Sam Kerr has been found not guilty of racially abusing a London police officer.
Kerr, 31, had denied the charge of racially aggravated harassment but did admit she had repeatedly called Constable Stephen Lovell “f**king stupid and white” following an argument she had with a London taxi driver over a fare.
The jury of eight women and four men retired at 3.30pm UK time on Monday (2.30am on Tuesday AEDT) to leave Kerr, her parents Roger and Roxanne, brother Levi and fiancee Kristie Mewis, who were all present, to wait for their decision.
The jury deliberated for about four hours before handing down the unanimous not guilty verdict.
After handing down the verdict, Judge Peter Lodder KC told the court it had been Kerr’s own behaviour that had contributed to the bringing of the charge and that would have a significant bearing on the question of costs.
Kerr’s fiancee Kristie Mewis cried as the verdict was read while Kerr just bowed her head.
Kerr told the dock officer “hope to never see you again” as she left.
Kerr, the captain of the Matildas and a star for Chelsea, had earlier taken to the dock on day six of the case in Kingston Crown Court to hear her defence counsel make the case for her acquittal.
That was followed by the summing up by Judge Lodder KC.
At stake was Kerr’s reputation, probably her status as captain of the Matildas, and theoretically her liberty as the charge carried a maximum sentence of 26 weeks in prison or a $5000 fine.
With the prosecution having put their closing argument on Friday, it was down to Kerr’s counsel Grace Forbes to counter.
Forbes stressed all three aspects of the public order charge had to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt: that Kerr meant to cause police constable Stephen Lovell “harassment, alarm or distress”, that he indeed suffered from those things, and it was racially aggravated.
PC Lovell was the officer Kerr twice called “f***ing stupid and white” towards the end of an hour-long altercation at Twickenham police station in the early hours of 30 January 2023.
That followed a taxi journey that went sour after Kerr vomited out of the window following a night out with Mewis, after which the pair said they believed the driver had kidnapped them and they feared for their lives.
Ms Forbes said the jury did not “need to decide what happened in the taxi ride but the events are relevant for two reasons — the impact on Miss Kerr, the response (or lack of) of the police and the impact that had.
“Without the attempt to discredit Miss Kerr, the police conduct is utterly indefensible. No consideration appears to have been given that the driver could have done what both women said he did,” Ms Forbes said.
The prosecution, she said, has not challenged Kerr and Mewis saying they feared for their lives, yet “the police took no meaningful steps to investigate the taxi”.
Ms Forbes admitted Kerr, 31, “did not cover herself in glory in the way she expressed herself that night,” but added, “if you are drunk you can still be the victim of crime”.
Kerr, she said, “was trying to express something, however poorly, about power, privilege and how that might colour perception” adding that the police held all the power in the dispute, the power to persuade them to pay $A1800 to the taxi driver in compensation (which they did), the power to charge, arrest and investigate.
Ms Forbes, referencing incidents of racism the Chelsea striker said she has suffered, said Kerr “felt she was unfairly perceived by the police as a troublemaker, it echoed experiences she had had in the past, things she had witnessed from a young age directed at her father.
“Was she right? Maybe? Miss Mewis had a sense she was being treated differently. It is very odd Miss Kerr was arrested for criminal damage when Miss Mewis told them she did it.”
Finally Ms Forbes cast doubt on the degree of PC Lovell’s distress, highlighting he had not put it in his original statement, only adding it 11 months later after the Crown Prosecution Service said there was insufficient evidence to charge Kerr, and in the witness box he had to be asked five times before replying he was anything more than “belittled and upset”.
“How can you be sure of the impact when PC Lovell isn’t,” she said to the jury.
Intimating the cop only pursued the case due to Kerr’s fame she said his response was “more about who she is than what she said”.
Discussion about this post