECT

OFFICER NOTICED GROWING CROWD IN PAY STATION

PC Ward told the jury that as she entered the car park pay station, she observed a “bit of a crowd” gathered around the area.

• She recalled PC Marsden identifying the suspect and saying “that’s him” as they walked toward the ticket machine.

• Asked whether the man appeared to be with anyone else, the officer said: “At that point he looked to be on his own. Obviously there’s a crowd of people in that area and we weren’t sure who was with who or if people were together or not.”

INCREASED RISK TO OFFICERS AND PUBLIC

The PC was asked about the risk assessment she made at the time. She said she was aware there was now a greater risk to both the public and officers than initially expected.

🔴 11:20 - UPDATE - PC WARD: THE THREE OFFICERS WHO APPROACHED THE SCENE DID NOT HOLD FORMAL BRIEFING AHEAD OF ARREST

PC Ward told the jury there was no formal briefing before the suspect was approached, as the situation was fast-moving and she was with experienced officers.

• The officer said she believed there were “reasonable grounds” to arrest the male based on reports he had headbutted someone and then walked off. She said arrest was “necessary” given the violence and the fact the incident had taken place at an international airport.

• PC Ward explained that had the man been classed a “high risk offender,” a more structured arrest plan would have been agreed — but this situation was “dynamic,” and the officers were “on the same level of understanding” as they approached the car park pay station.

🔴 11:10 -UPDATE - OFFICERS RECEIVE LIVE INTEL AS ARREST PLAN TAKES SHAPE

Having received a live update from police control: a male matching the suspect’s description had been spotted on CCTV,

PC Ward told the court she and firearms officers PC Marsden and PC Cook made their way towards Terminal 2 pick-up area.

She said she was informed by PC Marsden that the suspect had allegedly headbutted someone and would be arrested on suspicion of assault. At that point, she explained, the officers agreed the priority was to carry out an arrest.

There was a short tactical discussion between the three, the jury heard, and it was decided PC Marsden would take the lead on detaining the suspect while she would handle transport in the police van.

Asked if she recalled a conversation about the exact offence the suspect was to be arrested for, PC Ward said she could not remember one taking place.

🔴 11:05 - UPDATE - OFFICER DESCRIBES HER DUTIES AND HOW SHE WAS CALLED TO THE INCIDENT

🔴 BACKGROUND: OFFICER’S ROLE AND EQUIPMENT

PC Lydia Ward told the jury she was on duty in full police uniform on the day of the incident, equipped with standard-issue kit including body armour, handcuffs, pepper spray, a body-worn video camera and police radio. She confirmed she did not carry a Taser, as she was not Taser-trained.

She was working a 12-hour shift from 7am to 7pm, partnered with another unarmed officer. They were patrolling in a police van fitted with a rear prisoner cage and equipped with emergency response tools such as blue lights.

🔴 CALLED TO FIGHT AT STARBUCKS, SUSPECT DESCRIBED AS ‘MALE IN BLUE’

At approximately 8:15pm, PC Ward was dispatched to Starbucks in Terminal 2 following a report of a fight in progress. Armed colleagues, including PCs Marsden and Cook, were already at the scene when she arrived.

She said she did not speak to any civilians at the Starbucks location. Soon after, she received information that the suspect had left the area and was believed to have walked towards the Terminal 2 pick-up zone. The individual was described over the radio as a male wearing a blue outfit.
🔴 11:00 - UPDATE- PC WARD OUTLINES POLICING BACKGROUND AND ROLE AT MANCHESTER AIRPORT

PC Lydia Ward told the jury she joined Greater Manchester Police in January 2018, having previously served for two years as a special constable with Lancashire Police.

Assigned initially to the Wigan division, she worked as a response officer, routinely attending 999 and 101 calls and regularly carrying out arrests.

She confirmed that by the time of the incident at Manchester Airport, she had been based there for approximately 18 months, starting in December 2022. At the airport, she worked as an unarmed constable on a mixed team alongside armed colleagues, including PCs Marsden and Cook.

🔴 10:55 PC LYDIA WARD, OFFICER WHO SUSTAINED BROKEN NOSE AT THE SCENE, BEGINS TESTIMONY, ALLOWED TO REMAIN SEATED DUE TO PREGNANCY

Jurors returned to court this morning as the prosecution began calling PC Lydia Ward, the officer who sustained serious injuries during the confrontation at Manchester Airport. Junior counsel Adam Birkby began taking her through her evidence.

Judge Neil Flewitt KC apologised to the jury for the delayed start, noting there was “a good reason” for the timing. PC Ward, who is heavily pregnant, was permitted to give her evidence while seated.
🔴 10:20 : Hi and welcome to our continuing live coverage of the Manchester Airport assault trail.

WEDNESDAY 9th JULY: Day 7

🔴 5:05 : FINAL UPDATE UNTIL TOMORROW

🔴 OFFICER CLAIMS DEFENDANT HIT HIS OWN MOTHER

PC Marsden told the court he believed Mr Amaad had struck his own mother, causing her to fall to the ground during the confrontation at the Manchester Airport pay station.

The officer said the defendant delivered the blow with enough force to knock her off her feet, based on what he witnessed in the moment.

Jury dismissed until tomorrow morning.

🔴 5:00 UPDATE - PROSECUTION RE-EXAMINES FIREARMS OFFICER

CPS CLEARED PC MARSDEN OF ANY CRIMINAL OFFENCE

During re-examination by Paul Greaney KC, who is prosecuting Amaaz and Amaad, PC Zachary Marsden confirmed he was informed by the Crown Prosecution Service that he would face no criminal charges over his actions during the airport altercation.

🔴 4:45 UPDATE - OFFICER DENIES ACTING OUT OF ANGER USING UNNECESSARY, DISPROPORTIONATE OR UNREASONABLE FORCE

Jurors were shown a still image from the arrest showing blood visible in the mouth of Muhammad Amaad.

Under questioning, PC Marsden denied he had “taken [his] anger out” on the defendant or that he had caused the injury shown in the image.

SUGGESTIONS OF MISCONDUCT STRONGLY REJECTED

The officer also rejected multiple accusations from the defence barrister — including that he had lost self-control, acted without integrity, or failed to be honest with the jury.

NO ABUSE OF POSITION, SAYS PC

Asked whether he had abused his role as a police and firearms officer, PC Marsden replied firmly: “No.”

He also denied using unnecessary, disproportionate or unreasonable force during the incident.

🔴 4:30 UPDATE - OFFICER DENIES USING UNLAWFUL FORCE IN AIRPORT ARREST

PC Marsden has rejected claims he used excessive or unlawful force during the arrest of Muhammad Amaad in the car park pay station at Manchester Airport.

He was being questioned by Chloe Gardner, the barrister representing Mr Amaad.

‘UNREASONABLE, UNNECESSARY AND DISPROPORTIONATE’

Ms Gardner put it to the officer that his conduct had been “unreasonable, unnecessary and disproportionate”.

“I strongly disagree with that,” PC Marsden replied.

USE OF TASER COMPARED TO ‘SHOOTING SOMEONE’

The barrister suggested his use of the Taser resembled shooting a person.

“Out of context, yes,” the officer admitted.

DEFENDANT WAS COMPLIANT, SAYS DEFENCE

PC Marsden accepted that Mr Amaad eventually went to his knees with his hands raised near his head.

However, the officer said it took “seven or eight” commands before the defendant complied, and that he had refused to get to the ground from “the very first command”.

KICK AIMED AT ‘UPPER THIGH’, NOT BODY

The officer denied kicking Mr Amaad’s body while he was on his knees. He stated the kick had been delivered to the “upper thigh”.

Ms Gardner suggested the force used was “completely unjustified”.

“I disagree,” said PC Marsden.

‘NO CONSCIOUS EFFORT’ TO SLAM SUSPECT’S FACE TO FLOOR

Finally, the barrister put it to the officer that he had grabbed her client by the neck and “slammed” his face into the ground.

PC Marsden denied the claim, responding: “I made no conscious effort to do so.”

🔴 3:50 - PC MARSDEN BELIEVES AMAAD TRIED TO GRAB TASER

PC Marsden has defended his decision to deploy his Taser during the chaotic scenes inside the airport car park pay station, telling jurors he believed the device had been grabbed twice and that he was too busy being punched to issue any verbal warning.

CLAIM TASER WAS GRABBED TWICE

PC Marsden told the jury that during the scuffle with Mr Amaad, he believed his Taser stun gun was grabbed on two separate occasions.

He insisted there were “hands pulling at my equipment” before the device was drawn.

TOO BUSY TO EXPLAIN

Pressed by Ms Gardner on whether he communicated with Mr Amaad about reaching for the Taser, PC Marsden replied:

“I was too busy being punched to tell him I wanted my Taser.”

DISPUTED FOOTAGE INTERPRETATION

Ms Gardner suggested her client had never tried to take the Taser at all.

PC Marsden maintained it was “clearly visible” on the footage that Mr Amaad had grabbed the device.

When Ms Gardner put it to him that her client only touched his hand, the PC replied: “I would strongly disagree.”

CHILDREN NEARBY WHEN TASER FIRED

The officer was also asked if he noticed “two young girls” standing close by when he discharged the Taser.

He said the device was fired from “less than an inch” away from Mr Amaaz’s chest, and that his focus was on the suspect’s centre mass, which he could still clearly see despite his prescription lenses.

🔴 3:10 - SECOND BARRISTER ASKS PC MARSDEN IF HE LOST CONTROL DURING INCIDENT AND LATER GAVE UNTRUE VERSION OF EVENTS

CLAIMED ARM RESTRICTION

Ms Gardner, the defence barrister, suggests that PC Marsden lied in his official IOPC statement when he claimed someone had restricted him by grabbing both arms.

Marsden denies lying. He concedes that saying “arms” (plural) may not have been strictly accurate — implying only one arm may have been involved.

MOVEMENT OF FIREARM

She then challenges another part of his statement — that he said he felt his firearm (Glock pistol)move across his leg during the confrontation.

Marsden again denies this was a lie and maintains that’s what he believed he felt at the time.

BODY-CAM VS STATEMENT

Ms Gardner plays body-cam footage of Marsden telling other officers that “Mr Amaad jumped on me from behind and hit me and I had to smash him in the face.”

She contrasts that with Marsden’s formal statement, in which he said he struck Mr Amaaz in the face with his elbow to “create space” because someone was approaching him from behind.

Marsden explains that he was trying to break free from a grip and wasn’t trying to hit anyone deliberately.

NO MOVEMENT DESPITE PRESSURE?

She asks why he didn’t visibly move or stumble despite claiming he felt weight and pressure on his legs from behind.

Marsden replies that he had a “genuine belief” he was being attacked and feared his gun might be taken.

‘OUT OF CONTROL’ ACCUSATION

Ms Gardner accuses him of being “out of control” in that moment.

Marsden flatly denies this, saying: “That’s your opinion.”

‘BATTERING’ CLAIM DISPUTED

Ms Gardner argues that Marsden struck Mr Amaad in the face unnecessarily, as Amaad didn’t retaliate or pose a threat.

Marsden disagrees, saying Amaad was still very close to him and within a “fighting arc”, implying he still felt threatened.

🔴 2:50 - OFFICER ADMITS TO DISCREPANCY IN PART OF HIS ACCOUNT

PC Zachary Marsden told jurors he wasn’t aware Mr Amaad was inside the pay station when he approached to detain his brother.

Defence barrister Chloe Gardner suggested Mr Amaad had calmly said “easy” five times followed by “no, no, no” — but PC Marsden said he didn’t hear it “in that environment.”

When body-cam footage later confirmed the words had been said, the officer accepted he could hear them in the recording but denied he had been acting irrationally.

Ms Gardner said the footage showed Mr Amaad placing a hand under the officer’s arm, not assaulting him. PC Marsden responded that “his perception was different to how it appears on camera.”

He accepted there was a “discrepancy” between his written statement — claiming both arms had been grabbed — and what the video showed. But he strongly denied lying, saying the statement was written just hours after being “violently attacked” and “scared”, and before he had seen the footage.

