CPS drops prosecution of man who assaulted pro-Palestine pensioners
A lack of public interest
Merseyside Crown Prosecution Service has decided to drop its prosecution of a far-right thug who assaulted two women pensioners who were peacefully holding pro-Palestine placards on one of Liverpool’s busiest roads.
The assault was purely because the women were holding boards protesting against Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
A 14-year-old boy who witnessed the incident on 2 February 2025 who rushed to help was also “battered”, as the women put it. A short clip from the incident shows:
The case was scheduled to be tried on 3 March 2026 at Wirral Magistrates’ Court. However, the CPS has contacted both women to inform them it’s dropping the prosecution. This decision suggests the CPS decided there isn’t a public interest in pursuing a conviction; that seems quite unlikely in reality.
Pensioners on the side of justice
Alma Lucas and Mary Carter are both members of the well-known Merseyside Pensioners Association (MPA). The fearless MPA is living proof that, at least in Liverpool, people get more radical and left-wing as they age, not less. This is perfectly logical. Having grandkids should make us more hungry for real change. It means shedding the ‘I’m alright, Jack’ attitude that allows injustices to continue unchecked.
Alma spoke to Skwawkbox about their experience – and the abundance of witnesses:
Mary Carter and I are two of the ‘Human Billboarders’ who display our placards across Liverpool on a weekly basis. Our purpose is to inform and educate the public of the injustices and atrocities visited upon the Palestinians. Examples of the billboards are:
IT DIDN’T START ON 7TH OCT
KILLING KIDS IS NOT SELF DEFENCE
STOP ARMING ISRAEL
LIVERPOOL JEWS AGAINST GENOCIDE
20,000 DEAD KIDS – NONE HAD A GUN
ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE
THE CEASEFIRE IS A LIE
ZIONISM IS TERRORISM
STOP ZIONISMI had parked in a side street off Queens Drive as we were billboarding on the central reservation of this busy arterial road into/out of M62.
I was unloading the car and had attached a placard to each of 2 wooden fold-up chairs (‘dumb billboarders’) – each one said IT DIDN’T START ON THE 7TH OCTOBER.
Out of nowhere, a man came behind me and smashed one of the chairs onto the ground so hard that it broke. He screamed at me that if I didn’t leave his “f***ing road” he would “kill me”. It was terrifying. I thought it was a cul de sac so nowhere to run – I didn’t want to run past him – he was screaming and shouting.
By chance, a group of schoolboys were walking along Queens Drive so I ran over to them and asked if I could stay with them until Mary arrived. I saw Mary on the central reservation crossing Queens Dr dual carriageway. She phoned me and I quickly explained what had happened – she told me to phone the police which I did.
Mary then reached me and comforted me. She got her phone to take a picture of the aggressive man. My back was to them but out of the corner of my eye I saw commotion. The man had gone to punch her so one of the schoolboys intervened.
A big fight ensued and there was blood everywhere. I tried to stop the schoolboy by holding onto his backpack but, when I did so, the man kept punching the schoolboy so I left go of his backpack in order that he could defend himself.
Witnesses (members of the public some of whom were mothers with babies) came across to check we were ok and a number of police vehicles arrived who took statements and then put handcuffs on the aggressor and took him away.
The schoolboy who was beaten up was part of a group of schoolboys – I think every one of them had their phones out recording the assault. When Mary was running from the man, she must have accidentally knocked her phone from ‘camera’ to ‘audio’ which provided an audio recording of some of the incident, ie “you were trying to punch me in the face”. I would be astonished if there was no CCTV evidence.
The trial was due on Tuesday but the CPS has dismissed the case stating it does not meet the “threshold”. We’re unable to understand this reasoning – what kind of “threshold” isn’t passed when two pensioners are assaulted and a schoolboy is beaten up does not meet the “threshold”.
We’re left feeling cheated. Only a few weeks ago, pensioners were being arrested for merely holding placards yet 2 pensioners are assaulted and nothing is done. I do not trust the CPS.
Failing the litmus test
Skwawkbox contacted Merseyside CPS. Astonishingly, a spokesperson said that the case did not meet its “legal test”:
The Crown Prosecution Service has a duty to keep all cases under review. Upon further consideration of the evidence in this case we decided it no longer met our legal test. It has therefore been discontinued and we have informed the complainants of our decision.
The CPS says that its ‘legal test’ applies two questions to a case
- Is there enough evidence against the suspect/defendant?
- And if so is it in the public interest for the CPS to bring the case to court?
There were multiple witnesses to the attack and multiple victims. There was an abundance of video evidence too. There was almost certainly CCTV. It’s beyond credulity to suggest the evidence didn’t suffice.
So the case was dropped because the CPS decided it wasn’t in the public interest to remove a violent offender from Liverpool’s streets who assaulted and terrified two women pensioners and “battered” a schoolboy until there was “blood everywhere”.
