Hi and welcome to this JK B'HAM Crime Report for VPN: REGIONAL NETWORKS:
Court Update: No Pleas Entered at Magistrates Today, Case Moves To Crown Court
Two men facing charges stemming from an altercation with police officers at Manchester Airport in July last year will be have their case handled at Crown Court.
Mohammed Fahir Amaaz, 20, and Muhammad Amaad, 25, both from Rochdale, entered no pleas regarding their assault charges this morning during their appearance at Liverpool Magistrates’ Court.
The district judge has scheduled the case to proceed at Liverpool Crown Court on Thursday, February 13, 2025, where, if they plead not guilty, they will face jury trial. Until then, both individuals have been released on bail.
Charges and Case Background
The charges stem from an incident in Terminal Two of Manchester Airport, which was widely circulated online and prompted public protests. Amaaz faces three assault charges against police officers, including two ABH, and one count of common assault against a member of the public. Amaad is charged with one count of causing actual bodily harm to police officer.
The case has been closely followed due to its high-profile nature. While the Crown Prosecution Service announced in December that, following an IOPC Investigation, no charges would be brought against the police officers involved, both men were charged with offences related to the altercation.
We will bring you further updates as the case progresses.
ACCESS TO THE LAW: Understanding the Crime and Sentencing
As part of our campaign to improve citizens’ access and understanding of UK Criminal law, we will be explaining the relevant UK legislation surrounding any case law relevant to our articles:
The decision by the defendants to not enter a plea at Magistrate’s Court highlights a number of issues which require explanation. In this case the nature of the charges and the relative powers of Crown and Magistrates Courts provide a likely reasoning for the decision.
Nature of Charges:
Both defendants face serious charges, with Amaaz facing two counts of ABH, among other charges, and Amaad one count of AHB. No plea was entered at the Magistrates’ Court, and the case was sent for trial at Crown Court.
Charges include:
• Assault on an Emergency Worker under Section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018
• Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (Section 47)
Key Circumstance:
The defendant struck a policewoman with such force as to break her nose.
Due to these considerations, a guilt plea at magistrates’ court may have presented only limited advantage to the defendants, as the case was likely to have been resolved and sentencing dealt with at crown court, not magistrates, for the following reasons.
Why This Case Was Sent to Crown Court
1. Seriousness of the Offences vs. Sentencing Powers:
District judges, who preside in Magistrates’ Courts, have enhanced sentencing powers compared to lay magistrates:
• They can impose up to 12 months’ imprisonment per either-way offence (following 2022 legislative changes).
• However, offences like ABH carry a maximum sentence of 5 years in Crown Court, while assault on an emergency worker carries a maximum of 2 years.
Despite the district judge’s enhanced powers, a broken nose inflicted with severe force, especially against a police officer on duty, would likely require Crown Court jurisdiction due to the potential for a custodial sentence exceeding 12 months.
2. Nature of the Injury and Charge:
The injury— a broken nose—meets the criteria for “serious harm” under the definition of ABH:
• ABH under Section 47 involves actual bodily harm that is more than transient or trifling. A broken nose would certainly qualify, and the starting point for sentencing under these guidelines could be a custodial sentence.
• If there is evidence of intentional harm, the case could potentially be considered under more serious charges, but even as ABH, it is still a serious offence.
3. No Plea Entered:
When the defendant does not enter a plea at the Magistrates’ Court, and the charge is an either-way offence, the case must be referred to Crown Court if the judge determines that greater sentencing powers may be required.
A district judge has discretion to escalate the case, even if it technically falls within their sentencing powers, particularly where proportionality and justice call for Crown Court oversight.
Summary of Legal Considerations:
• District judges have more sentencing flexibility than lay magistrates, but the seriousness of ABH (particularly given the force used) suggests a likely custodial sentence exceeding what is permissible in the Magistrates’ Court.
• The assault on an emergency worker is aggravated by the injury and force used, reinforcing the need for enhanced sentencing and a full trial in Crown Court.
• When no plea is entered, and the offence is either-way or indictable, the procedural requirement is for the case to be escalated to Crown Court for trial or sentencing.
Conclusion:
This case was sent to Crown Court because:
• The injury’s severity (a broken nose) likely exceeds the Magistrates’ Court’s jurisdiction for proportional punishment.
• The charge of ABH or assault on an emergency worker would result in a substantial custodial sentence that exceeds the 12-month limit of a Magistrates’ Court.
• The defendant’s failure to enter a plea required the case to be referred to Crown Court for a full trial and appropriate sentencing.
Strategic Considerations : What Lies Ahead?
A guilty plea at the earliest opportunity, ie Magistrates court, could have presented some advantages over a later guilty plea, but due to the seriousness of the allegations, this may have been minimal. However, by not entering pleas today the defendants have kept their options open.
The defendants may have chosen to delay their plea to prepare their defence more thoroughly, especially given that a jury trial would take place in Crown Court. Delaying the decision to plead guilty could allow them more time to assess the evidence and strategize their approach, even if it means potentially losing out on the maximum sentence reduction.
While both defendants face serious sentences, a guilty plea at crown would result in significantly lesser sentences than if they plead not guilty but are then convicted following a trial by jury.
Well, that’s all for now. But until our next article, please stay tuned, stay informed, but most of all stay safe, and I’ll see you then.
Jason King
Birmingham City-Desk
Twitter (X) @JasonKingNews
Comments