Director of Public Prosecutions v Stoke On Trent Magistrates' Court

Chanting at a designated football match is of a racialist nature where it includes matter that is threatening, abusive or insulting to a person by reason of colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins. The absence of members of the relevant racial group, and the absence of evidence that anyone was offended, do not prevent the offence being committed. The word “Paki” ordinarily carries a derogatory racial connotation, but its meaning must be assessed in context. In the chant “you're just a town full of Pakis”, the word was plainly used in a racially insulting sense.

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed by way of case stated against the acquittal of Sean Ratcliffe by the Stoke-on-Trent District Judge. Ratcliffe had admitted joining a chant directed at Oldham Athletic supporters during a designated football match: “you're just a town full of Pakis”. The District Judge considered the words mere football doggerel and held that “Paki” was no more insulting or racialist than terms such as “Brit”, “Yank” or “Kiwi”. The central issue was whether the evidence entitled the District Judge to find that the chanting was not of a racialist nature under section 3 of the Football (Offences) Act 1991.

The court allowed the Director’s appeal and remitted the case to the District Judge with a direction to convict Ratcliffe on the evidence.

1. Section 3(2)(b) of the Football (Offences) Act 1991 defines chanting of a racialist nature by reference to matter that is threatening, abusive or insulting to a person by reason of colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins.

2. It is immaterial that no Pakistani, Asian or black persons were present, or that no person was shown to have heard or been offended by the chant. The statutory purpose is to discourage racially insulting conduct capable of having that effect.

3. The word “Paki” has, in modern common usage, a derogatory or insulting racialist connotation in most contexts. Its character remains a matter of context. Here, the use of the word against opposing supporters, particularly with the word “just”, plainly conveyed a racial derogation.

4. The District Judge’s reasons, including the description of the chant as mere doggerel and the comparison with terms such as “Aussie” and “Brit”, did not justify the acquittal. The admitted conduct fell squarely within the statutory definition and the mischief addressed by the Act.

1. High Court (Administrative Court) — allowed the Director’s appeal by way of case stated and remitted the case to the District Judge with a direction to convict.
2. Stoke-on-Trent Magistrates’ Court — the District Judge acquitted Ratcliffe at the close of the prosecution case.