Speaker 1: Already and this this is the Daily, This is the Daily.
Speaker 2: Ohs oh, now it makes sense. Good morning and welcome
Speaker 2: to the Daily Os. It's Monday, the tenth of February.
Speaker 1: I'm Emma and I'm George.
Speaker 2: Matilda's captain Sam Kerr faced a London court last week
Speaker 2: over allegations she racially abused a police officer by calling
Speaker 2: him quote stupid and white. The verbal altercation took place
Speaker 2: in January twenty twenty three, so quite some time ago,
Speaker 2: after a cab driver re routed Kerr and her partner
Speaker 2: Christy Mwis to a police station over a separate incident. Kerr,
Speaker 2: who also plays as a forward for Chelsea in the
Speaker 2: UK Women's Super League, has pleaded not guilty to a
Speaker 2: charge of racially aggravated harassment. Today we are going to
Speaker 2: take you through the latest developments from the courtroom on
Speaker 2: this case. George, you are with us today of course,
Speaker 2: our resident sport journalist tda's finest to talk us through
Speaker 2: this incident that landed Sam Kerr in court. We're going
Speaker 2: to go through the specifics of the trial itself, but
Speaker 2: before we get to the latest, how did we get here?
Speaker 2: What landed Sam Kerr? In court in the first place.
Speaker 1: So, as you know, Emma, it's February twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: We're talking about a night out in January twenty twenty three. Wow,
Speaker 1: just over two years ago now. So Kerr and her partner,
Speaker 1: Christy Mwis got into an argument with a London taxi
Speaker 1: driver over vomit which was in or on the car.
Speaker 1: Kerr has said in police interviews that she vomited outside
Speaker 1: the car outside the window, and the driver said that
Speaker 1: the pair refused to pay for the fare and a
Speaker 1: cleaning fee for the vomit. During the disagreement, the driver
Speaker 1: called the police and was advised by the police operator
Speaker 1: to drive to Twickenham Police station in London. In London,
Speaker 1: when the taxi arrived, police saw ker exiting the car
Speaker 1: through the back window, a broken window which had been
Speaker 1: allegedly kicked out by a muus Kerr and Ewis told
Speaker 1: police that they had feared for their safety after the
Speaker 1: driver rerouted the trip, saying he'd been acting quote in
Speaker 1: a crazy way. Kerr described feeling as though they were
Speaker 1: being quote held hostage.
Speaker 2: Okay, so we've got this night out. Kerr and her
Speaker 2: partner get into a cab something unfolds in that taxi,
Speaker 2: there is an altercation, a disagreement, and we've ended up
Speaker 2: at a police station, a broken window and allegations of
Speaker 2: feeling unsafe and being held hostage. What happened next.
Speaker 1: Once they were inside the police station, body cam footage
Speaker 1: shows Kerk calling officer effing, stupid and white. That vision
Speaker 1: was released as the trial began last week. Here's a
Speaker 1: bit of what the incident sounded like.
Speaker 2: Honestly, you stupid and white.
Speaker 1: Okay, I'm not more.
Speaker 2: Close stupid, I'm sitting over this ship.
Speaker 1: The officer then arrested Kerve for criminal damage over the
Speaker 1: window and for racially aggravated public order over the comments
Speaker 1: that she'd made to him. She wasn't immediately charged. Kerr
Speaker 1: em Ewis then paid the driver, resolving the criminal damage allegation,
Speaker 1: and a year later, Kerr was formally charged with the
Speaker 1: racially aggravated harassment count, which she's dealing with now in court.
Speaker 2: So that brings us to the trial. What have we learned?
Speaker 2: What did we hear last week?
Speaker 1: So the trial began last week and prosecutors are seeking
Speaker 1: to prove that Kerr's actions were both intended to cause
Speaker 1: distress and would reasonably be considered harassment, She's pleaded not guilty.
Speaker 2: And what kind of punishment is cur facing? What does
Speaker 2: his charge actually entail if prosecutors are successful.
