Precedent now set in the Y-Word Debate?

Article by Nathan Durec

Follow e-Spurs on Twitter here!

Charges were formally dropped on three individuals who had allegedly used the Y-word during a Tottenham match in the early part of the season. The original charge was for the uttering of “threatening, abusive, or insulting” words. However, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has now ruled that the context of the word usage must be taken into consideration.

“We have therefore concluded that there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. This decision has no bearing on any other cases that may be brought to our attention and all cases will be considered on their own facts and merits.”

But how can such a ruling not have any bearing on similar incidents in the future? In every sense of legality, this is the definition of a precedent.

These individuals were arrested with a criminal offence. Alright. The arrests went through a judicial process, which culminated in formal charges given by a magistrate in January of this year. Fine. The CPS, who would have been involved in prosecuting the case, decided that such an instance does not have a “realistic prospect of conviction.” There it is.

The evidence was there if the CPS wanted to follow through. Yet their decision not to must be regarded as significant. It outlines a specific form of defense in such cases: context. The word itself has no power. It is how it is used that defines its power.

While this seems like common sense, when has common sense ever been that common? While I choose not to use the word, that is a personal choice. The law has now stated that in the form of a cheer, the word means something else. It is uplifting. It is a motivator. It is a term of community.

Will the CPS’s statement be the final word on the matter? Don’t bet on it. It is still a word that causes deeply instilled pain to many, regardless of context. If the Prime Minister of the country didn’t get the final word when he spoke, it is not likely to die any time soon.

But this should act as clarification to a strong fan base that does see merit in such a cheer. While the CPS says they are not setting a precedent, just watch the next case when it comes out and the lawyers that refer back to this particular moment.

© e-Spurs 2014 All rights reserved no part of this document or this website may be reproduced without consent of e-Spurs

Share on Google Plus