The full John Terry judgement: I haven't changed a word. Just highlighted salient points in red. The verdict is a DISGRACE

HOWARD RIDDLE, SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE (CHIEF MAGISTRATE) 

IN THE WESTMINSTER MAGISTRATES’ COURT

REGINA

V

JOHN TERRY

13 JULY 2012 

JUDGMENT

John Terry faces one allegation. It is said that on the 23rd
 October 2011 at 
Loftus Road Stadium London, W12 he 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 and the offence was 
racially aggravated in accordance with  section 28 of the Crime and Disorder 
Act 1998, contrary to Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and section 
31(1)(c) and (5) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. 
The case was prosecuted on behalf of the crown by Mr Penny, and defended by 
Mr Carter-Stephenson QC leading Mr Daw. I heard evidence over three days 
and submissions yesterday. 
The Crown alleges that the offence occurred towards the end of a Premier
League football match between Queens Park Rangers and Chelsea on the 23rd
October 2011. The match was televised live and the recordings form a central
part of the evidence. There was an initial dispute between the defendant, John Terry (Chelsea) and
Anton Ferdinand (QPR), inside the QPR penalty box. Shortly afterwards Mr
Terry returned to the Chelsea half of the pitch and turned to face the
opposition. At that stage Mr Ferdinand made what was described as a fist
pumping gesture towards the defendant, accompanied by abuse.
The Crown say that Mr Terry responded by aiming the words “fuck off, fuck
off, yeah, yeah and you fucking black cunt, fucking knobhead”, and possibly
one or more other words, at Mr Ferdinand.
The defendant does not deny that he used the words, “fuck off, fuck off”, 
“fucking black cunt” or “fucking knobhead”. His case is that his words were 
not uttered by way of abuse or insult nor were they intended to be abusive or 
insulting. 
He says they were used after a perceived false accusation made by Mr
Ferdinand, the accusation being to the effect that the defendant had used the
term “black cunt” during their exchanges with each other.  [The defence do
not say whether Mr Ferdinand actually believed the defendant had used that
expression or merely made the accusation in order to elicit a reaction.]
Alternatively the case advanced on the defendant’s behalf is that although Mr
Terry genuinely believes that Mr Ferdinand made a false allegation against
him, nevertheless this could be a misunderstanding.      
[It may be worth mentioning here that the issue for this court to decide is not
whether Mr Terry is a racist, in the broadest sense of the word. I have received
a substantial volume of unchallenged evidence from witnesses, both in person
and in writing, to confirm that he is not. I understand why Mr Terry wants to
make this point. His reputation is at stake. Although I am grateful to all those
witnesses who have taken the trouble to provide information on this point, it
does not help me in reaching a verdict. It is not relevant to the issue I must
decide.]
2 The issue between the defendant and the Crown is whether Mr Terry uttered 
the words “fucking black cunt” by way of insult. If he did then the offence is 
made out, regardless of what may have motivated him. 
It is not in dispute that if the facts are as alleged by the Crown then the offence
is  made  out.  There  is  also  no  dispute  that  John  Terry  directed  the  words
“black cunt” in the direction of Anton Ferdinand. If he did that to insult or
abuse him then he is guilty of the offence.
The question for me is whether I am sure that the words were used as an
insult, or whether it is possible, as the defence assert, that he was, or believed
he was, merely repeating an allegation made to him, and dismissing it.
The starting point for the evidence is the television coverage. From that
coverage it seems plain, and indeed is not in dispute, that John Terry directed
the words “black cunt” in the direction of Anton Ferdinand. It is equally clear,
and equally not in dispute, that he also directed the words “fucking knobhead”
at Anton Ferdinand. Other words appear to be spoken.  Both parties have
agreed that expert evidence from lip  readers is necessary to say what those
words are. It is axiomatic that expert evidence is not called unless a particular
expertise is needed to give an opinion to the court which the court cannot
readily form itself. Mr Penny points out, correctly, that the duty of an expert
witness is to furnish the court with the necessary scientific criteria for testing
the accuracy of their conclusions, so as to enable the court to form its own
independent judgement by the application of those criteria to the facts proved
in evidence. In deciding what weight to attach to the evidence of an expert, the
court should take into account the extent to which that evidence is based on
other established facts.
