Manchester Airport trial shows why juries may be Britain's last defence against anti-Muslim hysteria

Manchester Airport trial shows why juries may be Britain's last defence against anti-Muslim hysteria Submitted by Faisal Hanif on Wed, 06/03/2026 - 20:44 Justice requires evidence, not outrage. This fact is often overlooked in the rush to judgment by media and politicians Several videos have emerged of the 2024 incident at Manchester Airport (Screenshot/X) On Long before the trial concluded for two Muslim brothers accused of assaulting police at Manchester Airport two years ago, many in Britain's political and media classes had already made up their minds. The viral clips were viewed millions of times. Television pundits denounced the defendants as "thugs" and "hooligans". Politicians weighed in. Social media erupted with demands for punishment.  The two brothers at the centre of the case ceased to be defendants entitled to a fair hearing. They became symbols in a wider culture war. That is precisely why the ultimate verdicts matter far beyond the Manchester Airport case itself. After hearing weeks of evidence, including bodycam footage, witness testimony and legal arguments unavailable to those consuming carefully edited clips online, jurors reached a nuanced conclusion.  Mohammed Fahir Amaaz was convicted of assaulting two female police officers and a member of the public. But jurors did not accept every allegation advanced by the prosecution, particularly those connected to the male officer whose conduct became the defining image of the case, following his violent response during the 2024 altercation. Yet even once the verdicts were in, after an initial trial and a retrial, social media was flooded with claims that the brothers had somehow "walked free" or "got away with it". These claims were plainly false.  What appears to have enraged many commentators was not the absence of justice, but the refusal of jurors to endorse every aspect of a story that had become politically useful. 'Orgy of race hate' The Manchester Airport case revealed a growing inability within sections of Britain's political and media classes to distinguish between justice and vengeance. This atmosphere did not emerge by accident. During the trial, with proceedings still ongoing, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage publicly described the case as an example of "two-tier justice". His comments were serious enough that Judge Neil Flewitt referred them to the attorney general for consideration as potential contempt of court, although no further action was taken.  One of Britain's most influential politicians was effectively declaring the defendants guilty before a jury had completed its work. But the hostility was not confined to politicians.  Jurors are not asked to determine whether multiculturalism has succeeded, or whether immigration is too high. They are asked to evaluate evidence After prosecutors decided last month not to pursue a third trial, the brothers' solicitor spoke of an "orgy of race hate" directed towards his clients, with social media posts - viewed by millions of people - portraying the brothers as guilty long before jurors had reached their verdicts. The language used throughout the affair was revealing, with Talk TV commentator Isabel Oakeshott declaring the brothers to be "thugs" and "hooligans". Compare this to how the UK media reacted to the far-right riots that followed the Southport stabbings in 2024. There, mobs attacked police officers, injured scores of them, targeted mosques and terrorised minority communities. Yet the rioters were rarely presented as representatives of white Britain; no national debate emerged over the supposed values of the communities from which they came. The contrast is impossible to ignore. When Muslim men are accused of violence, entire communities are expected to answer for their actions. When white extremists engage in violence on a far larger scale, responsibility becomes individualised and frustrations are understood to be legitimate. Parallel judgment For decades, Muslims in Britain have often found themselves subjected to a parallel form of judgment: trial by media. Long before courts hear evidence, television panels, newspaper columnists and social media influencers construct narratives in which Muslim guilt is assumed and entire communities are invited to answer for the alleged actions of individuals. That is precisely why juries matter. Unlike politicians chasing headlines or commentators prosecuting culture wars, jurors are required to examine all available evidence, hear competing arguments and deliberate collectively. Their conclusions are often less dramatic than those demanded by public outrage because they are rooted in facts rather than assumptions. Lost amid the fury is another important question: why has so much public sympathy been reserved for the male officer, yet so little attention devoted to scrutinising his conduct?  Police officers deserve protection from violence, but accountability matters most when it concerns those exercising state power. A society that celebrates ever-more aggressive exercises of state power, while dismissing scrutiny as weakness, risks creating conditions in which misconduct flourishes unchecked. This is all the more important after the Labour government announced plans last year to scrap jury trials for certain offences in England and Wales. Supporters argue that such reforms are necessary to address court backlogs, but efficiency is not the only value at stake.  The so-called Rotherham 12 case, in which 10 Asian men were unanimously acquitted by a jury after being charged with violent disorder for defending themselves against far-right marchers in 2015, illustrates what could hang on the right to trial by jury, with conviction rates running at 56 percent in the Crown Court compared with 71 percent in magistrates' courts, and the gap wider still for public order offences. Such acquittals have repeatedly been framed by critics as evidence of a "two-tier" system favouring Muslims. Yet, the 2017 Lammy Review, commissioned specifically to examine racial disparities in the criminal justice system, concluded that juries were "a success story", noting that all-white juries did not on average deliver different outcomes for minority groups when compared with white defendants.  Vital role Muslims have become a catch-all explanation for a growing range of political grievances. This is precisely why the role of juries is so important.  Jurors are not asked to determine whether multiculturalism has succeeded or whether immigration is too high. They are asked to evaluate evidence relating to specific allegations against specific individuals. The erosion of jury trials must be viewed alongside Britain's broader drift towards secrecy within the justice system itself. For years, lawyers and civil liberties campaigners have warned that closed proceedings and secret evidence risk insulating state power from meaningful challenge. For many British Muslims, the UK has become a hostile home Read More » In a political climate where Muslims are simultaneously discussed as a security problem, a cultural problem and a demographic problem, weakening one of the few remaining institutions of public scrutiny should concern anyone who values equal justice. There is an additional historical irony. Some legal historians have argued that the English jury system might owe part of its intellectual ancestry to the lafif, an institution within classical Islamic jurisprudence, in which 12 ordinary members of the community heard evidence and collectively determined facts. A legal tradition that might have travelled from the Islamic world into medieval Europe could now be helping to shield British Muslims from the consequences of anti-Muslim panic. The Manchester Airport verdicts offer a reminder of a fact that is often overlooked in modern Britain: justice requires evidence, not outrage.  As anti-Muslim rhetoric becomes ever-more embedded within public life, juries may prove to be one of the last institutions capable of insisting on that distinction. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye. Crime Opinion Post Date Override 0 Update Date Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:29 Update Date Override 0