John Terry's case - an overlap of criminal and disciplinary proceedings.

• Author: Lukomski, Jan

On July 13, 2012 English football player John Terry (Chelsea Football Club) was cleared of a racially aggravated public order offence. He was accused of using racially abusive and insulting words towards Queens Park Rangers' player Anton Ferdinand during a game between their teams on October 23, 2011. The Westminster Magistrates Court found that there was a reasonable doubt about Terry's guilt. (1) Subsequently, the only possible verdict could be one of not guilty. There was insufficient evidence of what Terry exactly said, in what context, and with what tone. After the verdict, an independent regulatory commission of the Football Association (FA) unsuspended its own disciplinary proceeding investigating whether Terry was guilty of misconduct based on the Rule E3 (2) of the FA Rules 2011-2012 (racially insulting words). On September 27, 2012 the independent commission decided on his guilt and suspended him from all domestic club football for four competitive matches and fined the sum of [pounds sterling]220,000. (2)

Had the FA the right to make a decision inconsistent with the court's judgment? A criminal procedure, just as a civil procedure, is separate and different from a disciplinary procedure. They are independent of one another. Disciplinary sanctions are elements of wider contractual or social relations that exist between an athlete and a private sports association. The same offense, such as a racial insult, can be viewed as a breach of contract (i.e. the statute of the association or bylaw) as well as an infringement of law, e.g. a crime. For this reason, the disciplinary proceeding launched or unsuspended after the judgment of a court of law does not constitute a breach of one of the most fundamental legal principles - ne bis in idem. Moreover, the decisions made by disciplinary bodies may differ from court rulings. The general stance on lack of mutual dependence of disciplinary and criminal proceedings was expressed in British jurisprudence (3)

In the said case the court used, as it always does, the criminal procedure standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt". It means that there was no certain evidence that could prove Terry's guilt. The disciplinary body used a lower civil standard of proof that is "the balance of probability". It assessed the credibility of both parties and the probability of what might have been said. Furthermore, the disciplinary body acted in compliance with its policy on fighting racism (4) as well as...