Police want to charge John Terry (apparently)

[pigbite]

According to the Mirror, the police want to charge JT over his words with AF. http://bit.ly/sWElWK.

From the wording of the report however they are sending a file to the DPP so the question is will it really happen or is it just the papers keeping the fuel on the fire?

 

[Bold Seagull]

I actually heard about this last week in that the police were supposedly furious the FA allowed his selection for England while they were undertaking a criminal investigation. I didn't post as the person who told me is less reliable than an MP's expenses claim.

 

[Falkor]

if this is true how can he keep his arm band?

 

[8ace]

Can't this all just be swept under the carpet?

 

[pigbite]

Can't this all just be swept under the carpet?

The cynic in me says that the police are sending the file across as a PR exercise to make themselves look good and let the DPP take the flak if they decide not to prosecute. I also suspect that the DPP will not move forward with a prosecution saying something like there is no enough evidence to secure a conviction.

 

[beorhthelm]

I actually heard about this last week in that the police were supposedly furious the FA allowed his selection for England while they were undertaking a criminal investigation. I didn't post as the person who told me is less reliable than an MP's expenses claim.

that doesnt make an awful lot of sence, if FA had not allowed his selection that would be seen as judgemental and any prosecution would be hiddered. as to the OP story, if they want to charge him, they charge him. if they are defering to DPP, doesnt that imply they dont think theres a clear enough case? or is it just the standard procedure and the papers fluffing out a few column inches.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

I actually heard about this last week in that the police were supposedly furious the FA allowed his selection for England while they were undertaking a criminal investigation. I didn't post as the person who told me is less reliable than an MP's expenses claim.

So, are the police "furious" when everybody else who is under investigation for an offence doesnt lose their job ? Can't stand Terry, and he probably shouldn't have played, but what's it got to do with the police if he plays for England or not. If the bloke had anything about him, he would have elected himself not to play IMO.

 

[ROSM]

I suspect the police concern is more around him being in a high profile public position and therefore using that to make statements that may prejudice the outcome. Having said that, he is innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law and should be allowed to go about his business - although I know of people who have been suspended from work pending investigation by the police in case mixing with their work colleagues influences them as witnesses

 

[pigbite]

if they are defering to DPP, doesnt that imply they dont think theres a clear enough case? or is it just the standard procedure and the papers fluffing out a few column inches.

I'm no lawyer but aren't all cases sent to the DPP and the DDP rubber stamps the prosecution process except where the police ask them to make a call on it?

 

[pigbite]

I'm no lawyer but aren't all cases sent to the DPP and the DDP rubber stamps the prosecution process except where the police ask them to make a call on it?

Kind of right... According to good ole' wikipedia it's the CPS that moves a prosecution forward with the CPS headed up by the DPP.

 

[User removed 4]

Perhaps they should take the advice of the infallible chairman gus ??

Gus Poyet accuses Patrice Evra of 'crying like a baby' in racism case | Football | guardian.co.uk

 

[Bold Seagull]

So, are the police "furious" when everybody else who is under investigation for an offence doesnt lose their job ? Can't stand Terry, and he probably shouldn't have played, but what's it got to do with the police if he plays for England or not. If the bloke had anything about him, he would have elected himself not to play IMO.

I think you'll find in a lot of jobs you'll be suspended during inquiries, especially of this nature, and that tends to be the case for medical staff, teachers, the police themselves, civil servants, and is procedure for many private companies as well. That is all I think the comment was regarding, while conducting enquiries, it would have been beneficial for JT to have been suspended from the England team until such time as he is cleared of the charges. This would be the case for most employment to be honest, especially in the public sector and larger private companies.

I was told the police are 'furious' at what they perceive to be a 'closing of ranks' from football, from players refusing to make comment against one of their own (i.e. to back up Anton's claims) and the FA themselves not exactly helping their enquiry.

By not dropping him until his name is cleared, the FA have effectively sent a message that it's business as usual, it just sends the wrong message to me.

 

[Bold Seagull]

that doesnt make an awful lot of sence, if FA had not allowed his selection that would be seen as judgemental and any prosecution would be hiddered. as to the OP story, if they want to charge him, they charge him. if they are defering to DPP, doesnt that imply they dont think theres a clear enough case? or is it just the standard procedure and the papers fluffing out a few column inches.

