‘The “Y” Word’ Campaign is misguided and wrong – the Kick it Out debate that was not really a debate.
Last night in Manchester, I attended the Kick It Out debate on ‘The ”Y” Word’ which was less of a debate and more of a discussion by the panel. I came away feeling disappointed that there had not been a full debate and that the audience participation had been kept to a minimum. I think the main problem was that although this had been advertised as a debate on ‘The “Y” Word’ it actually wasn’t really intended to be, it was just as much a promotion of the exhibition Four Four Jew. That is probably where my disappointment lies, I feel I was misled.
Ivan Cohen and David Conn both spoke very passionately about the fact that this should not be a debate on ‘The “Y” Word’ and this is not the issue. The issue is anti-semitism, and it is anti-semitism which should be tackled. I couldn’t agree more. It seems to me that ‘The “Y”Word’ is a phrase coined by David and Ivor Baddiel to promote their video, and from this a campaign has been created. Sadly that campaign is as misguided, as their video is legally incorrect. But I doubt that the Baddiel brothers are really bothered by the fact that they may have been the cause of three men being arrested and charged with a racially aggravated public order offence and all the associated bad publicity that they received, after all when you are in TV and media, no publicity is bad publicity. It was mooted that the Baddiel’s will be producing a second version of the video, let us hope more innocent people don’t end up in the police station with their fingerprints and DNA being held on file forever due to another misguided and inaccurate campaign.
I would estimate that at least two thirds of last night’s audience were jewish or of jewish descent, and no-one spoke up in agreement with the view of Anthony Clavane that the use of the word “Yid’ caused them offence or was a problem. It seemed he was in a minority, and sadly he seemed to be of the opinion that if he felt offended by the use of a word then it should no longer be used. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to enter the debate as there was not enough time, however, had I been able to, I would have commented that I find it offensive if people refer to me as Fat, but that doesn’t mean I want the word banned, freedom of speech is far too important for that. I am not a historian, but I am aware that over history Jewish people have referred to themselves as Yids.
Anthony Clavane also made the point that I have heard David Baddiel make previously, that it is the fact that Spurs fans call themselves ‘Yid Army” that causes anti-semitism in opposing fans. Ivan Cohen equated that argument to saying that women in short skirts are asking to be raped. I totally agree with Ivan on this point, otherwise we could blame black people for being black as that causes others to abuse them. It’s a nonsense, and quite frankly if that is the best argument that can be raised about the use of “Yid” it shows that their campaign is wrong.
Sadly Alex Golberg was not able to add much to the ‘debate’. Although he was clearly wearing an FA hat, he did not elaborate on why the FA suddenly felt the need to issue the statement in Autumn 2013 which started the slippery slope to these Spurs fans being arrested and other fans being issued with warning notices (which will be held on police intelligence logs). He did promote the fact that the FA had taken a stance in the Anelka case, but unfortunately he wasn’t fully briefed on the outcome and had to be corrected by David Conn and a member of the audience, which was a shame as it would have been good to hear the FA views on this. Likewise it would have been good to hear the FA stance on the use of Yid by both Spurs fans and opposing fans, since the CPS decided to discontinue the case on the basis that there was no offence. Anthony Clavane less than eloquently put it that the Spurs fans had been ‘Let Off’, perhaps he can put that in his next book which I am sure he will shamelessly plug as much as he plugged his latest book last night!
I didn’t attend the debate to hear from those members of the panel who are in the media eye and have ample opportunity to put their views across, I attended to hear from the public, from the Jewish community, from football fans. There were only 8 questions allowed from the floor in the two and a half hour session, and infact when a member of the audience asked that the “Y” Word debate be allowed to continue after the half time break, she was told that it was time to move on…there was an exhibition to promote!
Kick it Out stated at the end that they had no objections to holding a debate in London, and I welcome a debate providing the opportunity to properly engage, not just to be talked at by a few people. But the debate should not be about the coined phrase ‘The “Y” Word’ it should be about anti-semitism in football, something that the majority of the population considers to be wrong and offensive, and which is already illegal.
“FA Cup Final to be bubble Policed – and there is nothing fans can do about it”
“Governors decide a local primary school will be closed down due to disagreements with the Head teacher – and the parents have no power to challenge it”
“Your nearest hospital will now be 25 miles away – sources say patients’ views on the matter were not even considered”
“Town’s fire station to be closed as the Local Authority wants to sell the land to housing developers, but doesn’t plan a replacement fire station – Local Authority say they are doing it ‘because they can‘”
Don’t panic, these are fictitious headlines – at the moment. But they give an idea of the all to real prospect of the future if the Lord Chancellor’s plans to effectively remove legal aid from judicial review proceedings go ahead.
I am sure some of you are thinking ‘oh there she goes again, banging on about legal aid.” And you are right, I have been quite vocal about the Government’s renewed attack on legal aid. 7th March 2014 is a day of action for lawyers opposed to this destruction of legal aid, and this is why lawyers are still fighting for this.
