Two men were arrested close to Mesut Ozil’s house and charged on Friday under Section 4a of the Public Order Act while police liaise with the German, Sead Kolasinac, their families and the club.

LONDON, ENGLAND - FEBRUARY 27: Sead Kolasinac of Arsenal speaks to Mesut Ozil of Arsenal during the Premier League match between Arsenal FC and AFC Bournemouth at Emirates Stadium on February 27, 2019 in London, United Kingdom. (Photo by Catherine Ivill/Getty Images)
LONDON, ENGLAND – FEBRUARY 27: Sead Kolasinac of Arsenal speaks to Mesut Ozil of Arsenal during the Premier League match between Arsenal FC and AFC Bournemouth at Emirates Stadium on February 27, 2019 in London, United Kingdom. (Photo by Catherine Ivill/Getty Images)

According to a report in the Scottish Daily Mail, Ferhat Ercar, and Salaman Ekinci, both 27, were arrested close to Mesut Ozil’s house although there are no details about what they were doing taht prompted the arrest.

190811 scottish daily mail mesut ozil arrests
Scottish Daily Mail, 11 August 2019

The security scare has forced both players to miss out on Arsenal’s Premier League return nd is the third time this year that Arsenal players have been forced to miss football because of threats to their safety.

Recently, both Kolasinac and Ozil missed Arsenal’s friendly against Barcelona after the pair were attacked by men on a moped, one of whom had a knife. Of course, Henrikh Mykhitaryan was forced to miss the Europa League final because of what he and the club felt were inadequate assurances from the authorities that he could be protected.

It is not clear yet when both men will return to the Arsenal lineup.

“The welfare of our players and their families is always a top priority,” Arsenal said in a statement. “We look forward to welcoming the players back to the squad as soon as possible.”

What is Section 4a of the Public Order Act and what does it tell us?

LONDON, ENGLAND - FEBRUARY 27: Mesut Ozil of Arsenal celebrates after scoring his team's first goal with Sead Kolasinac of Arsenal during the Premier League match between Arsenal FC and AFC Bournemouth at Emirates Stadium on February 27, 2019 in London, United Kingdom. (Photo by Catherine Ivill/Getty Images)
LONDON, ENGLAND – FEBRUARY 27: Mesut Ozil of Arsenal celebrates after scoring his team’s first goal with Sead Kolasinac of Arsenal during the Premier League match between Arsenal FC and AFC Bournemouth at Emirates Stadium on February 27, 2019 in London, United Kingdom. (Photo by Catherine Ivill/Getty Images)

While it’s not clear what the men were doing at this point that caused Ozil and his family to fear for their safety or for the police to charge them, section 4a of the Public Order Act is “also known as intentional harassment, alarm or distress, is one of the more common offences in the criminal courts.”

According to the site ‘Criminal Defence:

If you are accused of an offence under section 4A, the Prosecution must prove that:

  • You have intended to cause another person harassment, alarm, or distress,
  • You have used threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour, and
  • Your actions have caused another person to feel harassed, alarmed, or distressed

It is also possible to commit this offence if you place a sign or other writing (such as graffiti) that contains abusive language where it can be seen by the public.

It is also possible to commit this offence if you place a sign or other writing (such as graffiti) that contains abusive language where it can be seen by the public.

The section 4A offence is a summary only offence. This means that it can only be heard by the Magistrates Court. The maximum sentence is 6 months imprisonment, but many cases are dealt with by the use of Community Orders.

There are cases where the alleged abusive words or behaviour have been defended on the grounds of free speech. In these situations, the Court has to determine whether the alleged conduct was reasonable, or whether it went beyond legitimate protest.

It is important not to confuse this offence with offences of harassment. In cases brought under the Protection from Harassment Act, it is necessary for the Prosecution to show a course of conduct by the offender rather than a single instance.