Speaker 1: Well, under UK law, racially aggravated harassment carries penalties of
Speaker 1: up to six months in jail or a fine of
Speaker 1: up to two five hundred pounds, which is about five
Speaker 1: thousand Australian dollars.
Speaker 2: Okay, so you've mentioned that Sam Kerr has pleaded not guilty.
Speaker 2: So how is she defending herself? What is the case
Speaker 2: that we heard argued in court?
Speaker 1: Well, Kurzlowys are saying that while the words she used
Speaker 1: are not in contention, so she did use those words,
Speaker 1: she did not hold hostility towards the police officer, Constable
Speaker 1: Stephen Lovell, because he is white. The court also heard
Speaker 1: that Kerr and her partner believed they were being kidnapped
Speaker 1: by the cab driver, which is a pretty serious allegation,
Speaker 1: and that Kerr's comments came at a time when she
Speaker 1: felt like police were doubting her claims. The full arrest
Speaker 1: video was released last week, with more than thirty minutes
Speaker 1: of footage from the body cam. But we'll play you
Speaker 1: the part where you can hear Kerr and Mewis describing
Speaker 1: feeling afraid in the taxi couldn't get out, but we.
Speaker 2: Couldn't get we could not get out of the car.
Speaker 2: Listen to the recording. We want to go to court, Okay,
Speaker 2: so to recap where we've gotten to at this point,
Speaker 2: we've heard in court this defense that Kerr's lawyers are saying.
Speaker 2: She accepts that she said those words effing, stupid and white,
Speaker 2: that that's not in contention, but that the reason she
Speaker 2: maybe acted out in that situation was because she felt
Speaker 2: as though this officer wasn't taking her seriously. Her and
Speaker 2: her partner felt that they had been kidnapped, and that
Speaker 2: kind of is what motivated things to get a little
Speaker 2: bit ugly.
Speaker 1: I guess, correct, correct, And Furthermore, during her cross examination
Speaker 1: last week, Kerr told the court that she felt intimidated
Speaker 1: by the police officer, who she said was in a
Speaker 1: position of power and privilege. When prosecutor mister Emlyn Jones
Speaker 1: asked what PC Lovel's race had to do with anything,
Speaker 1: Kerr replied, I felt it was him using his power
Speaker 1: and privilege over me because he perceived me to be
Speaker 1: something I'm not. She added that the officer had been
Speaker 1: quote treating me differently and not believing me, and that
Speaker 1: she quote believed they were treating me differently because of
Speaker 1: the color of my skin.
Speaker 2: Okay, so we've heard from Sam Kerr, but we also
Speaker 2: heard from her partner, Christy Lewis last week. Now, Christy
Speaker 2: Lewis has not been charged with anything. She's not defending herself,
Speaker 2: but she did appear as a witness I guess to
Speaker 2: corroborate Sam Kerr's story. She's the only other person apart
Speaker 2: from the taxi driver, who was in that cab that night.
Speaker 2: So what did we learn from Christy Lewis.
Speaker 1: Somwis was on the witness stand on Thursday. She denied
Speaker 1: that they had refused to pay a cleaning fee, but
Speaker 1: admitted to breaking the rear window. She said, I had
Speaker 1: to do something dramatic to save us. That's just how
Speaker 1: I felt in the moment.
Speaker 2: You mentioned earlier, George that it was actually a year
Speaker 2: between the taxi incident and Kerr being charged. This is
Speaker 2: an interesting aspect to the case, I suppose, and something
Speaker 2: we've learned a little bit more about in the last week.
Speaker 2: Why did it take so long for that charge.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's been a long time and it's an aspect
Speaker 1: of the case that's actually now formed a part of
Speaker 1: Kerr's defense. So Lovell, the police officer involved in the incident,
Speaker 1: didn't mention taking offense to Kerr's white and stupid comments
Speaker 1: in his initial statement, but eleven months later his personal
Speaker 1: reflections on the matter shifted. So on Tuesday we heard
Speaker 1: Kerr's legal team press the policeman on this. They argued
Speaker 1: that initially he'd only claimed he was upset by the altercation,
Speaker 1: and then later that claim wasn't enough to bring charges
Speaker 1: against Kerr.
