Jury Discharged in Manchester Airport Police Assault Retrial

HHJ Flewitt KC has discharged the jury in the retrial of two brothers accused of assaulting a police officer at Manchester Airport.

Brothers Muhammad Amaad, 26, and Mohammed Fahir Amaaz, 21, of Tarnside Close, Rochdale, had been accused of assault occasioning actual bodily harm on PC Zachary Marsden.

The jury at an earlier trial had been unable to reach verdicts on the matter. However, the same jury convicted the younger brother, Amaaz, of the following offences:

• Assault by beating of Abdulkareem Hamzah Abbas Ismaeil (unanimous verdict);
• Assault occasioning actual bodily harm of PC Lydia Ward (unanimous verdict);
• Assault by beating of PC Ellie Cook, a constable who was acting in exercise of functions as an emergency worker (majority verdict).

The older brother, Amaad, has not been convicted of any offences.

You can read about the outcome of the first trial in my earlier articles here and here.

It is pretty unlikely there will be another retrial, although the case has been adjourned until next Friday, 29th May 2026, to allow the Crown to evaluate its position.

By convention there is not normally a second retrial unless there are exceptional circumstances - e.g. the discovery of some golden nugget of additional evidence - further down the line. That is not going to be the case here, with the Crown's case built firmly upon video footage that has already been widely circulated.

As soon as the prospect of a further retrial has been put to bed, HHJ Flewitt should be in a position to sentence Amaaz for the three offences he has been convicted of.

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the most serious of the three, has a maximum sentence of 5 years' custody. However, given the 21-year-old has already served 12 months' on remand, which is the equivalent of a custodial sentence of 24 months, he will probably be released fairly shortly.

I'm fairly confident that Amaaz will also be subject to the SDS40 rules, which see most offenders released from custody at the 40 percent mark of their sentence. These rules were introduced by the Government towards the end of 2024 to free up prison spaces.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

If you have found this article entertaining or informative then you can show your appreciation by buying a coffee.

Cheshire Man with BB Gun Ran to Rescue of Paraglider

A Cheshire man armed with a BB gun ran to the rescue of a paraglider as they descended into a field of cows.

Henry Johnson, 21, of Yew Tree Avenue, Saughall, admitted possession of an unloaded air weapon in a public place when he appeared at Chester Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 19th May 2026.

Possession of an unloaded air weapon in a public place is an offence under section 19 of the Firearms Act 1968. It has a maximum sentence of 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction.

Stevie Bate, mitigating, told Magistrates that her client was diagnosed with autism as a young child and has recently started to live independently.

On 8th April 2026 Johnson saw a paraglider descending towards a field full of cows and was concerned about their welfare. He headed to the scene with his BB gun with the intention of providing assistance to the stricken aviator.

It would appear that police attended Lower Ridge Farm, Saughall, in response to a report that Johnson was "trying to fish without paying" and was in possession of a firearm.

By the time officers arrived the 21-year-old had handed his unloaded BB gun to a farm worker. The owner of the farm made no complaint in relation to his conduct. 

Miss Bate added that "previously BB guns were of different colours but now look like imitation guns". She noted that Johnson's family were providing support and assisting with his benefits.

Magistrates took a suitably pragmatic view in the circumstances.

Johnson was made subject to a 12-month conditional discharge.

He was also ordered to pay £26 surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

If you have found this article entertaining or informative then you can show your appreciation by buying a coffee.

Single Justice Procedure Magistrate Dialled in from Portugal

The Single Justice Procedure (SJP) is attracting further criticism today, with the revelation that at least one Magistrate has presided over hearings from their Portuguese home.

You can read my earlier thoughts on the SJP in these articles:

• The Single Justice Procedure (general overview);
• Concern Mounts Over the Fairness of the Single Justice Procedure;
• Single Justice Procedure: Urgent Clarification Needed;
• Magistrates' Association Calls for Improvements to Single Justice Procedure.

The SJP is a streamlined way of dealing with certain non-contested, non-imprisonable summary offences - things like TV licence evasion, rail fare evasion and speeding.

