Sam Kerr trial: Jury doesn’t have to prove Matildas star is ‘card-carrying racist’

The jury is set to retire on Monday to consider if the Australian and Chelsea star striker racially harassed or insulted a police officer.

Matilda captain Sam Kerr arrives with her brother Levi and other family members, escorted by security into Kingston Crown Court. Picture: Jacquelin Magnay

The jury in Sam Kerr’s trial has been told they don’t have to prove the star footballer is a “card-carrying racist” but rather her being very angry and very drunk in the early hours of January 30, 2023 meant she had been hostile to a police officer by reference to his race.

Kerr, 31, has already admitted to the court that she intended to cause police officer Stephen Lovell harassment, alarm or distress. She has admitted saying the words to insult him and conceded it caused distress by reference to his “whiteness”.

The issue for the jury is whether they will accept she did not intend to cause such racial offence by repeatedly calling PC Lovell “f …. g stupid and white’’.

Prosecutor Bill Emlyn Jones summed up the crown’s evidence of the trial on Friday afternoon, leaving Kerr’s counsel Grace Forbes to conclude the evidential aspect of case on Monday before the jury will begin their deliberations after six days of testimony.

Judge Paul Ladder has told the jury sitting at Kingston Crown Court that there are four questions to consider.

The first is that it is not disputed Kerr issued words that were abusive or insulting. The second is being sure she intended to cause PC Lovell harassment, alarm or distress. If the answer is yes, they have to be sure PC Lovell was caused harm, alarm or distress. If they are satisfied at that question then they must be sure her use of words was racially aggravated.

Mr Emlyn Jones told the jury in summing up “that intention doesn’t have to be specific with reference to race, that intention to cause distress applies globally to her insulting and abusive words.”

He said: “I am not going to suggest she is a card-carrying racist, that’s not what the prosecution alleges or proves, only that there and then she did demonstrate hostility and it’s her intention and actions in the heat of moment which count.

“It is only when very drunk, very angry and her usual character and behaviour has gone out of the window there and then she demonstrated hostility to PC Lovell in reference to the fact he happens to be white: ‘you are f …. g stupid and white’,’’.

Mr Emlyn Jones asked the jury to consider the situation if PC Lovell had been black and Kerr had called him “f … g stupid and black”.

“In racially aggravated insulting behaviour, the law doesn’t discriminate between different races and the test is the same regardless of the ethnicity in question.’’

Kerr has denied the charge of racially aggravated harassment, alarm or distress of a police officer which came after she and her partner Kristie Mewis feared for their lives believing they had been kidnapped in the early hours of January 30, 2023. Ms Mewis smashed the rear window of the cab, and other damage occurred to the driver’s protective shield.

The prosecutor highlighted how the jury do not have to resolve other issues about the taxi driver that have been raised by the defence counsel and which took up significant amount of court time in the trial. The taxi driver drove the pair to Twickenham police station after ringing the emergency control room on two occasions claiming the women were smashing his taxi and wouldn’t pay a fare. Both Kerr and Mewis gave evidence the taxi driver drove dangerously fast after Kerr had been sick.

“You do not have to answer, you do not have to work out what happened in that taxi, you don’t have to decide who is at fault to blame for all of that,” Mr Emlyn Jones said.

“On the evidence it is not easy to untangle all of that, why Ms Kerr or Ms Mewis found it necessary to put a foot through the screen in the back of cab is far from clear from any version told.’’

He added: “it maybe helpful to consider what went on … may be able to help you, tell you something about the reliability or a general sense: you don’t have to work it out.’’

Mr Emlyn Jones said PC Lovell had not taken the opportunity in court to “over-egg” his evidence, nor had he taken time off work for stress. He said the defence counsel’s accusations that PC Lovell had made up a witness statement was an extremely serious allegation. He said PC Lovell had told them how he had been upset, it made him shocked, and feeling humiliated.

“That’s exactly how you would have felt in your place of work and someone turned around to you and delivered that volley of abuse to you,’’ he said.

Earlier Chelsea players Erin Cuthbert and Millie Bright, Kerr’s agent Florian Schroeder, Kerr’s mother Roxanne and former Chelsea manager Emma Hayes delivered glowing character references about Kerr.

“She’s a special human’’, said Bright.

Mr Emlyn Jones said doesn’t matter if Kerr had been clumsily trying to make point about white privilege, because she had demonstrated hostile to him by reference of him being a white man.

“However much she regretted it or it was fuelled by drunken fury and not feeling heard, feeling dismissed, the fact is she said it, she still meant it,’’ he said.

“The defendant is not only a wonderful footballer but her friends and her mother, colleagues and teammates told you she is a wonderful person: that cannot change what she said and did. You can’t make that go away, it might make it surprising or sad. What it means is normally she wouldn’t have behaved like that, normally she wouldn’t make this offence, but drunk and angry, righteous anger, all meant these were not normal circumstances. These are circumstances she did something she shouldn’t have done.’’

The trial continues.