🔴 2:30 - PC QUESTIONED BY SECOND DEFENCE KC

The court is back in session, and the barrister for older brother Mr. Amaad is not cross examining PC Marsden.

ARMED OFFICER QUESTIONED ON GUN AWARENESS IN CROWD

PC Zachary Marsden told the court he was “always conscious” he was carrying a loaded Glock 17 throughout his shift at Manchester Airport.

Under cross-examination, the firearms officer said the weapon “never left my side” and was “recognisable as a gun” despite being smaller than a carbine.

Defence barrister Chloe Gardner suggested he “bumped” the firearm against a woman in the crowded car park pay station. PC Marsden denied this was normal, saying airport officers often moved through tight spaces, including aircraft, but insisted he was carefully navigating the crowd.

🔴 1:20 - OFFICER SAYS POST-INCIDENT COMMENTS WERE NOT FULLY REPRESENTATIVE

Jurors were shown body-worn camera footage in which PC Zachary Marsden, shortly after the alleged assaults at Manchester Airport, described the incident to colleagues. In the recording, the officer is heard saying one of the brothers had headbutted a man, that he was later surrounded by “seven or eight people,” and that he had been forced to strike one of the men “in the face with an elbow”.

Pressed on the accuracy of those remarks, PC Marsden told the court the video did not fully represent what had occurred. He said the comments captured in the footage were influenced by his attempt to “put on a brave face” and “mask vulnerability” in front of fellow officers, describing this as a common human instinct. “It’s a very human feature to do,” he said.

‘I’M THE ONE WHO EXPERIENCED THAT’

The defence KC suggested to the officer that his description of events was exaggerated. PC Marsden replied: “I’m the one who’s experienced that and that’s how I perceived it having been viciously and violently attacked by both of the men in this.”

CROWD LABELLED ‘HOSTILE’

PC Marsden said the crowd in the pay station had been “hostile” and that officers received no assistance from bystanders. “No-one in that room was with us. They watched us getting violently beaten again and again,” he said.

When Mr Khan asked: “Including the women and children?” the officer replied: “I’m not specifically referring to one individual.”

🔴 1:05 - OFFICER REVEALS ‘MINUTE BLEEDS TO BRAIN’ AFTER AIRPORT ALTERCATION

PC Zachary Marsden told the jury he had suffered “minute bleeds” to the brain following the incident at Manchester Airport, later diagnosed with symptoms of post-concussion syndrome.

The firearms officer confirmed that the injuries he sustained during the confrontation may have impacted the initial statement he gave shortly afterwards.

MEDICS TOLD OF JAW PROBLEMS, INSOMNIA & CONCUSSION
He said he had attended hospital, where he showed doctors footage of the incident, underwent an x-ray, and had since experienced ongoing issues with his jaw. He also informed medical staff he was suffering from insomnia.

Mr Imran Khan KC suggested the insomnia was linked to the footage of the incident “going viral” online. PC Marsden replied: “I chose to remove myself from social media due to the nature of the risk posed to me.”

PC SAYS STATEMENT MAY HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY INJURIES

The officer agreed that the trauma of the incident, including the head injuries, may have affected the statement he provided on the night.

🔴 12:55 -ALLEGATION OF ‘UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT’ DENIED

OFFICER SAYS HE WAS ‘EXHAUSTED’ & SUPPORTED COLLEAGUE’S DECISION

PC Marsden told the court he was “exhausted” and keen to allow a colleague to carry out an arrest following the earlier confrontation in the airport car park’s pay station. He said he wanted to avoid “another hostile situation” developing.

DEFENCE SUGGESTS SUSPECT ‘DIDN’T DO ANYTHING’

Mr Imran Khan KC put it to the witness that the man being arrested “didn’t do anything”. PC Marsden responded that he did not know the specific “grounds” for the arrest, as it was being made by PC Mark Flanagan, a firearms officer with over 25 years of experience.

The witness said he trusted PC Flanagan “completely to make the right decision” and that he had simply been “helping him to the best of my abilities”.

ALLEGATION OF ‘UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT’ DENIED

The defence KC suggested that the officers had acted “in concert unprofessionally”, but PC Marsden replied: “That would be your opinion.”

He added that his priority was to assist in getting the man “to the floor” so that he would be “in a position of disadvantage” to facilitate the arrest.

🔴 12:40 OFFICER SAYS HE WAS ‘NOT ANGRY’ & DEFENDS PEPPER SPRAY USE AS ‘PRE-EMPTIVE’ ACTION

PC Marsden told the court he had “anticipated violence” when he returned to the pay station area, shortly before deploying incapacitant spray on one of three men who had been filming officers. When it was suggested to him the man had been “simply filming,” the officer responded: “I don’t describe it as simply filming. I describe it as obstructing and creating a barrier.”

The officer denied that anger played any role in his decision-making.

JUDGE PERMITS LINE OF QUESTIONING

At this stage, Paul Greaney KC for the prosecution intervened, telling the jury that proceedings had drifted “a long way from the issues in the case.” However, Judge Neil Flewitt KC clarified that his understanding of the defence position was that the defendants had been “dealing with officers who were out of control” — noting that the phrase was his own — and confirmed he would allow the line of questioning to continue.

OFFICER CLAIMED HE FEARED FURTHER VIOLENCE

Pressed again on his actions, PC Marsden said: “I was terrified we are now on the tipping point of another violent situation.” He told the jury that he “did not want this to happen again” and had therefore made the decision to use force in what he described as a “pre-emptive” move to bring the man to the floor.

🔴 12:35: PEPPER SPRAY LATER DEPLOYED BY PC MARSDEN ON CROWD AT PAY STATION

Jurors were shown CCTV footage of PC Marsden re-entering the pay station after both defendants had been led away. The video captured officers engaging with three men who were filming the incident, one of whom was then sprayed with incapacitant spray by PC Marsden.

OFFICER CLAIMS ACTION WAS FOR CROWD CONTROL

Explaining his use of force, PC Marsden told the court it was a “matter of crowd control.” He said he believed the man he sprayed — identified as Ali Rahman — was attempting to obstruct an arrest being carried out by PC Mark Flanagan on another individual nearby.

The officer denied he was acting out of anger, and said he did not regard the crowd at that point as hostile, but maintained that officers were “being obstructed.”

BODY-CAM SHOWS ARREST ATTEMPT

Jurors were also played body-worn footage showing PC Flanagan telling a man: “You’re getting locked up.” A voice in the footage could be heard responding: “No, no, no, we haven’t done nothing.”

PC Marsden said the man at the front of the group of three was “creating a barrier” and physically preventing his colleague from completing the arrest.

🔴 12:15 - OFFICER DENIES TASER CAUSED EYE INJURY TO MOTHER OF THE TWO DEFENDANTS

JURORS SHOWN IMAGE OF INJURY TO MRS AKHTAR

Jurors were shown a photograph of an eye injury sustained by Mrs Akhtar. PC Marsden told the court he did not believe he had caused the injury, saying: “I believe it’s unclear whether it was my actions that caused the injury. I believe I was not the only person to make contact with Mrs Akhtar which could cause that injury.”

OFFICER DENIES STRIKING WOMAN WITH TASER

Imran Khan KC suggested the officer had struck Mrs Akhtar with his Taser. PC Marsden responded that, in his view, the injury could not be “wholly attributed” to him. He explained that he had attempted to push Mrs Akhtar away, and agreed that he believed this action was “justified.”

PULLED FORWARD DURING ARREST, OFFICER CLAIMS

PC Marsden said Mrs Akhtar had interfered with his grip and was pulling him forward as he tried to restrain Mr Amaaz. “My purpose going down on the knee was to secure and place him into handcuffs,” he said, but added that he was being physically pulled on top of the suspect.

He denied delivering a hard push on Mrs Akhtar, and when it was suggested he could have used the back of his hand, the officer replied: “I believe this was a fast-paced incident.”

DENIAL OF EXCESSIVE FORCE

“There was a risk of me being pulled onto the male who’s just assaulted me and I have to act to control him,” PC Marsden said. When the KC put it to him that Mrs Akhtar posed no threat and that he was “out of control,” the officer replied: “I would deny that.”

🔴 11:45 KC RAISES CONCERNS OVER FIREARMS OFFICER’S EYESIGHT

PC Marsden confirmed to the court that, at the time of the incident, his eyesight prescription was -2.5 in his left eye and -2.25 in his right.

Mr Khan KC, representing the defence, remarked he did not intend to be “facetious” but questioned whether such a prescription could lead to “the wrong person [ending] up shot.”

At this point, Paul Greaney KC, for the prosecution, intervened—telling the judge the officer’s firearms training with GMP was “entirely in order” and that Mr Khan “knows that.”

🔴 11:40 OFFICER MAINTAINS FOOT WAS ON FLOOR, NOT ON SUSPECT

PC Marsden told the court the CCTV footage showed his foot placed on the floor—not on Mr Amaaz’s head—as he attempted to secure the loose wire from his police radio.

When Mr Khan KC asked whether that was “really” his evidence to the jury, the officer responded:

“This is the evidence I have provided, yes.”

PC Marsden said he had not seen Mrs Akhtar placing her hands on her son’s head during the incident. He told the court his attention had been on locating his radio, and that his purpose was to “clamp the wire” with his foot to prevent it being taken or used.

🔴 11:35 UPDATE - OFFICER FURTHERINSISTS RADIO STAMP WAS AIMED AT WIRE, NOT SUSPECT

Pressed on why he had not simply retrieved the fallen radio by hand, the officer explained that he required both hands to operate his Taser at the time.

Describing his intent, he said: “To clamp the wire around my foot, and when I pushed my foot down, to create a clamp between the radio, the wire and myself.”

“My purpose was I was aiming for the wire,” he added.

PC Marsden told the court he did not believe his foot made contact with Mr Amaaz’s head during the moment captured on video.

Imran Khan KC suggested that the officer’s foot was “nowhere near the wire” and accused him of having “lost control”.

PC Marsden replied: “I’m trying to answer to the best of my abilities. I’m not justifying a stamp on someone’s head… I do not believe I made contact.”

When the KC described the act of stamping on someone’s head as “reckless”, the officer responded: “If it’s not justified, I would agree.”

🔴 11:35 UPDATE - OFFICER OFFERS FURTHER EXPLANATION OF ‘STAMP’ TO CATCH WIRE & KEEP RADIO FROM SUSPECT.

Imran Khan KC is taking the PC Marsden through detailed video footage of the final moments of his restraining of Mr. Amaaz. PC Marsden told the court that in the sequence being shown he was attempting to ‘stamp down on the wire’ of his radio which was hanging loose in the fracas. He added that he was sensitive to the risks of a suspect seizing hold of his police radio, a situation he has been in earlier in his work.

Asked why he didn’t reach down with his hands, he answererd:

“I didn’t want to take this risk”, adding that such a manouver would leave him vulnerable to being pulled to the gr ound by Amaaz.

🔴 11:05 OFFICER RESPONDS TO FOOTAGE OF HIM APPEARING TO ‘KNEE’ MR AMAAZ IN THE BACK

The officer is shown footage of him appearing to knee Mr Amaaz in the back.

The officer agreed that once Mr Amaaz was no longer a threat there was no longer a need to use force.

Asked why he did this, PC Marsden said: “My purpose was to keep him down on the floor whilst I put the handcuffs on him.”

Pressed further, he said: “I can’t account for the way he reacts. I can only prepare for the worst.”

🔴 10:45 : Welcome to our live coverage of Day 7 of the trial, bringing you all the updates. Proceedings are about to resume, with further cross-examination of PC Marsden.

TUESDAY 8th JULY: DAY 6:

🔴 4:46 : COURT PROCEEDINGS END FOR THE DAY AND THE JURY IS SENT HOME AND WILL RETURN TOMORROW MORNING.

🔴 4:45: DEFENCE ACCUSES OFFICER OF LOSING CONTROL IN CRUCIAL MOMENT

Mr Khan KC challenged PC Marsden on the intent and necessity behind the kick to Mr Amaaz, suggesting less severe alternatives had been available. He put it to the officer that he could have aimed the strike at the stomach instead of the head. PC Marsden replied that Mr Amaaz was lying face down, making that “not an option.”