A single Magistrate considers the case on the papers, determines (in the absence of a guilty plea) whether the offence is made out and sentences accordingly. A Legal Advisor oversees the process to ensure the correct procedure is followed.

When the SJP came into being, back in 2015, the Magistrate and Legal Advisor would be working together in the same room. Along came covid-19 and an increased proportion of the court's work, including SJP, was conducted remotely. Remote working came to an end in the second half of 2022. The situation today is that a single Legal Advisor oversees the work of up to three Magistrates in the court building.

The SJP is often criticised for being some sort of rubber-stamping exercise, where some people are prosecuted without even knowing about it. There is also concern that some prosecutions take place in wholly inappropriate circumstances. In recent years journalist Tristan Kirk has done tremendous work highlighting some of the perceived weaknesses in the SJP system. 

I am not a fan of the SJP, but it is part and parcel of being a Magistrate. SJP is here and we need to work with it, although it would be fair to say that it isn't universally popular.

Former Magistrates' Court Legal Advisor Chris John was overseeing an SJP session in July 2024 when he was shocked to learn that Magistrate, Phil Taylor JP, was working remotely from his Portuguese home.

Mr Taylor indicated that the arrangement "had been going on for years", seemingly as some sort of throwback to the pandemic.

Mr John raised concerns about the legality of such an arrangement, which could cast into doubt the outcomes of hundreds of SJP cases. He was later dismissed by HMCTS ostensibly in relation to an unrelated matter, but firmly believes the true reason was for highlighting the unorthodox SJP working practices.

He told an Employment Tribunal: "I was seriously concerned that Mr Taylor must have undertaken thousands of SJP cases whilst being at home in Portugal, yet my employer took no action to either establish the number of cases undertaken or establish how Mr Taylor had ever been allowed to conduct hearings from Portugal."

Mr John's MP, Sir Jeremy Hunt, raised concerns about SJP working practices with Courts Minister Sarah Sackman.

In her reply, Ms Sackman said: "The Senior Presiding Judge's advice to the Judiciary is that Magistrates and Judges should not participate in court proceedings by live link outside the territory of the UK.

"This is because states might object that only its Judges can make judicial decisions in their territory.

"Whilst permission might be sought from a foreign state, this would only be contemplated in the most pressing circumstances and the most serious cases, which would never arise in Magistrates' Courts proceedings."

Referring to the specific case of Mr Taylor working from Portugal, Ms Sackman added: "I am told that there are no grounds to suggest that any case where this member of the judiciary conducted remote hearings from abroad was unlawful and would therefore need to be nullified.

"Court orders are binding unless and until they are overturned on appeal."

Mr John's Employment Tribunal case is ongoing.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

If you have found this article entertaining or informative then you can show your appreciation by buying a coffee.

Wirral Man Stonewalled Police Over Speeding Offences

A Wirral man ignored more than twenty letters from the police in relation to alleged speeding offences.

Carl Fixter, 40, of Allport Lane, Bromborough, was convicted of fourteen offences of failing to identify the driver of a vehicle.

The offences were proved in his absence at Wrexham Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 13th May 2026.

Failure to identify the driver of a vehicle is an offence under section 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It has a maximum penalty of a fine at level 3 (£1,000) and 6 penalty points.

Magistrates heard that police had written to Fixter on numerous occasions in relation to speeding offences committed using a vehicle registered in his name.

Despite being legally obliged to identify the driver of the vehicle, Fixter failed to respond to any of the letters.

Shaun-Bartlett Evans, prosecuting on behalf of North Wales Police, told the court that Fixter had effectively been using Allport Lane as a "blag address", having not lived at the property for more than 20 years and having no ability to receive correspondence there.

Given the number of offences, Magistrates decided to sentence in totality.

Fixter was fined £1,320 and ordered to pay £528 surcharge and £260 towards prosecution costs.

He was also disqualified from driving for a period of five years.

That's assuming he gets the message.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

If you have found this article entertaining or informative then you can show your appreciation by buying a coffee.