clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

The FA vs. the courts: Two different approaches to the Terry case

Mike Hewitt - Getty Images

I'm not sure how much intelligent commentary I can add to the John Terry case, because a thorough understanding of UK law is some way beyond my grasp, but that doesn't mean there's not some very interesting commentary going on. Take, for instance, Dan Levene, who's been discussing the FA's approach to the matter versus the judicial system's.

Last summer, Terry received a not-guilty verdict at court, primarily because it could not be proved that he was actually insulting Anton Ferdinand when he gave his now-infamous utterance. On Thursday, the FA found him guilty of the same offence, banning the Chelsea captain for four matches.

Levene's commentary on this is interesting indeed, describing 'strict liability' offences and showing where -- beyond the evidential burden -- the FA differ with the courts in this ruling. With my lack of knowledge in this area, I can't say whether his analysis is accurate or now, but it's well worth a read.

Sign up for the newsletter Sign up for the We Ain't Got No History Daily Roundup newsletter!

A daily roundup of Chelsea news from We Ain't Got No History