The barrister proposed the officer had acted out of anger following the earlier assault. “You were furious,” said Mr Khan. “Those are your words, not mine,” replied PC Marsden.

“You grabbed him round the neck because the red mist had fallen from your eyes,” the KC continued. “No,” said the officer.

Mr Khan described the kick as “gratuitous” and a “loss of control.” PC Marsden denied this, maintaining it was “just hard enough” to stun the suspect and “achieve the desired effect.” When pressed again on whether it had been “pretty harsh,” the officer replied: “No, it wasn’t.”
🔴 4:35 : OFFICER DESCRIBES HEAD KICK TO ‘STUN’ MR AMAAZ : ‘ALL OTHER OPTIONS WERE EXHAUSTED’

PC Zachary Marsden told the court he made a split-second decision to deliver a kick to Mr Amaaz during the incident at Manchester Airport, describing it as an effort to “disorient and stun” the suspect after ruling out other tactical options.

Asked directly by defence counsel Imran Khan KC whether the kick had been deliberate, PC Marsden replied: “Yes.” He said at the time he believed he was under continued threat and had limited means to respond.

MOTHER’S PRESENCE QUESTIONED DURING CONFRONTATION

Mr Khan suggested the officer could see Mr Amaaz was lying on the floor and interacting with a woman, alleged to be his mother, who appeared to be caring for him. The PC replied that he could not confirm what the woman was doing but said, “It looks like she’s got her hands on his back.”

The officer told jurors he did not focus on the woman’s presence, stating: “I wasn’t looking at the woman. I was looking at the threat.” He said he believed she was pulling Mr Amaaz away from him. When the barrister accused him of “making things up as you go along,” PC Marsden replied, “I believe she’s pulling him away from me.”

OFFICER SAYS HE AVOIDS FOOTAGE DUE TO ‘DISTRESS’

Pressed on the visual evidence, PC Marsden told the jury: “I have not watched this footage. I choose not to because of the distress it brings me.” He said his recollection of events was based on real-time perception, not later review of body-cam or CCTV.

‘I HAD TO ACT FAST’ – OFFICER RECOUNTS OPTIONS UNDER PRESSURE

The officer said he had considered multiple tactical responses in the seconds before the kick, including the use of his baton, pepper spray, or a further deployment of his Taser. However, he explained that the Taser would have required him to disconnect it from Mr Amaad, who had already been struck by its barbs, and reload.

He confirmed he also considered drawing his firearm, stating that this option was reserved for when a subject posed such danger that its use might be justified. “That could possibly be fatal,” he said, adding: “I did not wish Mr Amaaz to come to such harm.”

The officer told jurors he was fatigued and out of viable alternatives: “These are seconds I did not have unfortunately. This incident was fast and quick and not at a quarter speed. I had to act fast.”

He said the purpose of the kick was to “stun” Mr Amaaz and give him a chance to regain control of the situation. “All my other options were exhausted — including doing nothing,” he said.

DEFENCE CHALLENGES OFFICER’S CLAIM THAT KICK WAS ‘SAFEST OPTION’

Mr Khan KC pressed the officer on whether he had truly weighed all tactical options before delivering the kick. “Are you telling the jury you thought of all those options within that second? When the safest option was to kick somebody in the head?”

“Yes,” replied PC Marsden.

“It wasn’t the safest option, was it?” pressed the barrister. “That’s your opinion, not mine,” the officer responded.

The PC agreed that a kick to the head could cause brain damage, and accepted that in certain circumstances, “if delivered with such force,” it could be fatal.

“I would argue so would a gunshot,” he added.

The defence KC probed him further on the kick to his client:

“That’s the safest option for you, is it? Is that right?” asked Mr Khan.

“Yes,” replied the officer.

“In the head?” repeated the KC. “Yes,” said PC Marsden.

🔴 4:12 OFFICER SAID HE FELT HE WAS ‘BEING STRANGLED’ AS HE DESCRIBES COMING UNDER HEAVY ATTACK WITH LIMITED AWARENESS OF THE WIDER SITUATION

OFFICER FELT HE WAS BEING STRANGLED DURING ATTACK AT AIRPORT PAY STATION

PC Zachary Marsden told the jury he believed he was being strangled during the height of the incident at the Manchester Airport car park pay station.

“I received blows up until the point where arms connect around my throat and then I feel a tightening around my grip,” the officer said, describing how his awareness of the wider situation had become severely impaired.

OFFICER UNABLE TO SEE COLLEAGUES’ ACTIONS

PC Marsden confirmed he did not see PC Ellie Cook or PC Lydia Ward fire their Tasers, nor was he able to observe their positions during the confrontation. The officer said he had by then already received “ten to 15 or more heavy blows to the head and around the ears and face”.

DISORIENTED AND STRUGGLING TO ASSESS THREATS

Asked about his mental and physical state during the struggle, the officer agreed he was disoriented. He said his focus was divided between trying to assess whether the suspect was preparing to launch a renewed attack, and attempting to make a radio call for help.

“I’m trying to assess the behaviour of the subject that’s just violently attacked me and assess whether they are getting up to attack me again whilst I’m trying to get on the radio to seek help,” he said.

NO AWARENESS OF WHO WAS AROUND HIM

PC Marsden told the jury: “I had no perception of who’s around me.”

He said he could not say how many people were present during the critical stages of the encounter due to his impaired vision and head injuries.

🔴 3:54 UPDATE BODY-CAM FOOTAGE REVIEWED AS OFFICER DESCRIBES SUDDEN FORCE FROM BEHIND

PC Zachary Marsden told jurors he felt “a weight” strike him from behind during the confrontation at the Manchester Airport pay station, but said he could not determine at the time whether it was one person or two. He said he was also unsure if the force was an attempt to grab his Glock sidearm.

The officer was being questioned about the role of Mr Amaad, the elder of the two brothers, and said he had no recollection of hearing Mr Amaad say “easy, easy,” as suggested by the defence. PC Lydia Ward’s body-worn video was played to jurors, but PC Marsden maintained that he had not heard those words during the incident.

BODY-CAM LEFT ON STANDBY DURING BUILD-UP

The defence KC pressed the officer on why his own body-worn camera was on standby and not actively recording before the confrontation began. PC Marsden said he did not believe the walk to the pay station was likely to yield evidential material, and therefore had not activated his device earlier.

KICK FROM SUSPECT ONLY IDENTIFIED LATER

PC Marsden said it was only months after the incident that he became aware he had been kicked. He confirmed his glasses had come off during the altercation, affecting his visibility.

Mr Khan, for the defence, suggested that Mr Amaad’s actions were in defence of his brother, who he believed was being restrained or assaulted by police officers. PC Marsden did not agree with that characterisation but acknowledged that by that stage he could no longer see clearly.

TASER USE AND PERCEPTION OF FIREARM DEPLOYMENT

The officer confirmed he had drawn his Taser and aimed it at Mr Amaad, who was by then engaged in the incident. PC Marsden said Mr Amaaz, visible on camera looking toward his brother, may have seen this and reacted. The KC suggested Mr Amaaz may have mistakenly believed a firearm was being used against his brother.

PC Marsden clarified that his Glock firearm remained holstered throughout and pointed out that the sound made by a Taser is distinct. He confirmed that police officers are trained to announce “Taser Taser Taser” prior to discharge, but said he had not heard PC Ellie Cook shout this when she deployed her stun gun during the incident.

The officer acknowledged he had previously witnessed a person being struck by a Taser during active duty.

🔴 3:45 UPDATE: COURT RESUMES AS BODY-CAM FOOTAGE REVIEWED

The trial resumed this afternoon with jurors shown body-worn camera footage recorded by PC Lydia Ward.

PC Zachary Marsden, still under cross-examination, was questioned in detail about what he could see and hear at various moments during the incident.

The footage is being used by the defence to test the officer’s awareness of his surroundings as the confrontation unfolded, particularly in relation to Mr Amaaz’s actions and any responses from members of the public.

🔴 3:30 COURT TAKES A BREAK

🔴 3:30: OFFICER AGREES HE STRUCK FIRST DURING ALTERCATION

PC Zachary Marsden accepted during cross-examination that he was the first person to throw a blow in the incident at Manchester Airport.

PUNCH MISSED AS SECOND MAN APPROACHED, COURT HEARS

CCTV footage showed Mr Amaad entering the scene as PC Marsden attempted to strike his brother, the original suspect Amaaz, though the officer confirmed his punch to the youngster brother missed its target.

DEFENCE CHALLENGES BASIS FOR USE OF FORCE

Imran Khan KC put it to the officer that Mr Amaaz had not displayed any violence at that stage. PC Marsden disagreed, stating that the suspect was “resisting” and that he “could feel his muscles already tensing in his arms.”

NO OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN ARREST, SAYS PC

Asked why he had not explained to Mr Amaaz why he was being detained, PC Marsden replied: “I don’t see an opportunity to have a conversation. It had already escalated.”

🔴 3:17 : DEFENCE QUESTIONS USE OF NECK RESTRAINTS

Imran Khan KC challenged PC Zachary Marsden on the use of neck restraint techniques, suggesting that official police training manuals discouraged such methods.

OFFICER ACKNOWLEDGES GUIDANCE, SAYS TECHNIQUE WAS TAUGHT

PC Marsden said he was aware of the guidance but stated that officers had received instruction on how to apply controlled pressure to the neck when necessary to restrain a suspect.

PC MARSDEN DISPUTES CLAIM TECHNIQUE WAS ‘TERRIFYING’

The officer rejected Mr Khan’s suggestion that the act of pushing someone down by the neck would be “terrifying.” He said he did not consider that Mr Amaaz might have been frightened, explaining his focus was on protecting himself and colleagues.

OFFICER SAYS HE WOULD ASSESS WHO WAS GRABBING HIM

Asked how he would personally react if grabbed unexpectedly, PC Marsden told the jury he would instinctively look to see who was grabbing him before responding.

🔴 3:15 UPDATE: CROSS- EXAMINATION CONTINUES

OFFICER ADMITS SUSPECT WOULDN’T HAVE KNOWN HE WAS POLICE AT FIRST CONTACT

Shown a still image from CCTV, PC Zachary Marsden agreed he had not spoken to Mr Amaaz at the point of first contact and acknowledged the suspect would not have known he was a police officer “at this exact moment.”

DEFENCE KC QUESTIONS LACK OF WARNING OR COMMUNICATION

Imran Khan KC, for the defence, probed why no verbal warning or identification had been given. The officer maintained that once Mr Amaaz turned to face him, he had “looked me up and down” and would have clearly seen his police uniform.

OFFICER AGREES SUSPECT DIDN’T RAISE HANDS

The KC suggested that at this stage Mr Amaaz had not raised his hands, which the officer accepted. Later CCTV footage showed PC Marsden pushing the suspect backwards towards the pay station. Mr Khan suggested all three officers then grabbed the defendant.

PC MARSDEN: “I FELT MUSCLES TENSE, HANDS CLENCHED”

PC Marsden said he could feel Mr Amaaz’s muscles beginning to tense and added the suspect had his hands clenched around his mobile phone, which he claimed was later used to strike his colleagues.

“COME ON MATE, WE’RE NOT DOING THAT HERE”

The officer said he was “met with resistance” as he attempted to control the situation, recalling that he told the suspect, “come on mate, we’re not doing that here.”

OFFICER SAYS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK HAD PASSED

Pressed on why he did not simply ask Mr Amaaz to accompany him, PC Marsden said the opportunity to speak had passed as the suspect was already resisting.

NECK GRIP DID NOT POSE DANGER, OFFICER CLAIMS

When questioned about his decision to place his hands on the back of the suspect’s neck, the officer replied that in his judgement, the grip did not pose any threat to Mr Amaaz’s breathing.

🔴 3:00 THE DEFENCE KC CROSS EXAMINES PC MARSDEN & QUESTIONS HIS DECISION-MAKING

KC questions if PC Marsden had sufficiently verified the account that Mr. Amaaz had in fact headbutted a member of the public. Marsden responds that by leaving the scene, the defendant had changed the situation and made it ‘necessary to locate’ and arrest him.