The name of the accused-but-let-off is David Ross. The CPS has not provided his contact information or personal details and the name is a fairly common one. However, while none of the men named David Ross that Skwawkbox could find was the attacker or based in Liverpool, the name does crop up quite frequently among people who are ardent Zionists involved in targeting the anti-genocide left. An extended-family industry, perhaps.
Numerous Israel-linked attackers have assaulted anti-genocide protesters – usually with no action at all beyond removing them from the scene. An Israel connection would certainly help explain why an abundantly-evidenced, vicious assault was – in the CPS’s opinion – ‘not in the public interest’ to prosecute.
Featured image via Barold/the Canary
Comments 6
Leave a Reply
The Canary
PO Box 71199
LONDON
SE20 9EX
Canary Media Ltd – registered in England. Company registration number 09788095.
For guest posting, contact [email protected]
For other enquiries, contact: [email protected]
© Canary Media Ltd 2026, all rights reserved | Website by Monster | Hosted by Krystal | Privacy Settings
‘Disinterest’ means absence of bias or being free from self-serving motives. I think you meant ‘uninterested’ which means have no intention to do something.
I would never describe CPS as ‘disinterested’. I think decisions to prosecute are very much biased by a range of considerations which are simply institutionalised bigotry or institutionalised subservience to power. Example 1, CPS rarely prosecutes rape cases because they assume they will not get a conviction – an assessment that implies misogyny is an unshakeable entrenched bias and no jury will convict because of it. By assuming misogyny, CPS effectively enforces it. Example 2, CPS will pursue weak cases when this aligns with government policy, they will engage in ‘vexatious’ prosecutions even with little hope of success, if they assume this is what ‘the authorities’ want. They fawn on power. Hence recent prosecutions of peaceful protestors where the charge is not relatively trivial e.g. criminal damage or obstructing highway but inflated to serious charges such as violent assault or terrorism.
Quite frankly, CPS is not fit for purpose. Given an opportunity, I would replace it and democritise it. I am unfamiliar with USA legal system but I believe they have a process called a ‘grand jury’ where those who wish to bring serious charges must present their case for prosecution to a panel of citizens. Only if they convince these citizens that there is good cause to continue, are cases brought into a court and tried. I think we need to do something like that and remove decision making from the lawyers and return it to citizens.
If a jury heard the prosecution arguments for most of the recent controversial cases, I doubt if any but a few of them would have gone to trial. This would better ensure justice and it would cut costs as a ‘grand jury’ hearing is cheaper and quicker than a lengthy court case followed by appeals.
If it was the other way round?
We seem to have two tier policing.
It happened in my city too as near a silent women’s Pro Palestine protest 2 other women were handing out PSC leaflets and a male Zionist dragged one woman’s Palestine flag then grabbed another woman by the scarf.
Seems to be an issue with Zionist men & Mashala (A 4,000 Year History of Palestine) argues Israel is trying to create “The New Zionist Man.”
They told the police but they just laughed saying well you get this when you protest.
The two women complained to the female Mayor & Deputy & last week they sent 8 police to keep an eye on the Zionist men but doubt if this will last long?
Conclusion: If this is the New Zionist Man you almost have to pity the citizens of the entity that calls itself Israel built on stolen land mainly by the use of violence.
David Ross appears to have friends in low places.
Fascist CPS protects violent men who inflict male violence on women provided the male perpetrator(s) are ardent zionists! Starmer and his fascist cronies will be pleased that the Liverpool CPS puppets are enactinhg his orders – protect the violent fascist zionists!
Without fear or favour, we let down the Poice when the CPS impose their Middle class bias. Happy to pursue if one of the victims was a Doctor or a self important business man. But women, poor, person of colour, well it just never seems to make the threshold. Time to remind those entitled and privileged that there can be no peace without justice as the late Peter Tosh reminded us.
The police are there to gather the evidence of crime and uphold the law. Sadly when it gets back to the bureau the middle class values kick in and evidence is omitted or ignored before it is handed onto the CPS. Too often the decision is made by an Area Investigations group that deem that investigations no longer require attendence at Locus in quo and take the word of their “own” prejudices above that of anyone that might not fit the safe suburban strightjacket that their prejudices define.
Can’t wait for AI to decide, imagine the embedded prejudices that technology will come with. Whether it will be as bad as degree didacts with little or no experience of the broad tapestry of modern British life.
If past experience serves as a guide it is a strong possibility that ‘David Ross’ is an undercover police officer or some other shadowy agent of the state.
As those who were assaulted have asserted there were plenty of witnesses, phone camera and most likely CCTV evidence. Two unarmed pensioners and an unarmed school child attacked without provocation then the alleged offender has charges against them dropped? Very, very fishy.
Can The Canary put out an appeal for anyone with film or still photos of this dangerous man, collect them together, then publicise them with a request from the public for information on him? He currently is at large with a sense of impunity for getting away with these crimes.
Take away his anonymity and he will have to reassess his future behaviour.