The police response when Matildas star Sam Kerr and her partner Kristie Mewis were in distress and seeking help was “completely unacceptable”, a London court has heard.

Lawyer Grace Forbes summed up Kerr’s defence on Tuesday (AEDT) and accused police of “utterly indefensible” conduct.

“Two individuals went straight up to a marked police car looking for help in a state of distress,” Forbes told the jury.

“How and why did we go from that to what was an utterly unproductive, heated, argument?”

The star of the Australia women’s soccer team was in the dock in Kingston Crown Court to hear her defence counsel make the case for her acquittal.

That was followed by the summing up by Judge Peter Lodder KC.

The jury of eight women and four men then retired at 3.30pm UK time on Monday (2.30am on Tuesday AEDT) to consider a verdict, which the judge said must be unanimous.

At stake is Kerr’s reputation, probably her status as captain of the Matildas, and theoretically her liberty as the charge carries a maximum sentence of 26 weeks in prison.

With the prosecution having put its closing argument on Friday (UK time), it was down to Kerr’s counsel to counter.

Forbes stressed all three aspects of the public order charge had to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt: That Kerr meant to cause police constable Stephen Lovell “harassment, alarm or distress,” that he suffered that and it was racially aggravated.

Lovell was the officer Kerr twice called “f—ing stupid and white” towards the end of an hour-long altercation at Twickenham police station early on January 30, 2023.

That followed a taxi journey that went sour after Kerr vomited out of the window following a night out with Mewis. After that, she and Mewis said they believed the driver had kidnapped them and they feared for their lives.

Forbes said the jury did not “need to decide what happened in the taxi ride but the events are relevant for two reasons — the impact on Miss Kerr, the response (or lack of) of the police and the impact that had.

“Without the attempt to discredit Miss Kerr, the police conduct is utterly indefensible. No consideration appears to have been given that the driver could have done what both women said he did,” Forbes said.

The prosecution, she said, had not challenged Kerr and Mewis saying they feared for their lives, yet “the police took no meaningful steps to investigate the taxi”.

Forbes admitted Kerr, 31, “did not cover herself in glory in the way she expressed herself that night”, but added, “if you are drunk you can still be the victim of crime”.

Kerr, she said, “was trying to express something, however poorly, about power, privilege and how that might colour perception” adding that the police held all the power in the dispute, the power to persuade them to pay $1800 to the taxi driver in compensation (which they did), the power to charge, arrest and investigate.

Forbes, referencing racism the Chelsea striker said she had suffered, said Kerr “felt she was unfairly perceived by the police as a troublemaker, it echoed experiences she had had in the past, things she had witnessed from a young age directed at her father.

“Was she right? Maybe? Miss Mewis had a sense she was being treated differently. It is very odd Miss Kerr was arrested for criminal damage when Miss Mewis told them she did it.”

Finally, Forbes cast doubt on the degree of Lovell’s distress, highlighting he had not put it in his original statement. It was added 11 months later, after the Crown Prosecution Service said there was insufficient evidence to charge Kerr.

In the witness box Lovell had to be asked five times before replying he was anything more than “belittled and upset”.

“How can you be sure of the impact when PC Lovell isn’t?” Forbes said.

Intimating the officer pursued the case only due to Kerr’s fame, she said his response was “more about who she is than what she said”.

-with AAP