“Had he remained we could have talked to him. He had chosen to leave,” said PC Marsden.

PC Zachary Marsden told the court he was attacked by the suspect “before I could even talk to him,” as cross-examination continued in the trial of two brothers accused of assaulting officers at Manchester Airport.

The officer agreed that his case was that the force he used during the incident was “justified, proportionate and reasonable.”

Jurors were shown slowed-down CCTV footage of the moments leading up to the confrontation. It showed PC Marsden approaching Mr Amaaz at the pay station without announcing he was a police officer. He confirmed this, explaining that based on the information he had — that the suspect had previously been violent and had “run away” — he had wanted to maintain the element of surprise to prevent another escape or possible assault.

Imran Khan KC, for the defence, pointed out that PC Marsden had two other officers nearby at the time, and questioned why none of them, as shown in the footage, appeared to be monitoring the surrounding crowd. PC Marsden responded that he was concerned about the “risk of conflict within a crowd,” particularly given the allegation that the suspect had already assaulted someone in a crowded environment.

He explained that it was impossible to carry out an arrest without maintaining focus on the subject, and insisted the situation had been “fluid” and required “split-second decision-making.”

The officer said his priority in that moment was to detain the suspect and remove him from the pay station area in order to reduce the risk of escalation.

🔴2:40’UPDATE: CROSS EXAMINATION OF PC ZACHARY MARDEN CONTINUES, WITH THE DEFENCE PUTTING IT TO THE OFFICER THAT HIS APPROACH WAS ‘UNLAWFUL’

The KC challenges that the actions were “unlawful” due to the use of force being “unjustified, disproportionate and not necessary.”

The KC suggests that he shouldn't have grabbed the defendant who at the pay machine and that this was a wrong decision'. Marsden responds: "that's your opinion".

Marden confirms that there was 'reasonable grounds' to make an arrest and that an arrest was ‘necessary’.

The PC noted that the officers had predetermined their course of action prior to exiting the terminal building.

🔴 2:20: COURT BACK IN SESSION

Jurors have returned following lunch break.

🔴 LAST UPDATE BEFORE LUNCH: 1:15

OFFICER DEFENDS DIRECT APPROACH THROUGH CROWD
Shown slowed-down CCTV footage, the officer was asked by defence KC Imran Khan why he had walked between members of the public. PC Zachary Marsden told jurors he took the most “direct route” to the suspect at the Terminal 2 car park pay station, despite acknowledging risks posed by the crowded environment.
Imran Khan KC asks why PC stated that the crowd constituted a risk, PC Marsden replied that there was a risk of the suspect getting violent and the crowd created an environment that was was “obstructed” and included “suitcases” in the way.
Quizzed on his approach, in the light of his own earlier statement in which he cited fears of “close quarter conflict”, the officer said he had still needed to act. He told jurors it was his experience that individuals who had shown violence once were “more likely” to do so again when challenged.
“VIOLENCE TO ME”: OFFICER SAYS DECISION WAS REASONABLE
When the KC implied that logic might apply to the officer himself, Judge Flewitt intervened, calling the line of questioning “illogical”.
PC Marsden said he had followed the national decision model and worked to “mitigate” the risks involved. Asked whether his decision ultimately “led to violence”, he replied: “Yes, unfortunately it did lead to violence — to me.”

The jury was then dismissed for lunch.

🔴 12:54 UPDATE: OFFICER JUSTIFIES HIS APPROACH.

ARREST IN CROWD RISKED ESCALATION

PC Zachary Marsden told the court that effecting an arrest in a public crowd presents operational risks, and he believed removing the suspect from the scene was the safest option.

BODY-CAM SHOWS ARMED OFFICER APPROACHING IN WIDE ARC

Shown his own body-worn footage, PC Marsden confirmed he had approached the Terminal 2 car park pay station in a wide arc to assess the situation before moving in.

He said his decision to remove Mr Amaaz from the crowded space was shaped by experience. “Effecting an arrest in a crowd presents its own risks,” he said. “I had to remove this male from the crowd.”

CROWD COULD COMPLICATE ARREST, OFFICER SAYS

The officer told jurors that arrests in public can “heighten the crowd dynamic” and that suspects may “play up to the crowd”. He stressed he did not believe the crowd posed a violent threat, but said the area was “densely populated with obstacles,” and it would have been harder to monitor developing risks.

Asked by the defence whether this was a protest or a threatening group, the officer agreed it was not, describing it instead as a “busy location” where people were paying for parking.

SPLIT-SECOND CHOICES AND UNWRITTEN COORDINATION

When questioned about whether he paused to brief colleagues before acting, PC Marsden said his team worked closely and often communicated without words.

“We do this very often. It’s often unspoken,” he said, adding that armed officers regularly removed passengers from aircraft as part of routine operations.

Pressed on the dangers of entering a crowd while carrying a loaded firearm, PC Marsden agreed: “It is a risk.”

🔴 COURT RETURNS. 12:25 UPDATE: FOOTAGE SHOWS ALLEGED VICTIM DID NOT WANT TO PRESS CHARGES

Jurors have been shown further footage capturing Mr Ismaeil — the man said to have been assaulted at Manchester Airport — telling officers he did not wish to pursue the matter.

The footage, played in court, shows Mr Ismaeil saying he didn’t want “any trouble” after the alleged attack, in which he had initially claimed to have been headbutted in the face by a male in a blue tracksuit.

CCTV SHOWS SUSPECT LEAVING TERMINAL WITH FAMILY MEMBERS

Earlier, jurors were shown CCTV which captured the man identified as Mr Amaaz — wearing blue — walking out of Terminal 2. He is seen with his brother Mr Amaad, their mother, and a child as they head towards the nearby car park pay station.

PC Zachary Marsden, who was on duty as an armed officer that evening, told the court he had not been provided with that CCTV footage at the time but accepted that it would have assisted him in his response.

OFFICER CONSIDERED ARREST FOR ACTUAL BODILY HARM

PC Marsden confirmed he had planned to arrest Mr Amaaz on suspicion of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH), based on the information he had received from Mr Ismaeil at Starbucks.

He described how Mr Ismaeil had covered his mouth and appeared distressed, telling the officer he had been headbutted.

BODY-CAM FOOTAGE SHOWS POLICE DOWNPLAYING SEVERITY OF ALLEGED ASSAULT

Jurors were also shown later body-worn camera footage from PC Marsden and another officer, PC Bradbury.

In it, Mr Marsden is heard describing the incident as “common assault at best” — a less serious allegation than ABH.

Under cross-examination, Mr Marsden explained that he had re-engaged with Mr Ismaeil to “gauge his level of support” and noticed that he showed no obvious signs of injury.

DEFENCE CLAIMS OFFICER LIED ABOUT ARREST PLAN — PC DENIES

Imran Khan KC, representing Mr Amaaz, suggested to PC Marsden that he had not been truthful about how the arrest was planned.

The barrister claimed the officer was not being honest in describing an earlier conversation with his colleagues about who would carry out the arrest.

PC Marsden disagreed, maintaining that a clear plan had been made beforehand: he would carry out the arrest, and a colleague would be responsible for transporting the suspect away.

🔴 11:58 : COURT TAKES A BREAK

🔴 11:54 UPDATE: KC PRESSES OFFICER ON EARLY ENGAGEMENT WITH SUSPECT

Mr Khan KC continued to challenge PC Marsden’s approach, questioning whether the officer had done enough to engage the suspect before attempting arrest.

The officer responded:

“It’s unfortunate I was not able to engage the man in blue because he attacked me before I managed to engage him.”

‘ONE SUSPECT’ FROM INITIAL REPORT, SAYS PC MARSDEN

The barrister suggested the officer failed to ask whether anyone else might have been involved.

PC Marsden replied that all information at the time — including from Mr Ismaeil at Starbucks — indicated there was a single suspect who had already fled the scene.

🔴 11:34 UPDATE: OFFICER QUESTIONED OVER IOPC INTERVIEW ASSAULT ALLEGATION

PC Marsden confirmed to the jury that his Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) interview was split into two parts — the first dealing with a criminal allegation and the second relating to disciplinary matters.

The criminal allegation was that he had used “excessive force amounting to assault”.

He told the jury he gave a prepared statement, but then answered no further questions, instead responding “no comment”.

FOCUS SHIFTED FROM WITNESS TO SUSPECT PURSUIT

The officer said that at Starbucks, Mr Ismaeil told him the suspect had already “made off” in the direction of the car park.

PC Marsden said he left other officers to speak with Mr Ismaeil while he focused on locating the fleeing suspect.

As he approached the exit doors to the Terminal 2 car park, the control room relayed that a man matching the description — in blue shorts — had been seen running toward the car park area.

ESCAPE RISK GUIDED DECISION TO ACT FAST

Marsden told the jury it was more urgent to intercept the suspect than to continue gathering background information.

“There was a risk of escape,” he said. “He could have been on the motorway within minutes.”

At this point, Judge Flewitt interjected, advising Mr Khan KC that questions should focus on what the officer ought to have done differently — rather than challenging why he pursued the suspect.

DEFENCE QUESTIONS POLICING PRIORITIES

Mr Khan suggested the officer should have first asked the control room to check CCTV from Starbucks, but PC Marsden explained that footage from Starbucks was held on a separate system and not part of the airport’s central CCTV network.

The barrister argued that it should have been “of critical importance” to establish whether the suspect was acting alone.

PC Marsden said he was acting on clear and urgent information — from both Mr Ismaeil and the control room — identifying a man in a blue tracksuit as the assault suspect.

🔴11:17 PC MARSDEN QUESTIONED ON EARLY STATEMENT AFTER ATTACK

PC Zachary Marsden confirmed in court that he wrote a police statement shortly after the incident, while events were still fresh in his mind. He told the jury this statement was produced “just after I had been attacked” and described it as accurate to “the best of my abilities”, despite having “been struck 17 times.”

The officer also confirmed he later produced a more detailed 14-page statement for the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).

The barrister Imran Khan KC challenged discrepancies in the officer’s account, suggesting that in his initial statement, the key information about a headbutt had been attributed to Mr Ismaeil’s friend, not Mr Ismaeil himself.

PC Marsden stood by his recollection, stating that Mr Ismaeil told him directly he had been headbutted. The officer added that Mr Ismaeil had been “holding his mouth” at the time, and only afterward did his friend begin to provide additional information.

🔴 11:13 :OFFICER QUESTIONED ON LACK OF CONTEMPORANEOUS RECORDS

PC Zachary Marsden faced scrutiny over the limited availability of contemporaneous records documenting his actions during the incident.

Under questioning, the officer confirmed he initially responded to reports of “two Asian males fighting”and attended the Starbucks area with PC Ellie Cook. He acknowledged speaking directly to Mr Ismaeil — the man reportedly involved in the altercation — but confirmed his body-worn camera was switched off during the exchange.

The court heard that officers are encouraged to carry notebooks and use them to record details that may later support court proceedings. PC Marsden agreed such notes can form part of official evidence.

He said he had access to an electronic pocket notebook but claimed it was “not practicable” to make entries during the incident due to how rapidly events unfolded.

Asked whether he could have recorded details the following day, PC Marsden replied: “Unfortunately, I was suspended.” He explained that after the incident, he returned to the police station to complete a formal statement, which he believed was sufficient.

🔴 10:46: AIRPORT STAFFING WAS “NOT A LOT”, OFFICER SAYS

Under cross-examination, PC Marsden outlined the staffing situation at Manchester Airport on the night of the incident. He confirmed he was working a 12-hour shift, from 7pm to 7am, alongside PC Ellie Cook in an armed response vehicle.

He told the court his firearms team comprised six officers and agreed there was a police station between Terminals 1 and 3. Asked about overall staffing levels, PC Marsden said: “I would not describe it as a lot.”

Some officers at the airport carried only incapacitant spray, while others were armed. Firearms officers, he said, could be identified by a red asterisk on their uniforms. He also confirmed the presence of a CCTV control room, although it was “not routinely staffed.”

