A Port Erin man was this week fined £500 after a row between two drivers and an allegation of racism.

Simon James Tuck, of Magherbreekyn, admitted swearing at another driver but denied using a racist word.

Magistrates ruled that the dispute over the facts would make no material difference to sentencing after Tuck pleaded guilty to an offence of provoking behaviour.

Prosecuting advocate Hazel Carroon told the court that Tuck was driving a Fiat at St George’s Crescent in Port Erin on July 24 at 3pm.

The complainant in the case said that he was coming in the opposite direction and he reversed to allow Tuck, who is 50, to pass through a gap.

Both men had their windows wound down and the man said that as Tuck drove past his car he swore and used a racist term.

The man then followed Tuck and confronted him outside his father’s house.

Phone footage was recorded showing the man saying to Tuck: ’You can’t just call me that.’

Tuck replied: ’I’m sorry. I’ve already apologised.’

The man reported the matter to the police and Tuck was subsequently spoken to on July 27.

When interviewed he handed in a prepared statement saying that he wanted to apologise, but claiming that he was talking to himself when he made the comment rather than specifically aiming it at the man.

He denied using the racist term but admitted using foul language.

The court heard that he had no previous convictions.

Defence advocate Peter Russell said that the prosecution facts were not accepted as his client was not accepting the racist remark and that a Newton Hearing may be necessary if it was to make a difference to sentencing.

The advocate said: ’Mr Tuck is a man of previous good character, a hardworking mature man. He would ask the court to accept this was very much out of character.’

Mr Russell said that Tuck’s position was that he was travelling along a narrow stretch of the road and he had then had to reverse back 20 yards himself when it would have been easier for the complainant to reverse.

’We wouldn’t describe it as road rage,’ said the advocate. ’But he was frustrated. It was a hot day and the complainant drove past and the words were unsavoury.

’The complainant followed him and there was a confrontation outside. Fortunately it didn’t escalate. This isn’t the worst type of provoking behaviour offence.’

Magistrates ruled that a Newton Hearing would not be necessary and also ordered Tuck to pay £125 prosecution costs.

He was given two months to pay.