CPS has announced that John Terry is to be prosecuted in relation to the alleged use of racist language to Anton Ferdinand, following "a complaint from a member of the public".

The charge is:


As that decision relates to an incident back in October, it may be that the police will yet similarly launch an investigation about the Luis Suárez incident, as I have no doubt some QPR member of the public will similarly make a complaint.

No comment should be made about the Terry case, as it is now before the courts, and I do not want this thread to discuss specific cases. What I would like to discuss is whether and if so to what extent the criminal law should be used to prosecute sportsmen who are alleged to have committed transgressions on the field of play, if a speccy complains.

For example, if players are to risk facing public order offences for their utterances, what about malicious soccer tackles which break a leg? What about deliberate RL head shots which break a jaw?

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress by it, commits an offence. (Public Order Act 1986). This must happen thousands of times every week in sports fields across the country. Sledging in cricket, to cite just one example.

The general rule which has developed is basically that criminal proceedings are reserved for conduct which is sufficiently grave properly to be categorised as criminal. The authorities take into account that sports have their own disciplinary procedures which cater for improper behaviour on pitch. This can be brought to bear; for example, Evra's 8-match ban and £40,000 fine (compare the maximum penalty for JT if convicted - £2500 fine). OTOH Evra does not get a criminal conviction.

Should the police and the courts now have a wider and more frequent role to play in monitoring behaviour in spectator sports? Or is the introduction of an alleged racially aggravated element the dividing line? If yes, is that right? If Evra was for example charged and convicted, then he would have faced double jeopardy as he's already faced a harsh penalty.

What did Evra do exactly?

Apart from being his usual cheating self? Nothing.

Surely you have to enforce the criminal law above any sport rules and regulations though ?

The penalty that Luis Suárez has been handed by the FA is their own ruling according to their own regulations, they cannot be used in leui of the criminal law if a criminal offence is committed, they may be taken into consideration by a judge but you're surely not suggesting that a judge can simply dismiss a case on the grounds that he's already suffered enough by not being allowed to play football for eight weeks (no indication of whether he will still be paid?) ?

Its the norm in the corrupt game - a game where the majority of players, professional or amateur will deliberately cheat and feign transgressions in order to have their opponents penalised and it doesn't even depend on how much money is riding on those decisions these days - you see the same cheating tactics employed in your local Sunday leagues.

And the commentators call it "The Beautiful Game".

My Arse.

A very high profile Rangers player once went to prison for serious transgression on the football pitch.

Duncan Ferguson, for headbutting John McStay? I don't think it was punished on the field either.

From what I remember didn't Big Dunc have previous for assault which was why he ended up in prison for it?

But as evidenced by the fact that hundreds of incidents occur on national TV that would get your collar felt if you did them anywhere else, we know there's a clear understanding that despite plain crimes happening before the eyes of dozens of police officers, they are directed to (almost) never intervene, and prosecutions are (almost) never brought.

The occasional prosecution of the occasional footballer who (for example) lays out an opponent with a punch, miles after the ball has gone, are the exception that very clearly highlights the rule.

Yet here there's an exception, and the only added factor that I can see is that the alleged offence is said to have been "racially aggravated". Now, I don't think that a word or a phrase can aggravate itself; so let's say that the complete complained of phrase was "you f?g black c**t". This must mean that the shorter phrase ""you f?g c**t" constitutes the public order offence. And is then aggravated by the addition of "black". (Which obviously does, aggravate it; I'm not disputing that - and the law confirms it) - but it only aggravates it by upping the max. pen. by 1 fine Level. So yes, legally officially worse, but not so much worse.

Whereas a reckless late tackle causing grievous bodily harm (such as a compound double leg fracture), an offence under s.20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861, carries up to 5 years jail. Ditto ABH, which includes "loss or breaking of teeth; temporary loss of consciousness extensive or multiple bruising; displaced / broken nose; minor fractures; cuts requiring medical treatment such as stitches" - we see those sorts of incidents fairly regularly in rugby league. Why would lesser offences lead to criminal prosecution, but manifestly far more serious offences not?

I thought maybe wrongly that Big Dunc was done for the head butt and other factors played a part in the prison sentance and not some community punishment.

Could the issue here be proving intent? I guess it might be difficult to prove that a bad tackle resulting in an injury was intentional to a sufficient degree for a criminal prosecution, whereas it's fairly difficult to deny intentionally uttering an offensive word or phrase.