A decision by the Crown Prosecution Service means that a retrial will not be sought against Syed Hussain, 26, who had been accused of causing actual bodily harm to an armed officer during an altercation near the Terminal Two car park pay station in July 2024. Two separate juries were unable to reach a verdict, leading prosecutors to conclude that a third trial would not be in the public interest. Officials also confirmed that no third party involvement or outside influence impacted the handling of the case.

The incident began inside a Starbucks cafe at Manchester Airport, where Syed and his brother, Mohammed Hussain, 29, were involved in an altercation that prompted a police response. Officers attempted to detain the pair, resulting in a physical struggle captured on CCTV and body worn camera footage. The footage became central to the prosecution’s case, showing officers trying to restrain Syed as the situation escalated.

Both Syed and Mohammed denied the allegation that Syed assaulted the armed officer, insisting that his actions were either self defence or an attempt to protect his brother during what they described as an aggressive confrontation initiated by officers. Jurors at the second trial deliberated for nearly 20 hours across a five week hearing but remained deadlocked, prompting the CPS to review the viability of a retrial.

Prosecutor Paul Greaney KC explained to the court that the law discourages multiple retrials unless exceptional circumstances justify them. After a full review, the CPS determined that such circumstances did not exist, and the judge ordered the charge to be formally dropped. Not guilty verdicts were recorded for Syed on the count involving the armed officer.

Mohammed Hussain had previously been convicted during the first trial of separate assaults on two female police officers and a member of the public connected to the earlier part of the incident. He is due to be sentenced later this month. Police confirmed that internal assessments found no third party involvement in the incident itself, and they are continuing to cooperate with the Independent Office for Police Conduct as it reviews the officers’ use of force.

Public reaction online has remained intense, with many still discussing the encounter months after the footage went viral.

One person wrote,

“The power of a great lawyer.”

Another commented,

“You can clearly see the police attacking first, that was self defence.”

A third person added,

“Yes, they were involved in an earlier incident, and yes, the guy should not have fought back. But the officers approached them aggressively, grabbed him by the neck, and escalated it. Police are trained to de escalate situations, especially airport anti terror officers. They did not use their training properly, this is why the jurors could find them guilty.”

As the legal process approaches its final stages for the brothers, the decision not to retry Syed underscores the complexities of high pressure confrontations involving armed police and members of the public. It also highlights how difficult it can be for jurors to reach agreement when cases hinge on swiftly unfolding events, conflicting accounts and emotionally charged evidence.