Please note that articles may contain affilitate links. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Monday, 30 June 2025

Brothers Accused of Manchester Airport Police Assault on Trial

The trial of two brothers accused of violently assaulting police officers at Manchester Airport gets underway later today.

Mohammed Fahir Amaaz, 20, and Muhammad Amaad, 26, of Tarnside Close, Rochdale, both deny the allegations against them, which are as follows:

  • Amaaz:
    • Two assaults occasioning actual bodily harm of PCs Zachary Marsden and Lydia Ward;
    • Assault by beating of PC Ellie Cook, a constable who was acting in exercise of functions as an emergency worker;
    • Assault by beating of Abdulkareem Hamzah Abbas Ismaeil.
  • Amaad:
    • Assault occasioning actual bodily harm of PC Zachary Marsden.

The allegations arise from a widely publicised incident at Manchester Airport on Tuesday, 24th July 2024.

HHJ Neil Flewitt KC will be presiding over the trial at Liverpool Crown Court. It is expected to last around three weeks.

The main thrust of today's effort will be selecting and swearing in the jury. That could take quite some time, given the contentious and well publicised subject matter of the trial.

It is unlikely that the prosecution will open until tomorrow.

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm is an offence under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which has a maximum sentence of 5 years' custody on conviction on indictment.

Assault by beating of an emergency worker is an offence under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as amended by section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. It has a maximum sentence of 2 years' custody on conviction on indictment.

You can read more about these offences on my Offences Against the Person article.

Based on previous press conferences held by the brothers, it would appear that they will be arguing self-defence.

Saturday, 28 June 2025

Solving the HMCTS Legal Advisor Brain Drain

The Government is currently recruiting an additional 6,000 or so Magistrates in the hope it might help clear the backlog of around 300,000 outstanding Magistrates' Court cases.

In order to do the work they do, those 6,000 additional Magistrates need to be supported by professionally qualified Legal Advisors. Experience shows that HMCTS, for whatever reason, struggles to recruit and retain Legal Advisors.

A significant proportion of newly recruited Legal Advisors come from those who have completed the vocational stage of barrister training. I shall refer to these as new barrister Legal Advisors. Despite having been called to the Bar, these are not fully qualified barristers as they have not completed pupillage and are therefore unable to obtain a practising certificate from the Bar Standards Board. New barrister Legal Advisors are against the clock, as they only have five years to obtain pupillage in order become a fully-fledged practising barrister.

Every year there are far more individuals called to the Bar than there are pupillage places. Employment as a Magistrates' Court Legal Advisor can be a convenient stop gap for a budding new criminal barrister to sharpen their skills before successfully obtaining pupillage a couple of years down the line.

HMCTS does not offer pupillage in-house, so any new barrister Legal Advisor wishing to obtain pupillage has to apply elsewhere. This means the service is losing a significant number of new barrister Legal Advisors, as they cannot progress their careers at the Bar by remaining at HMCTS.

Off the top of my head I can immediately think of three new barrister Legal Advisors in this situation, each of them leaving HMCTS for pupillage within the next 6 months or so. They are all very bright, enthusiastic, capable individuals - the very people the service should be nurturing and helping to develop their careers. Sadly it just doesn't happen.

Moving forward it would be nice to see HMCTS come to some sort of arrangement with the Bar Standard Board that allows it to offer pupillage in-house to new barrister Legal Advisors. Doing so would improve retention, as they would not need to immediately look elsewhere for pupillage.

Ipswich Man Seriously Injured Toddler in Electric Unicycle Collision

An Ipswich man seriously injured a toddler when he rode into her whilst riding an electric unicycle.

Andrew Wickenden, 50, of Old Norwich Road, Ipswich, admitted the following offences at an earlier hearing:

  • Causing serious injury by careless driving;
  • Driving a motor vehicle without valid third-party insurance;
  • Driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence.

He was sentenced at Ipswich Magistrates' Court on Friday, 27th June 2025.

Magistrates heard that the collision took place on Sunday, 3rd November 2024, when Wickenden was riding his Begode electric unicycle along the promenade at Folkestone - an area used exclusively by pedestrians and cyclists that has no access to motor vehicles.

In common with electric scooters, it is not possible to obtain third-party insurance to cover the use of an electric unicycle. As such, they should only ever be used on private land. That said, anyone choosing to use an electric unicycle in a public place is subject to the same rules of the road as any other motor vehicle.

It was a nice afternoon and the prom was busy with pedestrians. Wickenden, who is clearly having some sort of midlife crisis, was seen weaving between the pedestrians and was playing music from a loudspeaker at the time.

CCTV footage captured the moment he rode into a two-year-old girl, causing her to crash to the ground in agony. The child was rushed to hospital by ambulance and later diagnosed with a fractured skull and bleed on the brain.

In a victim personal statement, the young girl's mother said: "After four hours of being monitored in A&E she was discharged but four hours later she woke up screaming in agony.

"To see my daughter in a situation I couldn't prevent was heartbreaking.

"No child let alone a two-year-old should have to go through that.

"The pain prevented her from doing anything she would usually do such as playing running or even laughing."

The mother noted that Wickenden seemed less concerned about the girl's injuries; more concerned about getting on his way.

Wickenden, a father-of-three, told the police that he was travelling at low speed - despite CCTV footage seemingly showing otherwise - and trying to keep next to the wall in order to minimise contact with pedestrians.

Addressing the court, he said: "I am devastated at the thought of this young girl sustaining an injury as a result of this incident and I have had sleepless nights thinking about it."

Magistrates were of the view that Wickenden's offences were so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate.

He was sentenced to 14-weeks' custody suspended for 12 months, with the requirement that he completes 150 hours' unpaid work.

He was also ordered to pay £154 surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.

Wickenden was also disqualified from driving (or riding) for a period of 18 months.

Friday, 27 June 2025

Flintshire HGV Driver Loses Licence and Livelihood

A Flintshire HGV driver has lost both his licence and livelihood, having failed to persuade Magistrates that his circumstances amounted to exceptional hardship.

David Evans, 45, of Bryn Seion Lane, Sychdyn, Mold, admitted an offence of failing to identify the driver of a motor vehicle when he appeared at Wrexham Magistrates' Court on Friday, 27th June 2025.

Evans, an HGV driver, had initially denied the offence, so the matter had been listed for a pre-trial review. Hearing the strength of the prosecution's evidence, Evans decided to amend his plea to guilty. He then asked the court to consider an exceptional hardship application, as the conviction would leave him liable for disqualification under the totting up rule.

Unfortunately for Evans, he had made a previous exceptional hardship application as recently as November 2024. On that occasion, despite having accumulated 12 penalty points, the court allowed him to keep his licence on the basis that if disqualified he would lose his employment and be unable to contribute to his parents' household expenses.

At the November 2024 hearing it was made crystal clear to Evans that he could not advance the same exceptional hardship argument for the next three years. However, that's exactly what he tried to do at the 27th June hearing.

Addressing the court, Evans said "I'm an HGV driver. It will actually destroy me if I lose my licence. It will ruin me."

As Evans had no new circumstances for the court to consider, the court refused his application and proceeded to sentence him for the latest offence.

He was fined £519 and ordered to pay £208 surcharge and £130 towards prosecution costs.

Evans' licence was endorsed with 6 penalty points, taking the total to 18 and therefore resulting in a 6 month totting disqualification.

Addressing Evans, the Presiding Justice, Susanne Dickson JP, said: "We have every sympathy, but you've been around this loop before.

"Our hands are tied - there's really nothing we can do."

A dejected Evans left the courtroom.

There is no court in the land that wants to see a man lose his employment, particularly in the current economic climate. The court recognises that generally speaking people in work make a positive contribution to society and are far less likely to be out committing crimes.

However, the inescapable fact is that Evans, a professional driver, has been given ample warning about the standard of his driving previously. Despite acknowledging his own perilous situation, he simply hasn't heeded those warnings.

Having a driving licence is a privilege for those that comply with the rules, not a right for those that don't.