www.newlawjournal.co.uk | 4 July 2014 EXPERT WITNESS PROFESSION 21

How to interpret a ? So how should this gesture be interpreted? Game over? It is one that is used commonly in (Anelka’s home country) and is analogous Are experts now able to tackle the to the English “V” sign—it might be said ultimate issue, asks Chris Pamplin to merely convey the abusive epithet “up yours”. However, it also has the more sinister interpretation of a kind of inverted Nazi with anti-Semite overtones. In this context, it has been associated with the French comedian and political activist Dieudonné, a friend of Anelka’s. It is claimed the gesture was invented by Dieudonné and is said by him not to be anti- Semitic, simply anti-establishment. Accordingly, it was not merely the meaning of the gesture but the meaning that was likely, in the particular circumstances, to be ascribed by an observer (in both England and France) that the tribunal had to decide. To that end, the tribunal received expert evidence on the quenelle. The FA instructed a professor of French Studies at the University of Warwick and Anelka instructed a professor of French Rex/Mark Atkins and Gettyimages/AFP

© and European Politics at University College London. So complex was the question of ollowing FIFA’s finding that Luis Just this problem arose in Football meaning and interpretation that it was Suarez bit Italian defender Giorgio Association v Anelka (unreported, 3 March effectively a case in which the tribunal was FChiellini in the final match of 2014). The ruling made by the Football entirely in the hands of the experts. Indeed, Group D in the World Cup in Brazil, Association Regulatory Commission (the the consensus of the evidence would speak Uruguay said they would appeal, calling tribunal) in Anelka concerned disciplinary to the ultimate issue and, effectively, decide it an “excessive decision” for which “there proceedings against , a the case. was not enough evidence”. Suarez has professional footballer, for misconduct Following closing submissions from the been involved in a number of professional involving a “quenelle” gesture that was parties, and after extensive deliberations, disciplinary hearings before, and his alleged to be abusive, indecent or insulting, the tribunal found both charges proved. December 2011 hearing before the Football and constituted an aggravated breach of On the balance of the expert opinion Association Regulatory Commission set the rules because it included reference to it was concluded that the quenelle was out the approach to be followed when ethnic, racial or religious origin (the quenelle strongly associated with Dieudonné, that considering evidence in such matters—and is a gesture usually performed by Dieudonné was strongly associated with perhaps surprisingly, footballers’ antics on one arm diagonally downwards, palm anti-Semitism, and, as a result, that the the pitch serve to illustrate the current state down, while touching the shoulder with the quenelle was strongly associated with of practice when experts are called to opine opposite hand). anti-Semitism. The tribunal agreed with on the central issue in a case. It was alleged that, during the course of a the FA that it is not possible to divorce that It had long been a rule of evidence at game between West Bromwich Albion and association from the gesture. As to the common law that a witness should not give West Ham in December 2013, Anelka made second charge, however, it was not found evidence in relation to the “ultimate issue” a gesture that was contrary to Rule E3(1) that Anelka is an anti-Semite, or that he in a case, because that is a matter for the of the Rules of the FA (Charge 1). Further, intended to express anti-Semitism by his court to decide and should not be usurped. it was alleged that the misconduct was an use of the quenelle. For some time, however, there has been a “aggravated breach” as defined by Rule steady weakening of the rule against expert E3(2), and so could attract an increased Conclusion opinion on the ultimate issue. The 1972 sanction, because it included a reference to This case follows the trend set by other Civil Evidence Act made expert opinion on ethnic origin, race, religion and/or belief recent cases on, for example, childhood the ultimate issue admissible in civil cases. (Charge 2). Anelka denied both charges. memory and facial mapping in which In criminal cases, the abolition of the rule It was the approach to such charges that experts have been permitted to give an was recommended by the Criminal Law had been considered previously in the 2011 opinion on the ultimate issue. There now Revision Committee in its Eleventh Report case against Suarez. It was agreed that seems to be general agreement that, (1972), but this recommendation was never Charge 1 required an objective analysis of the provided the judge makes it clear to any put into effect. gesture used, ie was, objectively, Anelka’s use jury that it is not bound to follow the However, when the issues in a case of the quenelle abusive, indecent, insulting opinion, an expert should be permitted to are so narrow and so specialist that the and/or improper. In applying the objective opine on the ultimate issue. NLJ expert’s opinion is, effectively, the only test and asking whether, in the assessment significant evidence in the case, and it will of the tribunal, the words or behaviour were Dr Chris Pamplin is the editor of the UK almost certainly decide the outcome, what abusive or insulting, it was necessary to view Register of Expert Witnesses ([email protected]; ) happens? the matter in context. www.jspubs.com