Sam Kerr not guilty of racial harassment
Discussion
Been watching this one with interest - wondered how it would go
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp9xpv8105jo
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp9xpv8105jo
She sounds fortunate:
Law said:
An offence is racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of sections 29-32 of the Act if the offender demonstrates hostility towards the victim based on his or her membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group, or if the offence is (wholly or partly) motivated by racial or religious hostility.
Although I don’t know all the circs so there may be some nuance etc I’ve missed. 
I suppose the 'and' affects the meaning. The description consisted of 2 separate things, 'stupid' and 'white'. White cannot be an insult on its own, it's just a fact. Stupid is insulting but not racist. 'Stupid white' would have implied a connection between the stupidity and the race, and so would be racist.
Splitting hairs I know. And undoubtedly not what she was thinking at the time, but perhaps what some of the jury thought if they are linguistic pedants like me.
Splitting hairs I know. And undoubtedly not what she was thinking at the time, but perhaps what some of the jury thought if they are linguistic pedants like me.
Simpo Two said:
As long as I can call somebody 'stupid and black' that's fine.
I don't think you can, racism doesn't work like that, apparently.On a related matter I remember my dad once told me about a police officer who was sacked for gross misconduct, his gross misconduct was calling a man a 'black b**stard', when the man was biting him as he was being arrested! It wasn't the word b**stard that was the problem but the word black and apparently the fact that he was being bitten at the time was insufficeint mitigating circumstances to prevent him being fired. Funny old world.
mac96 said:
I suppose the 'and' affects the meaning. The description consisted of 2 separate things, 'stupid' and 'white'. White cannot be an insult on its own, it's just a fact. Stupid is insulting but not racist. 'Stupid white' would have implied a connection between the stupidity and the race, and so would be racist.
Splitting hairs I know. And undoubtedly not what she was thinking at the time, but perhaps what some of the jury thought if they are linguistic pedants like me.
Real world time! Of course the word white on it's own can be taken as a racist comment if it's used in the wrong manner and context which clearly it was here. try it out next time your out on the street and call someone stupid and black in earshot of a police officerSplitting hairs I know. And undoubtedly not what she was thinking at the time, but perhaps what some of the jury thought if they are linguistic pedants like me.
Reported the policeman changed his statement with more detailed fresh memories written down a year later to reference the race element causing him distress etc. At a preliminary hearing the defence failed in a strike out application, with the case going to jury...and their decision after full trial is not guilty.
Questions for plod and CPS..?
Questions for plod and CPS..?
MrBogSmith said:
She sounds fortunate:
The nuance is in the first two words: "An offence". The jury first has to be convinced that one of the offences referred to by sections 29-32 has been committed. In this case the alleged offence was "causing a police officer harassment, alarm or distress under section 4A of the Public Order Act".Law said:
An offence is racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of sections 29-32 of the Act if the offender demonstrates hostility towards the victim based on his or her membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group, or if the offence is (wholly or partly) motivated by racial or religious hostility.
Although I don’t know all the circs so there may be some nuance etc I’ve missed. Public Order Act said:
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
The prosecution must satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt on 3 points:(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
- that there was intent to cause a person harassment
- that the words or behaviour were threatening, abusive or insulting
- that somebody suffered actual harassment, alarm or distress.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-order...
PC Lovell's initial contemporary statement was considered thorough yet it made no mention of the impact of "stupid and white" on him. He only stated he was "shocked, upset and humiliated" in a further statement provided 11 months later, after the CPS initially decided that the evidence did not meet required threshold. PC Lovell admitted during cross examination hat he was determined to pursue this case through the criminal courts but denied making the claim purely to get a charge across the line.
Of the two other (white male) police officers present, one, PC Scott, actively stated in his statement he was not offended, and the other didn't mention any impact on him at all.
PC Lovell appears to have been a poor witness in court. The defence's closing statement drew the jury's attention to the fact that the prosecution had invited PC Lovell five times to explain the impact on himself, eventually resorting to quoting his second witness statement after his initial attempts failed to convey any actual harassment, alarm or distress.
The defence also argued that the comments were not intended to cause harassment, alarm or distress but born out of frustration that PC Lovell was dismissive of their genuine fear and did not take their allegations against the taxi driver seriously. In particular the "stupid and white" comment was made in response to PC Lovell doubted Kerr had called the police as there was apparently no record of a call and the call centre operators would not have hung up on them. During the trial, call centre recordings showed that Kerr had in fact called the police from the taxi and the police operator said they would call them back. By the time they did, Kerr and Mevis were already in the police station and the call went to voicemail.
They also highlighted that whether words or behaviour are threatening, abusive or insulting depends on the facts of the case. They reminded the jury that Kerr and Mevis had immediately approached a marked police car for help after kicking and climbing out the window of the moving taxi to escape what they feared was dangerous driving, if not kidnapping yet had been met by dismissive attitude from PC Lovell (PC Scott by comparison was commended). The defence cited the Sarah Everard case and reminded the jury about the words of advice they might have given to their female friendsa and relatives (and why they didn't feel the need to provide the same advice to male friends and relatives) in the wake of that case.
In short, the defence did enough to establish reasonable doubt.
