[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=47188.msg1448756#msg1448756 date=1324465440]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448742#msg1448742 date=1324464835]
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=47188.msg1448731#msg1448731 date=1324463988]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448695#msg1448695 date=1324462677]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1448660#msg1448660 date=1324461543]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1448658#msg1448658 date=1324461460]
I've gone over the wording of the rules again and again, and my view remains that it's an offense of strict liability, no? It's no point pleading ignorance of cultural sensitivities or lack of racist intent if strict liability applies. Intent is simply not a factor, the fact of the physical act itself is sufficient to support a finding of guilt. If reports are to be believed, then Suarez has used a variant of the word "negro", ergo, charge was always likely to be proved.
Of course, i'm assuming the FA has applied the common law.
And it sees to me the charge alleges that Suarez has "used" an insulting word which refers to skin colour, that's hardly the same as pronouncing him as racist is it?
[/quote]
I agree fully.
Why most people can't see how simple this is, is another matter.
[/quote]
And on another note, the FA's decision is entirely consistent with Suarez's "defence" that there was NO discriminatory intent. The real issue is that Suarez's "defence" was misguided. In a case that was always going to turn on the evidence, Suarez should have kept his gobby mouth shut! Once he made remarks to the Uruguayan media though, he was never going to get over the hurdle of proving reasonable mistake of fact - which is the only defence to an offence of strict liability.
[/quote]
Of course he should have kept schtumm. Players really do have to learn the lesson that these things will be picked up wherever they happen first to see the light of day.
I also get the point that the rules make this an offence of strict liability, but I don't get your dismissal of "reasonable mistake of fact". Luis' case was that he didn't know the different construction which would be put on what he said here, and I can't see that as less than reasonble based on (a) his still halting English and (b) the fact that the offending conversation itself was conducted in Spanish. I'd also suggest the FA rules in question can be attacked as defective based on the "mischief rule", given that they're aimed at removing racism but, at the same time, permit the conviction and punishment of someone whom the panel itself found not to be a racist.
[/quote]
The argument you're making really is one of reasonable mistake of law, not fact. You essentially saying he said something not knowing that that conduct was proscribed by law. That is a mistake of law, and not a defence to an offence of strict liability.
[/quote]
How can it be a mistake of law rather than fact if the person making the mistake hasn't been made the subject of legal proceedings?
[/quote]
"Of course, I'm assuming the FA has applied the common law." In this case, the common law treatment of reasonable mistake of law still applies to proceedings.
Look if I have given the impression that I have cut to the heart of the Commission's reasoning, then I'm quite happy to state that any conclusion I've reached is founded on several assumptions about the applicable law and rules of evidence. truth is no one knows. But it's the way I would have approached the case if I had wanted to find Suarez guilty. But like all lawyers, I've been COMPLETELY wrong before.
