To the question 'why was he prosecuted' the answer is that the CPS test (endorsed by Parliament) is whether there is 'a realistic prospect of conviction.' The test applied by any criminal court (the civil courts are different) is whether the magistrates (or District Judge sitting alone as in this case) or jury for a Crown Court trial (see R v Redknapp) are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. If the CPS only prosecuted cases where they could be certain a court would be 'sure beyond a reasonable doubt' then they would only prosecute 'stone bonkers.' The defence made a submission to the District Judge to throw the case out but he declined and so Terry gave evidence. Once past the half-way point in a prosecution when the defence has a case to meet, as here, the general view in criminal cases is that the CPS has justified a prosecution.
Tht's the official test and it's a perfectly fine one. But the CPS, like all public bodies, is always under a degree of political/media pressure in cases like this.
I don't actually have a problem with the CPS bringing the case, more with the law itself.
At the start of the case I thought he was guilty on the basis of that video. Having heard (some of the evidence) that was reported from the trial, I had some doubts. The physical distance between him and Ferdinand and the fact that Ferdinand had been deliberately winding him up are the things that started to sow the seeds of doubt in my mind. Of course, it doesn't matter what I think, it's what Mr Riddle thinks (thought) that counts. Not guilty.
Why is the Steven Lawrance case brought up in this discussion, feck me, and also a question ? How many of you would have had sex with Bridges wife if she put it on a plate? Terry is many things but he ain't no racist.
So are you calling him a racist? If not then your double negative is a bit misleading
No I saying he is not a racist, he is many other things in other peoples eyes because he shagged Bridges girlfriend, but half of you would of done the same in his shoes, at the end of the day I don't know him nor does anyone else on hear, so I can't judge the fellow.
Just looked at the full verdict (which is on the Guardian site,sorry do not know how to do links ) and this is how the Judge described it in his conclusion.
' there being a doubt ,the only verdict that the Court can record is one of not guilty'.
I would recommend anyone who wants to know what was said reads this because as others have said 'beyond reasonable doubt' in Criminal Courts is a much tougher test than the civil court 'balance of probabilities' .This was a similar situation with the famous Bowyer / Woodgate case some years ago.
I suspect if the lighter test applied then Terry would have been found guilty .What angers me is that legal procedure has got in the way and now given cover to Terry's disgraceful behaviour .
Garth Crooks on the same site has written an insightful article about the case and what it means for black players.
John Terry is a nasty piece of work, can't stand the guy never have, smug git.
John is sad you hold such views and would like to meet you to show he really isn't a 'nasty piece of work.' Is it possible he could demonstrate just how sincere and lovable he is, (preferably when your husband is at work?) LOL
The reason why I used the Stephen Lawrence case as an example was just to say that when someone is found to be not guilty of committing an alleged offence it does not necessarily mean they have not done it. Therefore I believe a court/judge/jury/magistrate coming to a decision of not guilty is different from saying someone is innocent of an offence.
It's terrible how ignorant people are of our own criminal justice system.
In Scotland there are three verdicts - guilty, not proven and innocent. Here there are only two - guilty or not guilty.
Terry has not been "found" innocent and could not have been. The jury were asked whether he was guilty beyone reasonable doubt. If there was reasonable doubt then he is found "not guilty".
The jury were not asked whether he was innocent or not and they gave no indication either way. The only think we know is that after hearing evidence and argument, the jury believed that there was reasonable doubt.
Top post and absolutely nails it on the principles. (It wasn't a jury though). It was not for Terry or his legal team to prove his innocence, all they needed to establish in the mind of the court that there was a reasonable doubt.
As we don't have a "not proven" verdict in English Law, then he remains legally innocent. The onus is on the Crown/State to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They couldn't so his innocence is maintained.
I said to a mate the other day that the chance of a not guilty verdict was now more likely having listened to the reported evidence and I based this on the way the defence went about creating a reasonable doubt.
if twelve people have sat through the evidence, and none of us on here have, and have found him not guilty then that is what he is, not guilty, and I for one trust their judgement.
The reason why I used the Stephen Lawrence case as an example was just to say that when someone is found to be not guilty of committing an alleged offence it does not necessarily mean they have not done it. Therefore I believe a court/judge/jury/magistrate coming to a decision of not guilty is different from saying someone is innocent of an offence.