The court heard PC Marsden had received training in the police Code of Ethics and understood the professional standards expected of him.
🔴10:38: PC MARSDEN: OFFICERS MUST OBEY THE LAW OR FACE CONSEQUENCES

Under cross-examination, PC Marsden agreed police must follow the law at all times and can face criminal or civil action if they do not.

Mr Khan KC asked whether he was aware of officers selling drugs, prompting an objection from the prosecution. Responding to a revised question, PC Marsden said he had never encountered police misconduct.

He described his own conduct on the day as “professional” and rejected the suggestion his actions fell below police standards. He also confirmed officers are required to challenge colleagues if they witness misconduct.

Judge Flewitt advised the defence that questions about others’ conduct should be held until relevant CCTV clips are reviewed.

🔴 10:24: PC MARSDEN PRESSED ON POLICE POWERS AND TRAINING

Mr Khan suggested that certain restraint techniques should only be used after specific training.

Pressed by the judge to respond clearly, PC Marsden said that in his understanding, the official training manuals were “guidance” rather than strict instruction.

The officer confirmed he had received a wide range of training, including:

• Personal safety and conflict training

• Use of force and medical implications of restraint

• Use of firearms and Taser

• Human rights and legal training

• National decision-making model

• Control, arrest, and detention

PC Marsden agreed that, as a serving police officer, he holds “quite significant powers” and is legally permitted to use force where appropriate.

🔴 10:20: DEFENCE KC SAYS OFFICER USED ‘UNLAWFUL FORCE’

Mr Khan KC put it to PC Marsden that he had made a series of decisions “not in accordance with your training”, suggesting his conduct fell below that expected of a professional police officer.

He went on to claim that the officer had used “unlawful force” during the incident.

PC Marsden confirmed he had previously worked with Lancashire Police before joining GMP, and had become a firearms officer in April 2023.

He agreed officers regularly deal with members of the public who are “angry and annoyed”.

🔴 10:12: JURY RETURNS AS CROSS-EXAMINATION BEGINS

Jurors have been brought back into court as proceedings resume.

PC Zachary Marsden has returned to the witness box and is now being cross-examined by Imran Khan KC, representing the defendant Mr Amaaz.

🔴 4:41: DAY 5 ENDS. Court adjourns. The jury has discharged and will return at 10am tomorrow, when armed officer PC Zachary Marsden is expected to face cross-examination.

🔴 4:41: OFFICER TAKEN TO HOSPITAL WITH HEAD INJURIES AFTER ATTACK

PC Zachary Marsden told the jury he suffered swelling to both ears, sharp jaw pain and small cuts to his neck following the altercation at Manchester Airport.

He said the pain in his jaw was “excruciating”, prompting a visit to Wythenshawe Hospital for treatment.

EAR PAIN WORSENED, SPEECH AFFECTED, COURT HEARS

Three days after the incident, the officer returned to hospital due to worsening pain in his ears — “so much so I couldn’t touch them,” he said.

PC Marsden also described ongoing fatigue, difficulty concentrating, and impaired speech in the days that followed.
🔴 4:40: STAMP TO CATCH RADIO WIRE, NOT SUSPECT, OFFICER SAYS

PC Zachary Marsden told jurors he stamped his foot downward in an effort to catch the wire of his fallen police radio. He believed he missed the wire but was certain he “did not make contact” with Mr Amaaz.

MOTHER INTERVENED DURING ARREST, COURT HEARS

As he tried to arrest the suspect, PC Marsden said the defendants’ mother began pulling him over Mr Amaaz.

“She grabbed my left leg and started to pull me over,” he told the jury.

“She continued to pull me… I told her to get off.”

He said she also reached for a second radio on his vest, while the prone Mr Amaaz grabbed at the first fallen radio. At that moment, PC Ellie Cook screamed in his ear:

“I’ve got control.”

TASER WIRES ENTANGLED LEGS AS RADIO CALLS WENT UNANSWERED

PC Marsden said wires from a deployed Taser had tangled his legs, and although he tried to shout for help by screaming into the radio, “nobody appeared to respond.”

He said that after Mr Amaaz and his brother were detained, he helped escort them out of the pay station area. He reloaded his Taser and went back inside.

STAND-OFF OUTSIDE PAY STATION; PEPPER SPRAY USED

Returning to the scene, PC Marsden described a new stand-off involving three other males. One, he said, was pointing his phone at officers’ faces, while being shielded by two others.

PC Mark Flanagan, another officer at the scene, pointed a Taser at the obstructive male and indicated he intended to arrest him. PC Marsden said he then stepped in and used pepper spray on the individual so the arrest could be made.

USE OF FORCE ‘JUSTIFIED’, SAYS ARMED OFFICER

Asked to justify his actions, PC Marsden explained that pepper spray is “not always effective” and must be followed by another control tactic if necessary.

He said he “struggled to get the suspect down to the ground”, but was able to detain him.

🔴 4:28: OFFICER DENIES KICK WAS RETALIATION: “I DIDN’T LOSE MY TEMPER”

PC Zachary Marsden firmly rejected the suggestion that his kick to the suspect’s face was driven by revenge after being attacked.

NO LOSS OF CONTROL, SAYS FIREARMS OFFICER

Asked by prosecutor Paul Greaney KC whether he acted out of retaliation, PC Marsden replied:

“I would strongly dispute that or disagree.”

He added:

“That would be false. I don’t believe I lost my temper or was angry.”

STEP BACK TAKEN AFTER OBSERVING SUSPECT MOVE

The officer told the jury the male on the ground had brought his hands up to his face, at which point PC Marsden said he “stepped back to assess any behaviour change.”

EMERGENCY RADIO ALERT: A ‘LIFE OR DEATH’ MOMENT

PC Marsden also confirmed he had pressed the emergency panic button on his radio, signalling to colleagues that the situation was critical.

“That alert tells everyone this is a life or death situation,” he said, adding that he had never before used the distress function in active duty.

🔴 4:22 : OFFICER EXPLAINS PURPOSE BEHIND KICK TO FACE: “I HAD TO STOP IT”

PC Zachary Marsden told jurors he considered his remaining tactical options after delivering a Taser shot to the larger male, Amaad, and seeing the stun gun’s cartridges were spent.

He said he assessed—but ruled out—using pepper spray or his firearm, citing safety and practicality. Drawing his loaded Glock, he explained, was inappropriate due to the risk to life in a chaotic environment.

Exhausted and injured after what he described as a sustained assault, PC Marsden said he believed the man on the ground—Amaaz—was attempting to get back up and continue the attack.

“I firmly believed if he got up I could not stop another attack and he could quite easily overpower me,” he told the court.

“I was exhausted, I didn’t have the energy to continue that fight. I had to stop it.”

He said the situation demanded a swift decision, and so he delivered “one strike to the facial region” using the soft laces of his boot. His intention, he said, was to stun the suspect and buy vital seconds to regain control of the scene.

“I was hoping it would dissuade the suspect from trying to get up again,” he said.

🔴 4:03: COURT HAS RESUMED.

The jury has returned to court after a short break. Prosecutor Paul Greaney KC resumes his questioning of PC Zachary Marsden, who continues to give evidence about the events in the Terminal 2 car park at Manchester Airport.
🔴 3:35: SHORT BREAK

Court will reconvene after a short pause.

🔴 3:35: “THAT CROWD WAS HOSTILE. NOBODY WANTED TO HELP US AND INSTEAD WATCHED”

PC Zachary Marsden told the jury he feared his colleagues had been “incapacitated” as none were able to assist him while he was “being attacked” in the Terminal 2 car park pay station.
Asked how he felt when he realised no member of the public was intervening, PC Marsden said:

“That crowd was hostile. Nobody wanted to help us and instead watched.”

ARMED OFFICER KICKED MAN ON GROUND DURING CHAOS, COURT HEARS

PC Marsden said he feared there was a “third attacker” involved and believed they were attempting to “strangle” him.

In response, he said he delivered a kick to a man on the ground, before attempting to arrest him.

He told the jury that he only stopped when his colleague PC Ellie Cook said she had “the situation under control.”

PC Marsden said he had not known the man on the ground had been Tasered moments earlier.
🔴 3:25: ARMED OFFICER SAYS HE CHOSE TASER OVER PISTOL AS BLOWS RAINED DOWN
PC MARSDEN FEARED BEING KNOCKED UNCONSCIOUS BY PUNCHES TO THE JAW

The armed officer told the jury he felt his head “bounced from one side to the other” as punches rained down inside the Terminal 2 car park pay station. He said he felt no pain at the time due to a rush of adrenaline.

“I clenched my jaw and put my head down,” he said. “If a punch connected with my jaw, it would be broken almost instantly.” He feared he would be rendered unconscious while still struggling to control the suspect.

TASER USED AS A ‘LESS LETHAL OPTION’ — BUT DIDN’T WORK FULLY

PC Marsden said he opted to use his Taser rather than his loaded Glock pistol, calling it the “less lethal option”. His aim, he said, was to incapacitate the suspect for five seconds with a 50,000-volt jolt and “regain control”.

He said someone was “pulling” at his Taser as he drew it — but he managed to fire the stun gun at Mr Amaaz’s upper chest during a brief gap in the assault. However, he said the shot was not fully effective and a follow-up discharge was needed. Before he could fire again, he said, “someone punched me from behind.”

“DISTINCTIVE” BLOW KNOCKED HIM TO THE GROUND — OFFICER FEARED WEAPON USE

The officer described the blow from behind as “distinctively different” — sharp and concentrated — and said it sent him crashing to the floor.

He then received “multiple” further strikes. “My initial thought was that this person could have some sort of weapon,” he said. “My fear was this was some sort of knuckle-duster.”

“This violence was now escalating even further,” he said. “I could feel I was on the floor with my knees pressed against a bench and I needed to get back up.”

He told the jury he did manage to get to his feet — but the person who struck him was “still on my back.”

🔴 3:16 ARMED OFFICER FELT ‘EXTREMELY VULNERABLE’ AS HE WAS PUNCHED, BLINDED & FILMED

PC Zachary Marsden told jurors he felt “extremely vulnerable” during the confrontation at the Terminal 2 car park pay station.

“I was in a position where I could be overpowered,” he said, “and there was virtually nothing I could do to stop it.”

The armed officer said his fear throughout was that his firearm could be taken from him — a threat that persisted until “we had the situation under control.”

“I was being punched in the face, I didn’t have my glasses, and I couldn’t see anything,” he said. He added that his glasses, which had been knocked off during the attack, were later retrieved and were the same pair he wore while giving evidence in court.

PC Marsden also told the jury that no members of the public stepped in to help during the incident. Instead, he said, people in the pay station appeared to be filming the violent confrontation on their phones.

🔴 3:10: OFFICER MARSDEN DESCRIBES STRIKES FROM SECOND BROTHER: ‘HARDEST PUNCHES I’VE EVER FELT IN MY LIFE’

PC Zachary Marsden told the jury that the punches he received during the incident were “the hardest I’ve ever felt in my life.”
He said the blows were coming from the “larger male,” identified in court as Amaad, and that they were all delivered with a clenched fist, each one landing to his head.
“I can confidently say these were the hardest I’ve ever felt in my life,” said the officer, adding that although he had previously been punched in the line of duty, this experience was more severe.

The officer said the impact caused his glasses to fly from his face. He explained that he is short-sighted and could not see clearly beyond an arm’s length without them. The glasses were recovered later, and he confirmed they were the same pair he was wearing in the witness box.
🔴2:59 OFFICER PINNED IN CORNER — BLOWS RAINED DOWN

PC Zachary Marsden told the jury he became wedged in a corner of the Terminal 2 car park pay station and felt “vulnerable to attack and unable to attack.”

The armed officer said he realised the man behind him was significantly larger. As he struggled to restrain the original suspect, he attempted to strike him with a right fist towards the “facial region” in an effort to stun and gain “time and space” — but said the punch missed.

Instead, the larger male behind him continued to “close me down,” PC Marsden said, describing how his body armour was grabbed and he was pulled with force across the area.

