Introduction

The case of David Di Pinto vs. Procurator Fiscal, Glasgow ([2024] HCJAC 7) presents a pivotal examination of the use of sectarian language within the framework of Scottish law. The appellant, David Di Pinto, contested his conviction for a statutory breach of the peace, aggravated by religious prejudice, following an altercation at a football match. The core issue revolves around whether the term "hun," used by the appellant towards the police during his arrest, constitutes a sectarian remark warranting legal aggravation under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003.

Summary of the Judgment

On 13 March 2023, David Di Pinto was convicted for behaving in a threatening and abusive manner at Hampden Park, Glasgow during a Scottish League Cup final between Celtic and Hibs. The appellant challenged the elements of his conviction pertaining to the utterance of a sectarian remark and the associated religious aggravation. The Sheriff Appeal Court (SAC) upheld the initial conviction, determining that the term "hun" is a derogatory slang with sectarian connotations towards Protestants, thereby satisfying the criteria for religious prejudice under section 74 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003. Consequently, the appeal was largely refused, affirming the conviction and the imposition of a £500 fine alongside a 12-month Football Banning Order.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several pivotal cases and legal texts to substantiate the court’s reasoning:

• Walls v Brown (2009 JC 375): Established the context for what constitutes sectarian remarks within Scottish jurisprudence.
• Wilkinson: Evidence: Provided the framework for assessing judicial knowledge and its boundaries in adjudicating cases.
• PF Glasgow v Ward [2021] HCJAC 20: Applied the principles of judicial knowledge to the understanding of sectarian language in a similar context.
• Oliver v Hislop (1946 JC 20): Highlighted the role of local knowledge in determining the understanding of terms within specific communities.
• Herkes v Dickie (1958 JC 51): Clarified that judicial knowledge does not encompass a judge’s personal experiences and is limited to indisputable facts.
• Laidlaw v MacNeill (1994 SCCR 460): Emphasized that judicial knowledge should not override direct evidence presented in court.
• Raitt: Evidence (3rd Ed): Discussed the limitations of judicial knowledge in interpreting contested matters.
• Walker & Walker: Evidence (5th Ed): Provided definitions and applications of judicial knowledge in legal proceedings.

These precedents collectively informed the court's approach to evaluating whether "hun" could be deemed a sectarian term warranting legal aggravation.

Legal Reasoning

The court deliberated on the nature of "hun" within the specific cultural and societal context of Scottish football rivalries. The central legal question was whether "hun" could be classified as a sectarian remark under section 74 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003.

The appellant admitted to using "hun" but contested its sectarian nature and the associated aggravation. The prosecution relied on the sheriff's local knowledge and societal perceptions in Glasgow, asserting that "hun" is a derogatory term directed towards Protestants and, by extension, Rangers fans known for their predominantly Protestant support base.

However, the appellant's defense highlighted the ambiguity of the term's origins and its usage, citing sources that depict "hun" as a non-sectarian insult. The SAC evaluated whether the derogatory nature of "hun" was factually indisputable or if it remained subject to interpretation based on evidence.

Applying the principles from the cited precedents, the SAC determined that while "hun" is commonly understood as a derogatory term towards Rangers supporters, its classification as a sectarian remark invoking religious prejudice was not definitively established by indisputable fact. The term's multifaceted usage and contested meaning necessitated reliance on direct evidence rather than solely on judicial knowledge.

Ultimately, the court recognized the complexity surrounding the term "hun" and concluded that the prosecution had not sufficiently demonstrated its sectarian implications beyond dispute. Consequently, part of the appellant's conviction related to the sectarian remark and religious aggravation was overturned.

Impact

This judgment underscores the nuanced approach required in assessing sectarian language within legal contexts. By delineating the boundaries of judicial knowledge and emphasizing the need for clear, uncontested evidence when determining religious prejudice, the court has set a precedent that:

• Legal interpretations of language must be grounded in clear and corroborated evidence rather than presumed societal perceptions.
• Courts must exercise caution in attributing religious aggravation to terms with ambiguous or contested meanings.
• Future cases involving alleged sectarian remarks will necessitate explicit evidence to substantiate claims of religious prejudice.

This decision serves as a clarion call for more precise definitions and understandings of language within the legal framework, especially in contexts laden with cultural and societal tensions such as football rivalries.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The judgment in David Di Pinto vs. Procurator Fiscal, Glasgow serves as a critical reference point in the interpretation of language and intent within the scope of Scottish criminal law. By meticulously dissecting the term "hun" and its implications, the court has reinforced the importance of clear and unequivocal evidence when attributing sectarian motives to an individual's actions.

This decision not only clarifies the boundaries of judicial knowledge but also highlights the judiciary's role in navigating the complexities of language embedded within cultural and societal contexts. As sectarian tensions continue to influence various societal interactions, this judgment provides a structured approach for future cases, ensuring that convictions of religious aggravation are substantiated by clear and incontrovertible evidence.

Ultimately, the case underscores the delicate balance courts must maintain between acknowledging societal perceptions and adhering to stringent evidentiary standards to uphold justice and prevent unwarranted prejudgments based on ambiguous language.