Police have left a life long mark on Sam Kerr says defence lawyer, as jury begins deliberations

Before the jury in Sam Kerr’s trial retired, her lawyer told them issues of privilege and power were too weighty for the footballer to convey and her reference to a policeman being ‘white’ wasn’t harassment.

Australian footballer Sam Kerr leaves Kingston Crown Court. Picture: Getty Images.

The jury in Sam Kerr’s trial has retired to deliberate if the Matildas captain is guilty of racially aggravated harassment, distress or alarm of a police officer after calling him, on several occasions “f … g stupid and white” following a big night out that went into the early hours of January 30, 2023.

Kerr’s lawyer Grace Forbes told Kingston Crown Court the actions of the policeman had left a lifelong mark on the footballer and he “pursued” her because of who she is.

On Monday the jury heard Ms Forbes wrap up the defence case which took more than an hour. This was followed by an extensive three hour summing up by Justice Paul Lodder’s examination of the evidence.

The jury of eight women and four men finally retired at 3.27pm on Monday (local time), the sixth day of the trial, and will return at 10.30am on Tuesday to continue their deliberations.

Ms Forbes told the jury: “Undoubtedly Kerr didn’t cover herself in glory in the way she expressed herself. You may have some sympathy for whatever reason she didn’t express herself attractively, but that’s not the same as causing harassment, alarm or distress.’’

She said Kerr had been trying to convey complex issues of power and privilege when she spoke about PC Lovell being “white” but said the issues were too weighty for her to articulate clearly that night.

Sam Kerr and partner Kristie Mewis arrive at Kingston Crown Court. Picture: Getty Images.

Ms Forbes told the jury that Police Constable Stephen Lovell had wanted to address a power imbalance and teach Kerr a lesson.

“PC Lovell agreed he was determined to pursue Ms Kerr and I suggest it is because of who she is than what she did, he knew who she is, he might have denied it but he wanted to address power imbalance and teach her a lesson,’’ Ms Forbes said.

“He has succeeded, be there little doubt that these events have left a life long mark on Ms Kerr she will carry for rest of her life.’’

The judge highlighted several inconsistencies in the evidence, including how Kerr had told the police 18 hours after a formal interview at Twickenham police station that she couldn’t recall insulting PC Lovell during the interview. In that later interview she also said the cab driver had called police.

However during her time on the stand, Kerr, 31, said she wasn’t aware of the driver calling the police and claims not to have had any communication with him.

Justice Lodder told the jury Kerr had given written evidence: “We were in the cab before he called the police’’.

He added “You have to make of that what is appropriate and whether that fits with suggestions these two women had no knowledge of the call to the police. That doesn’t appear to be what she is saying there.”

Justice Lodder said it was largely agreed that at various stages of the journey, Kerr vomited, one of the women damaged the driver’s plastic protective screen with the force of a kick and Kerr’s partner Kristie Mewis smashed the rear side window as they came around the corner to Twickenham police station.

The judge said the taxi driver twice phoned police and was advised to drive to the nearest station. The first call was seven minutes before the second, whereupon he had arrived and honked his horn.

At, about or possibility by the time they arrived, Kerr operated an alarm system on her own phone. Outside the police station Ms Kerr then climbed out of the broken window.

Sam Kerr is surrounded by photographers as she arrives at court. Picture: AFP.

“Of greatest relevance to you is what happened inside the police station, it is the events inside the police station that give rise to the charge you are here for,’’ Justice Lodder said.

The judge added: “There is little dispute what happened as to the principle moments because they are captured on the recording. Both parties are relying on events leading to that point to set a context as they suggest, for what you then see on the video recording.

“In short order, the prosecution says the taxi driver wouldn’t have called police if (the women) had paid for damage caused by Kerr vomiting; he followed instructions to drive to the nearest police station, that the women in the back were too drunk or too angry to understand what going on and in effect they kicked off and additional damage to the screen and window was caused.

“The defence says after Kerr spit vomited outside of the window, the cab driver locked them in, although he was screaming he would not speak to them and they were terrified for their lives. They say he held them as hostages thrown around in back of cab, and Ms Kerr thought they might be raped or killed. Once in the police station police didn’t take their fears sufficiently seriously and were inclined to take view of the cab driver.’’

The trial continues.