At least one of the lip readers thought that an expert is necessary to determine
body language. She was not prepared to assess body language herself. That
may well be an entirely professional approach for a lip reader to take, and
certainly I do not in any way criticize that view. However Mr Penny is
undoubtedly correct that this court can form a view about demeanour from
3 the TV clips themselves. It is obvious, and again not in dispute, that at the
time that John Terry said “black cunt” and “fucking knobhead” he was angry.
There is then the evidence of the lip readers. Both the lip reader instructed by
the prosecution, Susan Whitewood, and the lip reader instructed by the
defence, Laraine Callow, are clearly experts in their field. Nobody doubted
their expertise. Helpfully they met together before the hearing and prepared a
joint expert report. I can summarise the position, I hope not over-simply, in
this way. Ms Whitewood is of the opinion that the words spoken by John Terry
are “Yeah and I [obstruction] you/ya fucking black cunt (pause) fucking
knobhead”.  Ms  Callow  is  of  the  same  opinion. However both experts agree
that there is the possibility that they are mistaken and in particular that
“you/ya” may be “a” or indeed a number of other similar sounds. It is
common ground that a lip reader is unable to comment on “tone of voice” or
how words are said. In this context the experts cannot say whether the words
observed were in a question form. Both experts agreed on the limitations of lip
reading spelt out in Appendix 2 of Laraine Callow’s report, with “extremely
minor differences”. In her appendix Ms Callow says, among other things, that
“There is therefore a fundamental unreliability in being able to interpret
speech visually with any certainty: it is an art rather than a precise skill. ... Lip
reading in any given situation comprises a large measure of guesswork: ...
words cannot be easily predicted by the person lip reading if they are not
already known to him/her. ... A key factor in lip reading is grasping the
conversational context: knowing what the other person is talking about. ... if
there are sudden changes of topic within a conversation – and this is quite
usual in all situations – the person lip reading is posed with great difficulty.”
In her summary of the reliability of this type of evidence Ms Callow says she
remains very sceptical in general terms about the reliability of lip read
evidence and: “Even if it is to be presented, I am concerned about whether
those who must take decisions on the basis of lip read evidence will
understand the full force of its unreliability.”
As Mr Penny points out, the evidence of the lip readers is to a very large extent
validated by the evidence of Mr Terry himself. In cross-examination he
4 accepted that he appears to use the word “and” and as a result the only
difference between the prosecution and the defence is that the Crown alleged
he says “you/ya fucking black cunt” whereas the defence case is that he said “a
fucking black cunt?” There are missing words, and I have not been prepared to
speculate as to what they may be,
There is then the evidence of Anton Ferdinand that he at no stage accused
John Terry of calling him a black cunt. He gave detailed evidence about what
happened on the pitch, and about what happened in the Chelsea dressing
room afterwards and then about how he learned about the footage posted that
evening on YouTube. I make the following comments about that evidence. (I
will not set out in detail the evidence of this witness, or indeed of any other
witnesses.)
As Mr Carter-Stephenson points out, there are a number of discrepancies
between this witness’s evidence and other evidence. Specifically he points to
the film evidence showing a challenge in the penalty box. This shows that Mr
Ferdinand’s account is wrong and that Mr Terry was not blameworthy for
claiming a foul and therefore a penalty. He points out that the evidence
suggests that Mr Ferdinand himself lost control by following Mr Terry, angry,
and insulting him over and over again. He points to the discrepancy between
the witness’s memory of what he is shouting (at an earlier stage) and the lip
reading evidence There are discrepancies between the evidence of Mr Cole and
Mr Ferdinand. In cross-examination Mr Ferdinand at first appeared to deny
that Mr Terry said, in the dressing room, “do you think I called you are
fucking black cunt?” In fact this was in his statement as one of two
alternatives. There is another piece of significant evidence, namely that he did
not in his statement provide full and accurate details of the words he used to
Mr Terry shortly before the comments at the centre of this trial. It is clear that
he was offered the opportunity to add to his statement by the police, but
declined. This is an important fact and I will return to it later.
