The Royal Kingston Crown Court in London has concluded a six-day trial of Australian women's soccer star Sam Kerr, who is accused of racial discrimination and disorderly conduct. The jury retired at 3:30 PM UK time (2:30 AM Australian Eastern Daylight Time) to begin deliberations. Kerr, along with her parents, brother, and fiancée, were present at the hearing, awaiting the final verdict.
Read Also...:
At least five protesters killed during storming of Kenya's parliament
02-11, 2025
What we know about the Super Bowl halftime show demonstrator
02-11, 2025
Title: Donald Trump signs steel, aluminium tariff executive order after phone call with Anthony Albanese
02-11, 2025
All hell is going to break out': Trump says ceasefire deal should be cancelled if Hamas doesn't release all h
02-11, 2025The charges against Kerr could potentially damage her reputation and even lead to the loss of her position as captain of the Australian women's national team. Theoretically, she could also face a maximum sentence of 26 weeks in prison. The prosecution completed its closing arguments on Friday, which were subsequently countered by Kerr's defense lawyer, Grace Forbes.
Forbes emphasized that to convict Kerr, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt three aspects of the public order charge: that Kerr intended to cause Police Officer Stephen Lovell "harassment, alarm or distress," that Lovell actually suffered these, and that the behavior was racially aggravated. The case stems from an incident on January 30, 2023, in the early hours of the morning, when Kerr had an altercation with police at the Twickenham Police Station, during which she twice referred to Lovell as a "stupid white bastard."
Forbes pointed out that Kerr and her fiancée had previously been in a taxi, where a dispute arose after Kerr vomited, and they believed the driver had kidnapped them, feeling their lives were threatened. Forbes stated that the jury did not need to rule on what happened in the taxi, but these events were crucial to understanding Kerr's state of mind and the police's response (or lack thereof). She argued that the police's actions were untenable unless intended to discredit Kerr, as they seemed to have disregarded what the two women said the driver might have done.
Forbes conceded that 31-year-old Kerr's "words and actions that night were not admirable," but added, "even when drunk, it is still possible to be the victim of a crime." Kerr was trying to express something about power, privilege, and how these influence people's perceptions, but did so poorly. The police held all the power in the dispute, including the power to persuade them to pay the taxi driver £1800 in compensation, as well as the power to accuse, arrest, and investigate.
Forbes mentioned that Kerr had previously experienced racial discrimination and stated that Kerr "felt she was unfairly seen by police as a troublemaker, echoing what she had witnessed happening to her father growing up." Kerr's fiancée also felt she was treated differently. Forbes also questioned the extent of Lovell's distress, highlighting that it was not mentioned in his initial statement but was only added 11 months later after the Crown Prosecution Service indicated there was insufficient evidence to charge Kerr. On the witness stand, he was asked five times before stating he was more than just "degraded and upset." Forbes suggested Lovell brought the lawsuit because of Kerr's fame and stated his reaction was "more about who she was than what she said."
