Antoine Semenyo briefly froze in disbelief after allegedly being racially abused while preparing to take a throw-in at Anfield, Liverpool Magistrates’ Court has heard.
The Manchester City forward was playing for Bournemouth when the alleged incident occurred during the opening Premier League match of the season on 15 August 2025. Prosecutor Simon Jones described the encounter during proceedings on Wednesday, 14 October 2026.
Mark Mogan, 47, denies racially aggravated behaviour. The allegation remained contested, and the prosecution’s description of events was not a finding of guilt.
The hearing examined an exchange near the touchline, witness accounts and video footage. Proceedings were subsequently interrupted when Mogan became unwell and was taken to hospital. The court declined an application to continue in his absence, leaving the case unresolved at that stage.
An Allegation From Semenyo’s Bournemouth Career
Semenyo’s current association with Manchester City should not obscure the chronology. The incident under examination concerned a match he played for Bournemouth against Liverpool more than a year before the October hearing.
That distinction is important because the case relates to a specific encounter at a particular stadium, rather than an allegation arising from a recent City fixture.
According to the prosecution, the exchange took place approximately half an hour into the match as Semenyo approached the touchline to restart play. Jones alleged that Mogan directed a racial insult at the forward while urging him to take the throw-in.
The court was told that Semenyo appeared shocked before continuing with the restart. The prosecution also alleged that further abuse followed.
These were the particulars presented for examination. Whether the charge was proved remained a matter for the court, taking account of the evidence and the defendant’s denial.
What the Description of Freezing Meant
The description of Semenyo freezing came from the prosecutor’s account of his reaction. Jones presented it as a brief moment of disbelief at what the player had allegedly heard.
It should not be expanded into an invented account of Semenyo’s thoughts, a medical assessment or a claim about lasting psychological effects. None of those conclusions follows automatically from the reported courtroom description.
Nevertheless, the detail gave the allegation a human dimension. The prosecution was describing a player whose attention allegedly shifted from an ordinary match task to a confrontation with someone nearby.
Continuing to take the throw-in did not, in that account, mean the exchange had passed without impact. Jones told the court that Semenyo was hurt and upset.
The distinction between observed conduct and interpretation remains important: the court heard a description of the reaction, alongside the prosecution’s explanation of its significance.
Witness Statements Describe the Exchange
Statements from spectators formed another part of the material presented.
Liverpool supporter Neil Sherratt described seeing Mogan move towards the pitch as Semenyo prepared for the throw-in. His account included hearing a demand for the player to hurry and seeing Semenyo turn towards the spectator with an apparently shocked expression.
Another supporter, Nicholas Collins, described Mogan’s behaviour after the incident, including remarks concerning the possibility of police involvement.
Those statements addressed different parts of the sequence. An account of where someone moved, what a witness heard and how a person appeared afterwards does not necessarily establish every disputed word.
That is why each observation needs to retain its proper scope. A witness may describe conduct accurately while not having heard the whole exchange. The court’s task is to consider those accounts together, rather than allowing any single detail to stand for the entire incident.
Video Footage Adds Another Form of Evidence
Two short video clips were shown during the hearing. Jones argued that the footage supported the prosecution’s portrayal of Mogan’s behaviour.
The court also heard an allegation that chewing gum had been thrown towards Semenyo and struck his shorts. That claim was disputed in the account Mogan had given police.
Video material can provide a different perspective from a witness’s recollection, but its value depends on what it actually records. The existence of footage does not automatically resolve a disagreement about spoken words, intention or the full sequence surrounding a brief exchange.
The clips therefore formed part of the case rather than a publicly established substitute for the court’s assessment.
A fair account must distinguish the fact that footage was played from the prosecution’s interpretation of it. The same applies to descriptions of anger or agitation: those were characterisations advanced during proceedings, not independent verdicts on the charge.
Mogan’s Account Disputes the Prosecution
The hearing also included the account Mogan gave when interviewed by police the following day.
He acknowledged telling Semenyo to hurry but disputed the allegation presented against him. He claimed the player had used a disability-related insult towards him and said he had thrown chewing gum onto the ground rather than at Semenyo.
The prosecution challenged his explanation.
Neither the counter-allegation against Semenyo nor the prosecutor’s rejection of Mogan’s account should be presented as an established fact. Both belonged to the contested material before the court.
Including the defendant’s position is essential to explaining what the trial concerns. It also makes clear that this was not a hearing following an admission.
The central question remained whether the evidence proved the charged behaviour. Public reaction, however strongly expressed, could not answer that question in place of the proceedings.
The Report to Match Officials
The court was told that Semenyo reported the incident to referee Anthony Taylor when the ball next went out of play. Mogan was removed from Anfield at half-time, according to the account presented.
Those actions formed part of the chronology after the alleged exchange.
Reporting an incident allows officials and stadium personnel to respond while potential witnesses and relevant locations can still be identified. That immediate response serves a different purpose from the later determination of criminal responsibility.
A referee does not decide a criminal charge on the touchline. Equally, the need for a subsequent investigation does not prevent officials from taking a complaint seriously during a match.
The distinction helps explain how an allegation can prompt action at a stadium while remaining unresolved in court. Responding to a report and proving an offence are separate stages, each requiring its own decisions and evidence.
Hospitalisation Interrupts the Hearing
The proceedings changed course during the lunch break when Mogan suffered a seizure and was taken to hospital by ambulance.
Semenyo had been expected to give evidence by video link that afternoon. Reports of the hearing said he had a work commitment preventing an appearance during the morning.
District Judge Mary Dowrick refused an application to continue the trial in Mogan’s absence. The case was expected to resume later.
The medical interruption carried no evidential implication about the allegation. It did not strengthen the prosecution’s case, undermine the denial or establish anything about the disputed exchange.
It did, however, change the procedural position. An account written after that development should not suggest the hearing proceeded normally through the afternoon or that a verdict followed.
At the point described in the available court reports, the trial had been interrupted and the charge remained unresolved.
Supporting a Player Without Prejudging a Case
Cases involving alleged discriminatory abuse require care in two directions. The person reporting the incident deserves to have the complaint taken seriously, while an accused person’s denial and the unfinished legal process must be represented accurately.
Those obligations can exist together.
It is possible to explain why the allegation matters without describing the defendant as convicted. It is also possible to acknowledge the denial without implying that the player’s complaint was trivial or unworthy of investigation.
The language used throughout a report helps maintain that balance. Attribution identifies whether a detail came from the prosecutor, a witness statement or the defendant’s police account.
In this case, that distinction is especially important because the most widely repeated detail about Semenyo’s reaction came from the prosecution’s presentation. It should not be recast as testimony he had already delivered during an afternoon session that did not proceed as planned.
A Specific Case With Wider Importance
The hearing concerned an allegation against one named individual. It did not provide grounds for assigning responsibility to Liverpool supporters collectively or treating a club’s entire following as participants in the alleged conduct.
The wider importance lies in how football responds when a player reports discrimination and how that report is subsequently examined.
Stadium action, witness cooperation and court proceedings each have different roles. None should be confused with the others, and none benefits from unsupported claims about motives or outcomes.
For Semenyo, the reported encounter was being examined long after the match itself. For Mogan, the charge remained denied. The court had heard the prosecution’s account, statements and footage, but the interruption meant the proceedings had not reached a conclusion.
The description of the forward briefly freezing was therefore a significant part of the case presented, not its final resolution.
Also Read:
