.svg)
Public funding disclosures have revealed that more than £113,000 in taxpayer-funded legal aid was allocated to defend two brothers from Rochdale following a violent confrontation with police officers at Manchester Airport. The figures, obtained through public records requests, show that Mohammed Fahir Amaaz, 21, received £78,420.42 to cover counsel fees and solicitors' bills, while his elder brother, Muhammad Amaad, 26, received £34,694.56 for his defence team.
The brothers, raised in a British-Pakistani family in Greater Manchester, were thrust into national scrutiny after an incident inside Terminal 2 of Manchester Airport. The confrontation erupted after police approached the pair in a multi-storey parking area, acting on reports that a man matching Amaaz’s description had headbutted a passenger near a coffee shop moments earlier.
During proceedings at Liverpool Crown Court, jurors heard how the situation escalated as officers attempted to detain Amaaz. Amaaz delivered a blow that broke the nose of PC Lydia Ward and struck PC Ellie Cook, while Amaad joined the melee. Amaaz was convicted of assault causing actual bodily harm against PC Ward, assault on an emergency worker against PC Cook, and assault against the civilian passenger. In subsequent court appearances, he received a three-and-a-half-year prison sentence.
However, charges alleging that both brothers inflicted actual bodily harm on a third officer, PC Zachary Marsden, ended without convictions. Two separate juries were unable to reach unanimous or majority verdicts after prolonged deliberations. When prosecutors ultimately elected not to proceed with a third trial, formal acquittals were recorded on those counts.
An examination by Daily Dazzling Dawn reveals that behind closed doors, defence teams repeatedly mounted complex legal challenges to derail the prosecution. Defense counsel highlighted footage showing PC Marsden striking Amaaz while he was on the ground—an act officers argued was done to protect colleagues, but which defence attorneys asserted justified a self-defence argument.
Legal proceedings were further protracted by motions filed in the absence of the jury. Defence attorneys raised allegations of potential judicial and institutional bias, citing an incident where a court staff member made an inappropriate remark to the senior investigating officer. Defence lawyers sought to move the retrial to a different court venue and filed a motion requesting the trial judge recuse himself. Senior judicial authorities rejected these applications, ruling there was no evidence of systemic bias, though replacement court staff were appointed for subsequent hearings.
Efforts were also made by the defence to introduce previous, unproven complaints against the responding officers. The trial judge excluded these details, noting that previous allegations against the officers had been formally investigated and dismissed.
With total prosecution costs estimated near £2 million alongside the £113,000 legal aid bill, the outcome has reopened public debate regarding police accountability and the allocation of public funds in complex criminal prosecutions.
Attention now shifts to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, which continues its review into the actions of the officers involved. Meanwhile, parliamentary commentators and legal scholars expect the case to feature prominently in upcoming policy discussions regarding legal aid reform and the thresholds required for retrials in high-cost public interest cases.