There is a difference between true innocence which is really only known to the defendant and the victim, and legal innocence which is the position we are all in unless a court sitting in judgement upon us for an alleged crime finds us guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We are then legally guilty even if the reality known only to us is that we are truly innocent.
That is the way the law works. We have an adversarial system which by its very nature doesn't seek the truth but rather the prosecution seeks to persuade a jury or magistrate as on the merits of a case that the person is guilty. Even if they believe the prosecution has shown the person is likely to have committed the crime, they have to ask themselves whether they have a reasonable doubt, if they do, they cannot find the person guilty. The defendant doesn't have to testify, and his counsel can just devote its time to establishing that there is a reasonable doubt in the case the prosecution has mounted.
In most continental counties especially those who were historically allied to Holy Rome developed their law and legal process around trying to establish the truth by inquiry/investigation - known as an inquisitorial system.
Of course we have elements of an inquisitorial system in our coroners courts and in judicial review.
Statement from the founder of the Kick It Out campaign Lord Ouseley
"We respect the verdict, the judgement is what it is. I'm glad for the players it is over," he said.
"The language in this case reflects on the sport badly because there are eight million people who play it in this country. We do not get this behaviour in women's football or disabled football."
Am I the only one thinking this is a ridiculous statement?
Statement from the founder of the Kick It Out campaign Lord Ouseley
"We respect the verdict, the judgement is what it is. I'm glad for the players it is over," he said.
"The language in this case reflects on the sport badly because there are eight million people who play it in this country. We do not get this behaviour in women's football or disabled football."
Am I the only one thinking this is a ridiculous statement?
Nope. Seems to me these guys wanted to make Terry a scapegoat. They didn't have any luck proving Terry said the words that would have got them max publicity, but he said some other naughty words so lets use that to fuel the fire.
And for the record I'm sure both female and disabled players treat each other badly in the heat of contest.
SE9, just to let you know what actually happened in court today. This is a direct quote from the magistrate "There is no doubt that John Terry uttered the words 'f****** black c***' at Anton Ferdinand." The reason he was found not guilty was that they could not prove in what context he used those words. So I'm not really sure what you are talking about when you say "other naughty words".
Well as a memeber of the general public I predicted this outcome from the original decision to prosecute. I was 100% sure. I am seriously worried about the ineptitude of these well paid idiots. Well paid often with our money! This case going to court served no purpose and certainly was never going to progress the fight against racism.
SE9, just to let you know what actually happened in court today. This is a direct quote from the magistrate "There is no doubt that John Terry uttered the words 'f****** black c***' at Anton Ferdinand." The reason he was found not guilty was that they could not prove in what context he used those words. So I'm not really sure what you are talking about when you say "other naughty words".
Dont you think the context in which the words are said is important ? For instance both you and the judge have now "uttered the words" but clearly the context determines that you have not been racist ? I assume you do therefore appreciate the significance of context.
If we accept the courts findings that Terry did not use the words in a racist context then the only way we can derive any sort of offence from what he said is to deconstruct the sentence and pick out the "other naughty words" - namely "f***k" and "c**t" as we know "black" is no longer being used in an offensive context, and is not of itself an offensive word as the previous two words are.
Are we really expected to believe that no female or disabled player has ever uttered those words ? And even if they haven't , is is not clutching at straws for Ousley to claim that the use of those words, amongst professionals, "reflects badly on the sport" ?
I can't see how stating that someone is black and a c*** is racist in the first place? If Terry had said the 'N' and in the context of what he was accused of, you may have had something to moan about, but he said Black C***. Would we have seen this gone to court if Terry was believed to have said Ginger C*** or Fat C*** or even Scottish/Welsh?Oirish C***? To me it's a descriptive put down, I'm not saying it's right (although I do think both Ferdy's are c***s), just by putting the word 'black' in front of it doesn't make someone a racist! I also think that Beckham endured years of disgusting abuse from players and fans alike regarding his wife and even his kids with nobody battering an eye-lid!
I can't see how stating that someone is black and a c*** is racist in the first place? If Terry had said the 'N' and in the context of what he was accused of, you may have had something to moan about, but he said Black C***. Would we have seen this gone to court if Terry was believed to have said Ginger C*** or Fat C*** or even Scottish/Welsh?Oirish C***? To me it's a descriptive put down, I'm not saying it's right (although I do think both Ferdy's are c***s), just by putting the word 'black' in front of it doesn't make someone a racist! I also think that Beckham endured years of disgusting abuse from players and fans alike regarding his wife and even his kids with nobody battering an eye-lid!
