Australian footballer Sam Kerr won her day in court. A jury found her not guilty on one count of racially aggravated harassment of Metropolitan Police Constable Stephen Lovell.
It took the jury just over four hours to reach the not guilty verdict, which indicates that it was not as straightforward as many of her loyal supporters expected.
Despite the victory one feels that it was a Pyrrhic victory. A victory resulting in such significant losses that it feels like defeat.
Whether you were for Kerr or against her in this case, and whether you felt it should or shouldn’t have gone to court, the whole affair did not reflect well on Kerr as an individual. Neither did it reflect well on Australia, with Kerr constantly being referred to as the captain of the Matildas, the women’s national football team.
The one person to come out of the whole ordeal in a positive light was her lawyer Grace Forbes, who has already been ranked as a ‘Rising Star’ in the UK legal profession. She is known for her “thorough case preparation, meticulous written arguments and mature tactical insight.”
It is fair to say that she created a narrative that assisted greatly in obtaining the not guilty verdict. She used the claims that Kerr and her partner Kristie Mewis thought they were being held hostage to her advantage. Her reference to the Claremont Killer in Perth in 1996 and 1997, the city where Kerr grew up was a masterstroke.
For those who are unaware, three young girls were murdered after it was believed that they had caught a lift in a taxi alone from the suburb of Claremont. There was at the time a genuine fear for a female riding in a taxi alone, a fear that lasted at least until 2005 or 2006 when the Police revealed a number of suspects.
Sam Kerr was born in September 1993. The first disappearance related to the Claremont Killer took place in January 1996. She was three years and four months old, and as many have said would have been totally unaware of the incident. By 2006 when suspects were being revealed and the fear of riding in taxis had subsided greatly, she would have been 13 years old. Again unlikely to be travelling in a cab alone.
There may be some truth that the memory of these events popped in her head on the night of her arrest, but her lawyers appeared to be drawing a long bow, but one long enough to make the jurors believe that this may well have caused the alleged panic within the cab.
The defence was also very clever focussing on the events leading up to the alleged abuse. Even though these events were not in fact the issue being debated in the court. As the questioning officers said in the video, when asked by Kerr why they were not questioning the cab driver, he was not being charged with anything. They clearly stated if Kerr and her partner wanted to make an official complaint and press charges then, and only then would he would be questioned. They even asked if Kerr and Mewis wished to press charges.
The Police even repeatedly stated that if they were prepared to pay for the damage to the cab – a window that Mewis claimed she smashed – and the cleaning of the cab because Kerr had tried to vomit out of the window but some had remained inside the cab, along with the outstanding fare they could go home. While Mewis could be heard to say she was happy to pay, an inebriated and belligerent Kerr refused.
It was during these discussions that she called PC Lovell “f***ing stupid and white.” This is not alleged as it was clearly audible in the video.
The job of the prosecution was to prove that she meant to cause offence and belittle the Police officer, and that the comment was racist and had caused him distress.
The conversation between Kerr and the prosecuting lawyer was reported as going as follows:
Mr Emlyn Jones the prosecuting lawyer: “You said he was ‘f***ing stupid and white.'”
Ms Kerr: “Yes.”
Mr Emlyn Jones: “What did his race have to do with anything?”
Ms Kerr: “As I’ve explained to you before, I felt it was him using his power and privilege over me because he perceived me to be something I’m not.”
Mr Emlyn-Jones then said that Ms Kerr had said that she felt that Constable Lovell couldn’t understand what it was like to be a woman being driven in a taxi by a stranger and being scared. He went on to say that this was an issue of a man not putting himself in a woman’s shoes.
Mr Emlyn Jones: “[It’s got] nothing to do with race has it?”
Ms Kerr: “Not particularly.”
Mr Emlyn Jones: “What were you saying to him was that, ‘You’re stupid because you’re white’.”
Ms Kerr: “No.”
Mr Emlyn Jones: “Can you see that you’ve rolled those two together into an insult?”
Ms Kerr: “Yes.”
Mr Emlyn Jones: “So, at the moment of expressing your hostility to him because of what you thought was his stupidity.”
Ms Kerr: “Yes.”