Although these defence points are well made, they do not undermine the
central evidence of this witness that on the pitch he did not accuse the
5 defendant of racially abusing him. In his final submissions Mr Penny
describes Mr Ferdinand as “brave” for giving evidence. I think this is a
reasonable description. I am satisfied that he would have preferred not to be
involved in this trial at all. I am satisfied that there was little or no good
reason for him to lie about the central issue in this case. Mr Penny provides
good reasons for that conclusion. While there are indeed discrepancies in his
evidence I think it is unlikely that on the central point he is lying. I have no
significant doubts about his integrity. There are doubts about what he said at
the time of the second fist pumping gesture. He may easily have
misremembered. I also have a doubt when  he  says  he  was  unaware  of  the
crucial comment made to him by John Terry. They were directed at him. He
had had eye contact with Mr Terry and may well have been looking for a
reaction from him. I accept his evidence about this may well be true, as he
turned his attention back to the game. However, I cannot discount the
possibility that he was aware of the comments directed at him, and found it
easier to say that he wasn’t. If that is the case it would be wrong of him, but
understandable. To make it clear, I am not saying he was aware, just that he
may have been, despite his evidence to the contrary. I consider this point
again, later.
To summarize:
  There is no doubt the words “Fucking black cunt” were directed at Mr 
Ferdinand. 
  Overall I found Anton Ferdinand to be a believable witness on the 
central issue.
  It  is  inherently  unlikely  that  he  should  firstly  accuse  John  Terry  of
calling him a black cunt, then shortly after the match completely deny
that he had made such a comment, and then maintain that false
account throughout the police investigation and throughout this trial.
There is no history of animosity between the two men. The supposed
motivation is slight.
  Mr Terry’s explanation is, certainly under the cold light of forensic 
examination, unlikely. It is not  the most obvious response. It is 
sandwiched between other undoubted insults. 
  I believe that he is an unwilling witness, and would have preferred that
this matter not come to court.
6   There were discrepancies in his evidence. To a large extent this is what
you would expect from a truthful witness. Much of what happened;
happened in a brief period of time, in circumstances where the result of
the game was more important than  any individual argument between
two players. I will return later to the discrepancies.
Adding these facts together it is clear that the prosecution has built a
strong case. I had no hesitation in  refusing a submission of no case to
answer based on those facts.
So the question for me now is whether there is a doubt that the offence is
made out. In all criminal courts in this country a defendant is found guilty
only if the court, be it a jury, magistrate, or a judge, is sure of guilt. If there
is a reasonable doubt then the defendant is entitled to be acquitted.
Certainly there is doubt about some of the individual facts.
As far as the precise words that were spoken is concerned, the experts
agree that there is a doubt about the word “you”. Similarly they both make
it clear that lip-reading is unable  to identify whether the statement was
made as a question or in what tone of voice it was said.
There is then the fact that nobody (apart from John Terry) has given
evidence about hearing what was said. Either nobody heard it, or nobody
was prepared to come to court and tell me what they heard. Anton
Ferdinand says he did not hear it. The defence pointed out that this is
surprising as the words were clearly directed at him at a time when he was
facing John Terry and involved in an exchange of insults with him. I bear
in mind the significant distance between the two men at the time; the
noise; and the evidence of Mr Cole that he could not hear what was said by
either person.
There are a number of possible explanations for this. The first is that with
the ball once again coming into play, Anton Ferdinand concentrated on the
game rather than on the exchange. So he missed the words. Another
7 possibility, and this is a possibility suggested to me by the defence, is that
he did indeed accuse John Terry of calling him a black cunt, knows
perfectly well that the words observed on the TV footage were in response
to that comment, and is lying about it. I think that is unlikely. Another
explanation, not one advanced by either party but which certainly crossed
my mind, is that Anton Ferdinand did hear the words, did not want to take
it any further, agreed in the changing room that he had heard nothing and
stuck by that account. In short he may initially have wanted simply to
move on, and as things snowballed found it expedient to stick with that
position.