Its racist because you are referring to his skin colour.
I can't see how stating that someone is black and a c*** is racist in the first place? If Terry had said the 'N' and in the context of what he was accused of, you may have had something to moan about, but he said Black C***. Would we have seen this gone to court if Terry was believed to have said Ginger C*** or Fat C*** or even Scottish/Welsh?Oirish C***? To me it's a descriptive put down, I'm not saying it's right (although I do think both Ferdy's are c***s), just by putting the word 'black' in front of it doesn't make someone a racist! I also think that Beckham endured years of disgusting abuse from players and fans alike regarding his wife and even his kids with nobody battering an eye-lid!
But if you were to call Anton Ferdinand a 'Black C*nt' it would be very easy to convict you of making a racist comment because there is strong evidence that you hold racist views which is demonstrated by your regular contribution to the racist Charlton Loyal forum and comments like '....I don't eat in Nandos because I would feel like a spot on a domino'.
I can't see how stating that someone is black and a c*** is racist in the first place? If Terry had said the 'N' and in the context of what he was accused of, you may have had something to moan about, but he said Black C***. Would we have seen this gone to court if Terry was believed to have said Ginger C*** or Fat C*** or even Scottish/Welsh?Oirish C***? To me it's a descriptive put down, I'm not saying it's right (although I do think both Ferdy's are c***s), just by putting the word 'black' in front of it doesn't make someone a racist! I also think that Beckham endured years of disgusting abuse from players and fans alike regarding his wife and even his kids with nobody battering an eye-lid!
But if you were to call Anton Ferdinand a 'Black C*nt' it would be very easy to convict you of making a racist comment because there is strong evidence that you hold racist views which is demonstrated by your regular contribution to the racist Charlton Loyal forum and comments like '....I don't eat in Nandos because I would feel like a spot on a domino'.
And that's the end of the thread...cheers SE8, thought that was turning into an interesting discussion.
I can't see how stating that someone is black and a c*** is racist in the first place? If Terry had said the 'N' and in the context of what he was accused of, you may have had something to moan about, but he said Black C***. Would we have seen this gone to court if Terry was believed to have said Ginger C*** or Fat C*** or even Scottish/Welsh?Oirish C***? To me it's a descriptive put down, I'm not saying it's right (although I do think both Ferdy's are c***s), just by putting the word 'black' in front of it doesn't make someone a racist! I also think that Beckham endured years of disgusting abuse from players and fans alike regarding his wife and even his kids with nobody battering an eye-lid!
But if you were to call Anton Ferdinand a 'Black C*nt' it would be very easy to convict you of making a racist comment because there is strong evidence that you hold racist views which is demonstrated by your regular contribution to the racist Charlton Loyal forum and comments like '....I don't eat in Nandos because I would feel like a spot on a domino'.
And that's the end of the thread...cheers SE8, thought that was turning into an interesting discussion.
Not when it gets hijacked by racists. If you want to continue the debate along those lines start it up on Charlton Loyal.
I can't see how stating that someone is black and a c*** is racist in the first place? If Terry had said the 'N' and in the context of what he was accused of, you may have had something to moan about, but he said Black C***. Would we have seen this gone to court if Terry was believed to have said Ginger C*** or Fat C*** or even Scottish/Welsh?Oirish C***? To me it's a descriptive put down, I'm not saying it's right (although I do think both Ferdy's are c***s), just by putting the word 'black' in front of it doesn't make someone a racist! I also think that Beckham endured years of disgusting abuse from players and fans alike regarding his wife and even his kids with nobody battering an eye-lid!
But if you were to call Anton Ferdinand a 'Black C*nt' it would be very easy to convict you of making a racist comment because there is strong evidence that you hold racist views which is demonstrated by your regular contribution to the racist Charlton Loyal forum and comments like '....I don't eat in Nandos because I would feel like a spot on a domino'.
And that's the end of the thread...cheers SE8, thought that was turning into an interesting discussion.
Not when it gets hijacked by racists. If you want to continue the debate along those lines start it up on Charlton Loyal.
By "hijacked" I assume you mean people with differing views to your own commented on a topic ? I probably hold polar opposite views to Big_Rob on most things but isn't the point of debate that we entertain other points of view to inform our own ?
