Delays at Terminal 2

Why have the Manchester Airport duo not been charged? Pt II

Let's look at the legality around police force. Police are allowed to use reasonable force to detain a suspect or to defend themselves. This of course depends on the individual situation, and the resistance or threat that an officer is encountering.  An officer has to demonstrate, if challenged, that the force they used met the severity of the situation. A cop is not allowed to use potentially lethal force unless they have good reason to believe a suspect is posing a threat to life, either to them, other officers or the public nearby. Lethal force is usually administered by a specialist's firearm, but it could also involve a blow to the head (with fist, foot or baton) among various other means. In any case of alleged excessive force, a verdict might depend on any injuries received by a suspect.

Many claim that there are different 'rules of engagement' (a military term) for armed police or police in airports. There are only distinct rules with regard to the firearms, which armed officers use and others do not. With regards to the principle of use of force, an armed officer is no different from any other cop. Likewise, if a member of the public commits an offence in an airport, it is no different from doing so in any other location. It does not suddenly become 'terrorism' just because there are planes nearby.

If an assault occurs during an arrest, can that mean a potential prosecution is thrown out? It can, but it's more often the case that trials collapse because of an unlawful arrest, use of duress when extracting a confession, entrapment or illegally obtained evidence. If the rights of the individual have been infringed during the arrest, that can also be factor. Excessive force could be considered an infringement of the suspect's rights. It is this point that could be decisive in this case.

It is thought to be the IOPC investigation into the two police officers that is delaying charges being brought against the airport suspects. As I said, it has been reported that the police investigation into the brothers was submitted to the CPS three months ago. The CPS have seemed to confirm they are waiting on the IOPC, quoted in The Daily Mail as saying:

There are many aspects in this case and we are working with the police and the IOPC to come to charging decisions

The theory is that the investigation needs to take place first, to ensure that any question of police impropriety is dealt with and thus cannot jeopardise a prosecution of the two Asians. Some believe these charges will only be made once the investigation into police is concluded and/or a trial is held.

However, by the letter of the law there is no reason that both parties could not be charged or even tried simultaneously. In a trial of the two young men, the conduct of the police officers and its bearing on the legitimacy of the arrest could be debated without that case having been concluded. Yes, it would be more helpful if it had. From the CPS point of view it would make their case easier, were the officers to be exonerated; but it would not be essential.

On the other hand, if the officers were to be criminally charged, then the judge in charge of the airport case could decide to halt that trial until the cops' trial had been held. The same could occur vice versa.

The implication of waiting for the complaints process before charging the two Asians is that if police impropriety is found, the charges may never be made. Were that to happen, it would be disastrous optics, as well as a great shame. The whole world has seen a video showing what appears to be serious violence being brazenly done against authority figures. If many in the country were to see confirmed what they now suspect - that the state handles certain minorities with kid gloves, while coming down hard on the majority - then the anger would be off the charts. And two allegedly violent individuals would be free on the streets.

Indeed, therein is another issue. If these men had been charged, they could have been remanded in custody or had restrictive bail conditions set. As it is, they are at large and unhindered, potentially presenting a continued danger to others. It appeared to be no scuffle on that video: it seemed to be serious and frenzied violence. Parallels with the riot suspects again appear. Many of these people were held on remand, even for non-physical offences. Even the Labour councillor Ricky Jones was remanded for some time following his alleged incitement of violence. The optics of this pair, enjoying their freedom in spite of serious allegations, is terrible. 

Perhaps the slow rate of progress is symptomatic merely of the sclerotic nature of our system. It may not be down to a sinister or biased agenda - or at least not wholly down to one. Many believe the case is so simple, especially considering the security video footage, that charges could have been made very quickly. The same could go for the investigation into the police officers - couldn't it be concluded sooner, simply by cross-referencing the footage with a copy of PACE?

Others insist that such investigations are painstaking and could rely on tracking down witnesses and different footage in a busy transport hub. I have to say I am not convinced by this. Some investigations of course take longer than others, but surely this is in the faster bracket; given that they appear to have the suspects, video of the incident, several police officers with injuries who saw what happened, and an indoor car-park full of people. It must go through a trial, of course, for a verdict to be reached, but one could reasonably assume there is enough material to place charges. The proper time should be spent on things, but the process of justice should also be as efficient as possible.

I feel it has to be the investigation into police that is holding things up. The CPS are probably being over-cautious, not wanting to risk the case against the airport suspects falling apart. There may be other aspects at play from different actors in the system, but this must be the main factor. One would hope so, anyway. The IOPC claim that the investigation will conclude their investigation “next month"; although they have only said that since the development I describe below.

One group unhappy with the delay is Reform UK. They announced on October 7th that if the CPS would not charge the airport duo, then Reform would apply to take out a private prosecution against the men. On November 18th they said their letter had not even been replied to, and they confirmed they had escalated proceedings using a top legal firm.

Making a private prosecution is possible if you get permission from a judge, magistrate or court legal advisor, and can pay for it yourself (average cost £8,500). It does not apply to all offences, with a few that can only be prosecuted by the CPS or with the consent of the Attorney General. This depends on the wording of the specific Act that outlaws the offence.  Reform would probably use a fundraiser to raise costs, or use the money from its recent surge in membership. Many claim that by doing this, Reform are not just politicising the justice system, but jeopardising a future trial. Of course, there would have to be a trial for that to happen...

Does merely trying to hasten the process jeopardise it? Firstly, Reform have to apply, and it might not happen anyway. Once an application is refused it cannot be taken before another court. Secondly, there is no pronouncement of guilt. All Tice and Farage have said is they believe there is enough evidence to mount a prosecution, not whether that evidence is false or genuine, or whether it will deliver a conviction. Basically it's just saying 'get your skates on' to the CPS. What would be compromising the justice system would be to interfere in a live trial, demand a certain verdict (we're back to George Floyd again) or target political opponents with spurious charges. If Reform were doing any of this, their critics would have a point.

Yes Reform are playing politics and they are tapping into public discontent around a high profile event. Of course they are, it's in their nature. They are being perhaps a bit misleading when they say the CPS is 'ignoring' the airport incident. This is not necessarily so, even if the CPS have made no comment. But no law is being broken by Reform's actions; and the authorities should realise by their very public dithering they have played right into Farage's hands. Despite the politicking, Reform are doing the decent thing - in making sure serious alleged crimes are put before a judge and jury.

Written by Ed Pond, 23/11/24, all rights reserved