Football fans have faced many restrictions on their freedom of movement, association, and speech through the restrictions placed on them by the Police and Local Councils when attending football matches. Many of these restrictions, including bubble policing, limitation of away ticket numbers, requirement to produce ID when traveling to a match, and fans being held in pubs and clubs and being prevented from attending the match being played only yards away have all been challenged by legal actions such as judicial review. In many instances, the fact that the judicial review proceedings were issued was sufficient for the Police or Local Authority to rethink its restrictions. These legal challenges have only been possible due to legal aid. Ignoring the costs of preparing the application (as many lawyers will offer this for free) the court costs are too restrictive for most fans to be able to afford to pay.
But it is not just football fans…. Challenges to a decision to close a local secondary school, cancel a bus route, close a fire station.. all the decisions which affect our daily lives are the types of judicial review applications which have been brought in the past two years. We have seen the Government and Local Authorities cutting services with abandon, so it is now more important than ever that we are able to challenge their decisions.
I anticipate that in the lead up to the 7th March 2014, the Government will start its usual spin with the media. The standard phrases of “most expensive legal aid system in the World”, “fat cat lawyers” and ‘Your tax shouldn’t be funding unemployed career criminals to get off on technicalities” will appear in some newspapers and in the Ministry of Justice press releases. I don’t intend to spend time telling you why this spin is so factually incorrect, if you want to know more, the Criminal Bar Association website has tons of articles on this misrepresentation of the facts. http://www.criminalbarassociation.wordpress.com
But what the Government spin is not telling you is that it is exactly the low to middle income tax payer who will be losing out in this decimation of legal aid, which doesn’t only affect crime. Judicial review is the means by which the Government. Local authorities and other public bodies can be held to account. The Government plans to severely restrict legal aid in judicial review cases, such that there will be no legal aid available for most cases, and in cases where legal aid could possibly be granted, it will only be granted if the claim is most likely to be successful. Lets face it, if the Police, Local Authority, Government thought that the application against them was most likely to be successful, then they should withdraw the offending rule or policy. To continue opposing the application would be a waste of tax payers money.
But it is in cases where there is no clear answer on whether the public authority or the complainant who is right, that judicial review is most important. The whole point of judicial review is to be able to challenge the actions of the state, not just those where the State is overwhelmingly and obviously wrong. Without the prospect of being challenged, the public authorities will be able to do what they want with impunity, because they know that whether they are right or not, the general public will not be able to afford to challenge them. Cynics like me are questioning whether this is the actually the Government motive as there have been some quite high profile losses for the Government in judicial review cases in the past three years. Whatever the motive, without access to legal aid for judicial review the Government, Public Authorities and Local Authorities will be able to spend tax payers money as the wish without any threat of challenge. This is certainly not a future I want see…how about you?
What you can do to help.
Sign this petition started by Joanna Lumley www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/david-cameron-uk-government-save-legal-aid-to-protect-access-to-justice-for-all
Make others aware of the issues, spread the word via social media, or in your workplace or just among family and friends.
Write a complaint to your MP or start a petition to present to your MP.
Many of us lawyers are working very hard to fight these proposed changes, but we can’t do it alone, we need your help.
To find out more about the proposed changes to judicial review and what judicial review is all about read this one page guide prepared by Irwin Mitchell Solicitors www.disabilityrightsuk.org/sites/default/files/pdf/judicialreview.pdf
SEEN PYRO BEING USED AT A FOOTBALL MATCH? THINK IT LOOKS FUN?
ATTEMPT TO TAKE PYRO INTO A FOOTBALL MATCH AND THE NEXT THING YOU COULD BE SEEING IS THE INSIDE OF A PRISON CELL
There is no doubt about it, the use of pyro to some fans is exciting. Photos of smoke bombs and flares being used at European matches give the impression of a colourful and high adrenaline crowd of fans.
Whether or not the use of smoke grenades (or plumber’s smoke tabs), flares and fireworks gives the game a better atmosphere, they are banned from English football, and without a doubt the courts do not see that same colourful, high adrenaline atmosphere. The starting point for a court considering the sentence for someone who has attempted to enter a stadium with pyro is 3 months in prison. In many cases it is very difficult to persuade the courts to come down from this 3 month figure. Add onto this the fact that it is highly likely that a court will impose a football banning order for at least 3 years (as this is the minimum that a court can impose) and may go as high as 10 years, and a fan’s days of watching football anywhere but in their living room for at least the next 3 years are over. The prison record doesn’t look good to any employer, and any chance of coaching or refereeing even a local kids league is given the Red Card due to the fact the offence of possession of the smoke grenade and the prison sentence and the football banning order will all appear on a Criminal Records Bureau (now Banning and Disbarring Service) check.
Look again at the wording in italics above, a fan doesn’t have to let off a flare in the stadium to fall foul of the law, mere possession on entry is sufficient. The law doesn’t distinguish between smoke grenades, flares and fireworks, they are all treated with the same severity. Nor does it distinguish between the possession and letting off the pyro.