Another doubt about the facts is what was said by Anton Ferdinand at the
time of his obscene gesture to John Terry, shortly before the words “black
cunt” were spoken. His initial account does not refer to any words being
spoken  at  that  stage.  This  is  even  though,  as  was  put  to  him  in  crossexamination and he appeared to accept, he knew by the time that he made
his statement that John Terry was saying that his words were in response
to something said by Anton Ferdinand. In fact the camera shots show
reasonably clearly that he was saying something. In evidence he said that
he was continuing his taunts about John Terry’s affair with a team-mate’s
wife. I accept the defence argument that it is surprising that this was not
made explicit in his initial statement. An initial statement, made shortly
after events, is usually a witness’s best recollection. This witness had his
memory refreshed by TV footage. However, so long after the event it seems
to me unlikely that he would remember the exact words that he spoke
when these had not been recorded closer to the time.
A related point is the way that Mr Terry’s facial expression changed at the
moment he uttered the words “black cunt”. He tells me, and I accept, that
he has received countless taunts, from players and spectators, about an
alleged relationship with a team-mate’s wife. By the time of this match the
taunts had occurred over an 18 month period. He had learned to live with
them. They did not anger him. Later I heard evidence from Mr Buck and
Mr Wilkins about his unusual qualities of self-control and leadership. I
8 also heard about his disciplinary record. He has been sent off four times in
600 matches, and never for abuse. There can be little doubt from this, and
from other evidence that I need not repeat here, that Mr Terry has, over
the years, been subjected to the most unpleasant personal abuse and has
had to learn to keep calm and continue to play football. On the account
given by Anton Ferdinand, there is no obvious reason why John Terry
should suddenly become annoyed by the  repetition of this taunt. He had
heard it before many times. He did not react angrily the first time Anton
Ferdinand said it, nor did he immediately react angrily when the obscene
gesture was made. Despite his general self-discipline, it could have been a
sudden loss of self-control. Almost  everyone can snap sometimes. Mr
Penny demonstrated to me from the television clips that the defendant did
indeed react to later incidents involving other players, notably the QPR
goal keeper. On the other hand the footage of Mr Terry as he says “black
cunt” adds credence to the defence account that something of a different
order had just been said to him, something altogether more insulting. Most
of us will agree that being accused of racism and making racist comments
is shocking and offensive. Society does not tolerate racist comments, nor
do England football players, nor does the law. Any ordinary person
wrongly accused of making a racist comment would be shocked and
angered.
There is then the evidence of John  Terry himself. He was expertly and
forcefully cross-examined. He maintained his account. Moreover he has
been fully cooperative with the process throughout. He gave a detailed
account to the FA five days after the game. He answered every question,
and having heard the tape of that interview it is clear that he did so without
prevarication. He then further co-operated with the police enquiry. I
suspect that the decision to present a prepared statement was not his idea,
but he cannot be blamed for taking advice. Once again he answered all the
questions asked, even when his lawyer appeared to be suggesting that the
questions were not relevant. As  I have mentioned earlier, some
inconsistencies are to be expected in any witness’s recollection. As time
goes by, recollections change. It is not only that people misremember. All
9 experienced criminal lawyers have come across honest witnesses whose
initial tentative evidence turns into a firm belief over our period of time. A
good example is the one mentioned by Mr Carter-Stephenson. Tentative
identification at an identification parade can become certain identification
by the time of trial. There are reasons for this, but here I need only record
that it happens. In everyday life misremembering and becoming more
certain happens to us all. In this case Mr Terry has had the advantage of
contemporaneous film coverage to assist his memory with what happened
on the pitch.
The prosecution point out that in the FA interview Mr Terry was asked 
“can you remember exactly what you said back to him?” and replied [page 
65] “I think it was something along the lines of, “You black cunt, you’re a 
fucking knobhead”. The Crown say that this represents a true statement. It 
was a slip by Mr Terry. It is evidence  of his guilt. Certainly it is a very
significant statement. It may well represent the truth. On the other hand it
is qualified by the words “I think it was something along the lines of” and
followed by the words “so I’m repeating, basically, what he’s said to me, or
what I think he is said to me.” In the context of the interview as a whole the
defendant puts his case clearly on a number of occasions. In context there
can be no doubt that his answer on page 65 is in relation to his response to
the  allegation  he  was  saying  had  been  made  by  Mr  Ferdinand.  Overall  I
assess his evidence as appropriately consistent and, with the possible
exception of the answer on page 65, where there are minor inconsistencies
they are of no significance.