Speaker 2: Okay, so it didn't meet the threshold for enough evidence
Speaker 2: to press a charge.
Speaker 1: Correct. So Kerr's team have argued that Lovell then provided
Speaker 1: authorities with an embellished statement where he then alleged Kerr's
Speaker 1: comments caused him harm in order for the charge to
Speaker 1: be brought, and in court this month all described feeling
Speaker 1: belittled and upset.
Speaker 2: Okay, So Kerr's legal team has suggested that the officer's
Speaker 2: intentions might not have been focused on what actually happened,
Speaker 2: but he was focused on maybe producing enough evidence to
Speaker 2: lay a charge, even if that meant being dishonest. Is
Speaker 2: that kind of the basis of that argument.
Speaker 1: Basically, yes, her lawyer grilled level and said maybe he
Speaker 1: had quote assumed that she was a troublemaker, that she
Speaker 1: was difficult and because of what she does for a living,
Speaker 1: she was an arrogant person, basically because she was a
Speaker 1: sports star with a lot of money. Was he trying
Speaker 1: to make a claim on her.
Speaker 2: Something that stood out to me in that discussion last
Speaker 2: week about whether or not this officer knew who Sam
Speaker 2: Kerr was was about the twenty twenty three World Cup.
Speaker 2: And I think this is interesting for Australian audiences. Of course,
Speaker 2: you know, who can forget the Matilda's absolutely dominating, getting
Speaker 2: further than they ever had in a World Cup, Tilly's fever.
Speaker 2: And I suppose what's being tied into this argument from
Speaker 2: Sam Kerr's defense is whether or not it would be
Speaker 2: plausible that lovel hadn't heard more about her in between
Speaker 2: that first and second statement.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, and the Tillies went further than they have ever before.
Speaker 1: As you said, they went to a semi final, they
Speaker 1: played against England and Sam Kerr was the marquee player
Speaker 1: in that team. So her brand and her image was
Speaker 1: significantly elevated after that tournament.
Speaker 2: Sam Kerr has pleaded not guilty to this charge, though,
Speaker 2: so what are the next stages? Are we likely to
Speaker 2: get a verdict anytime soon?
Speaker 1: Well, the trial began on Monday, so a week ago.
Speaker 1: It was originally scheduled to last four or five days.
Speaker 1: Hearings continued on Friday in the UK, so it's already
Speaker 1: extended past that fifth day. We can expect to get
Speaker 1: a verdict in the coming days.
Speaker 2: Aside from all of this, though, you know, Sam Kerr
Speaker 2: does remain one of Australia's most popular sporting icons, one
Speaker 2: of Australia's most recognized sporting faces. Is this going to
Speaker 2: impact her position in the Matildas? Is this going to
Speaker 2: impact how fans feel about her.
Speaker 1: Well as for her position in the Matildas. Football Australia
Speaker 1: CEO James Johnson was asked about Curse standing the team
Speaker 1: given the current circumstances. He said, quote, what we need
Speaker 1: to do. We need to give Sam the opportunity to
Speaker 1: go through the trial. Once we complete the trial, then
Speaker 1: we'll have a holistic view of what's happened.
Speaker 2: Which I think speaks to you know, obviously these are
Speaker 2: all allegations. At the moment ongoing legal proceedings, it can
Speaker 2: be difficult to kind of draw any conclusions, and language
Speaker 2: from those kinds of stakeholders is always going to be
Speaker 2: quite careful when matters are before the courts. So it
Speaker 2: does seem that maybe the next stages or the security
Speaker 2: of her place in the Aussie team might on the
Speaker 2: outcome of this trial. Has Football Australia faced any criticism
Speaker 2: for how they've handled it.
Speaker 1: Well, not necessarily, but most sporting leagues or associations in
Speaker 1: Australia typically have what's called a no fault stand down policy,
Speaker 1: basically meaning that players involved in court cases are stood
Speaker 1: down from their teams and not allowed to play until
Speaker 1: a resolution. This is basically in place to prevent reputational
Speaker 1: damage to the league, or the brand or the team
Speaker 1: that that player is playing for. For example, you might
Speaker 1: remember this story Emma Olympic hockey player Tom Craig. He
Speaker 1: was arrested in France for trya by cocaine.