The situation for under 18s is even worse. Possession of a smoke grenade or flare in any public place is a criminal offence. Hence a fan who is under the age of 18 and who has a smoke bomb in their pocket as they walk through town or on the train on the way to a match is committing an offence. This places some youths in a very difficult position. Imagine the scenario, on the coach on the way to the match, the youth succumbs to peer pressure from a fellow fan to take a smoke grenade “come on, it will be fun, look you take the blue and I will take the red, its only 3 quid”. The youth then exits the coach and decides that the smoke grenade is not a good idea and approaches a steward or police officer to ask how to dispose of the smoke bomb. At that stage they are admitting to committing an offence, they are in a public place and have a smoke grenade in their possession! A 15 year old with no previous convictions, who has never been in trouble with the police before, suddenly finds themselves arrested, in a police cell and facing a criminal record. Even a fixed penalty notice or reprimand given in the police station will appear on their CRB check. With competition for university and jobs so competitive for youths, a CRB will probably means that this youth goes to the back of the queue. Oh and they will no doubt be banned from attending football matches, even if they do not end up with a football banning order issued by the courts as the matter was dealt with in the police station, the police share their arrest information with the football club so the club will issue their own ban.
As a lawyer representing football fans, I have concerns about all fans being arrested for pyro possession and use but in particular the criminalisation of youths. Whether or not I agree with the law as it stands, until Parliament changes it, possession of pyro remains an offence. For this reason I have worked with Northamptonshire Police to set up a trial of pyro amnesty bins outside the Sixfields Stadium at certain matches over April and May 2014. Northampton Town and Coventry City Football Clubs have given their full support for these bins, and it is hoped that this will not only prevent pyro being taken into or used in Sixfields, by home and away fans, but also will promote the fact that pyro is illegal at football matches. This leaflet explains more.. Are you a footie fan? Do you know there are special laws relating to you?
The amnesty bins will be placed outside the turnstiles and will be highly visible, and will not be monitored by police of CCTV, nor will any pyro inside be checked for fingerprints or DNA. But anyone who is caught in possession of pyro inside the stadium will be arrested. With the pyro bins outside there will be no excuse for anyone to have pyro inside the stadium. Lets hope that these bins are a success and that it will help prevent this needless criminalisation and banning of fans.
Particularly if you are a parent or carer for a youth who attends football matches, please pass the message to them that pyro is illegal and the inside of a cell in a youth offending institution could be exactly where they are heading if caught with pyro…and that it not scaremongering or exaggeration…its reality.
Here is the leaflet advertising the trial Northamptonshire police pyro amnesty bin trial-3. The amnesty bins will be in place at the Sixfields Stadium at the following matches:
- 18th April 2014 – Coventry City v Swindon Town
- 21st April 2014 – Northampton Town v Portsmouth
- 26th April 2014 – Coventry City v Wolves
- 3rd May2014 – NorthamptonTown v OxfordUnited
Any queries about the amnesty bin trial can be directed to me at gurdena@btinternet.com or via this blog, or Pc Nick Price at nick.price@northants.pnn.police.uk
Can You Identify A Human Trafficking Victim?
Human trafficking victims are not only found chained to a bed in a brothel. In our daily lives we come across victims without even knowing it.
This FREE course discusses the main types of human trafficking in the UK and Europe including trafficking for:
-
Labour
-
Benefit fraud
-
Organ Harvesting
-
Domestic Servitude
-
Adoption
-
Sex
Are you able to identify if the person who comes to you as a client, detainee, inmate, service user is also a victim? Are you aware that they may be entitled to additional protection (including accommodation and financial support) due to their possible victim status? Are you able to identify the signs of human trafficking?
This training session, which is funded by a charitable grant is provided by Migrant Help, free of charge. It not only provides information on the human trafficking indicators but also covers the additional protection and support available for potential victims of human trafficking and how to access that support.
Who Should Attend? Anyone who may come in contact with potential victims – members of the legal profession, law enforcement, law students, advice agencies advisors, police station and prison visitors, health professionals, probation officers, prison officers, magistrates and judges, and anyone intending to enter any of these professions.
Speakers:
- Alison Gurden, Barrister, 1 Grays Inn Square Chambers. Bar Council Pro Bono Lawyer 2012. Specialist in criminal justice issues and a trustee of Migrant Help.
- Human Trafficking Victim Advisors, Migrant Help. Migrant Help is a Home Office/UK Human Trafficking Centre recognised first responder for potential human trafficking victims
Venue: Friends Meeting House, Euston, London. Date: 15th January 2014. Time: 11am to 1pm, or 3pm-5pm or 5pm-7pm
2 CPD Points Accredited.
To Book: contact Alison Gurden gurdena@btinternet.com
or via 1 Grays Inn Square Chambers 0207 405 0001
Is the detainee a suspected offender, a human trafficking victim, or both? The Dilemma for Custody Sergeants, First Responders, Appropriate Adults and Police Station Reps
The portrayal on TV of human trafficking investigations usually involves large scale police operations where a house or warehouse is raided and thirty to forty human trafficking victims are discovered chained to beds or walls, in the dark, and the victims are emancipated and in poor health. I have worked with law enforcement on human trafficking operations around the World, and this portrayal is rarely the reality. The whole point of human trafficking is to exploit the individuals, hence they are unlikely to be found in a state where they cannot work for their traffickers or enforcers due to the fact they are chained up all day and in very poor health. Most victims of human trafficking will be found outside in the local community or working in factories or fields. Many will only come into contact with the police due to the fact they have been suspected of committing a crime or are the victim of a crime. Their first contact with the police will be a response officer or a neighbourhood PCSO. Human trafficking victims are warned by their traffickers not to speak to the police, and may come across as hostile.
