Manchester Airport police assault trial | Man found guilty of assaulting two female police officers

Churchlawtonblue said:
The news channels show the police officer kicking the offender on the floor three times on itv and twice on bbc. But they only show the offender punching the police officers once. No bias here. Lol. Glad the scum bag has been found guilty.
Click to expand...
Just watched Channel 4 News. They showed a lot of the punches to be fair!
 
Cheadle_hulmeBlue said:
The whole thing is odd. There’s clear evidence of them violently assaulting police officers. The judge mentioning there good character! What on earth does that have to do with what they did.

There will be a huge backlash if these thugs aren’t locked up.
Click to expand...

Given the judge's comments prior to the verdict I wouldn't be surprised if he suspends any sentence. If I was a police officer and that happened I'd be looking for another job.
 
paulchapo said:
I'm surprised they went with the lesser charge instead of gbh. The violence prior to this incident was pretty shocking too when they attacked the bloke who has a falling out with their mother on the plane.
Click to expand...
Maybe it could be category 1 then. Guess it depends on the judge’s definition of serious injury.

When my mate had his nose broken in a robbery 20 years back, the guy got 25 weeks inside.

Hopefully the judge deems the first assault as serious.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
Maybe it could be category 1 then. Guess it depends on the judge’s definition of serious injury.

When my mate had his nose broken in a robbery 20 years back, the guy got 25 weeks inside.

Hopefully the judge deems the first assault as serious.
Click to expand...

Yes, you have to add on assaulting emergency workers too which carries a heavier penalty.
 
jimharri said:
Yeah; I remember that. Only a short video was originally released, showing the officer "restraining" (!) the defendant. The ACAB mob on here had a field day, preaching about what action should be taken against said officer. When the longer version of the video was released, showing the defendants attacking people, including police officers, as well as reports about incidents in other parts of the airport (a coffee shop?), those same posters suddenly went very quiet, very quickly.
Click to expand...
I salute you for remembering this.
They need to be reminded
 
TheGhost said:
What do you mean sadly not? It’s a specific legal act with up to 2 years. If it’s aggravated they’ll get more.

Can admin do a poll on how long the main perpetrator will get?
Click to expand...
If you look at the guidance, the assault on the emergency worker seems to be an A1 offence, which is a maximum of 26 weeks.

He’ll get more for the ABH Convictions. Hopefully A1 for those too, but they could be any combination between A1 and B2, dependent on the judge’s interpretation.
 
Eds said:
Correct, Muhammed Amaad only had one charge against his name and no verdict reached. The other **** was found guilty on three charges but no verdict reached on the assault charge against the male copper. That is unbelievable and I will love to know the reasons. Hope the CPS go for a retrial though.
Click to expand...
Need to elect three Judges to make decisions over these type of trials, just as they did in Northern Ireland when is was impossible to get a jury to make objective decisions over cases that had sectarian elements.
 
Last edited:
paulchapo said:
This is one strange case. I'm not quite sure how any jury could find it hard not to find them guilty after viewing the footage we've seen. Aside from the violence against the police they were being arrested for attacking a passenger who was on the same flight as their mother. That's two assaults. Maybe the jury are afraid of repercussions if they find them guilty? The judge's remarks are bizarre too. What has their lack of previous convictions and good character got to do with their actions on that day? Normally he would make those remarks in his sentencing if they were found guilty, not before. All odd.
Click to expand...
Nothing strange at all. The Judge is required to give a good character direction (if applicable) to a jury when summing up. If they did not then it’s a straightforward point of appeal.

If someone has no convictions and that has been positively asserted by their legal representative then the Judge must remind the jury of this and explain what the implications are.

Got the following online which sums it up usefully.

The general rule is that a direction as to relevance of good character to a defendant's propensity to have committed the offence is to be given where he is of good character, while a direction of its relevance to his credibility is to be given where he is of good character and has testified or made pre-trial statements.
Click to expand...
In short it means firstly that a person who has not committed an offence previously is less likely to commit one than someone who has. It’s always qualified by saying that it’s only part of the picture and not enough on its own to decide upon someone’s innocence or guilt. They also make the point that everyone who commits a offence has to do so for the first time at some point. Secondly it means that someone who hasn’t committed an offence previously is more likely to be telling the truth than someone who has. Again this statement is qualified along similar lines to the other limb.

It’s perfectly right and fair that jurors take this into account when deciding upon someone’s guilt, and that a fair trial in conducted.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Nothing strange at all. The Judge is required to give a good character direction (if applicable) to a jury when summing up. If they did not then it’s a straightforward point of appeal.

If someone has no convictions and that has been positively asserted by their legal representative then the Judge must remind the jury of this and explain what the implications are.

Got the following online which sums it up usefully.


In short it means firstly that a person who has not committed an offence previously is less likely to commit one than someone who has. It’s always qualified by saying that it’s only part of the picture and not enough on its own to decide upon someone’s innocence or guilt. They also make the point that everyone who commits a offence has to do so for the first time at some point. Secondly it means that someone who hasn’t committed an offence previously is more likely to be telling the truth than someone who has. Again this statement is qualified along similar lines to the other limb.

It’s perfectly right and fair that jurors take this into account when deciding upon someone’s guilt, and that a fair trial in conducted.
Click to expand...
I’m absolutely perplexed by this. It might make some sense where the evidence is refutable in some way. In this case the judge and everyone else can literally watch the offences being committed, so surely the lack of previous offences is completely irrelevant?
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Nothing strange at all. The Judge is required to give a good character direction (if applicable) to a jury when summing up. If they did not then it’s a straightforward point of appeal.

If someone has no convictions and that has been positively asserted by their legal representative then the Judge must remind the jury of this and explain what the implications are.

Got the following online which sums it up usefully.


In short it means firstly that a person who has not committed an offence previously is less likely to commit one than someone who has. It’s always qualified by saying that it’s only part of the picture and not enough on its own to decide upon someone’s innocence or guilt. They also make the point that everyone who commits a offence has to do so for the first time at some point. Secondly it means that someone who hasn’t committed an offence previously is more likely to be telling the truth than someone who has. Again this statement is qualified along similar lines to the other limb.

It’s perfectly right and fair that jurors take this into account when deciding upon someone’s guilt, and that a fair trial in conducted.
Click to expand...
I believe some of the 21 terrorist involved in 9/11 had no criminal records.

The Jury aren’t allowed to hear the past convictions of the person on trial but they can be told of their “good character”, how is that fair? Each case should be assessed on its merits, I know precedent forms a major part of law but this is not equitable.
 
A sentencing opinion from Daniel ShenSmith, a Master 7th Degree Black Belt and Barrister of England and Wales.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top