Not at all, as I commented to someone else, in many other professions, it is likely that with a serious accusation such as this, you would be suspended, probably on full pay until such time you were cleared. The fact he is allowed to continue in what is our national side with this hanging over him is quite beyond me.

 

[beorhthelm]

I'm no lawyer but aren't all cases sent to the DPP and the DDP rubber stamps the prosecution process except where the police ask them to make a call on it?

maybe our resident copper would clarify, but my understanding is the police charge you then refer the case to the DPP, unless its tricky. ie, if you've been hauled in for punching someone down the pub, they charge you as soon as they've got the witness statements together, not wait untill Monday afternoon for someone to rubber stamp it.

 

[Falkor]

Players in the past have been dropped due to on going investigations so i don't see why terry is different.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I think you'll find in a lot of jobs you'll be suspended during inquiries, especially of this nature, and that tends to be the case for medical staff, teachers, the police themselves, civil servants, and is procedure for many private companies as well. That is all I think the comment was regarding, while conducting enquiries, it would have been beneficial for JT to have been suspended from the England team until such time as he is cleared of the charges. This would be the case for most employment to be honest, especially in the public sector and larger private companies.

I was told the police are 'furious' at what they perceive to be a 'closing of ranks' from football, from players refusing to make comment against one of their own (i.e. to back up Anton's claims) and the FA themselves not exactly helping their enquiry.

By not dropping him until his name is cleared, the FA have effectively sent a message that it's business as usual, it just sends the wrong message to me.

However couldn't it then be abused by opposition teams who may want to handicap a title or relegation rival or whoever by getting an accusation made against the other sides star player so he is dropped while the allegation is investigated (only to be found to be false later)

So what if JT is completely innocent? why should his reputation be damaged by the FA (or his club) by dropping him while the investigation takes place. who is to say how long the investigation will last, it could take just a couple of days or several months before a court case appearance / FA charge hearing (in which he could still be found innocent) or the accusation dropped.

Recently we were accused of being racist to the Welsh by singing sheep shaggers, by your logic the FA should have banned the crowds until the club was found guilty and punished or cleared (as we were in the end) - would it be right if they had banned the crowd because it was the moral thing to do? even if ultimately they did nothing wrong. (ok its a different scale, but hopefully you get the point i'm making)

 

[drew]

that doesnt make an awful lot of sence, if FA had not allowed his selection that would be seen as judgemental and any prosecution would be hiddered. as to the OP story, if they want to charge him, they charge him. if they are defering to DPP, doesnt that imply they dont think theres a clear enough case? or is it just the standard procedure and the papers fluffing out a few column inches.

What a load of bollocks. People are quite often suspended whilst under investigation. Why should Terrr be an exception, especially when he is being honoured by the FA by keeping him as captain.

So, are the police "furious" when everybody else who is under investigation for an offence doesnt lose their job ? Can't stand Terry, and he probably shouldn't have played, but what's it got to do with the police if he plays for England or not. If the bloke had anything about him, he would have elected himself not to play IMO.

The issue for the Police is the apparent lack of concern and, according to another poster, the 'omerta' amongst players who to the press support the 'kick out racism' campaign but now appear to hinder concrete attempts to apply it. Having said that, I think that your last sentence sums up Terry more than any other.

 

[pigbite]

However couldn't it then be abused by opposition teams who may want to handicap a title or relegation rival or whoever by getting an accusation made against the other sides star player so he is dropped while the allegation is investigated (only to be found to be false later)

So what if JT is completely innocent? why should his reputation be damaged by the FA (or his club) by dropping him while the investigation takes place. who is to say how long the investigation will last, it could take just a couple of days or several months before a court case appearance / FA charge hearing (in which he could still be found innocent) or the accusation dropped.

Recently we were accused of being racist to the Welsh by singing sheep shaggers, by your logic the FA should have banned the crowds until the club was found guilty and punished or cleared (as we were in the end) - would it be right if they had banned the crowd because it was the moral thing to do? even if ultimately they did nothing wrong. (ok its a different scale, but hopefully you get the point i'm making)

Understand the point but this is slightly different in that, firstly, there was video evidence of him saying something pretty abusive and, secondly, he has admitted using the words - albeit with some justification and context.