At a meeting with frontline police a few weeks ago, we discussed the daunting task for a custody sergeant in terms of identifying potential victims of human trafficking in the cells. The decision that the custody sergeant makes in the first few hours after an arrested person is presented to them at the custody desk can make or break a human trafficking investigation. This may sound dramatic, but unfortunately it is the reality.
For example, a 12 year old child is arrested for pickpocketing. The child states that they do not speak fluent English. The child is entitled to an appropriate adult in custody, the child provides a number which she says is her dad’s number. A call is made to dad who agrees to come down to the custody suite. On arrival he is polite and apologetic for his daughter’s behaviour and asks to speak to her. He then speaks to her in their native language, says that his daughter is ‘Sorry’. Is this a concerned father and contrite daughter, or a trafficking victim who has been told by her trafficker or enforcer that if she says anything he will hurt her younger sister?
The language spoken by the child is not one regularly heard in the police station, an interpreter has been requested but will not be available for a few hours, the custody sergeant is being pressurised by an officer who is due to go off shift soon and wants to interview, it is now after midnight, and the child has already been in custody for two and a half hours. Dad has stated that he speaks perfect English and is happy to interpret, he doesn’t want his daughter detained in the cells any longer than absolutely necessary, and as he is present he doesn’t see the need for lawyer, his daughter has admitted to him that she stole the mobile phone as she wanted the same type as the other girls at the school and he had told her she had better save up for one, but she stupidly saw a phone hanging out of someone’s jean pocket and decided to take it.
Due to the nature of the offence, the father’s concern and his sensible approach, it may be the best decision that the interview go ahead with Dad interpreting, hence the child is not detained at the police station late at night, and the matter can be resolved that evening. But, if Dad is a trafficker or enforcer, throughout the interview the child could be saying “he makes me steal” for which Dad’s interpretation may be “I am sorry, I apologise, I know it was wrong”.
In the latter scenario, the child may receive a reprimand or final warning for an offence for which they have a defence, but just as important, the child will see the police working with the trafficker or enforcer and not protecting her and will be highly unlikely to ever trust the police again. Add into this mix the fact that the police will release a victim back into the hands of a trafficker or enforcer, igniting huge safeguarding issues.
Those who work on human trafficking investigations are aware of the large amount of false documentation often found in premises used to house trafficking victims. This documentation is usually good quality and hence it can be simple for a trafficker to produce documentation indicating that they are the child’s father – especially in cases where the child has also been used for benefit fraud as well as pickpocketing.
Contrast the above scenario with the case of three detainees who tell the police that they are aged 15, when in actual fact one is age 20 and actively working as an enforcer of the other two. If a custody sergeant decides that there is a likelihood of the detainees being trafficking victims, and treats them all as victim, this may jeopardise any investigation into their criminal activities and again, the trafficking victims may see the police as being ‘soft’ on their enforcer and assume that he has paid off the police (as is common in many of the Origin countries for the trafficking victims). Hence the enforcer’s victims will not be open to the police, and the enforcer may be released into the hands of the social services and have disappeared within 24 hours.
These are just two of the many scenarios which a custody sergeant may face, there are many others. For example if a potential trafficking victim is kept in a cell for a few hours while the investigating officer/arresting officer decides whether that detainee is a victim or potentially involved in criminal activity, or both, any trust that the victim had in the police may have been lost by the police placing them in the exact same situation as the traffickers – locking them in a room and telling them not to worry as they are safe. The alternative is to treat the detainee as a potential victim, but this may have serious implications for any future investigation and prosecution if it can be argued that even the police did not suspect them as being involved in criminal activity. Ultimately this always has to be an operational decision, but it is a decision that should be made with awareness of the issues surrounding potential human trafficking victims.
Hence, while each police authority may have set up specialist units to investigate human trafficking, it may be the custody sergeant who plays the most important part in making or breaking the trust of a human trafficking victim. I do not, for one minute, suggest that custody sergeants and initial arresting officers are not going to recognise that in some situations the relationship between a child and a appropriate adult does not seem right, but taking the leap from this to recognising a potential human trafficking victim may be difficult.
Migrant Helpline is a Home Office/UK Human Trafficking Centre recognised first responder for potential human trafficking victims and offers free training to frontline officers and custody sergeants on identifying human trafficking victims and the current human trafficking trends. For more information contact Alison Gurden on gurdena@btinternet.com
To strike or not to strike? Why Criminal Lawyers should make up their own mind and not be swayed by others.
Having read many comments and blogs over the past few weeks regarding whether the Criminal Bar should refuse publicly funded work, effectively to strike, I have decided to weigh into the debate.
Firstly, make no mistake, I am appalled at the way the MOJ have behaved towards the legal aid consultation, and I believe that Chris Grayling has made it clear that he knows nothing about criminal practitioners, nor does he want to. His actions and comments have ranged from deceitful to childish, and in the main have been nothing to do with supporting the profession which works long hours day after day to represent those who are unfortunate enough to find themselves in the criminal courts, but instead have been everything to do with trying to win the support of the Middle England voters who have been fotunate enough to have never been involved in the criminal justice system.
