Devilish detail in Terry racism trial

It is as simple as “guilty” or “not guilty”. Or is it? Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle has sole responsibility for deciding one way or the other. Did John Terry racially abuse Anton Ferdinand on the pitch, when Chelsea played QPR on the 23rd of October last year at Loftus Road?

Those words again – “guilty”, or “not guilty”.

But there will in fact be more. Because the public will be privy to the inner workings of justice in a way that you would never get with a jury. Mr Riddle will also publish a narrative explaining his decision – and in those details lay devils for both prosecution and defence.

The prosecution case, in essence, is this: Mr Terry and Mr Ferdinand had a puerile argument on the pitch. After the final whistle, Mr Ferdinand was summoned by the Chelsea captain to the away dressing room, where he was asked by both Mr Terry, and another Chelsea player – Ashley Cole – if he thought he had been racially abused by Mr Terry during the game. Mr Ferdinand had no idea what they were talking about. He said “Nah mate, nah”, admitted they had all said things on the pitch that they shouldn’t have, and went on his way.

Reluctant victim

But when he went up to the players’ lounge a few minutes later, he was asked the same thing by his then girlfriend. Had he been racially abused by John Terry? And then he was shown YouTube footage of Terry appearing to say in his direction (albeit from some 25 yards away) “f****** black c***”.

Now Mr Ferdinand has always been a reluctant victim. It was not he who made the official complaint, but an off-duty policeman watching the game. That week, the FA began an investigation, and two months later, the CPS confirmed John Terry had a case to answer.

The criminal charge against him read as follows: “On 23 October 2011 at Loftus Road Stadium, London W12, you used 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 which was racially aggravated in accordance with section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Contrary to section 31 (1) (c) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998”

And this week the court was told what the prosecution think really happened that October day. They allege that Mr Terry was tipped off – perhaps via a phone call – that television cameras had caught him mouthing what appeared to be a racist epiphet. They say “he knew he had a problem”, so he and Mr Cole persuaded Mr Ferdinand into their dressing room to “try and smooth things over”. But to do this, they say Mr Terry swiftly invented a story that he is now “stuck with”.

Defence case(s)

Which brings us on to the defence case. Or both of them. For they in fact put forward two explanations. One – it is all a terrible mistake. Or two – it is all Mr Ferdinand’s fault.

Let us start with the latter. It is all Mr Ferdinand’s fault – and he was the one who “lost control”. The defence argued that Mr Ferdinand was trying to wind Mr Terry up. He was goading Mr Terry about his well publicised affair with the partner of Wayne Bridge, one of his Chelsea team-mates.

But the wind-up was not working, so Mr Ferdinand upped the ante. Mr Terry says he heard Mr Ferdinand accuse him of calling him “a black c***”. So – and this is crucial – Mr Terry claims he repeated the words back in ‘sarcastic exclamation’. Which would explain the apparently incriminating footage in question. Lip-reading evidence was introduced which suggested the preceeding word was ‘a’, and not ‘you’ – which could indeed turn the phrase ‘black c***’ into an “ironic” repetition, rather than an insult.

“A f****** black c***?”, not “You f****** black c***!”

Mr Terry says he told his friend Ashley Cole during the game that he had been falsely accused of racism. So Mr Cole stayed with him after the game to ask Mr Ferdinand if that was indeed true. Mr Ferdinand – who had only agreed to visit them because he felt guilty about what he had said on the pitch – said he had never accused him of racism in the first place. At which point Mr Terry put out a statement saying there was no problem between the two.

But what if the whole thing was in fact all “crossed purposes”? Could it be, as the defence argued in an alternative version of events, that everybody is right?

That “the midline between two stark alternatives is a very realistic prospect that there may have been a misunderstanding?” And for that one must consider the evidence of Ashley Cole. For the record, he says Mr Terry did tell him on the pitch that he had been falsely accused. And he insists they had not been tipped off about the footage via telephone, because, he said, “there’s no phone reception in the dressing rooms”.

And this is the crucial bit: Mr Cole says although he was standing right next to Mr Terry at the time of the alleged interchange, and although he did not hear Mr Terry say anything, but he did see Mr Ferdinand – from 25 yards – mouthing either “Bridgey”, or “Black”.

Either Bridgey or black. Mr Terry had just misheard Mr Ferdinand, and jumped to conclusions with massive implications for both of them, and his black team mate Ashley Cole.

Guilty or not guilty

An insult about “shagging your team-mate’s missus” as Mr Ferdinand had put it a few moments earlier in the same argument, accidentally became a high profile case of racist abuse that has moved from the football pitch, through the television cameras, to the courtroom.

So, who is telling the truth? John Terry and Ashley Cole, or Anton Ferdinand? It is indeed as simple as that, and with the evidence presented to court, the magistrate will have to decide the following: Is John Terry “guilty”, or “not guilty”?

For once, the criminal justice system will reveal more about its decision that merely the ‘what’. Also today we will learn about the ‘why’?