“I was almost in front of the benches,” he said. “That’s when I started receiving the blows from all directions. I was pinned against the benches.”
🔴 2:52 UPDATE: ARMED OFFICER FEARED “SOMEONE WAS TRYING TO GET TO MY GUN”

PC Zachary Marsden told jurors he tried to place the suspect’s arms in a ‘stacked position’ to apply handcuffs, but said this “didn’t work.” He described the man pushing backwards off the pay station machine, and said he began “losing control.”

In an attempt to restrain him, PC Marsden said he pushed the man forward and “controlled his head” to bend him 90 degrees. He explained: “The information I had was that he had used his head as a weapon to headbutt someone. We were in close proximity and I didn’t want to be headbutted.”

As the struggle continued, the officer described feeling a sudden and intense pressure from the right-hand side.

“Around this time I felt immense pressure and weight of someone who had approached from my right,” he said. “I felt my pistol being moved across my front. My fear was that someone was trying to get to my gun, causing it to move around my thigh and the rest of my body.”

Pressed by prosecutor Paul Greaney KC on what this meant, the officer replied: “If someone gains access to my firearm it would cause an immediate lethal threat to anyone in the vicinity.”

PC Marsden described feeling “two hands clasping” at his right side and said the weight coming over his shoulder told him “they were bigger than me.” He said he had no idea who it was and added: “I had to get out of this position quickly.”

He concluded: “I now knew there was more than one person involved here.”
🔴 2:41 pm :ARMED OFFICER TRIED TO WALK SUSPECT OUT OF PAY STATION

PC Zachary Marsden tells the jury he chose to take hold of the suspect and walk him out of the pay station to a safer location. He says this was “the safest option” for everyone present, including colleagues and bystanders, in case the suspect became combative.

He attempted what he called a “two-point escort,” which involved taking hold of the man’s left arm. This, he said, was what officers are trained to do.

“IMMEDIATELY I WAS MET WITH RESISTANCE,” OFFICER SAYS

The officer tells the jury he placed his hands on the suspect to begin the manoeuvre — but was instantly met with resistance.

“As he’s turned to look at me, he’s clenched his fists and I could feel his muscles clenching,” said PC Marsden. “I feared he was going to become violent and resistant.”

He recalled using calm language, saying something like “Come on mate, we’re not doing that here,” in an effort to de-escalate.

OFFICER: SUSPECT KNEW I WAS POLICE, NO NEED TO SAY IT

PC Marsden says he didn’t inform the man he was a police officer because the suspect “turned and saw” that he was in full uniform.

The officer says he then changed his plan: he moved to place the man’s hands behind his back in order to handcuff him and walk him out of the area safely.
🔴2:38 pm: FIREARMS OFFICER WEIGHED SIX ARREST OPTIONS — BUT ‘ONLY ONE SEEMED APPROPRIATE’

PC Zachary Marsden tells the jury he carefully considered six possible options after identifying the suspect inside the Terminal 2 car park pay station.

The first was to announce himself so the public would be aware he was a police officer. The second was to approach the suspect and try to “come to some sort of agreement” about how the arrest would take place.

The third option was to arrest the man immediately in the pay station, while the fourth involved moving him to a less crowded area with radio signal and officer support.

A fifth option was to wait until the man moved further into the car park — a riskier setting with no backup and moving traffic.

The final option, PC Marsden says, was “to do nothing at all”. He tells the jury only one of the six options felt appropriate in the moment.
🔴 2:31 : OFFICER TELLS COURT OF CHALLENGES AS SUSPECT SPOTTED IN PAY STATION COMMUNICATION ‘BLACKOUT ZONE’,

The police officer searching for the suspect in the aftermath of the Starbucks incident at Manchester Airport located a man “who distinctively matched the description” given over the radio inside the Terminal 2 car park pay station.

PC Zachary Marsden told the court he identified the man in an area already becoming crowded. He described observing a “dense group” of people and a “developing crowd dynamic” as he moved in, adding that the level of background noise made it “not practicable to work” in the space.

The officer also explained that the pay station is located in what he described as a known radio “signal blackout” zone, meaning communications were limited. He said he was concerned about being “cut off” from other units, including colleagues who were still at Starbucks, and added that from his location, he was “out of sight” from them entirely.
🔴2:26: COURT BACK IN SESSION

The jurors return to court as proceedings resume. Prosecutor Paul Greaney KC is now continuing his questioning of armed response officer PC Zachary Marsden, positioned in the witness box.
🔴 1:19 ⏸️ Court has now broken for lunch. Proceedings are due to resume at 2:05pm.
🔴 1:17 BODY CAM ‘PRIMED TO RECORD’ AS OFFICER APPROACHED SUSPECT

PC Marsden told the jury he placed his body-worn camera on standby as he exited Terminal 2, explaining it was “primed to record should I need to capture any evidence.”

He confirmed the device automatically began recording once activated during the incident.

🔴 1:10: OFFICER EXPLAINS DECISION TO ARREST ASSAULT SUSPECT

PC Marsden told the court that he planned to arrest the man in the blue tracksuit on suspicion of assault. When asked if the arrest was necessary, he said: “I believe it was essential to prevent the suspect’s disappearance, to protect the victim from further harm, and to enable a prompt investigation.”

He explained that, along with PCs Cook and Ward, he proceeded towards the Terminal 2 car park to locate the suspect.

Before reaching the pay station, control room updated them that the suspect was wearing blue shorts.

The officers received confirmation that the suspect had been seen heading towards the car park.

PC Marsden said the team discussed their approach in case of a positive arrest.

He was designated the arresting officer, while PC Lydia Ward would be responsible for transporting the detainee in a police van.

🔴 12:54: ARMED OFFICER RESPONDED TO ‘GRADE 1’ EMERGENCY OVER STARBUCKS INCIDENT

PC Zachary Marsden tells the jury he and fellow firearms officer PC Ellie Cook were on routine armed patrol at Manchester Airport when they were dispatched at 8:20pm to a ‘Grade 1’ emergency — the highest priority call — following reports of a fight involving two Asian males at Terminal 2.

Control relayed that one male was wearing black and the other a blue tracksuit.

Arriving at Starbucks, PC Marsden said he spoke to the man in black — later identified as passenger Ismaeil Abdulkareem — who reported there had been a dispute on the flight involving an elderly Asian woman, and that it had continued into the baggage reclaim hall.

Mr Abdulkareem told the officer he had been headbutted by a young man in a blue tracksuit, who then ran off towards the car park.

PC Marsden said: “We needed to locate where this suspect was,” and confirmed their intention was to arrest the man in blue — Mohammed Fahir Amaaz — on suspicion of assault.

🔴 12:50 UPDATE: ARMED OFFICER WAS CARRYING LOADED GLOCK WITH ROUND IN CHAMBER

PC Zachary Marsden tells the jury he had been a firearms officer for 15 months at the time of the incident and had passed his training on the first attempt.

He was part of Team Three Armed Response based at Manchester Airport and was wearing the full operational uniform unique to firearms officers — a uniform he described as “very distinct,” adding he would expect members of the public to recognise him clearly as a police officer.

He confirms he was equipped with handcuffs, baton, incapacitant spray, a Taser stun gun — and a Glock 17 semi-automatic pistol, fully loaded with two magazines of 16 rounds each and one round chambered, “ready to use”.

The weapon was holstered on his right hip throughout the incident.
🔴 WE’RE BACK: POLICE WITNESS SWORN IN

After a short break, jurors are brought back into court as proceedings resume at Liverpool Crown Court.

New witness: PC Zachary Marsden, involved in the incident where officers came under attack. An authorised firearms officer with Greater Manchester Police. Dressed in a suit, he is sworn in and confirms he had served for five-and-a-half years at the time of the incident.

🔴 DAY 6 - MONDAY 7th JULY

LIVE UPDATES CONTINUE:

🔴 12:14 SHORT COURTROOM BREAK

Proceedings have paused briefly. The jury and court will return shortly as the trial continues at Liverpool Crown Court. Stay with us for the latest updates.
🔴12:11 UPDATE: BODY-CAM FOOTAGE PLAYED FROM FOUR OFFICERS AT SCENE

Jurors are shown body-worn camera footage from four police officers who responded to the violence at Manchester Airport’s Terminal 2 car park pay station.

DS Danielle Bullivant confirms there is no audio on the CCTV, but the body-cam footage includes sound — except for the first 30 seconds, which is muted by default.

The court begins with footage from PC Marsden. Audio captures shouting before the footage abruptly ends — the camera was damaged during the confrontation, jurors are told.

Next, PC Cook’s body-cam shows her screaming for Mr Amaaz to “get down now”, while another unidentified voice shouts “you piece of s—t.”

PC Ward’s body-cam is also played. She can be heard crying, having suffered a broken nose in the attack.

Footage from PC Flanagan, who arrived mid-incident, captures him shouting:

“You f—ng move I’ll smash your face in, do you understand?”*

He is also heard repeating:

“You f—ing piece of s—t”

as he lifts defendant Mr Amaad from the ground.

🔴 THREE OTHER MEN AT SCENE AS PEPPER SPRAY DEPLOYED

Jurors are told the CCTV captures three other men at the scene:

Ali Rahman (grey sweatshirt), Sahid Rahman (navy top), and Ishan Rahman (red T-shirt).

PC Marsden is seen pushing the three men away, the court hears.

The footage also shows PC Marsden deploying pepper spray towards Ali Rahman, DS Bullivant confirms.
The incident is then shown again from a second CCTV angle, captured from the opposite side of the Terminal 2 car park pay station.
🔴 11:44AM – OFFICER SEEN WITH BLOODIED NOSE AS BACKUP ARRIVES

PC Marsden is seen picking up his dropped radio and pressing the emergency button to summon help, DS Bullivant tells the jury.
Footage shows Mr Amaad with his hands behind his head, while PC Marsden stands holding a Taser.

PCs Flanagan and Clewarth then arrive at the pay station, followed by CCTV capturing Mr Amaaz face down on the ground with his hands behind his back.

Their mother is also seen on the footage, jurors hear.

PC WARD IS VISIBLY DISTRESSED WITH BLOOD COMING FROM HER NOSE, the court is told.

🔴 11:43AM – TASER FIRED BY PC ELLIE COOK AS AMAAZ GRAPPLES OFFICERS, COURT HEARS. Kick to head of Amaaz and ‘stamp’ that “does not appear to connect.”

The jury hears that PC Cook discharged her Taser at Mr Amaaz just as he appeared to have his arm around PC Marsden’s neck.

Moments later, both men fell to the ground, DS Bullivant tells the court.

As PC Marsden got back to his feet — his radio seen dangling beneath his body armour — he delivered a kick to Mr Amaaz, followed by what appeared to be a stamp aimed at his head.

However, the officer confirms to the jury that the stamp “does not appear to connect.”

🔴 11:35am – Jury Walked Through Further Blows at Police & Officer’s Drawing Of Taser:

Detective Sergeant Danielle Bullivant continues guiding the jury through the violent altercation at the Terminal 2 pay station — breaking down the incident blow by blow.

She tells the court that:

– PC Cook was struck twice by Mr Amaaz — first a punch to the head, then a blow to the torso

– Two more punches were aimed at her — one landed, another missed

– PC Marsden stood up and drew his Taser, and looks towards Mr Amaad, the older brother, who had his arms raised— but the officer was then punched in the head by Mr Amaaz, - the eighth strike logged

– That blow forced PC Marsden backwards, the witness says

– Two more punches followed — the ninth and tenth by Mr Amaaz, aimed at Marsden

The officer confirms this moment was chaotic, but each frame of CCTV is now being examined for clarity.

🔴 11:22am – Punches & Elbow Strikes: Continued Breakdown of Police Assault

The jury hears Det Sgt Bullivant give detailed commentary on the alleged sequence of strikes delivered by Mr Amaaz during the car park altercation.

Following “punch one,” she identifies:

– Punch two, three and four aimed at PC Marsden

– First elbow strike at PC Cook, causing her head to jolt back and her hat to fly off

– Fifth punch at PC Marsden

– Second elbow strike at PC Cook

– A final swing with a phone in hand, said to knock PC Ward to the ground.

