20 December 2024 , 12:39
456
0
Two men have been charged following a fight at Manchester Airport, where a police officer was filmed allegedly stamping on a man’s head.
Mohammed Amaaz, 20, is charged with two offences of causing actual bodily harm, one charge of assaulting an emergency worker and one charge of common assault.
Muhammed Amaad, 25, is charged with causing actual bodily harm.
No police officers will be charged, however, the CPS have confirmed.
The two defendants will appear at Liverpool Magistrates’ Court on Thursday, January 16.
The charges follow an altercation at the airport’s Terminal 2 on July 23, allegedly involving the men and police officers.
Footage of a police officer allegedly kicking a man’s head during the ruckus was shared online, sparking public protests.
Prior to the incident, it’s claimed there was a confrontation between passengers on a Qatar Airways flight.
Frank Ferguson, head of the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, said: ‘This was a high-profile incident that attracted significant public interest and media coverage at the time, and we have worked closely from the outset with investigators from the Independent Office for Police Conduct and Greater Manchester Police.
‘We have reviewed all the available evidence, including witness statements, video footage, expert reports and other material related to police use of force, to make an independent and objective assessment about whether it is appropriate to present charges for the court to consider.
‘Based on a careful consideration of this evidence, we have concluded that two men should be charged with offences including assaults on police officers.
‘We have concluded no charges should be brought against any officers. We examined potential offences of actual bodily harm, and common assault, and reviewed expert evidence in the form of an independent report from an expert in the use of police force, to inform this decision.’
‘We always ensure police training is also taken into account in the context of these decisions, and in this case the combination of evidence, and the expert opinion meant there was no realistic prospect of conviction.’