Manchester Airport Clash: Brothers Accused of Violent Outburst Against Stranger and Police

 

Two brothers have been accused of launching a violent attack on a fellow traveller and police officers at Manchester Airport, in what prosecutors described as an "entirely unlawful" incident motivated by anger rather than self-defence. The court heard that the confrontation, which began inside a Starbucks café, escalated to a physical altercation with three police officers, two of whom were armed.

The two Pakistani brothers who punched a female police officer in the face at Manchester Airport last summer claimed that they are innocent in court today.

They were released on bail and will back for trial in late June
pic.twitter.com/prvmxgSEvg

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 13, 2025

 

Mohammed Fahir Amaaz, 20, and his older brother Muhammad Amaad, 26, appeared before a jury on charges relating to an altercation that took place on July 23 last year in Terminal 2 of the airport. Prosecuting barrister Paul Greaney KC told the court that the case was straightforward, noting that both CCTV footage and body-worn police cameras had captured the events in question.

 

 

“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,” Mr Greaney said. “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.”

 

According to Mr Greaney, the brothers had come to the airport with their young nephew to meet their mother, who was returning from a trip to Qatar. Upon spotting a man she had reportedly had an earlier dispute with, she pointed him out to her sons inside Starbucks. The man, Abdulkareem Ismaeil, was travelling with his wife and three young children when he was approached by the brothers.

 

CCTV footage played in court showed Mohammed Fahir Amaaz confronting Mr Ismaeil before delivering a headbutt to his face and launching further punches, all while other travellers and children looked on. “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,” said Mr Greaney. He added, “The violence was entirely unlawful and delivered out of anger, not in self-defence.”

 

Though Mr Ismaeil declined to cooperate with police or provide a statement, Mr Greaney argued that his absence did not weaken the case. “The absence of evidence from him makes it no less easy to conclude that the first defendant behaved unlawfully in Starbucks,” he said.

 

The incident continued in the terminal’s car park, where police officers attempted to arrest the brothers. CCTV footage showed that as officers tried to move Mohammed Fahir Amaaz from a payment machine, he resisted, prompting his brother Muhammad Amaad to intervene.

 

“In the moments that followed, the first defendant also assaulted Pc Cook and then Pc Ward too, breaking her nose,” Mr Greaney stated. “The defendants used a high level of violence.”

 

One of the officers, Pc Marsden, was dragged to the ground while being held in a headlock. In a moment captured on camera, the officer responded by kicking Amaaz in the face and appearing to stamp on his head. Mr Greaney acknowledged that this may appear “rather shocking in the cold light of day” but urged jurors to view it in the context of the danger posed, especially given the concern that an officer’s firearm could be seized in the chaos.

 

The court heard that Amaaz is accused of assaulting Pc Marsden and Pc Ward, causing them actual bodily harm, as well as the assault of Pc Cook and the earlier attack on Mr Ismaeil. His brother Amaad is charged with assaulting Pc Marsden.

 

Both defendants, from Rochdale, deny the charges. Mr Greaney concluded, “What you have seen is the two defendants acting offensively, not defensively. The position of the prosecution is that their apparent defence of self-defence is false.”

 

Related Topics:

Brothers Plead Not Guilty to Assaulting Police Officers at Manchester Airport

Reform UK to Pursue Private Prosecution in Manchester Airport Incident

Manchester Armed Policeman Suspended After Video of Man being Kicked in Head

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph  2025-07-07

 

 

The trial continues.

The trial some insisted would never happen.

 

 

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The trial some insisted would never happen.

Who are these some that "insisted" it would "never" happen? 

Links?

"Both defendants, from Rochdale, deny the charges"

 

Going to be interesting how the defense will explain the CCTV coverage of them breaking the policewoman s nose?

49 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The trial some insisted would never happen.

 

 

Wrong again - the trial many insisted should not have taken almost one year to come to trial   

They will be found guilty. 

 

The lawyer will have the longest and most ridiculous list of mitigating circumstances drawn from the sentencing guidelines including childhood trauma, institutionalised racism, police violence and many more.

 

The judge will feel compelled to lessen the sentence under the two-tier system, which allegedly has been withdrawn, but is still in the minds of judges. 

 

The behaviour of those charged was outrageous.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The trial some insisted would never happen.

 

 

 

It wouldn't have done if the likes of Farage hadn't put the authorities feet to the fire. They were trying to bury it but he wouldn't let them. Great job Nige.

 

Even so, look how long it has taken to come to trial compared to the "Nasty tweeters" who were arrested, charged and jailed within a week of their "crime".

 

Now, let's sit back and listen to all the 'mitigating factors' that will ensure an unusually light sentence for these two thugs because they tick all the right boxes. 

 

Looking forward to the Ricky Jones trial as well, assuming it isn't delayed yet again. 

 

 

The police where forced to prosecute after Farage threatened to bring a private prosecution after delays in the charges against these Muslim thugs. 

I hope they do jail time and lots of it. 

1 hour ago, mikeymike100 said:

"Both defendants, from Rochdale, deny the charges"

 

Going to be interesting how the defense will explain the CCTV coverage of them breaking the policewoman s nose?

 

The Court was shown on Friday the full footage, including the altercation that kicked it all off, headbutting a man at Starbucks.

 

Quote

A man accused of assaulting police at Manchester Airport last summer had been "aggressive" and got "in the face" of a Starbucks customer before head-butting him, a jury has heard.

 

Happy that they pled not guilt. If hurty words can get you a 3 stretch stretch, this must be good for double, as a minimum.

 

Or will we see, with our own eyes, 2 tier justice in action ?