All actions were visible on the CCTV footage under analysis in court.

🔴 11:16am – ‘Punch One’: Jury Hears Start of Alleged Police Assault

Det Sgt Danielle Bullivant describes the moment the violence began at the car park pay station. She confirms PC Marsden and PC Cook were armed, while PC Ward was unarmed.

Jurors hear how Mr Amaaz, seen on CCTV at the pay station, allegedly threw the first punch at PC Marsden as the officer was pushed back toward seating. The moment is referred to in court as “punch one” — the first of several blows analysed by a police use-of-force expert.

🔴 11:10am – Officer Returns to Explain Key CCTV Stills

Detective Sergeant Danielle Bullivant resumes her evidence, guiding jurors through CCTV stills. She describes how the defendants left Terminal 2 and were approached by three officers at the car park pay station. While she narrates the footage, she agrees with the defence barrister that the ultimate interpretation is for the jury to decide.

🔴 11:06am – Jury Shown Timeline of Events

Proceedings begin slightly behind schedule, with Judge Flewitt apologising to jurors for the late start, citing delays in an earlier matter. Prosecutor Adam Birkby directs the jury to review a “sequence of events” chart summarising key stages of the case.

🔴 Day 6 Begins: Jury Returns for Another Week of Evidence

The jurors are back in court as proceedings resume. Several key witnesses are still to be heard this week. While some structure is anticipated, the exact order of witnesses may remain fluid — the judge retains full discretion over how the trial unfolds.

———

🔴 1:00pm UPDATE: DAY ONE UNDERWAY

Liverpool Crown Court in session, Mohammed Fahir Amaaz & Muhammad Amaad currently maintaining not guilty pleas. Judge Flewitt KC presiding. Defence led by Imran Khan KC. Proceedings ongoing—stay tuned for live updates.
🔴 4pm UPDATE: JURY SELECTION

Preliminary jury selection today at Liverpool Crown Court. His Honour Judge Flewitt KC instructed candidates to ignore all media commentary. Final selection & swearing-in scheduled for Wednesday.

🔴 WEDNESDAY 2ND JULY 12 MIDDAY UPDATE : JURY EMPANELMENT

Jury selection now being finalised at Liverpool Crown Court. Proceedings focus on ensuring a fair and impartial panel to judge solely on courtroom evidence, before His Honour Judge Flewitt KC.

🔴 3.40 PM UPDATE: JURY SWORN IN

A jury panel has been sworn in at Liverpool Crown Court. Judge Flewitt KC issued strict directions on impartiality, warning jurors not to read press or search online. The prosecution is expected to open its case Thursday afternoon.

🔴 MANCHESTER AIRPORT TRIAL : DAY 4

Jury now seated at Liverpool Crown Court. Opening arguments expected today in the case against Mohammed Fahir Amaaz & Muhammad Amaad. Stay tuned for updates.

🔴 MANCHESTER AIRPORT TRIAL: DAY 4 UPDATES

Judge Neil Flewitt KC, has just confirmed that the CPS prosecution will formally open the case this afternoon, as there are still outstanding legal issues to resolve this morning, stay tuned ⬇️

🔴 MANCHESTER AIRPORT TRIAL: DAY 4 UPDATES

Jury now sworn in at Liverpool Crown Court. This morning's Legal preamble finally concluded ahead of the CPS opening its case, this afternoon. Stay tuned, key developments live as they happen. ⬇️

🔴 DAY 5 UPDATE: 10:52am – COURT ASSEMBLES

The defendants, Mohammed Fahir Amaaz, 20, and Muhammad Amaad, 26, are seated in the dock wearing formal court attire. Both are charged in connection with alleged assaults at Manchester Airport and formally deny all allegations.

This morning marks the start of the prosecution’s case. A jury of eight men and four women has been brought into court. Paul Greaney KC appears for the Crown. Mr Amaaz is represented by Imran Khan KC, while Chloe Gardner appears for Mr Amaad.

As is standard at the outset of a Crown Court trial, the prosecution will now outline the case to the jury, setting out the alleged facts and legal framework before any evidence is presented.

🔴 11:07am – CROWN OUTLINES ALLEGED ASSAULT IN TERMINAL STARBUCKS

Prosecutor Paul Greaney KC has opened the Crown’s case at Liverpool Crown Court, setting out the prosecution’s account of events the jury will be asked to consider.

He told jurors:

“The two defendants are Mohammed Fahir Amaaz, who is aged 20, and Muhammed Amaad, who is aged 26. They are brothers. On 23rd July 2024, they travelled by car to Manchester Airport in order to collect their mother who was due to arrive back in the United Kingdom on a flight from Qatar. They had with them their young nephew.”

Another passenger, Abdulkareem Ismaeil, was on the same flight as their mother.

“He was travelling with his wife and three young children. It is clear that on the flight and/or shortly after it landed, something happened between the defendants’ mother and Abdulkareem Ismaeil that made the defendants’ mother unhappy.”

The prosecution say that when the group passed a Starbucks in Terminal 2, the mother pointed Mr Ismaeil out to her sons.

“At just after 8.20pm, the defendants entered Starbucks and confronted Abdulkareem Ismaeil. During that confrontation, Mohammed Fahir Amaaz (the first defendant) delivered a headbutt to the face of Abdulkareem Ismaeil and punched him, then attempted to deliver other blows, all in front of a number of children.”

Mr Greaney told jurors this led to a charge of assault by beating, and described it as “obviously unlawful conduct.”

Access to the Law:

In criminal law, self-defence can be a complete defence to assault. If the jury finds the force used was reasonable in the circumstances, the defendants must be acquitted.

🔴 11:15am – CROWN OUTLINES AIRPORT POLICE ALTERCATION

Paul Greaney KC continued his opening remarks by describing the confrontation that followed the Starbucks incident, which the prosecution alleges involved violence against three police officers.

He told the jury:

“Officers who were already within the airport went to the coffee house, but the defendants had already left. They had walked the short distance to the nearby Terminal 2 car park.

Police tracked them there and at 8.28pm three officers entered the payment area. Those three officers were PC Zachary Marsden (an armed officer), PC Ellie Cook (another armed officer) and PC Lydia Ward (who was unarmed).

The officers attempted to move Mohammed Fahir Amaaz (the first defendant) away from a payment machine in order to arrest him, but he resisted, and his brother Muhammed Amaad (the second defendant) intervened.”

The prosecution alleges that both brothers then assaulted PC Marsden. Mr Amaaz is further accused of assaulting PC Cook and breaking PC Ward’s nose during the struggle.

Mr Greaney added:

“The defendants used a high level of violence. Both defendants face a charge of assaulting PC Marsden so as to cause him actual bodily harm.

The first defendant also faces a charge of assaulting PC Ward so as to cause her actual bodily harm and a charge of assaulting an emergency worker in respect of his violence towards PC Cook.”

🔴 CROWN: JURY TO SEE FULL CCTV AND BODYCAM FOOTAGE

Mr Greaney tells the jury that the events at Manchester Airport are clearly captured on CCTV and body-worn video. He describes the case as “not complicated” and says jurors will be able to watch events unfold for themselves rather than rely solely on witness accounts.

Prosecutor Paul Greaney KC told jurors:

“That is a brief introduction to what the case is about. The position of the prosecution is that it is not a complicated case.

The events you are concerned with were captured by CCTV cameras and, in relation to the events in the payment area, on the body worn cameras of police officers as well.”

He added:

“So, you will not have to depend only on the recollections of witnesses. You will also be able to see with your own eyes what happened.”

🔴 CROWN: DEFENDANTS CLAIM SELF-DEFENCE

Jurors are told that the central issue in the trial will be whether the defendants acted in lawful self-defence. The prosecution argues their actions were excessive and unlawful.

Mr Greaney KC told the jury:

“Your role as jurors will be to analyse the footage, watch and listen to the witnesses who were there — including the defendants if they choose to give evidence — and decide whether you are sure that the defendants acted unlawfully or whether, in respect of any particular charge, it may be the case that they were acting in lawful self-defence.”

He added:

“Our prediction is that you will readily conclude that the defendants were not acting in lawful self-defence and that their conduct was unlawful across the offences alleged against them.”

🔴 CCTV SHOWS VIOLENCE INSIDE STARBUCKS

Jurors are shown stills and footage from CCTV cameras inside Terminal 2, which the prosecution says capture the moment the first defendant assaults a passenger.

The jury was shown a still image of the defendants’ mother and their young nephew outside the Starbucks at Terminal 2 arrivals. Both defendants also appear in the frame.

Mr Greaney KC told jurors the footage shows the moment the mother spots Mr Ismaeil, prompting the defendants to enter the café.

The CCTV then shows, the prosecution says, Mr Amaaz “headbutting and then punching towards Mr Ismaeil” at the coffee shop counter, where he was standing with his wife and children.

🔴 11:29am – CROWN: VIOLENCE “OUT OF ANGER…NOT IN SELF-DEFENCE”
Mr Greaney asserts the Starbucks assault was retaliatory, not protective.

He told the jury:

“The two defendants assert… they were acting in self‑defence or in the defence of the other. …Our prediction is that you will readily conclude that the defendants were not acting in lawful self‑defence.”

Continuing his emphasis:
“This violence by the first defendant Mohammed Fahir Amaaz, with his head and fists, was entirely unlawful. He delivered his blows out of anger and/or in punishment, not in self‑defence.”
The CCTV was then replayed for the jury to review the sequence again.

🔴 11:43am – CROWN: CAR PARK ALTERCATION FOLLOWED STARBUCKS ASSAULT

Jurors hear that the confrontation continued after the Starbucks incident, moving to the Terminal 2 car park payment area where police attempted to intervene.
Mr Greaney KC told the jury:

“The defendants had walked the short distance to the nearby Terminal 2 car park… At 8.28pm, three officers entered the payment area. Those officers were PC Zachary Marsden (an armed officer), PC Ellie Cook (another armed officer) and PC Lydia Ward (who was unarmed).”

He said officers attempted to arrest Mr Amaaz near the payment machine, but he resisted and Mr Amaad stepped in:

“Both defendants assaulted PC Marsden. In the moments that followed, the first defendant also assaulted PC Cook and then PC Ward too, breaking her nose. The defendants used a high level of violence.”

The jury were reminded that all three officers were in uniform and acting in the course of their duties.

🔴 11:50am – CROWN: CCTV SHOWS VIOLENCE AS OFFICERS MOVE TO DETAIN

Jurors view CCTV of the pay station incident, where officers confronted the accused. They are told some police actions have been criticised and further footage will follow.

The court was informed that the response by officers has drawn criticism, and jurors would be shown later footage in full to reflect this. Mr Greaney KC said it would be “fair” to view the evidence in context.

CCTV was played twice — once in real time and again in slow motion — showing the moment violence erupted as police attempted to detain the defendants.

🔴 12:30pm – CROWN: OFFICERS SEEN UNDER ATTACK IN NEW CCTV ANGLE
Further CCTV footage is played from a second camera angle, showing the arrest attempt in greater detail. Prosecutor Paul Greaney KC narrates as events escalate.

Jurors were shown additional footage of the incident at the Terminal 2 pay station, this time from another camera, with a slow-motion replay provided.

Mr Greaney KC described the arresting officers as “in full uniform” as they approached Mr Amaaz. Armed officer PC Marsden was seen taking hold of Mr Amaaz’s arm to move him from the payment machine, assisted by two colleagues.

As this happened, Mr Amaad is alleged to have “repeatedly punched” PC Marsden, who Mr Greaney said was “cornered and unable to move.”

Simultaneously, Mr Amaaz is said to have turned on the two female officers. PC Lydia Ward was punched in the face and seen crying, her nose “streaming with blood.” Mr Greaney said the blow broke her nose.

He then turned to PC Ellie Cook. Jurors were told she ducked the first strike, but was hit by a second punch, falling backwards over a baggage trolley.

🔴 12:34pm – CROWN: TASER DEPLOYED AMID FLURRY OF PUNCHES

Prosecutor Paul Greaney KC describes how the violence escalated further as officers attempted to bring the situation under control.

