THE CHELSEA football captain, John Terry, has been “seeking to provide a plausible story” to explain his racist outburst at Anton Ferdinand “ever since it happened”, the prosecution at his trial claimed yesterday.

Dismissing the centre back’s claim that he was merely repeating an accusation made by Ferdinand, Duncan Penny, for the prosecution, said Terry, 31, was using “straightforward racial abuse” at Ferdinand, 27, of QPR.

However, the defence QC, George Carter-Stephenson, called for an acquittal. This was not a case about racism and there was “an abundance of evidence” to prove that, he said.

Claims and counterclaims over the interpretation of words came during closing submissions to the chief magistrate, Howard Riddle. At one point Riddle pointed out the argument was about the use of everyday language: “We’re not talking about Balzac.”

The former England captain denies a racially aggravated public order offence by calling Ferdinand a “f**king black c**t” during the Premier League derby at Loftus Road on October 23rd last year. He claims he simply repeated the slur he thought Ferdinand had used towards him.

Making his closing speech at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, prosecutor Duncan Penny said on Terry’s account, Ferdinand had used the words “calling me a black c**t”. Terry claims that he simply repeated back the slur that Ferdinand wrongly thought he had used, and denies a racially aggravated public order offence.

This meant that Terry added the word “f**king”, and had also used the word ‘and’ before the racial obscenity, Mr Penny said.

“If it’s rhetorical repetition, why does the word ‘and’ feature at all? Why are any other words spoken by Mr Terry at all, beyond a black c**t?,” Mr Penny asked.

The pair had traded insults in the run-up to the alleged racist insult. Ferdinand taunted Terry about his alleged affair with a team-mate’s ex-girlfriend, while Terry implied the QPR player had bad breath.

Mr Penny said: “The words ‘and’ and ‘f**king’ are Mr Terry’s words and nobody else’s. Are they simply a plain response, a retort, lashing out verbally just as Mr Terry did in the original exchange?

“Just as he did with the hand over the mouth to imply bad breath, just as he did with the ‘f**k off, f**k off’ directed towards Mr Ferdinand, and finally, when he was fed up, he picked up on the topic of Mr Ferdinand’s abuse, namely the (alleged) extra-marital affair, and retorted with ‘and yours’, or something to that effect, and straightforward racial abuse.”

He said it was unlikely Ferdinand would have had the “motivation or frankly the sophistication” in the heat of the moment to make up an allegation that Terry had used racial abuse.

“A false allegation of racism would be an accusation which involved more sophisticated thought processes than had hitherto been going on, on that football pitch,” Mr Penny said.

He said Ferdinand would not be the first “victim” who was reluctant to give evidence in court.

“What was in this for Anton Ferdinand? This case will follow him for the rest of his career. He made it clear he did not wish to be here , just like Mr Cole,” the prosecutor said.

“Was it, in the case of Ferdinand, because he had made a grave and false allegation against the England captain? You may wish to ask yourself the question, whether in truth he was brave to give evidence in this trial?”

Making his closing speech, George Carter-Stephenson QC, for Terry, said that the prosecution case was based on “speculation”.

He said: “This is not a case about racism. The prosecution in cross-examination conceded that he is not a racist. There is an abundance of evidence to prove that.

“The way that this case is put is that on this occasion Mr Terry completely lost his cool and made an inappropriate remark making reference to a physical characteristic of Mr Ferdinand, namely his colour, in response to words conceded to have been repeated taunts and insults referring to his alleged affair with Mr (Wayne) Bridge’s partner.”

He told the court there was no direct evidence about what Terry had said, other than the Chelsea defender’s own account.

Mr Carter-Stephenson said Ferdinand was “inconsistent and unreliable both on words and events and could not satisfy the court to the criminal standard”.

He went on: “No matter what the words actually were, if they were or may have been Mr Terry repeating back what he believed Mr Ferdinand had accused him of, then that’s the end of this particular case.”

The case was adjourned until this afternoon, when it is expected that Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle will deliver his verdict.

Guardian Service