I will mention briefly the evidence of Mr Cole. He is a friend and teammate  of  the  defendant.  He  says  he  is  also  a  friend  of  Mr  Ferdinand  and  
more especially Mr Ferdinand’s brother. Although he was courteous to the 
court, he clearly would have preferred not to be here. He was more 
tentative in his evidence than the other witnesses. Nevertheless, he did
confirm Mr Terry’s own evidence that  he had been told during the final
minutes of the game that Mr Ferdinand had accused him of racial abuse.
He also gives evidence of what he thought he saw Mr Ferdinand say at the
10 crucial time. He didn’t hear the words spoken but saw them. There was a
word that looked like Bridges or black. There was another word that looked
like cunt (and indeed this was a word Mr Ferdinand agreed he used on a
number of occasions). This evidence later enabled the defence to argue
that there may have been a misunderstanding about the words used by Mr
Ferdinand. Mr Cole also gave evidence about what happened later in the
dressing room, and I will discuss the effect of the dressing room evidence
later.
There is then the fact that on the evening of the match, 23rd
  October 2011,
Mr  Terry  made  a  press  statement.  I  have  not  been  told  what  was  in  that
statement, save that it contains the basic defence in this case, namely that
he was responding to something said to him (in the prosecution bundle
there is a copy of a report in The Daily Telegraph the following day). I do
think this is an important point. Mr Terry tells me that he was advised to
wait until all the television footage was available before making a
statement.  I  am  satisfied  he  is  likely  to  have  received  that  advice.  A
cautious adviser would not have wanted a client to be tied to an account
that could later be controverted by other evidence. Mr Penny is right to put
the question that it is important in a PR world to meet a high profile
allegation with an immediate response. However it is a high risk strategy if
there is a possibility that contradictory evidence will later appear. We
know, as Mr Terry will have known,  that there would be a number of
recordings of the match from different angles. Overall, the fact that he
made an immediate statement, and has maintained that account in detail
and co-operatively throughout this process, without significant
contradiction to his evidence, is undoubtedly a factor in favour of the
defence.
What happened in the dressing room? It is agreed that John Terry
summonsed Anton Ferdinand to the Chelsea changing room and that there
was a conversation between them that also involved Ashley Cole. The
prosecution rely on this incident as  evidence that the defendant realised
there might be trouble about his comments, and took the opportunity to
11 “square” Anton Ferdinand. The defence on the other hand say the incident
showed that Mr Terry had been angered by the allegation on the pitch and
wanted to confront it as soon as practicable after the match. There are
different accounts of the words used. This is not in the least surprising,
even if all three witnesses are doing their best to recall accurately what was
said. It is an everyday experience,  familiar to all of us but perhaps
particularly to those who practise in the criminal courts, that even the best
and most accurate witness is unable to recall a conversation with complete
accuracy, even shortly after it has occurred. Usually people remember the
general content of a conversation, but not the exact words spoken or the
exact sequence of the words. All that is clear about this incident is that Mr
Terry wanted to see and speak to Mr Ferdinand. They had a conversation
about what was said on the pitch. Mr Ferdinand denied that he had heard
any racial abuse or made any allegation of racial abuse.
There is evidence from Mr Cooper that clips of the incident were first
posted online on YouTube on 23rd
 October. At one stage it appeared to be
the Crown’s case that Mr Terry would have known of the YouTube footage
before seeing Mr Ferdinand, and that this was the reason for asking to see
him. Although timings for the material on YouTube have been provided, I
cannot conclude that Mr Terry would have had the opportunity to see or
hear of that material before he asked to see Mr Ferdinand. There is no
evidence as to exactly when it was first viewed. Certainly Mr Ferdinand,
and one assumes the QPR team, had not seen it by the time of the dressing
room conversation. The evidence of the coach driver casts doubt on
whether there was sufficient time between the clip becoming “viral” and
Mr Terry boarding the coach for the defendant to summons Mr Ferdinand
and for the conversation to take place. Mr Ferdinand’s own evidence about
the time of the dressing room conversation is just an estimate, may be
wrong, and carries significantly less weight than the evidence of the coach
driver, David Richardson, who has gone back to tachograph evidence to
give him the exact time that the coach left the ground. Mr Cole cast doubt
on whether electronic devices can even pick up a signal in the away
dressing room and certainly there is no evidence that they can.