Jurors were told that after attacking the female officers, Mohammed Fahir Amaaz turned back to armed officer PC Marsden, who was aiming his Taser at Mr Amaad.

Mr Greaney KC said the first defendant “attacked him from behind,” knocking PC Marsden into a row of seats before grabbing him around the neck and unleashing “a flurry of punches to his head.”

Mr Amaaz is then alleged to have dragged PC Marsden away from his brother. At this point, PC Ellie Cook fired her Taser at Mr Amaaz in an effort to stop the assault.

🔴 12:40pm – CROWN: OFFICER’S KICK AND STAMP “SHOCKING IN COLD LIGHT OF DAY”

Jurors shown footage of officer’s response during struggle — prosecution says it must be viewed in full context.

Prosecutor Paul Greaney KC addressed jurors regarding CCTV footage showing PC Zachary Marsden kicking defendant Mohammed Fahir Amaaz while he was on the ground.
He said Mr Amaaz “raised his head towards PC Marsden, who in response kicked Mohammed Fahir Amaaz to the face and then brought his foot down towards the top of his head in what looks like a stamping motion.”

Mr Greaney acknowledged the footage “looks rather shocking in the cold light of day,” but argued it must be considered in the context of “the very serious level of threat posed by the defendants to an officer who was concerned that his firearm might be taken from him at an airport.”

He added that in any event, the Crown’s position is that the officer’s actions occurred after the defendants’ alleged violence and are “logically irrelevant to the lawfulness” of their conduct as charged.

🔴 12:45pm – CROWN: JURY TOLD NOT TO BE DISTRACTED BY OFFICER LANGUAGE

*PC Flanagan heard saying, “If you move, I will smash your ***ing face in.”

Mr Greaney KC told jurors they may find this language “disturbing,” but urged them to focus on the key question: whether the defendants acted unlawfully or in self-defence. He said the officer’s remarks came after the alleged assaults and are “logically irrelevant” to guilt.

🔴 12:51pm – OFFICERS’ INJURIES OUTLINED IN DETAIL

Jurors are shown body-worn camera footage of PC Lydia Ward sobbing, her mouth filled with blood, in the immediate aftermath of the incident at Manchester Airport’s Terminal 2.

Prosecutor Paul Greaney KC described in detail the injuries sustained by the three officers involved.

PC Zachary Marsden, the armed officer initially assaulted by both defendants, suffered “post-concussion syndrome,” with symptoms including “severe headache for three days, episodes of dizziness, forgetfulness, difficulties in talking and also bruising and swelling.”

PC Ward suffered a broken nose, which Mr Greaney said “bled profusely at the scene and caused her significant pain and distress.” The injury later required surgical intervention under general anaesthetic to manipulate the fracture. She also sustained “bruising and swelling to her forehead and nose.”

Regarding PC Ellie Cook, the KC said:

“Given the number of punches thrown by the first defendant at PC Cook’s head and face, she was fortunate only to receive relatively minor injuries to her forehead and jaw.”

🔴 12:52pm – CROWN CONCLUDES OPENING REMARKS

Prosecutor Paul Greaney KC concluded the Crown’s opening address with a direct message to the jury.

“Our position is this is not a complicated case. We ask you not to make it complicated.”

🔴 12:55pm – TRIAL BREAKS FOR LUNCH

The jury is dismissed for the lunch adjournment.

When proceedings resume at 2:05pm, the first witness — Detective Sergeant Danielle Bullivant — is expected to take the stand to present a series of agreed facts to the court.

🔴 2:20pm – TRIAL RESUMES

The jury has returned to court and proceedings are set to continue following the lunch adjournment.

🔴 2:25pm – CCTV SHOWS MOVEMENTS BEFORE STARBUCKS INCIDENT

Jurors are shown a 15-minute compilation of CCTV footage capturing the movements of Mrs Akhtar — mother of the accused — and Mr Ismaeil with his family as they made their way through Manchester Airport following their flight.

Prosecuting junior counsel Adam Birkby explains that the footage ends shortly before the alleged confrontation at Starbucks.

🔴 2:31pm – PROSECUTION: JURORS SHOULD NOTE BUILDING TENSION

As CCTV footage of Terminal 2 is played, Prosecutor Paul Greaney KC tells jurors they may observe an atmosphere of tension in the minutes leading up to the Starbucks incident.

He invites the panel to assess the defendants’ movements and demeanour in the footage prior to the alleged assault.

🔴 2:45pm – FIRST WITNESS BEGINS EVIDENCE

Detective Sergeant Danielle Bullivant is the first witness to give evidence in the trial. She takes the jury through a timeline of events constructed by the prosecution, displayed in a ‘sequence of events’ chart intended to help contextualise the CCTV footage seen earlier.

Junior counsel Mr Adam Birkby confirms that the chart reflects the Crown’s interpretation of what the footage shows — but reminds jurors it will be their job to reach their own conclusions. DS Bullivant agrees, acknowledging that while the narrative framework is helpful, the jury must ultimately decide what the images depict.

The first segment under discussion shows Mrs Akhtar — the mother of both defendants — arriving at Manchester Airport. She is met by her sons and a young child, identified as their nephew. CCTV shows the group exiting through the terminal doors and turning right, walking towards the Starbucks location where the initial confrontation later unfolded.

🔴 2:58pm – CCTV SHOWN OF STARBUCKS ASSAULT

Detective Sergeant Bullivant continues giving evidence as the court reviews CCTV footage of the alleged assault inside Terminal 2’s Starbucks.

Under questioning from prosecuting counsel Adam Birkby, the witness agrees that the footage appears to show Mohammed Fahir Amaaz headbutting Abdulkareem Ismaeil, followed by two punches — first with his left hand, then with his right. The final strike may or may not have connected; the footage is inconclusive.

After the confrontation, the defendants are seen leaving the café with their mother and young nephew, continuing toward the Terminal 2 car park pay station. Jurors then view the full sequence on screen.

🔴 3:17pm – STARBUCKS DUTY MANAGER GIVES EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT

Cameron Cartledge, duty manager at Starbucks in Terminal 2 arrivals, is sworn in to give evidence.

Under questioning from Mr Greaney KC, Mr Cartledge confirms he had been working at this branch for two and a half years and was on shift from noon until 8:30pm that day.

He recalls being either behind the bar or in the office during the incident, from where he had a clear view of the café.

He described the arrival of Mr Abdulkareem Ismaeil—whom he recalled as a ‘large man’ and a normal customer. Mr Cartledge said Mr Ismaeil came into the café with his family to order drinks and showed no signs of anything unusual at that time.
The witness then heard raised voices, which he believed were in Arabic, not English, and went to stand at the café door to observe the situation.

He saw the man approximately 10 feet away at the time.

🔴 3:22pm – MANAGER SAW MR ISMAEIL “STAGGER BACK” AFTER HEADBUTT

Starbucks duty manager Cameron Cartledge described the moment he witnessed an alleged assault on Mr Abdulkareem Ismaeil.

He said he saw “a man with his family” being confronted by another man wearing a blue tracksuit, who appeared “aggressive” and was “in his face.” The man in the tracksuit, described as “tall, skinny, Asian or Middle Eastern and Muslim,” was “annoyed at something,” he told the court.

“They were arguing,” Mr Cartledge said. “I don’t know what was being said because I didn’t know the language and the blue tracksuit man headbutted the man in the t-shirt and that’s when I called the police.”

He told jurors Mr Ismaeil “staggered back” towards the counter from the force of the headbutt. He recalled that more blows followed, but they appeared to land on Mr Ismaeil’s shoulder.

The men’s respective families then intervened to separate them and the group walked away, the court heard.

🔴 3:30pm Police arrive and follow ‘blue tracksuit man and family’

Starbucks duty manager Cameron Cartledge told the court that after the confrontation began, members of the public approached the scene. Concerned for the safety of those present, he called the police.

He said officers arrived shortly afterwards and followed the ‘blue tracksuit man’ and his family as they left the area.
🔴 3:43pm – STARBUCKS MANAGER QUESTIONED OVER POLICE CALL

Under cross-examination by Imran Khan KC, representing Mr Amaaz, Starbucks duty manager Cameron Cartledge was asked about the call he made to police during the incident.

Mr Cartledge confirmed he described the situation as “two people fighting” but said he did not see Mr Ismaeil throw any punches.

Judge Flewitt KC intervened to note that the witness had accepted “fighting” was not the accurate description and that the pair were actually arguing.

Mr Cartledge added he saw Mr Ismaeil on his phone and assumed he was contacting police after having “just been assaulted.”

🔴4:08: Witness Explains Why He Described Incident as ‘Fighting’ in Police Call

During cross-examination, Starbucks duty manager Cameron Cartledge was asked why he did not specifically mention the headbutt when he called the police. He explained that he thought the word “fighting” adequately described the situation at the time.

When questioned by defence counsel Imran Khan about whether he realised the men were actually speaking English, Mr Cartledge replied,

“It didn’t sound like English to me.”

Mr Cartledge confirmed he saw the headbutt land “in the face” of Mr Ismaeil but said he did not recall Mr Ismaeil acting in a threatening or menacing way, nor whether he had been making gestures.

Pressed further, he described the “blue tracksuit man” as “threatening”, while saying Mr Ismaeil appeared more passive, “probably more worried about the children behind him.”

4:10 Starbucks Employee Confirms ‘Big Headbutt’ Sent Victim Stumbling Backwards

On re-examination by prosecutor Paul Greaney KC, Starbucks duty manager Cameron Cartledge confirmed details from his police statement. He agreed that he had described witnessing a “big headbutt” delivered by the defendant, which caused Mr Ismaeil to stumble backwards.

🔴4:25 Update: Third Witness, Starbucks Barista, Takes the Stand

Justine Pakalne, a barista working at Starbucks on the day of the incident, was sworn in as the next witness.

Under questioning from the prosecutor, Ms Pakalne said she was stationed at the till taking an order when the events began.

She recalled a family approaching the counter—a couple with two or three children. While she could not clearly remember Mr Ismaeil’s features, she identified him as Asian and noted that he was facing towards her as they placed their order.

🔴4:28 Starbucks Barista Describes Confrontation Before Violence

Ms Pakalne told the court that two men and a woman approached Mr Ismaeil and his family at the counter.

She said the men began arguing in a language she did not understand, while she confirmed speaking Latvian, English, and some Russian herself.

The witness described one man as “angry and aggressive,” while Mr Ismaeil remained “calm and collected.”

According to Ms Pakalne, the woman with Mr Ismaeil said to the men,

“We were not talking about you but about the kids behind you.”

Ms Pakalne said the aggressive man then headbutted Mr Ismaeil into the syrup dispensers, causing both to move back slightly.

She added the other man did not retaliate and appeared shocked, while Mr Ismaeil was “calm but shocked.”

The argument continued briefly, with the man in blue speaking aggressively in English, saying something Ms Pakalne understood as “come outside and fight.” However, no fight took place outside.

🔴4:40 Starbucks barista under cross examination

During cross-examination by Mr Khan, representing Mr Amaaz, Starbucks barista Justine Pakalne confirmed she gave a police statement a week after the pay station violence had ‘gone viral’ online.

Ms Pakalne agreed with the defence’s observation that it is possible to be ‘menacing in a quiet way’ and acknowledged that the man in blue was slimmer than the man he headbutted.

She said she could not clearly see Mr Ismaeil’s face but described his tone of voice as calm.

When questioned about the language spoken, Ms Pakalne said she did not understand the words and did not believe the conversation was in English, despite suggestions both men were speaking English.

She maintained that the man in the blue tracksuit was the aggressor throughout the incident.

🔴 4:55pm – JURY SENT HOME AS FIRST DAY OF TRIAL ENDS

Judge Flewitt KC dismisses the jury for the weekend. The trial will resume at 10:30am on Monday.

Before they leave, the judge reminds jurors:

“It is of the utmost importance that you do not search for or look up anything about this case online.”

🔴 DAY 6 - MONDAY 7th JULY

LIVE UPDATES CONTINUE ABOVE: