Man found not guilty of racially abusing Ugo Monye
A man who shouted the n-word in the vicinity of former England rugby union international Ugo Monye following a match has been found not guilty of a public order offence.
Angus Beukes, 32, from South Africa, made the comment at Exeter's Sandy Park stadium after the Chiefs played Gloucester on November 19, 2023.
The Chiefs apologised to Monye following the incident, which was investigated by Devon and Cornwall Police. In a statement released at the time, the Rugby Football Union said it was 'appalled' by what happened and pledged its 'full support' to Mr Monye.
On Friday, Exeter Magistrates' Court heard Monye had been commentating on the Premiership match and was leaving to catch his taxi for the train station at about 5pm.
The ex-Harlequins player-turned-pundit described hearing a man with a South African accent repeatedly use the n-word, leaving him 'extremely shocked'.
Beukes, a mechanic who represented himself in court via video link from South Africa, denied a charge of causing racially aggravated harassment, alarm or distress.
He insisted he had been talking to a female friend, who is also South African, and the n-word word is acceptable in their home country.
Magistrates found him not guilty of the charge, concluding that prosecutors had not proved that Beukes, who is of mixed race, knew the word was offensive in Britain.
Presiding justice Paul Doyle said the 'key point' was whether Beukes intended his actions to be threatening, abusive or insulting and whether he knew that they might have been.
'In evidence, we have heard that the use of the n-word was directed at your friend,' the justice told Beukes. 'We have also heard that there has been no general socialising outside of the South African community that you shared a house with while in the UK for the time you were here.
'We heard from a number of independent witnesses. The majority of those agreed that the use of the n-word was used towards your friend to stop her from using her phone.
'Mr Monye's evidence is that the n-word was used multiple times, also following when he remonstrated with you and while you were running away.'
Doyle said Beukes had only been in the UK for six months at the time of the offence and the question for the bench was whether he became aware the n-word was offensive in UK culture during that time.
'The onus is on the prosecution to show us that this was the case,' he added. 'We find that they have not demonstrated this beyond reasonable doubt.
'As these elements have not been fully proved to a satisfactory standard, we find you not guilty of the offence.'
Prosecuting, Maree Doyle read witness statements, including from Monye, describing how a man with a South African accent shouted the n-word as crowds were leaving the stadium.
In a statement, Monye said: 'I felt immediately shocked by this as the word is extremely offensive. I heard the word again said as the male went past me. The male stood in front of me and repeated the word again.
'My first thought was he would have to be drunk to be shouting that word in public. I had a bag over my shoulder. I dropped it on the floor to challenge his behaviour.
'I said: 'Mate, you can't be saying that'. I took hold of him at the top of his jacket. We were sort of jostling but it didn't get any more physical than that. I expected him to apologise. He just seemed to double down.'
Monye said supporters separated the two men and he asked for someone to take a photograph of Beukes but nobody did so. He alleged that Beukes repeated the racial slur again before running off.
'He said it while looking me in the eye,' Monye added.
In evidence, Beukes said he had been invited to the match by friends and attended along with a female colleague, also from South Africa.
He insisted the n-word has 'no significant meaning' in South Africa and that he was not aware it was offensive until Monye's reaction.
'In South Africa, we reprimand each other like that,' Beukes added. 'In my country, it doesn't mean anything. It has no meaning whatsoever.'
Beukes told the court he only used the n-word once, towards his friend, saying 'My n-word, put your phone away' as she was causing a bottleneck in the queue of fans waiting to leave the stadium.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
5 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Tea scammer dubbed ‘Tetley Tam' given £50k government grant before £500k swindle
The fraudster was jailed last week for the 'Wee Tea Plantation' dupe IN THE BAG IN THE BAG Tea scammer dubbed 'Tetley Tam' given £50k government grant before £500k swindle Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) A TEA conman dubbed Tetley Tam fooled a Scottish Government-backed quango into handing him £50,000. Thomas Robinson, 55, swindled the start-up grant to help build his fraudulent plantation. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 3 Thomas Robinson before he was jailed last week Credit: Central Scotland News Agency 3 He sold the tea to luxury hotels Credit: Alamy 3 Robinson's victims between 2014 and 2019 included Edinburgh's Balmoral Hotel Credit: Getty We told how he was jailed for 3½ years last week for duping luxury hotels into buying his premium 'Scottish-grown' bought on the cheap from Italy. The fantasist even claimed one brand 'produced' on his Perthshire estate was 'the Queen's favourite'. Now it has emerged Robinson — who brewed up his brazen £550,000 fraud over five years — convinced Scottish Edge to give him a mix of taxpayers and corporate cash to get his dodgy business off the ground. The crook, who claimed in court to have invented the supermarket bag for life and worked for ex-US President Barack Obama's administration, hoodwinked the selection panel with lies. One source said last night: 'He had no shame.' Scottish Edge helps entrepreneurs funded by the Scottish Government, Scottish Enterprise, the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Hunter Foundation. Robinson was awarded the money in 2015 after pitching his The Wee Tea Plantation to judges. The quango's website has an image of him posing and says: 'Winner…The Wee Tea Plantation Limited — £50,000. 'Scotland's only tea plantation which counts Kensington Palace as customers.' Stirling Sheriff Court heard Robinson's victims included Edinburgh's Balmoral Hotel. Harry Styles passionately snogs mystery woman in packed Glastonbury VIP area He also flogged 22,000 plants bought for £3 to Scots growers for £12.50 each. Scottish Edge has been asked for comment.
The Herald Scotland
18 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
History will judge this Labour government for targeting protesters
There, Donna told me about the man she knew as Carlo Neri and how he used her to gain access to the activists she hung around with. Neri, whose real name was Carlo Sorrachi, affected to like the things she liked, told her he loved her, and asked her to marry him. Then, when she had served her purpose, he disappeared. Donna has since written her own book about her experience: Small Town Girl. The public inquiry which, back then, had not yet taken evidence, has heard similar stories from other women, whose lives were co-opted by a state intent on stamping out dissent. Some of the undercover officers fathered babies with their duped partners: tiny bundles of collateral damage, their lives forever tarnished by the deceit that led to their conception. Beyond the emotional fallout, two aspects of the scandal stand out for me. The first is the way the groups chosen for infiltration were cherry-picked. The Special Demonstration Squad (then called the Special Operations Squad) was set up in 1968 to target Vietnam War protesters. In the following 50 years, it sent officers into, amongst others, the anti-apartheid movement, Camps for Climate Action, and the campaign to bring the killers of Stephen Lawrence to court. Right-wing groups were largely left alone. Read more Dani Garavelli Most of those left-wing groups are now regarded as having occupied the moral high ground. Anti-apartheid activists were standing up against the iniquity of the South African regime while Margaret Thatcher was still refusing to introduce economic sanctions. The climate action groups were ahead of the curve on the crisis facing the planet. The Stephen Lawrence campaign exposed the institutional racism the Met was trying to cover up. The second troubling aspect is the degree to which the police were prepared to cross legal/ethical lines in order to gain paltry intelligence. The women who unwittingly slept with undercover officers see themselves as victims of state-sanctioned rape. Meanwhile, many of the officers acted as agent provocateurs, actively encouraging the acts of sabotage the police could act on and the courts punish. One law for those upholding the status quo, and another for those challenging it. You might think these revelations, which have been entering the public domain in dribs and drabs over the last few years, would have given the establishment pause for thought; that governments, under whose auspices the police operate, might have asked themselves searching questions about how this was allowed to happen, and the double standards being applied. Instead, the Conservatives introduced two pieces of legislation — the Police Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023 — designed to further restrict the right to demonstrate, by criminalising long-established forms of civil disobedience such as chaining yourself to fences or disrupting major road networks and national events. Earlier this year, a report by the Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol) claimed the aggressive police use of these new laws, along with the demonisation of peaceful protesters, had become so pronounced it amounted to repression. The powers are most often used against activists who threaten those policies the government is hellbent on pursuing: the expansion of roads and airports and oil fields, for example, and the freedom to support any heinous regime it regards as useful. Yvette Cooper is targeting Palestine Action (Image: PA) Far from reversing this trend, Labour has entrenched it. Yvette Cooper unsuccessfully defended her predecessor Suella Braverman against claims the government had acted unlawfully when it reduced the threshold for police intervention from 'serious disruption to the life of the community' to 'more than minor'. Now she seems determined to proscribe Palestine Action, a protest group which is committed to 'ending global participation in Israel's genocidal and apartheid regime'. This would place it on a par with Isis, the IRA and Al-Qaeda, and criminalise not only those who take part in action, but anyone who expresses sympathy or support. So what did Palestine Action do to deserve this treatment? Did it threaten or perpetrate acts of violence? Did it cause widespread alarm or endanger lives? There is no evidence to suggest so. Mostly, its activities have involved vandalism at factories and military bases it claims to be involved in supplying weapons or assistance to Israel. In 2022, it broke into the Thales factory in Glasgow, causing more than £1m of damage to munitions produced there. Then, last week, it sprayed red paint into the engines of two Airbus Voyager aircraft. Read more: Are there problems with such tactics? I would argue there are. Thales and our military bases are also producing weapons and carrying out missions unrelated to Israel's attacks on Palestinians. Thales' Belfast factory has a contract to supply 5,000 air defence missiles to Ukraine. Aircraft from RAF Brize Norton have been involved in dropping humanitarian aid to Gaza. If there is one thing Russia's invasion of Ukraine has taught old anti-war types like myself it is that there are times when a strong defence capacity is essential. But these are arguments about specific choices, not the legitimacy of dissent. They are not a justification for increasing the gravity of the offence or the punishment meted out to those who commit it. The vandalism Palestine Action inflicted is already a criminal offence. But the four people arrested in connection with the Brize Norton attack have been arrested not, as you might expect, in connection with criminal damage, but under the Terrorism Act. This despite the fact that attacks on military air bases are not new. In 2017, two men cut through fences at BAE Warton in an attempt to target fighter jets destined for Saudi Arabia and attacks on Yemen. They were charged with but acquitted of criminal damage. In 2003, a group of anti-war protesters broke into RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire to sabotage US bombers before they flew to Iraq. Keir Starmer knows this because he defended them on the grounds they were trying to stop the planes from committing war crimes. Apparently, Starmer has no such qualms about war crimes now or at least not the ones being carried out by Israel. It's impossible — isn't it, given the way events have unfolded? — not to notice that the crackdown is being carried out selectively, and with one particular brand of activism in mind. That's what the smearing of pro-Palestinian protesters on peaceful marches exposes. A pro-Palestine protest at Westminster. (Image: PA) But the proscription of a particular group on political grounds is dangerous on multiple fronts. It may become a self-fulfilling prophecy, tipping that that group into violent acts its members would not otherwise have countenanced. And it sets a precedent for the future proscription of any protest group whose goals any government doesn't like. When suffragette statues were being attacked by trans rights activists last year, Cooper described them as honouring 'women who fought for freedom and justice' though they committed acts similar to the ones she is now trying to proscribe, and were mostly loathed by the politicians of their day. History will judge her government for its targeting of those who — in the face of establishment recalcitrance — are also driven to take direct action. Perhaps future Home Secretaries will praise pro-Palestinian protesters as champions of freedom and justice. But how many more will die in Gaza before that day comes?
Glasgow Times
2 days ago
- Glasgow Times
Footballer "frightened" teen in alleged Glasgow chip shop assault
The-28-year-old is accused of attacking Sophia Bruce, 18, at Blue Lagoon on Glasgow's Queen Street on September 19 2024. Court papers state the former St Mirren defender repeatedly pushed her and seized her on the body. It is claimed that Rooney, of Bellshill, Lanarkshire, twisted Miss Bruce on the arm and kicked her on the body to her injury. Rooney faces a separate allegation of behaving in a threatening or abusive manner at the same date and location. The charge says Rooney shouted, swore, acted in an aggressive manner and uttered derogatory remarks. It is stated the alleged offence was aggravated by prejudice related to sexual orientation. READ MORE: Driver killed road worker dad of two at Dumbarton crash scene The ex-Inverness and St Johnstone star stood in the dock yesterday at Glasgow Sheriff Court. International business student Miss Bruce told the court she went to the chip shop with friends during a night out. She claimed that she came across Rooney - whom she did not know - arguing with a man. Miss Bruce stated that she tried to "calm down" the altercation and was prodded on the upper chest by Rooney. The witness stated that she and her male friend decided to leave the chip shop. Rooney is claimed to have said to Miss Bruce's friend: "F*** off gay boy" in a "quite angry and aggressive tone." READ MORE: Cash machine near Glasgow robbed in early morning heist as thieves steal money Miss Bruce stated that she heard screaming and re-entered the shop, assuming it was one of her other friends. She claimed she approached Rooney and told him: "You are not going to make anything better, you are embarrassing yourself a bit." Miss Bruce added: "He kind of grabbed my arm, it might have been my right arm. "It was a very tight grip - he was twisting a bit. "I was asking what he was doing twisting an 18-year-old girl's arm and I pushed him away with my boot and he kicked me on my leg." Prosecutor Cameron Gaw asked how many hands Rooney laid on her during the alleged twist. She replied: "I think it was just the one - I felt that he was twisting it a little. "I felt so frightened as I had not been in a situation [before] especially with a grown man." The witness stated that she was also left with a mark on her leg as a result. READ MORE: Fans spot Lewis Capaldi's special Celtic nod during Glastonbury comeback gig When asked to describe the mark, she replied: "Just a red mark on my leg which turned into a much bigger bruise - it was sore and really painful. "I don't think I have felt so much impact before on my body." The witness added that she struggled to walk in the morning after the incident. When asked about how much she had to drink that night, Miss Bruce stated that she had two between 4pm and 1.30am. The trial continues before Sheriff Joan Kerr.
