Statement of the Facts Relating to the Case
Mr. Anthony Berdinand, attending a football game at Lofty Way Stadium on the 23rd October, 2012, was subjected to threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior or disorderly behavior and hereby the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 were supposed to have been violated by Thomas Jerry, the accused.
After reviewing the substantive issues of the case, it can be recapitulated that the aggrieved party is entitled to seek punitive, compensatory and, hypothetically, benefit-of-the-bargain damages in the court of law (Beaman, 2010). Whilst the satisfaction of the punitive and compensatory claims is highly probable to take place, the court will be unwilling to rule in favor of the claimant as regards benefit-of-the-bargain damages. The game was broadcast on television and the alleged violation of the rights has been recorded and subsequently utilized as one of the major pieces of evidence in the criminal proceedings.
When the criminal trial was completed, the defendant was found not guilty and all the charges against him were dropped. However, the claimant is still entitled to seek civil relief and to claim damages (Brinig, 2011).
Substantive Matters of the Case
As far as the satisfaction of the claims is concerned, first and foremost it is vital to prove that specific provisions of the law have been encroached upon. The second step is to prove that the allegedly aggrieved party was indeed damaged and that the declaration of damages was not nominal or declaratory. Considering the fact that the alleged misdeed took place in Great Britain, the case law of the English jurisdiction shall be applied to interpret the provisions of the law (Spetz, 1974).
The following cases serve as a framework for the subsequent proceedings of the claim in question. In accordance with the amenability of the case, it will be tried by one of England’s magistrates’ courts by the judge who will explore both the matters of fact as well as matters of law (Behand, 2009). The following case law supports the positions of the claimant and proves that the compensatory and punitive damages will be satisfied.
In Rena Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie, the court ruled in the favor of the plaintiff following the assumption that the personal unalienable rights of the employee have been violated. Although the lawsuit resulted from the employee-employer relations, the violation is similar.
Diana Du Bois v. 53 East 75th Street is the landmark case in the field of racism claims. Providing that the person was deprived of the right to rent an accommodation on the basis of her geographical origin, the defendant was obliged to pay compensatory damages to the aggrieved party. Besides, the court of law ruled that the defendant is obliged to pay punitive damages to the claimant. In accordance with the ruling of the court, the payment was to be carried out due to the fact that the person suffered morally when she was called ‘negro’ (Brinig, 2011).
Harris v Digital Pulse Pty Ltd is one of the landmark employment-related cases. Although the case does not relate directly to the substantive matters of the present situation, it is used to construe the concept of discrimination. Resting on the assumptions and definition of that court ruling, it can be asserted that the behavior of the defendant in the present instance shall by all standards be classified as discrimination.
Grounds for the Appeal
Providing that the attorneys of the plaintiff proceed in accordance with the above-stated algorithm, it is reasonable to assume that the claim will be satisfied. Therefore, the appeal is likely to occur only if the procedural matters, such as the admissibility of evidence, are challenged by the respondent.