However, I think Chris Grayling’s actions should be put to one side when considering whether the profession should effectively go on strike. We are professionals and should weigh up all the pros and cons of refusing work, just as we would weigh up the likely outcomes of taking a certain course of action in our criminal prosecutions or defence. I am concerned that an overbearing attitude is creeping into the profession, which if we are not careful will create a ‘either with us or against us’ scenario. Particularly for younger members of the profession who are worried about whether their future work will dry up if they do not support the ‘strike’ action, this is unhealthy. As far as the Criminal Bar is concerned we are Independent. We hold this independence out to be one of our strongest features, and yet I am hearing daily of counsel who are being told that they must strike ‘or on their head be it’. All of us run an independent practice, and therefore we should be able to make our own decision on whether to refuse work.
I will not strike. I have made this decision on the basis of my principles, I do not want to see a defendant having to represent themselves, or be represented by a lawyer who is not their lawyer of their choice, due to the fact their lawyer is on strike. I am prepared to work to rule, and only work from 9 to 6 on my legally funded cases, and then to justify to the court why a case is not prepared, but it should be down to me to make that argument to the court and not the client.
I accept that financially, the MOJ’s cuts will make it very difficult to all of us criminal practitioners to survive, and I believe that a work to rule may make the MOJ realise that in reality cases are going to take longer and so will be just as costly. Not just in payments to counsel (in cases where we do actually receive payment for the extra days a case will take) but also in the extra court time taken to deal with each case.
I have seen much written about the cuts in recent weeks, and I am concerned that the ground we made with the public with regard to the damage that the MOJ proposals could do to them, is now being lost by the constant reference to the new proposed fees in criminal legal aid. The public do not understand that most of our daily rate does not end up in our back pocket, nor that we often have to wait over a year for the payments. None the less, I fear that focussing on the money is causing us to lose ground to the MOJ on public opinion.
I also represent claimants in the employment tribunal (mainly thought the Free Representation Unit and the Bar Pro Bono Unit) and none of my clients earn as much as the daily trial rate in either the Magistrates or Crown Court. Try telling a client who has worked 40 hours a week on the minimum wage (£247.60 gross), for five years, only to be told that they are being laid off, and so are still classed as employed but can only receive the Job Seekers allowance per week, that earning over £100 per day for a trial is tough. This is not an extreme example, these are cases that I am seeing day after day, of people who are working for less than minimum wage or who are being told that their employer cannot afford to pay their salary for the month. These are the public who we should be trying to get on our side, not alienating. Talking about our fees will not help our cause, the country is under austerity measures, the NHS is at breaking point and everyday people are being made redundant or told that they need to move from their home as they have a spare room. We are not the only ones who are suffering, and we should try to connect with those who are suffering, after all for many of us they are our clients, whether criminal, employment, housing or immigration.
It is my personal opinion that a strike will alienate the public, and will just give Chris Grayling more ammunition to throw at the criminal profession. I can just see the headlines of articles in the Daily Mail and the Telegraph about how criminal defendants are having to languish in jail, awaiting trial as their greedy lawyers are striking!
Hence, for my part I will not be striking, nor will I be telling anyone else what to do, or criticising them for their decision. The criminal professions joined together like never before to fight the first MOJ consultation, it will be such a shame to see that union fragment into a blame culture. That would play right into the MOJ’s hands. We should be united in making sure that we reply to the 2nd Consultation, and in supporting each other..it is that which will make us a respected profession and also create an environment where, no matter what happens with the MOJ cuts we continue the support as much as we can.
BANNED!
A football banning order affects much more than just watching Premier or League football on a Saturday afternoon
With the new football season in full swing, fans who are banned from attending home and away games of their team are asking exactly how far their ban extends.
Most fans who are under a football banning order are aware that they can’t go to watch their own League team or England, either home or away, and that they need to hand in their passport to the police whenever England are travelling overseas. Some fans are also subject to handing in their passport when a Champions League match is being played overseas. But many Banned fans ask me whether they can attend any football matches? In general, my answer is that if it is anything more than watching their local pub team play on a Sunday morning, or their son’s school team, then probably, No, they cannot!
The law in this area is very unclear, and is open to a mix of interpretations. A Football Banning Order prohibits a fan from attending a ‘Regulated Football Match’, and the definition of ‘Regulated Football Match’ is an Association match in which one or both teams represent a club which is a member of the Football League, the FA Premier League, the Football Conference League, the League of Wales, or represents a country or territory.
The Under 21s Development League (or Premier League as it seems to have been renamed to suit those making money out of the League) is becoming increasingly popular with fans, especially as for many it has identity with their own Club, is played in the same stadium and is a Cup competition. Unfortunately, the games, including the Cup qualifiers may be classed as Regulated Football Matches and fall under the ban. For the very reasons that many fans are taking an interest in the League, the bans will probably apply – the purpose of the ban is to prevent a fan from attending football stadiums and mixing with other home and away fans.
There is an argument that the ban not apply to teams which are not part of the Leagues mentioned above, and that if the Government intended to include all matches played, it would have said so in the legislation. Add to this the fact that previously the restrictions included all matches played at the home ground of a Club which is a member of one of these football leagues, but this was changed in 2004 to the above definition. In my view it could be argued that this change in definition means that the Government no longer intended for all games played in these grounds to be included. However, the problem faced by fans is that this will possibly be a legal argument that will not be accepted by a local magistrates court, and it is the local magistrates who will determine whether a Banned fan has breached their Football Banning Order. Clearly the other side of the argument which will be put forward by the State is that the Under 21 team has the same name as the Club and so ‘represents the Club’. It seems that the UK Football Policing Unit do not have the answer either, and football intelligence officers I have spoken to are also unclear as to whether these Under 21 games fall within the ambit of a football banning order.
Hence there is no easy answer to this question. A fan who wants to take the risk may end up trying to persuade a magistrates court of a legal argument, and will probably end up having to appeal to the High Court for the legal definition to be determined. Such appeals are lengthy and expensive and (with the proposed reduction in legal aid) legal costs are unlikely to be covered by legal aid. On the flip side, fans should not be prevented from attending these Under 21 games on the basis that they fear they may be prosecuted as the law is unclear.
And as for Women’s football, since the Olympics the Women are receiving attention like never before, and from my own personal opinion this is long overdue..but many of the women’s games (and definitely the women’s FA Cup) may also fall within the term ‘Regulated Football Match’ in a football banning order and so I’m afraid attendance to watch the women will have to wait until the end of a ban, unless the fan wants to run the risk of prosecution for breaching the ban.
So how can a Banned fan watch football? This depends on the wording of the individual banning order. All banning orders prevent attendance at ‘Regulated Football Matches’, but some go further and prevent attendance at pubs and bars when the Banned fan’s team is playing either home or away, and some bans go so far as to restrict a fan’s liberty so that they cannot even go into their town when their team is playing either home or away.
It sounds like common sense, but a Banned fan should read the wording of their banning order very carefully to see what exactly they are prevented from doing. The Courts do not accept ‘I did not know that my ban prevented me from doing that’ as a reason for breaching a ban, and it is possible that a fan breaching their ban to end up with a prison sentence.
A Banned fan can apply to have their ban lifted after they have served two thirds of the ban. This means going back to court to argue that the fan is no longer at risk of causing future disorder. If the Banned fan has not breached their ban and has not been involved in non-football related disorder, it is often worth asking the court to remove the ban. But sadly, in the meantime, a banned fan may have to become an armchair fan!
Is £52.50 too much to ask of the tax payer to ensure a 16 year old is released from jail and able to sit her GCSEs? Why the Save UK Justice campaign is so important.
Once again I am wading into the legal aid debate. This blog is not aimed at lawyers, what I have to say in this blog is nothing new to them. But this will be new to the majority of the public who are being bombarded with misinformation by the Ministry of Justice about the legal aid bill. This is a longwinded explanation, but please bear with it. The Ministry of Justice has added a response to the Save UK Justice epetition set up by criminal lawyers. In that response it is stated that the firms given the contracts for legal aid work will have to show they have competent and capable lawyers. In my eyes, competent and capable is not enough, those of us who have been doing this work for years do it because we are committed to our clients, and I like to think that all the criminal lawyers I know are way above competent and capable – they are experienced, passionate and dedicated, they understand that with clients, the law is actually only a small part of the service.
Last week I was in the youth court representing a 16 year old youth (X) who had been charged with an offence of violence on the basis of a drive by identity carried out by a shaken and upset teenage victim. X had been remanded in custody. I arrived at court, to find X’s very distraught parents, and quite understandably so. Their child who had never been in trouble before, had been held in the police station overnight – and that in itself was enough to send mum over the edge. Her child had been locked in a cell all night, on their own, in a large police station in an area where hardened criminals are arrested daily. Worse still, X was a good student, predicted A and B grades in GCSE exams, one of which was taking place that day!
In the cells I met X. To use the phrase ‘a rabbit in headlights‘ is an understatement. Having been held in the police station all night, and then transferred in a prison van to a cell in the court, searched in the police station, and again in the court cells, denied an opportunity to speak to mum and dad, and denied the use of the phone, and then told that the case would be ‘heard when its heard’, by the time I arrived in the cells, just after 9am, so much damage had been done it took me 15 minutes just to calm X down enough to get any sense out of her. It took another 30 minutes to get all of the information I needed out of her. Anyone who has teenage children or who regularly deals with teenagers will understand that the task of drawing information from them is not a simple task, made even worse when it is accompanied by sobbing at regular intervals and the need for constant reassurance that X would not have to go to prison.
Having obtained the information I needed from X and carried out more reassurance, and requested that a female custody officer in the cells take X a drink and sit with her for a while just to keep a check on her, I headed back up to see mum and dad. I had to then start the whole reassurance again with mum who bombarded me with questions – Was X ok? Had X eaten breakfast? Had I told X that mum and dad were there for her? In the meantime, dad paced the floor, getting more and more agitated and frustrated. I set dad on the task of contacting the school and finding out what could be done about X missing the GCSE exam, and calmed mum by asking her to tell me more about X.
In between this, I had passed word to the court that I was ready to get X into court as soon as possible, and had negotiated with the Prosecutor that this was not a case where X needed to be remanded in custody, and agreed bail conditions. X’s case was called on by 11.30am and I explained to the court what I had found out about X, how I saw weaknesses in the Prosecution case, not least the fact that the victim did not get a good look at her attacker’s face, but could describe the attacker’s clothing and bag. What she had actually described was a school uniform and bag which which was worn by at least 500 girls in that area. In which case it was highly probable that the victim had picked out X on the basis of the uniform and the bag and nothing more. In addition, X’s future was in jeopardy as she had a place at college to study A Levels but would lose that if she could not sit her GCSE’s, and I was very concerned about X’s wellbeing even after one night in a cell.
X was released on bail, with the next court date set for a time that did not interfere with the rest of her GCSE exams, and was released from the court in sufficient time to get to school and sit her exam.
As X is a youth, she was entitled to legal aid for my handling of her case. My legal aid fee for that morning was £52.50 (including my £9 travel). I do not profess that I am worth more than £52.50, nor do I think I did anything more than any of my criminal legal aid colleagues would have done, but I do think that to be good value and not a waste of tax payer’s money, ensuring that X was able to get to her GCSE exam and preventing a young life being damaged (possibly beyond repair) both educationally and emotionally.
Hence, when the Ministry of Justice makes noises about ‘Fat Cat’ lawyers and the highest legal aid bill in the World, it is interesting to note that they cannot back it up with examples, yet myself and my criminal legal aid colleagues can provide thousands of examples such as these….the real people that the cuts will affect. Ask yourself, if it was your 16 year old in the cells, would you want them to be given a representative who is merely competent and capable, or alternative a dedicated, experienced criminal lawyer who cares….
X’s dad sent me a text…’can you send me the link to the petition….can’t put a value on your service…priceless 🙂 ” So here is the link… if you want to be able to choose your lawyer, and don’t want the expertise to be replaced with a representative from a large corporation who is classed as ‘competent and capable’ please sign this epetition and pass it to others… Save UK Justice epetition
It has been questioned why we are fighting so hard to get to the 100,000 signatures on this epetition. The Ministry of Justice intends to implement these cuts via secondary legislation, which means it does not have to be voted on in either the House of Commons or House of Lords. Hence the only way we can get a proper debate in Parliament on these proposed cuts is to get to 100,000 signatures. Please don’t let the Government bypass democracy and introduce these cuts without a vote.
Finally, in typical lawyer disclaimer style…some of the case details have been changed to further protect the identify of X.
If you have read this far…thank you for taking the time to read my ramblings!
Brighton and Hove Albion v Crystal Palace – Hopefully a Better Fan Policing Experience
Last Friday ahead of the CPFC v BHAFC match I blogged about the restrictions in place and how they were unworkable. If you didn’t read my blog, it is below, including a letter to the Met Police Commissioner and a statement about police powers of stop and search.
Hopefully this can be a more positive post. I have heard from Sussex Police who have asked that I pass the word around. They have no intentions of stopping fans and asking to check their tickets and ID, nor are they going to ask stewards to do the work for them. Obviously the usual rules regarding stop and search still apply, so if they think that an offence has been committed, or there is a risk of an offence or disorder, they reserve the right under PACE to stop and search, and take a person’s details. But they do not intend to engage in the draconian restrictions I refer to in my blog below.
I know some fans were treated like criminals on Friday, forced to provide their details before entering the stadium and held for so long that they missed kick off. Hopefully this will not happen at the Amex.
Wishing you all a great match experience, no matter who you support, and if you see me on the train or around the pubs on Monday night touting the #SaveUkJustice epetition, please come and say ‘Hi’ and sign the petition. Hopefully you will never need legal aid and the services of a lawyer, but you should ‘never say never’. Infact any challenge to actions, such as the Met Police behavior last Friday, will probably not be possible unless we are successful in defeating the proposed amendments to legal aid and judicial review
The pre and post match info can be found here Seagulls Pre and Post match entertainment and travel.
If you want a handy guide to stop and search laws, download the stop and search app
___________________________________________________________________
I know the restrictions placed on fans traveling to the Crystal Palace v Brighton and Hove Albion match today and the reverse on Monday have caused concern among fans. I have received emails and tweets criticizing the ‘draconian’ measures, with questions such as ‘since when did ID cards come in through the back door?’ and I agree that they are draconian, and more importantly I believe they are unworkable. They don’t take into account the lack of powers a steward has to stop a fan, it is certainly not clear why there could be the need to stop and check fans when they are traveling home, and I think they open both the police and the Clubs up to legal challenge. See my letter to the Met Police Commissioner here Signed Letter To Commissioner Bernard Hogan Howe on police restrictions on fans at the CPFC v BHAFC matches 10th May and 13th May 2013 The FSF have also produced a handy guide Statement-from-Lochlinn-Parker
However, the reality is that if the police do stop you and ask for your ID, if you want to go into the match you will probably have to hand it over. You can guarantee that there will be a large police presence at both matches and the first sign of discontent among fans will bring a risk that dispersal notices will be considered. The dispersal notice means an instant ban from the match, and probable arrest if you refuse to leave the area. We can bring the legal challenges afterwards, but by then it will be too late you will have missed the match, and worse..
I will keep you updated with the progress of my letter and the Freedom of Information requests on the decision making behind these restrictions, in the hope we can prevent this happening again in the future and to other fans…. but I could do with a few days off over the Summer, so please, don’t get nicked for kicking off with the police or a steward…and definitely…no smoke bombs!