Mr Emlyn Jones: “You also … chose that moment to demonstrate your hostility towards him because of his whiteness? Yes?”
Ms Kerr: “That’s not what I meant.”
Mr Emlyn Jones: “That is what you did, isn’t it?”
Ms Kerr: “It is what I did, yes.”
Sadly, Kerr fell into the trap that many of us do when we are angry and not thinking rationally. We resort to the ways of a child and lash out. That lashing out invariably focuses on a physical attribute of the person we are confronting. It is childish, but common amongst adults in such a situation, especially if they have consumed a little too much alcohol.
The defence made a point by having Kerr declare that she identifies as being “White Anglo-Indian.” No doubt the “white” being very important to imply how can it be racist if a person who identifies as being white calls another white person “white?”
There was understandably a great deal of comment on social media in Australia about this comment. Kerr is Anglo Indian. That has never been in doubt.
Her father, was born in Calcutta to an English father and an Indian mother. Kerr has in her career often been labelled Aboriginal, and many comments alluded to the fact that she rarely corrected those misperceptions, and promoted the fact that she is Anglo-Indian.
The term Anglo Indian today is used to described people with British and Indian parentage. However, having checked further legally, it means “Indian citizens who are of European descent on their father’s side – which means that their paternal ancestors could be British, French or Portuguese, reflecting the long history of colonisation in India.”
In this case it was important to establish the White Anglo-Indian ancestry to show the court that Kerr does not identify as a person of colour. So therefore her comment could not have been racist.
Of course when Kerr spoke of her feelings as a child, and at the time of the incident none of us can comment, as feelings are extremely personal. Most of us hide our true feelings, so it is hard to know exactly how someone is feeling. Similarly, how many of us can truly know how PC Lovell felt at that time? Yet many are judging him as others have judged Kerr. When it comes to feelings can we really make a judgement?
Most people will agree watching the footage was not pleasant. The language and attitude that Kerr projected was clearly influenced by alcohol, but was far from what one would expect from someone who is the captain of a national team, and therefore an ambassador for a nation. No doubt it was also not the image that Nike and Mastercard expect their ambassadors to promote. It was unbecoming, it was belligerent and ironically appeared to come from a position of privilege. Something Kerr believed the Police were exhibiting because they were white. It is worth remembering that privilege comes in various forms, and through various opportunities.
There is a feeling amongst many in football that Kerr finding herself in this predicament was not necessarily all her own doing, and that it all stemmed back to February 2019, when Kerr was named captain of the Matildas by newly appointed head coach Ante Milicic, who had replaced the sacked Alen Stajcic.
The change in captaincy at that time seemed unnecessary. Maybe it was a new coach throwing down a marker and saying I am in charge, and things are going to change. It is alleged that at the time the new coach did not see the need to tell the previous joint captains of his decision, so that may back up this explanation. .
However, hindsight they say is perfect vision. Many believe that this was in fact a strategic move in which Football Australia wanted to promote Kerr to the top position as captain and ride on her career and popularity coat-tails to help boost the Matildas brand after the backlash from the Stajcic sacking. It was a strategic move by Football Australia.
Is it a coincidence that as Kerr’s standing in world football continued to rise so too did the awareness and profile of the Matildas?
Let us not forget that Football Australia had done this in the past with the Socceroos. First with Harry Kewell, and embarrassingly with Tim Cahill for the 2018 World Cup Finals. Cahill who was desperately trying to prolong his professional career so that he could play in his fourth World Cup Finals was allegedly a forced selection in coach Bert van Marwijk’s squad, as a sponsorship deal had been based around Cahill’s participation. Hence he made a single appearance in the tournament, coming off the bench in the 63rd minute of the 2–0 loss against Peru. (Podcast #53)
Kerr is without doubt a superstar, and the sport, and the Matildas benefitted from having her front and centre. However, as is often the case in such circumstances, as two brands become entwined it becomes very risky. As has been witnessed in other sports, as well as with other players in football, any bad press is hushed up to protect both entities. In some cases money paid to ensure that the story does not get out.
Players who are put in such positions and given so much power are always going to push the envelope. Some start to believe their own publicity, and also realise the power that they have. Their management have also been known to leverage that power to benefit them, and their client.
