Delays at Terminal 2
Why have the Manchester Airport duo not been charged? Part I
On July 23rd, there was a disturbing incident at Manchester Airport.
At first we were told about an alleged assault by a Greater Manchester Police (GMP) officer during the arrest of two men by the car-park payment machines. A video went viral seeming to show an officer, armed with a TASER, kicking and stamping on the head of an apparently Muslim man on the floor. The cop then appeared to do a 'knee-drop' onto the man's arm. Official sources said the arrest had followed an "altercation between passengers" in the Terminal 2 baggage hall and another "violent altercation" in a Terminal 2 Starbucks. Allegedly this had stemmed from the mother of a family claiming she had been insulted by someone from her Qantas flight, which drew the ire of her sons.
The mobile phone footage created a huge amount of agitation among the left and many Muslims, who claimed police brutality. There were even protests on the streets by Pakistani Muslims, and the Rochdale police station holding the two men was surrounded by a crowd demanding their release. The Home Secretary and other political figures hastened to express 'concern' about the alleged assault. They encouraged (rightly in my view) an investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). In mid-August the IOPC announced two police officers were under criminal investigation. I’m not sure what the other officer was supposed to have done. No charges have yet been made against them.
However, many people were keen to emphasise that we didn't know exactly what had happened in the build-up to the ugly scene. Perhaps, such people said, the use of robust force might have been justified. The politicians had thrown the officers under the bus, it was claimed. There was plenty of debate about the ins and outs of police procedure. Information and rumour steadily dripped out, including the alleged detail, put out by GMP, that a policewoman's nose had been broken.
On July 30th, the Manchester Evening News released leaked CCTV, showing what appeared to be a serious and prolonged assault on police officers by the two men. A policewoman indeed seemed to be punched in the face, and was seen to grasp her nose. An incorrect photo was circulated, showing the supposed victim (attractive and blonde), but was taken from an unrelated case. The scene looked like absolute chaos, with fists appearing to flail everywhere, and was frightening to watch. Right away, those who had decided the police were justified were saying 'I told you so' - often with some vitriol.
Most public sympathy for the man on the floor seemed to evaporate and the focus turned to the assault suspects. Four months later the four young men involved - of which two are the most prominent - have still not been charged. They had apparently been arrested and detained, but then bailed pending charges. The police, it seems completed their investigation and referred the case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) way back on August 15th. There is a huge amount of anger about this, especially considering the swift way in which rioters were dealt with during the same period. The case became a key plank in the popular perception of a 'two tier' justice system.
It is alleged the first video was leaked - or at least pushed - by the legal team of the two young men, headed by one Akhmed Yakoob. Yakood appears to be an activist lawyer, social media influencer and a dubious fellow with political ambitions. In 2024 he stood as an independent in the West Midlands mayoral election, then stood in the General Election (for Birmingham Ladywood, coming second). It is also alleged he had partnered with a criminal 'gang leader' in an investment business. It is said Yakoob may have put out the video because he wanted to get the first strike in the PR war; painting the men as the victims and the police as the aggressors. It could even have seen a potential case thrown out, by showing the arrests as illegitimate.
However, if Yakoob did leak the video, that could be regarded as an attempt to prejudice a court case, and thus could jeopardise it. The solicitor could, after all, have handled the matter confidentially - as most briefs do in millions of cases every day. The same goes for his other social media activity. Proper legal representation is not done like this. Not long after the second video came out, Yakoob 'stepped aside' and recommended his clients hired another lawyer. He claimed this was because "they've [the media] made this whole situation about me". Quite possibly the clients fired him, having been warned by others about the dangers of his unprofessional approach.
The release of the second video was also a leak, by an unnamed source of the Manchester Evening News. Realistically those with access to the security tapes would be very few in number, but we have no way of knowing who it was. Journalists are of course allowed by law to protect their sources. The leak, again, could be seen as an attempt to prejudice a future case. Technically, the video could be dismissed as evidence, just as the first video could be.
The main criteria affecting video evidence, though, is whether the footage has been tampered with or illegally obtained. In a potential trial, the original tape would presumably be taken straight from airport security, with only the police having custody between that, and the relevant paperwork being signed. The airport operator recording CCTV is also perfectly legal. Therefore it is unlikely that the evidence would be rejected. The same would probably apply to the video of the alleged police assault. It was recorded on somebody's phone, which would be similarly verified, and was being legally filmed in a public place.
How could leaking either video be seen as prejudicing the case? Basically, it could mean that potential jury members would see the footage and any attached commentary, then form an opinion as to the innocence or guilt of the potential defendants, without first seeing the full range of evidence. As the related Contempt of Court Act 1981 has it:
[the law applies] to a publication which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced
It is prejudicial commentary that is more usually the pivotal factor, though - not the audio-visual evidence itself . If merely showing the video was a legal problem, the newspaper would likely not have published it.
Were either video to have been leaked after charges were made, it would be more likely to be dismissed as prejudicial, and contempt of court laws would have kicked in. Both videos may have been leaked early with this in mind:
[the law] applies to a publication only if the proceedings in question are active...at the time of the publication
The most prejudicial commentary would be making pronouncements of guilt. This is the reason words like 'allegedly' and 'accused' are used by media and politicians. A future juror might see a partial report and be swayed in their decision. If any one of us doesn't use these qualifiers, technically we could jeopardise a trial. If we did it while a trial was occurring, we could be in contempt of court. As with the Southport affair, we should be most careful with the words we choose.
It is much harder, in a high profile case, to ensure juries have no previous knowledge of the situation. It was true when Jamie Bulger's killers were tried, or the Moors Murderers, or (in America) OJ Simpson. It is even more the case in the social media age, with a camcorder on every phone and information having no regard to national jurisdiction. See for example the death of George Floyd. That video had been seen all over the world with all kinds of commentary about Chauvin’s motive, and still a jury trial took place. In the eyes of the US authorities, it had to (and some politicians including the President even implied a certain verdict had to be reached).
Indeed, in the UK just because details of a case are widely known, or opinions about famous defendants are held, there is no reason a court case cannot go ahead. Other evidence will be seen in court that the public were not aware of, after all, and jurors can change their minds. And what other option is there, in the face of a heinous alleged crime and society's need to administer justice?
More tomorrow.
Written by Ed Pond, 23/11/24. all rights reserved.