I think in most corporate/public sector workplaces that would be justification enough for some kind of suspension pending an inquiry.

 

[perseus]

According to the Mirror, the police want to charge JT over his words with AF. http://bit.ly/sWElWK.

From the wording of the report however they are sending a file to the DPP so the question is will it really happen or is it just the papers keeping the fuel on the fire?

12.7 Section 4A - Intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress

A person is guilty 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.

Notes on Intentional Harassment
Although Section 4A was originally introduced as an amendment to the act in order to address the problem of racial harassment, it is not limited to such conduct and is frequently used against protestors.

There are three basic ingredients to the offence. Firstly, your behaviour must be threatening, abusive, insulting or disorderly. Secondly you must intend to cause someone harassment alarm or distress by that behaviour. Thirdly, in contrast to Sections 4 and 5, someone must be actually caused harassment, alarm or distress by your behaviour.

There must be an actual “victim”, although it does not have to be the intended victim. And you must not only intend your behaviour or words to be insulting, but also intend that they cause harassment, alarm or distress.
Unlike Section 4, the words or behaviour need not actually be addressed to another directly.

Defences
Under this section and Section 5 there is a statutory defence that your conduct was reasonable. If you are charged with an offence under this section on a protest, then the court will usually have to rule on whether the charge was compatible with your European Convention right to freedom of expression under Article 10. It has been ruled in court that in this kind of case, there is a presumption in favour of your right to freedom of speech. The onus is on the prosecution to show that interference with this right by way of criminal proceedings is proportionate in all the circumstances.

Arrest and Punishment
Section 4A is triable summarily only and carries a maximum sentence of 6 months imprisonment. It is therefore not an “arrestable offence”. However, a constable may arrest anyone whom he reasonably suspects to be committing an offence.

There is no need for a warning prior to arrest unlike under Section 5. This is why the police will often arrest under Section 4A and then drop the charges to Section 5. It is often difficult to prove the necessary intent or to produce a witness who is prepared to say that they were caused distress. Section 5 is generally much easier to prove.

12.8 Section 5 - Conduct likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress

This is by far the most commonly used piece of legislation on demos, and the one with which activists will be most familiar. A person is guilty of this offence if he

a) uses threatening, abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

Notes on Section 5
The police will often warn you under Section 5 simply as a preventive power to control behaviour on a demo and they often have no intention of following it through with an arrest, especially where no threatening behaviour has been used.

Unlike Section 4A there is no requirement that anyone actually be caused harassment, alarm or distress and therefore no need for a witness to that effect. The police need only say that your conduct took place within the sight or hearing of a potential victim, although it will obviously help to prove their case if they can produce a witness.

Section 5 differs from Section 4A in that there is no need to show that you intended to cause the harassment, only that it was likely to be caused. This means that to a certain extent your behaviour will be judged objectively on the effect it was likely to have, rather than on the effect it actually had on any victim.

FreeB.E.A.G.L.E.S.: Legal Advice for Activists (v4)

 

[perseus]

According to the Mirror, the police want to charge JT over his words with AF. http://bit.ly/sWElWK.

From the wording of the report however they are sending a file to the DPP so the question is will it really happen or is it just the papers keeping the fuel on the fire?

To prove that an offence is racially or religiously aggravated, the prosecution has to prove the "basic" offence followed by racial or religious aggravation, as defined in section 28 Crime and Disorder Act 1998. An offence will be racially or religiously aggravated if:

a) at the time of the offence (or shortly before or after), the offender demonstrates to the victim hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group, or

b) the offence is motivated wholly or partly by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership (or presumed membership) of that group.

demonstrating hostility is not defined by the Act. The ordinary dictionary definition of hostile includes simply being "unfriendly". Proving this limb of the offence requires evidence of words or actions which show hostility toward the victim. However, this hostility may be totally unconnected with the "basic" offence which may have been committed for other, non-racially or religiously motivated reasons. For example, an assault which takes place because of an argument over a parking place, but where the offender then utters racial abuse to the victim of the assault would come within the scope of this part of section 28.

Public Order Offences: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service

English law not Uruguyan.

PS: I am not sure, I agree with this. From personal experience, I do not shout abuse, but to get rid of a scammer, how else do you get rid of them!?