There are plenty of assault cases throughout the UK. 

 

We know the agenda why this is one making headlines. 

 

They are both plonkers. 

Doesn't matter how much the Mohammed toughies spend on posh suits, they are thugs, with no way out, hopefully bacon sandwiches every morning where I hope they go............ 

1 hour ago, HK MacPhooey said:

Wrong again - the trial many insisted should not have taken almost one year to come to trial   

The delay was due to Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) investigation into the allegations the defendants made against the police and that this case is being tried at a Crown Court.

 

I trust you agree, police offers have a right to due process when accused of crimes.

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/20/two-men-charged-over-manchester-airport-disturbance-involving-police

17 minutes ago, DonniePeverley said:

There are plenty of assault cases throughout the UK. 

 

We know the agenda why this is one making headlines. 

 

They are both plonkers. 

The reasons this was headlines to start with was because they suspended police that were involved in the arrest without even charging the brothers, what agenda were you referring to?

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

The reasons this was headlines to start with was because they suspended police that were involved in the arrest without even charging the brothers, what agenda were you referring to?

 

And then started a witch-hunt to try and find out who leaked the fuller video. Which substantially changed the narrative.

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I trust you agree, police offers have a right to due process when accused of crimes.

 

I trust you agree, that everyone, including Police Officers, have the right to defend themselves.

 

And that when the gloves come off, no point in pussyfooting around, they really come off.

They will be found guilty but the sentence? a few hours community service !

11 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

I trust you agree, that everyone, including Police Officers, have the right to defend themselves.

 

And that when the gloves come off, no point in pussyfooting around, they really come off.

I do.

 

Next.

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

I do.

 

Next.

 

So you also agree that the complaints against the Police Officers were vexatious, unwarranted and an attempt at trying to get the 2 scumbags off scot free ?
 

In which case, the lawyer should also be in the dock, with the 2 scumbags. Just as well I was not the Judge on Friday, that clown of a lawyer would have been straight to the cells for crimes against fashion.

14 minutes ago, henryford1958 said:

They will be found guilty but the sentence? a few hours community service !

 

Let's see what sentence the community leaders agree to.

 

Wouldn't want to inflame any tensions. 

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I do.

 

Next.

You do? Yet you were the one predicting that the police would be giving a hefty settlement to the brothers....

 

"I predict a hefty settlement."

 

You should should read your previous comments on this, your fooling nobody, the links are in the OP.

 

2 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

So you also agree that the complaints against the Police Officers were vexatious, unwarranted and an attempt at trying to get the 2 scumbags off scot free ?
 

In which case, the lawyer should also be in the dock, with the 2 scumbags. Just as well I was not the Judge on Friday, that clown of a lawyer would have been straight to the cells for crimes against fashion.

I agree the allegations made were vexatious.

 

However, that’s an opinion and does not negate the necessity for the IOPC investigation.

 

Even scumbags are deserving of legal representation, so no, their lawyers should not face the dick for representing their clients.

 

 

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Let's see what sentence the community leaders agree to.

 

Wouldn't want to inflame any tensions. 

More nonsense.

 

 

Assault on a police officer should be mandatory jail, the broken nose on the female officer clinches it..........

32 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The delay was due to Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) investigation into the allegations the defendants made against the police and that this case is being tried at a Crown Court.

 

I trust you agree, police offers have a right to due process when accused of crimes.

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/20/two-men-charged-over-manchester-airport-disturbance-involving-police

 

No, the delay was because the government were hoping this would become yesterday's news and then bury it.

 

They were also expecting Lammy's recommended racist 2 tier sentencing guidelines would be in place before the trial.

 

Thankfully they failed on both counts. Although I'd still expect an unusually light sentence followed by a load of disingenuous waffle from the judge about "cultural differences" and "good previous character".  

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Even scumbags are deserving of legal representation, so no, their lawyers should not face the dick for representing their clients.

 

 

Yes, facing the dick would be entirely inappropriate. 

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

agree the allegations made were vexatious.

 

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Even scumbags are deserving of legal representation, so no, their lawyers should not face the dick for representing their clients.

 

Scumbag lawyers making vexatious claims, are still scumbags and should be charged with making false allegations, struck off, and a minimum 5 year term rammed up their hoop.

The original Victim refused to make a statement or press charges. It is likely a visit was arranged with threats and violence to him and his family if he pressed charges.

This is the Muslim lawyer blaming everyone and blatelently lyeing to the Extent of saying one recieved a suspected brain Injury that needed surgery pack of lies.

 

 

 

 

41 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

So you also agree that the complaints against the Police Officers were vexatious, unwarranted and an attempt at trying to get the 2 scumbags off scot free ?
 

In which case, the lawyer should also be in the dock, with the 2 scumbags. Just as well I was not the Judge on Friday, that clown of a lawyer would have been straight to the cells for crimes against fashion.

The lawyer is saving his trendy elephant pants combo outfit for 

judgement day. 

39 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

No, the delay was because the government were hoping this would become yesterday's news and then bury it.

 

They were also expecting Lammy's recommended racist 2 tier sentencing guidelines would be in place before the trial.

 

Thankfully they failed on both counts. Although I'd still expect an unusually light sentence followed by a load of disingenuous waffle from the judge about "cultural differences" and "good previous character".  

And yet I provided a link to the actual facts that the Charges came following the IOPC investigation.

37 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

 

Scumbag lawyers making vexatious claims, are still scumbags and should be charged with making false allegations, struck off, and a minimum 5 year term rammed up their hoop.

The defendants made the allegations, they are e titled to legal representation.

 

Your vengeance fantasy doesn’t negate those rights.