Can the Police retention of information on football fans breach a fan’s right to privacy?
Are you a football fan?
Have you been
- given a section 27 dispersal notice?
- filmed coming out of the train station?
- stop searched on your way to a football match?
If yes, your personal data is possibly being held by the Police.
What is meant by Personal Data?
Personal data can be anything which identifies you, so a record of your name, address, description, photographs or video footage all amount to personal data.
How is it held?
Most police force Football Policing Units keep an intelligence database on fans who are considered to be ‘risk fans’. In other words, fans who are suspected of causing disorder. In addition there is a nationwide database which contains information on public order and which contains details of some football fans activities, and the Police National Computer which contains information on all arrests, cautions, PNDs, convictions. This data can be held for years, particularly as a football banning order can contain information going back up to 10 years.
S0 what does this mean for football fans?
If you have been involved in violence or disorder, or been cautioned or convicted of an offence then your data will definitely be held on the PNC and you cannot challenge this as you fall in to the same category as every other person who has been cautioned or convicted of an offence. The PNC is in the process of being updated so that it can hold much more information, and I am sure that everyone reading this will accept that the Police should have a tool to assist in their investigations, and to prevent crime.
However, it is the retention of a football fan’s data merely due to the fact that they are a football fan which can be argued as being disproportionate. If you are a fan who regularly attends football matches, have never been cautioned or convicted of an offence and have never been involved in disorder, is it fair that your data should be held by the Police? For instance, some police forces have a practice of stopping fans as they come out of a convenient store, and asking them to stand against the wall so that they can be video’d to record what they are wearing. Most are asked their names and addresses, and some are asked to roll up their sleeves to show any tattoos they may have. The question then has to be, why is this data being taken in the first place as the fan has done nothing more than walk out of a shop with a can of soda in their hand, and secondly what happens to this recording – is it destroyed or retained?
There are many examples of retention of data by the Police on football fans, and too many to mention here, but I have heard of cases where a fan has been ejected from a football ground by a steward, without police involvement, only to find they are then taken into a room in the football ground where the police have taken their details and fingerprints, but they have not been arrested or charged with any offence. Fans given a section 27 dispersal notices as they exit a pub on their way to the ground, who claim they have done nothing wrong, and who have a season ticket in their hand, who then find that the Football Club have cancelled their season ticket, as the Police have informed the Club about the Section 27 dispersal notice.
While there are information sharing agreements between football clubs and police forces, and to a certain extent there is a need for such agreements, many fans do not know how much sharing of their information is actually going on. In many cases, a fan has no idea until they are served with an application for a football banning order and they note that incidents from five or six years ago are mentioned in the application.
Obtaining and retaining personal data in some cases can breach a persons right to privacy
Last week the Court of Appeal in the case of Catt http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/192.html ruled that the surveillance and retention of details of a persons attendance at protests was a breach of his right to privacy. While the Court of Appeal did not say that every act of surveillance and data retention by the police was unlawful (as clearly the police have to be able to carry out surveillance to prevent crime, including acts of terrorism and serious disorder, and they must keep that information so that they have evidence to prove the case in court), the Court decided that the surveillance of a protester’s activities and the retention of this information must be proportionate to the aim. In other words, keeping photos and video of protesters who regularly attend protests and are violent is proportionate to the need to protect the public, but keeping the same on a peaceful protester who has never shown and signs of violence or committing any kind of crime is a breach of that protester’s right to privacy.
What can a fan do if they think their right to privacy is being breached?
It is not an easy task for a fan to find out what data is held on them, and where. Due to the fact that fans travel around the country to watch their team play, there may be data held on a fan by more then one police force. In addition the data may be held on a the different databases as mentioned above. The best way to start is to make a Data Protection Act request (also known as a subject access request) to the police force where the home team’s football intelligence unit is held as this is most likely where a fan’s data will be held. A freedom of information request can be made to the police force to ask how they share football fan information may assist in identifying other databases where a fan’s information may be held. This Merseyside Police Freedom of Information request gives an indication of the types of question that should be raised in a freedom of information request – Merseyside Police Freedom Of Information Information on fans data held and football banning orders
What is the difference between a Data Protection Act request and a Freedom of Information request?
In basic terms, if a fan wants to find out what data is held on them personally this will be a Data Protection Act request (subject access request). A form for this can be found on the police forces websites. This type of request can also be made to individual football clubs. If a fan wants to find out general information about where football fan data is held, or who the police force shares the information with, this is a Freedom of Information request.
What can a fan do if they find that private information is being held about them by the Police or the Football Club?
A complaint should firstly be made to whoever is holding the data, asking them to remove it from their systems and confirm it has been destroyed. If this is not successful, then in the case of data held by the police, a complaint can be made to either the Independent Police Complaints Commission or the Office of the Information Commissioner. In cases of data being held by the football club, a complaint should be made to the Office of the Information Commissioner.
Above all it must be remembered that the Police have a job to do, and that they are justified in holding information on some fans, and likewise the Football Club may be able to justify holding certain information on football fans, such as the seat numbers for season ticket holders, but a fan also has a right to privacy and to ensure that information on them is not being held or shared for no reason. The fact a person choses to spend their free time at football matches does not mean they have given up their right to privacy.
alisongurden 