While the court has found Kerr not guilty of the charge of racially aggravated harassment, sadly one cannot ignore the video footage that was shown to the court, which has been released. It is there on the internet for all to see. It does not show the player in a good light at all.
Some have already speculated that lucrative sponsorship agreements with Nike and Mastercard may now be in jeopardy as they will no doubt have had behavioural expectations written into those contracts. This is a fairly standard situation if you are going to link an individual to your brand.
Football Australia also has such expectations within its player’s contracts. When news of the court case came to light Football Australia claimed that they knew nothing of the incident before that time.. Those within the Football Australia high performance set-up claimed that there was an obligation – as with most internationally contracted players – that they be alerted to any such impending situation. In order for them to eirther offer assistance or manage the potential fallout once the story breaks. That had not happened.
Yesterday, they issued a limp press statement where they stated: “Football Australia invests heavily in building the behavioural standards and expectations of all involved with our game, especially for all our national team players, where leadership comes with added responsibilities on and off the field. Football Australia will reflect with Sam on learnings from this matter and we will continue to provide appropriate support for her moving forward.”
Already people are saying that the reason for such a weak comment is that they have invested so much intertwining their brand with hers that that have no idea how to extricate themselves from this situation. The Nike sponsorship of Football Australia is one that it is allegedly interwoven with Kerr’s own deal and many believe that FA are desperately trying to find a way to hang on to this high profile sponsor.
Sadly, reaction on social media has been as negative towards them after the release of this statement as it has been to Kerr.
If, as we have been advised, there is a clause within her Football Australia contract relating to behaviour and bringing the game and the team into disrepute, they have to take action, or they will be opening a pandora’s box. It does not matter how much her team mates offer their support this is a contractual obligation.
Even the Western Australian Labor Government is copping flak. They used Kerr for political gain when they decided to name the State Football Centre after her just before the FIFA Women’s World Cup in 2023. We questioned why you would name anything after a player before their career is finished? Interestingly, after publishing Dangerous Liaisons we were contacted and told that there was in fact a “good behaviour clause” within those naming rights. If true, clearly the Premier Roger Cook is ignoring it as he said he saw no need to change the name. The reaction from the public may have caught him and his advisors by surprise as many have said on social media that that move has lost him their vote. Although unlikely, imagine the current Premier losing his seat over such an issue.
Also unlikely but imagine if youth teams refuse to play at the centre because of Ms Kerr’s behaviour and the message it may send to young players? Certainly some fans have already stated that they will no longer attend games there.
He may well have misread the mood of some of the electorate, and clearly doesn’t care, but what about about the City of Perth, who gave Kerr The Key to the City of Perth in July 2022. This is the highest honour the city can bestow on a citizen. Again questions are being asked as to whether Kerr’s behaviour on the video should require her to hand back the award. Certainly the silence from the City of Perth on this issue has been deafening. Could that be because the current Lord Mayor who bestowed the honour upon Kerr is running for State Parliament in the upcoming election?
If they decided to change the name of the State Football Centre how about considering Sandra Brentnall a woman credited as scoring the Australian Women’s team’s first international goal – although the 75ers may disagree, – and also the first hat-trick. Or Lydia Williams the recently retired Matildas goalkeeper who was born in Katanning and raised in Kalgoorlie.
These are the issues that you face when you hitch your wagon to sports stars. All is fine when their career is flying, but anything can happen to derail everything.
One other issue that Football Australia need to seriously be thinking about is how referees and officials are going to deal with players calling opposition players and officials ‘f***ing stupid and insert colour or race.’ It would appear that a prcedent has been set. The official will have to prove that the player meant it as a racial slur. The only thing they could possibly sanction the player for would be under Law 12 Fouls and Misconduct, where a sending off is recommended for “using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or action(s).”
As for Kerr, the best thing that she can do is focus on going back to doing the thing that she does best, scoring goals. After over a year out through injury the reports claim she is due to be back playing in the next month. She is bound to cop abuse from opposition players and fans trying to get a reaction, and throw her off her game. She is going to have to shut that out, and purely focus on playing football, as that may be her only redemption.