Edited by Hill92 on Tuesday 11th February 23:36
martinbiz said:
mac96 said:
I suppose the 'and' affects the meaning. The description consisted of 2 separate things, 'stupid' and 'white'. White cannot be an insult on its own, it's just a fact. Stupid is insulting but not racist. 'Stupid white' would have implied a connection between the stupidity and the race, and so would be racist.
Splitting hairs I know. And undoubtedly not what she was thinking at the time, but perhaps what some of the jury thought if they are linguistic pedants like me.
Real world time! Of course the word white on it's own can be taken as a racist comment if it's used in the wrong manner and context which clearly it was here. try it out next time your out on the street and call someone stupid and black in earshot of a police officerSplitting hairs I know. And undoubtedly not what she was thinking at the time, but perhaps what some of the jury thought if they are linguistic pedants like me.
Anyway I was just speculating on jurors mental processes. If I was a juror I would find it hard to infer racist intent from 'stupid and white, or 'stupid and black' on their own.
She may or may not be a horrible person but that is not a crime.
Hill92 said:
The prosecution must satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt on 3 points:
- that there was intent to cause a person harassment
- that the words or behaviour were threatening, abusive or insulting
- that somebody suffered actual harassment, alarm or distress.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-order...
PC Lovell's initial contemporary statement was considered thorough yet it made no mention of the impact of "stupid and white" on him. He only stated he was "shocked, upset and humiliated" in a further statement provided 11 months later, after the CPS initially decided that the evidence did not meet required threshold. PC Lovell admitted during cross examination hat he was determined to pursue this case through the criminal courts but denied making the claim purely to get a charge across the line.
Of the two other (white male) police officers present, one, PC Scott, actively stated in his statement he was not offended, and the other didn't mention any impact on him at all.
PC Lovell appears to have been a poor witness in court. The defence's closing statement drew the jury's attention to the fact that the prosecution had invited PC Lovell five times to explain the impact on himself, eventually resorting to quoting his second witness statement after his initial attempts failed to convey any actual harassment, alarm or distress.
The defence also argued that the comments were not intended to cause harassment, alarm or distress but born out of frustration that PC Lovell was dismissive of their genuine fear and did not take their allegations against the taxi driver seriously. In particular the "stupid and white" comment was made in response to PC Lovell doubted Kerr had called the police as there was apparently no record of a call and the call centre operators would not have hung up on them. During the trial, call centre recordings showed that Kerr had in fact called the police from the taxi and the police operator said they would call them back. By the time they did, Kerr and Mevis were already in the police station and the call went to voicemail.
They also highlighted that whether words or behaviour are threatening, abusive or insulting depends on the facts of the case. They reminded the jury that Kerr and Mevis had immediately approached a marked police car for help after kicking and climbing out the window of the moving taxi to escape what they feared was dangerous driving, if not kidnapping yet had been met by dismissive attitude from PC Lovell (PC Scott by comparison was commended). The defence cited the Sarah Everard case and reminded the jury about the words of advice they might have given to their female friendsa and relatives (and why they didn't feel the need to provide the same advice to male friends and relatives) in the wake of that case.
In short, the defence did enough to establish reasonable doubt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teSPN8sVbFU Constable Savage1980, but sadly the character traits still live on today- that there was intent to cause a person harassment
- that the words or behaviour were threatening, abusive or insulting
- that somebody suffered actual harassment, alarm or distress.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-order...
PC Lovell's initial contemporary statement was considered thorough yet it made no mention of the impact of "stupid and white" on him. He only stated he was "shocked, upset and humiliated" in a further statement provided 11 months later, after the CPS initially decided that the evidence did not meet required threshold. PC Lovell admitted during cross examination hat he was determined to pursue this case through the criminal courts but denied making the claim purely to get a charge across the line.
Of the two other (white male) police officers present, one, PC Scott, actively stated in his statement he was not offended, and the other didn't mention any impact on him at all.
PC Lovell appears to have been a poor witness in court. The defence's closing statement drew the jury's attention to the fact that the prosecution had invited PC Lovell five times to explain the impact on himself, eventually resorting to quoting his second witness statement after his initial attempts failed to convey any actual harassment, alarm or distress.
The defence also argued that the comments were not intended to cause harassment, alarm or distress but born out of frustration that PC Lovell was dismissive of their genuine fear and did not take their allegations against the taxi driver seriously. In particular the "stupid and white" comment was made in response to PC Lovell doubted Kerr had called the police as there was apparently no record of a call and the call centre operators would not have hung up on them. During the trial, call centre recordings showed that Kerr had in fact called the police from the taxi and the police operator said they would call them back. By the time they did, Kerr and Mevis were already in the police station and the call went to voicemail.
They also highlighted that whether words or behaviour are threatening, abusive or insulting depends on the facts of the case. They reminded the jury that Kerr and Mevis had immediately approached a marked police car for help after kicking and climbing out the window of the moving taxi to escape what they feared was dangerous driving, if not kidnapping yet had been met by dismissive attitude from PC Lovell (PC Scott by comparison was commended). The defence cited the Sarah Everard case and reminded the jury about the words of advice they might have given to their female friendsa and relatives (and why they didn't feel the need to provide the same advice to male friends and relatives) in the wake of that case.
In short, the defence did enough to establish reasonable doubt.
Edited by Hill92 on Tuesday 11th February 23:36
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff