**Brothers Accused of Violent Outburst During Manchester Airport Arrest, Court Told**
Two brothers from Rochdale, Greater Manchester, stand accused of using “high levels of violence” during a series of confrontations at Manchester Airport, Liverpool Crown Court has heard. The pair allegedly assaulted several police officers, leaving one with a broken nose, during an arrest attempt following an incident at a Starbucks café in Terminal 2.
Mohammed Fahir Amaaz, aged 20, and his brother Muhammad Amaad, 26, are at the centre of legal proceedings stemming from their actions on the evening of 23 July last year. Prosecutors claim that what began as a domestic dispute swiftly escalated into a violent episode involving multiple victims—including both civilians and law enforcement.
Presenting the prosecution’s case, barrister Paul Greaney KC explained to the jury how officers responding to reports of an initial altercation at Starbucks soon located the brothers near the terminal’s car park payment machines. According to Greaney, the situation deteriorated when officers attempted to apprehend Mohammed Fahir Amaaz by moving him away from the payment area. It is alleged that both brothers physically resisted and went on to assault three attending officers: Pc Zachary Marsden, Pc Ellie Cook (both armed), and the unarmed Pc Lydia Ward.
Greaney detailed that during this struggle, Amaaz reportedly struck Pc Marsden and Pc Cook, as well as Pc Ward, with the latter sustaining a broken nose in the course of the disturbance. “The defendants used a high level of violence,” the prosecutor stated, emphasising that the officers were simply attempting to perform their duties.
Court documents specify that Mohammed Fahir Amaaz faces charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm against Pc Marsden and Pc Ward, as well as assault against Pc Cook. Further, he is accused of assaulting a member of the public, Abdulkareem Ismaeil, in the Starbucks prior to the police involvement. Meanwhile, Muhammad Amaad is charged with causing actual bodily harm to Pc Marsden.
The court learned that the brothers had travelled to Manchester Airport that day with their young nephew to collect their mother, who was arriving on a flight from Qatar. Prosecutors contend that a disagreement involving their mother and Abdulkareem Ismaeil—also a recent arrival and travelling with his family—sparked the initial conflict.
Testimony reveals that after meeting their mother in the arrivals area, the brothers walked with her towards the car park, passing Starbucks en route. Upon sighting Ismaeil inside, and reportedly at their mother’s prompting, the two men entered the café and confronted him. CCTV footage, described to the jury but without accompanying audio, allegedly depicts Amaaz headbutting and then punching Ismaeil in view of his young family.
Greaney described the conduct seen in the footage as “obviously unlawful,” suggesting that it was a response fuelled by anger rather than any legitimate act of self-defence. The prosecutor underlined the clarity of the evidence available, noting that both CCTV and police body-worn cameras captured much of the incident, thereby reducing the jury’s dependence on differing witness accounts.
Despite the graphic nature of the evidence described, both defendants have pleaded not guilty. Their legal team maintains that they acted in lawful self-defence or in the defence of others throughout the incidents in question. The jury has been reminded that this will be a central contention as the trial continues.
A notable aspect of the case is the absence of Mr Ismaeil as a witness. The prosecution explained that he was unwilling to make a statement, reportedly wishing to continue his holiday undisturbed. Nevertheless, the court was assured that his silence does not impede the evidence suggesting unlawful conduct on the part of Amaaz in the café.
This case is likely to raise broader questions regarding the response to disputes in public areas, the risks encountered by police officers in such confrontations, and the role of bystander evidence in clarifying high-profile incidents. Jurors were shown the crucial CCTV sequences, which will play a pivotal role as proceedings go forward.
The trial remains ongoing, with both sides expected to further outline their positions as evidence continues to be presented over the coming days.