12 There are a number of possible alternatives for what was said in the
dressing room, and the reasons for the conversation. One explanation is
that  Mr  Terry  realised  that  what  happened  on  the  pitch  could  cause  him
serious difficulties. He wanted to head that off by a conversation with Mr
Ferdinand. Mr Ferdinand either was or wasn’t aware of the comment,
either from him or from Mr Terry. Either way he did not want to make
anything of it and wanted to put the incident behind him. This seems to be
the most plausible account of what happened, but it is not an account
given by any of the parties and, as I have said, there are a number of other
possible alternatives. On the evidence I have heard from the three
witnesses I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, what
happened and what was said. In short the dressing room evidence is
largely neutral.
Conclusion
The prosecution has presented a strong case. There is no doubt that John 
Terry uttered the words “fucking black cunt” at Anton Ferdinand. When he 
did so he was angry. Mr Ferdinand says that he did not precipitate this 
comment by himself accusing Mr Terry of calling him a black cunt. 
Even with all the help the court has received from television footage,
expert lip readers, witnesses and indeed counsel, it is impossible to be sure
exactly what were the words spoken by Mr Terry at the relevant time. It is
impossible to be sure exactly what was said to him at the relevant time by
Mr Ferdinand.
It is not only that all of this happened in a matter of seconds. For a small
part of the relevant time the camera’s view of Mr Terry was obstructed. We
do not have a clear camera view of Mr Ferdinand, sufficient to pick up
exactly what he said. No matter how serious the incident looks now, and
how crucial the exact wording is now, at the time it was secondary to the
key witnesses. They are professional footballers in the final minutes of a
13 game where the result mattered to them both. They would naturally
concentrate on the game more than on exactly what had been said to them
or by them. There was the noise of the crowd. There is the fact that towards
the end of a game players are not only physically tired (as Mr CarterStephenson pointed out) they are also mentally tired. I don’t need evidence
to tell me that.
It is a crucial fact that nobody has given evidence that they heard what Mr
Terry said or more importantly how he said it. He has given effectively the
same account throughout. Insofar as there are discrepancies in his
account, they are understandable and natural. He says that he was himself
wrongly accused by Mr Ferdinand on the pitch of calling him a black cunt.
He has maintained that from the beginning. Mr Ashley Cole has
corroborated that it was mentioned to him during the game. There is no
doubt that reasonably soon after the game he made the accusation to Mr
Ferdinand. He confirmed that basic account in a statement on the evening
of the match. He gave a very detailed account to the FA and later to the
police. He gave evidence to that effect in this court. There have been minor
discrepancies in the account. It seems  likely that his belief that he was
wrongly accused on the pitch has strengthened as time goes by, and I have
discussed that above. However, his account has been subject to the most
searching and thorough questioning on at least three occasions. Nobody
has  been  able  to  show  that  he  is  lying. The lip readers do not provide
evidence that categorically contradicts his account. What may at first sight
have seemed clear to the non-expert, is less clear now. There are
limitations to lip reading, even by an expert. I have assessed John Terry as
a credible witness.
Weighing all the evidence together, I think it is highly unlikely that Mr 
Ferdinand accused Mr Terry on the pitch of calling him a black cunt. 
However I accept that it is possible that Mr Terry believed at the time, and
believes now, that such an accusation was made. The prosecution evidence 
as to what was said by Mr Ferdinand at this point is not strong. Mr Cole 
gives corroborating (although far from compelling corroborating) evidence 
14 on this point. It is therefore possible that what he said was not intended as
an insult, but rather as a challenge to what he believed had been said to
him.
In those circumstances, there being a doubt, the only verdict the court can
record is one of not guilty.
Howard Riddle
Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate)
13 July 2012
15