Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Nick Clark: Why is Suarez case any different?

 

Nick Clark
Saturday 14 July 2012 01:38 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

John Terry's team-mate Ashley Cole told the Westminster Magistrates' Court that "we shouldn't be sitting here" and following the not-guilty verdict, the Crown Prosecution Service was forced to defend its decision to prosecute the Chelsea captain in the first place.

So why did Terry find himself in court when another high-profile case of alleged racism during last season's Premier League campaign was dealt with in-house by the Football Association?

The incident between Terry and Anton Ferdinand, which happened in October when Chelsea travelled to play Queen's Park Rangers, was handed to the CPS after a member of the public made a complaint. Terry was subsequently charged with a racially aggravated public order offence after the Chief Crown Prosecutor for London, Alison Saunders, advised the Metropolitan Police that he should be prosecuted.

She said in December: "I am satisfied there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest to prosecute this case."

As in all criminal cases, the prosecution had to prove guilt "beyond all reasonable doubt". After the verdict, Saunders said the case had gone ahead as it was the CPS view that Terry's comment "was not 'banter' on the football pitch and that the allegation should be judged by a court".

Liverpool striker Luis Suarez was banned for eight matches by the FA and fined after a clash with Manchester United defender Patrice Evra, who alleged on French television that Suarez racially abused him "at least 10 times".

The independent commission's verdict rested, rather than "beyond reasonable doubt", on the "balance of probabilities", as in a civil case.

The Merseyside police decided against pursuing a case against Suarez as no complaints had been received by the public. While Suarez was fined £40,000, the maximum fine Terry could have faced if found guilty was £2,500; he would also have been saddled with a criminal record.

Yesterday's not-guilty verdict may not be the end of it for Terry, who could still face the same process from the FA as Suarez.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in