In trying to be the internets moral guardian you have yourself become prejudiced and discriminatory against other peoples rights to hold opinions different from your own.
I can't see how stating that someone is black and a c*** is racist in the first place? If Terry had said the 'N' and in the context of what he was accused of, you may have had something to moan about, but he said Black C***. Would we have seen this gone to court if Terry was believed to have said Ginger C*** or Fat C*** or even Scottish/Welsh?Oirish C***? To me it's a descriptive put down, I'm not saying it's right (although I do think both Ferdy's are c***s), just by putting the word 'black' in front of it doesn't make someone a racist! I also think that Beckham endured years of disgusting abuse from players and fans alike regarding his wife and even his kids with nobody battering an eye-lid!
But if you were to call Anton Ferdinand a 'Black C*nt' it would be very easy to convict you of making a racist comment because there is strong evidence that you hold racist views which is demonstrated by your regular contribution to the racist Charlton Loyal forum and comments like '....I don't eat in Nandos because I would feel like a spot on a domino'.
And that's the end of the thread...cheers SE8, thought that was turning into an interesting discussion.
Not when it gets hijacked by racists. If you want to continue the debate along those lines start it up on Charlton Loyal.
Dry up and stick to the thread, why is saying "feeling like a spot on a domino" racist. A black person could say the same about most boozers in the UK and I wouldn't take offence!
Comments
I don't actually have a problem with the CPS bringing the case, more with the law itself.
' there being a doubt ,the only verdict that the Court can record is one of not guilty'.
I would recommend anyone who wants to know what was said reads this because as others have said 'beyond reasonable doubt' in Criminal Courts is a much tougher test than the civil court 'balance of probabilities' .This was a similar situation with the famous Bowyer / Woodgate case some years ago.
I suspect if the lighter test applied then Terry would have been found guilty .What angers me is that legal procedure has got in the way and now given cover to Terry's disgraceful behaviour .
Garth Crooks on the same site has written an insightful article about the case and what it means for black players.
As we don't have a "not proven" verdict in English Law, then he remains legally innocent. The onus is on the Crown/State to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They couldn't so his innocence is maintained.
I said to a mate the other day that the chance of a not guilty verdict was now more likely having listened to the reported evidence and I based this on the way the defence went about creating a reasonable doubt.
That is the way the law works. We have an adversarial system which by its very nature doesn't seek the truth but rather the prosecution seeks to persuade a jury or magistrate as on the merits of a case that the person is guilty. Even if they believe the prosecution has shown the person is likely to have committed the crime, they have to ask themselves whether they have a reasonable doubt, if they do, they cannot find the person guilty. The defendant doesn't have to testify, and his counsel can just devote its time to establishing that there is a reasonable doubt in the case the prosecution has mounted.
In most continental counties especially those who were historically allied to Holy Rome developed their law and legal process around trying to establish the truth by inquiry/investigation - known as an inquisitorial system.
Of course we have elements of an inquisitorial system in our coroners courts and in judicial review.
"We respect the verdict, the judgement is what it is. I'm glad for the players it is over," he said.
"The language in this case reflects on the sport badly because there are eight million people who play it in this country. We do not get this behaviour in women's football or disabled football."
Am I the only one thinking this is a ridiculous statement?
And for the record I'm sure both female and disabled players treat each other badly in the heat of contest.
Has had you lot who knew nothing about the case against him.
Had the media hoping for him to be found guilty.
Even had Doreen Lawrence turn up to try and sway the verdict.
Rio aswell taking the moral highground...A gangster wannabee, bullying drugs cheat.
If we accept the courts findings that Terry did not use the words in a racist context then the only way we can derive any sort of offence from what he said is to deconstruct the sentence and pick out the "other naughty words" - namely "f***k" and "c**t" as we know "black" is no longer being used in an offensive context, and is not of itself an offensive word as the previous two words are.
Are we really expected to believe that no female or disabled player has ever uttered those words ? And even if they haven't , is is not clutching at straws for Ousley to claim that the use of those words, amongst professionals, "reflects badly on the sport" ?
I also think that Beckham endured years of disgusting abuse from players and fans alike regarding his wife and even his kids with nobody battering an eye-lid!
In trying to be the internets moral guardian you have yourself become prejudiced and discriminatory against other peoples rights to hold opinions different from your own.