Speaker 2: During the Paras Olympics.
Speaker 1: Correct, yeah, and he was released without charge. Despite the
Speaker 1: fact that he was released without charge, Hockey Australia decided
Speaker 1: to give him a twelve month ban from the sport
Speaker 1: basically because what they thought was a bit of brand damage.
Speaker 2: Got it. Is there a precedent with Football Australia though
Speaker 2: specifically when it comes to no fault suspensions.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there is, so they have used no fault suspensions before.
Speaker 1: Last year, three mccarthur REFC players from the A League
Speaker 1: were stood down following charges relating to an alleged betting scandal.
Speaker 1: Even if Kerr returns to the team, which I think
Speaker 1: she probably will, I'm not sure she'll be put back
Speaker 1: into a leadership role straight away.
Speaker 2: Because she's the captain of the Matildas. What makes you say.
Speaker 1: That, Well, there are some prominent examples of Australian captains
Speaker 1: being dropped from leadership positions. You might remember Steve Smith
Speaker 1: and Tim Paine to Test cricket captains that we've had
Speaker 1: in the past. Smith has actually returned to captaincy, but
Speaker 1: both of those players lost their captaincies due to separate incidents.
Speaker 1: Smith for his role in the infamous sandpaper gate and
Speaker 1: Pain for his role in a sexiting scandal. Neither faced
Speaker 1: criminal charges. I think ALTI regardless of the outcome of
Speaker 1: this trial, Kerr will return to the team, but there's
Speaker 1: a separate conversation to be had about the impact of
Speaker 1: this whole saga on both her personal brand and the
Speaker 1: image of the Matildas.
Speaker 2: Okay, So, regardless of what's going on legally for sam
Speaker 2: Kur right now, she wouldn't be appearing for the Matildas
Speaker 2: at present anyway because she's recovering from an injury. So
Speaker 2: what is next for the Matildas.
Speaker 1: So the Matilda's are playing later this month. They're playing
Speaker 1: in the She Believes Cut, which is an invitational tournament
Speaker 1: in the US. They'll play against Japan, Columbia and the US.
Speaker 1: So it's a round robin style tournament. When's that that's
Speaker 1: later this month, starting feb twenty.
Speaker 2: And what about an injury update while we've got you?
Speaker 1: So Kerr is expected to return in March, and if
Speaker 1: she's fit and included in the Matilda's squad, she'll be
Speaker 1: playing against South Korea.
Speaker 2: George, always a pleasure having you on the podcast bringing
Speaker 2: that sport fertise to the audience of the Daily Oz.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for coming on board today and
Speaker 2: talking us through it.
Speaker 1: It's always an honor. Emma, great chatting.
Speaker 2: Thanks and don't forget if you want to hear more
Speaker 2: or read more from George. He releases a brilliant sport newsletter,
Speaker 2: our Daily ol Sport newsletter that drops at five pm
Speaker 2: Australian Eastern Daylight Saving time every afternoon. We will pop
Speaker 2: a link in the show notes you can sign up
Speaker 2: to that for free. Get around him. As I always say,
Speaker 2: thanks he Emma, thank you so much for listening to
Speaker 2: today's episode. If you learn something, feel free to share
Speaker 2: it with a friend, and don't forget to follow or
Speaker 2: subscribe wherever you're listening to The Daily Os or if
Speaker 2: you're watching us over on YouTube. We will be back
Speaker 2: this evening with your afternoon headlines, but until then, have
Speaker 2: a great day.
Speaker 1: My name is Lily Madden and I'm a proud Aarunda
Speaker 1: bunge Lung Chalcotin woman from Gadigal Country. The Daily oz
Speaker 1: acknowledges that this podcast is recorded on the lands of
Speaker 1: the Gadigal people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and
Speaker 1: Torrestrate island and nations.
Speaker 2: We pay our respects to the first peoples of these countries,
Speaker 2: both past and present.